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?

Popychacz	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:08:00 - [31] Hello CCP Nozh, could you please tell us few important things before we get into serious thinking: 1. How much functionality can we change and/or add? Can we scratch entire POS system we have now (think like the modular POS mentioned before)? Can we add brand new functionality? (think stations with mannable guns, sov-POS, or damage and repair flooring on POS shields?) 2. Do you want a blueprint of complete system with shield starts etc (be mindful of coppyrights;P), or just general idea of how should it work? 3. Could you please make some elaborate post on what is "realistic implementation wise" ? None of us works at CCP and we can pretty much only guess what would be hard, easy or pretty much impossible to implement. Some longer post would not only helped us a lot in refining our ideas with this discussion, but could also be very useful for any number of other open panels.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:13:00 - [32] Edited by: Vladimir Tinakin on 13/11/2007 18:14:38 Edited by: Vladimir Tinakin on 13/11/2007 18:14:28 The only problem I see with scrapping the POS system is the trillions of ISK worth of modules and towers and fuel out there. The switchover would be brutal and game-breaking for most players and alliances. I love the modular pos/mini outpost idea presented in other threads, but realistically it would have to be a parallel implementation over a long period of time to be viable. Edit: Perhaps an upgrade to the existing towers? Take BPC, plug in tower/array, output new modular tower/array? Probably a moot point anyway; I don't see CCP adopting the idea anytime soon
ElfeGER Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:21:00 - [33] the following things need to be addressed in 0.0 1) blobs that grind the servers to halt titans where able to keep that under control but where to to powerful with wiping out nearly the complete grid, got tripple nerfed and welcome mr blob again so this leads to the question what can be done better as bringing out titans is suicide with the current level of bumping and lag 2) tower spam is it fun to shoot/deploy 20 large ct? so a reduction claiming claiming points would help a lot military control towers could also help (less cpu more grid, currently minmatar is the best ct for combat from shield, resists and weapons) 3) hp bar shooting/boosting shooting down 80m hp of a station service isn't fun repairing neighter suggestion: reduce hp by about 50%, give them some shield resists, station service shields should auto recharge in about 3 days after repairing hull and armor (to about 50% within 24h) this would make it still possible to suppress the defender but reduce the impact on random combat gangs as the shield just recharges on it's own the defender has to use recharge fittings to restore the service while the attacker can always be combat ready while taking it down 4) cyno/jump mechanics currently you bring out dreads and everyone has the perfect choice: do we get a number of capitals to kill them while sieging or just ignore them (no real risk for the ppl jumping in on the pos attackers) an other big problem are timezones as group is strong in one timezone while an other is strong in an other timezone so the issue would be to balance that out and make it fun for everyone
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:26:00 - [34] I haven't really given it much thought. While POS-based sovereignty only works halfway, half of the way is still part of the way and that's worth something. That said, there are definitely a few ways it could be improved. First, the "POSes controlling moons controlling planets controlling sov" idea would be a great start. Shuffling towers around after or before it's implemented could be tricky for station holders, but aside from that I think it'd be good for everyone. Second, and while I haven't really fleshed out the idea much, I remembered a year or so back when there was a dev blog mentioning that they were kind of brainstorming a use for hacking to check who's been using gates or disabling gate guns in sovereign systems and things like that. In the same vein, I wonder if it would be possible to use the hacking skill to "hack" a tower over some period of time, which would put it into reinforced mode, or at least create some advantageous effect for the attacker, like turning off all modules using CPU but not reinforcing it. Or another idea; towers that are being "hacked" have some or all of their bonuses decreased or nullified, particularly turret range and damage bonuses. Hacking the tower would be time-based and you would only be able to have one person hack a tower at one time (maybe also only one tower per system at a time, too) and with no skills to speed it up. That way, it's an alternative to a dread siege and "blobbing" isn't really much of an option, since using more people will not speed up the process of hacking itself, and therefore more is not necessarily always better in at least some cases. To make it balanced you would have to make hacking take a decent amount of time, or perhaps scale the effect with the length of time spent hacking (e.g. spend a few minutes: turn off a hardener. spend two hours: tower reinforced) or maybe make it somewhat easy to interrupt, such as getting jammed with ECM stopping a progress cycle or something. Would be very useful in dealing with lightly-defended towers far away from an enemy's home. Totally just throwing it out there. Third thing, about making fueling POS less of a backbreaking, terrible, thankless job, would maybe to create NPCs that you pay ISK to fuel towers for you. They sit in the station sort of like agents. You bring the isotopes, heavy water, enriched uranium, robotics, and all that stuff to the station. Pay some quantity of ISK and the NPCs go and start refueling towers for you in some Deep Space Transport-equivalent NPC craft, which players should protect from other hostile players around the area. The tricky part would be getting the AI to work properly and know when to warp away, when to dock up, when to wait for the rest of the gang before jumping, and other smart things that I human would know to do, but then again you could always cut corners and make those NPCs able to fuel towers in the origin station system only. The ISK cost for the service is just there to act as an ISK sink for the economy. That's all that really comes to mind for now.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:27:00 - [35] Now IFm not really a POS fanatic. Actually I have only ever anchored about 3 POSFs in my entire life. I have however shot a fare few. But what I have noticed is that there seems to be a distinct lack of POS types. Also there is a massive gap between an Out Post and a Large POS. Industry Specific Stations So IFm thinking that there should be something like: Industry Specific Stations (ISS) Reactor Stations Science Stations Refining Stations Factory Stations Battle Stations (IFll come to that later) The Reactor, Science, Refining and Factory Stations will all follow the same format. But lets take the Science station for the example. Base Price: 800,000,000 isk Small Amaar Science Station compared to a Small Amaar POS: All the base stats will be the same as a Small POS except for 4: Small Amaar POS Power Grid Output: 1250000 Small Amaar Science Station Power Grid will be 20% less: 1000000 Small Amaar POS CPU Output: 1375 Small Amaar Science Station POS CPU Output will be 20% less: 1100 Small Amaar POS Armour Hitpoints: 2500000 Small Amaar Science Station Armour Hitpoints will be 20% less: 2000000 Small Amaar POS Shield Hitpoints: 10,000,000 Small Amaar Science Station Shield Hitpoints will be 20% less: 8,000,000 Small Amaar POS Racial Bonuses: 50% bonus to Energy Sentry Optimal Range 25% bonus to Energy Sentry Damage 50% bonus to Silo Cargo Capacity Small Amaar Science Station: (Sovereignty 1) 30% bonus to each Laboratory Starbase Structure efficiency. 20% reduction of powergrid need for Laboratory Starbase Structures. 20% reduction of CPU need for Laboratory Starbase Structures. 50% increase of POS fuel and Strontium consumption. Basically the small, medium and large science stations would have the same stats as their POS counterparts except for the 20% hit to power grid, CPU, shield hitpoint amount and armour hitpoint amount and it the 50% increase in fuel consumption. The Station bonus and price will change depending on the size of the science station: Medium Amaar Science Station: (Sovereignty 3) 40% bonus to each Laboratory Starbase Structure efficiency. 20% reduction of powergrid need for Laboratory Starbase Structures. 20% reduction of CPU need for Laboratory Starbase Structures. 50% increase of POS fuel and Strontium consumption. Base Price:2,500,000,000 isk Large Amaar Science Station:(Sovereinty 4) 50% bonus to each Laboratory Starbase Structure efficiency. 20% reduction of powergrid need for Laboratory Starbase Structures. 20% reduction of CPU need for Laboratory Starbase Structures. 50% increase of POS fuel and Strontium consumption. Base Price: 6,000,000,000 isk
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:28:00 - [36] New Starbase Structure for Industry Specific Stations (ISS) Another thought to go with these ISS would be Industry Efficiency Network (IEN) Though there would be relevant starbase structures for the relevant station type and category of jobs they do. Again we will use the Amaar Science Station for the example: Base Price: 1,000,000,000 Starbase Structures Industry Efficiency Network Science Efficiency Network (For Science Stations) Reactor Efficiency Network (For Reactor Stations) Refining Efficiency Network (For Refining Stations) Factory Efficiency Network (For Factory Stations) Science Efficiency Network Ship Equipment Efficiency Network: 50% bonus to Science Station Efficiency Bonus Only one Industry Efficiency Network per Industrial Specific Station Industry Efficiency Network Penalty: Industry Specific Station fuel consumption rate is increased by 100% when Industry Efficiency Network is online. Whilst Efficiency Network is online the station cannot go into reinforced mode. Components Research Efficiency Network: 25% bonus to Science Station Efficiency Bonus Only one Industry Efficiency Network per Industrial Specific Station Industry Efficiency Network Penalty: Industry Specific Station fuel consumption rate is increased by 100% when Industry Efficiency Network is online. Whilst Efficiency Network is online the station cannot go into reinforced mode. Manufacture & Research Efficiency Network: 25% bonus to Science Station Efficiency Bonus Only one Industry Efficiency Network per Industrial Specific Station Industry Efficiency Network Penalty: Industry Specific Station fuel consumption rate is increased by 100% when Industry Efficiency Network is online. Whilst Efficiency Network is online the station cannot go into reinforced mode. Ships Research Efficiency Network: 25% bonus to Science Station Efficiency Bonus Only one Industry Efficiency Network per Industrial Specific Station Industry Efficiency Network Penalty: Industry Specific Station fuel consumption rate is increased by 100% when Industry Efficiency Network is online. Whilst Efficiency Network is online the station cannot go into reinforced mode. Ship Modification Research Efficiency Network: 25% bonus to Science Station Efficiency Bonus Only one Industry Efficiency Network per Industrial Specific Station Industry Efficiency Network Penalty: Industry Specific Station fuel consumption rate is increased by 100% when Industry Efficiency Network is online. Whilst Efficiency Network is online the station cannot go into reinforced mode.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:31:00 - [37] idea number 2 Territory Guns. [Small] [Medium] [Large] 1 type for each race, all with these stats or maybe varying slightly. Can only be used in 0.0 space Skill Tree: Anchoring 5/ Territory Gun [Small- level 1][Medium { Level 3][Large { Level5] x 5 Training Multiplier Structure: Shield: [Small-1000 hp] [Medium { 5000 hp] [Large-10000 hp] Armour: [Small-1000 hp] [Medium { 5000 hp] [Large-10000 hp] Strucuture: [Small-500 hp] [Medium { 2500 hp] [Large-5000 hp] Resists: 0/0/0/0 Capacity: [Small-11500 hp] [Medium { 20000 hp] [Large-30000 hp] Sig Radius: [Small-100] [Medium { 300] [Large-500] Fuel: Small -25 [racial] Isotopes, 10 coolant per hour Medium - 40 [racial] Isotopes, 20 coolant per hour Large - 55 [racial] Isotopes, 40 coolant per hour Guns: Damage: [Small-30] [Medium { 100] [Large-400] [Amarr EM/ Caldari Kinetic/ Gallente Thermal/ Minmatar Explosive] Rate of Fire: [Small-3 Secs] [Medium { 5 Secs] [Large-8 Secs] Tracking Speed: [Small-0.09] [Medium { 0.023] [Large-0.08] Optimal Range: [Small-20Km] [Medium { 25Km] [Large-30Km] Falloff: [Small-1Km] [Medium { 5Km] [Large-10Km] Activation Cost: [Small-75] [Medium { 115] [Large- 240] Deploy: Deployable in [Small-0.0 sec] [Medium { 0.0sec sovereignty 1] [Large-0.0sec, sovereignty 3] Anchoring Delay: 500secs Online-lining Delay: 500secs Un-anchoring Delay: 20secs [ Small: Cannot deployed within 15km of another object] [ Medium: Cannot deployed within 15km of another object] [ Large: Cannot deployed within 15km of another object] Misc: Capacitor: [Small-2000 cap / 120 recharge time] [Medium { 4000 cap / 210 recharge time] [Large-6250 cap / 290 recharge time] Sensor Strength: [Small-9] [Medium { 13] [Large- 18] Scan resolution: [Small-295] [Medium { 210] [Large- 102] Territory Gun Node [Skill: territory gun Level 5/ Advanced territory gun Level 1] x5 Multiplier Territory Gun Node boosts your guns and makes even more use of your sovereignty. Shield: 20000 Armour: 20000 Structure: 20000 Resists: 0/0/0/0 Deployable in: Sovereignty 1 Optimal Range: 30Km Range Sig Radius: 1500 Anchoring Delay: 500secs Online-lining Delay: 500secs Un-anchoring Delay: 20secs Sensor Strength: 48 Can uplink to 1 extra Territory gun within its range per level 2% bonus to Territory gun damage per level 5% bonus to Territory gun tracking per level 10% bonus to territory gun rate of fire Per Sovereignty Level 15% bonus to Armour resists of Territory guns per Sovereignty Level 15% bonus to shields resists of Territory guns per Sovereignty Level 15% bonus to Structure resists of Territory guns per Sovereignty Level 10% Bonus to fuel efficiency of Territory Guns per Sovereignty level 50% Bonus to Node Shield, Armour and Structure Resist at Sovereignty Level 4 Racial Set bonus: Amarr: 25% Bonus to Armour Explosive and Kinetic Resists Minmatar: 25% Bonus to Shield EM and Thermal Resists Caldari: 25% Bonus to Shield Kinetic and Thermal Resists Gallente: 25% Bonus to Armour Thermal and Kinetic Resists
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:40:00 - [38] Territorial warfare needs objectives that require coordinated attacks across systems. Focusing on a single station or a single system even with fewer pos will not make territorial warfare more fun or more challenging. Make it beneficial to spread the dreads out to attack many sov holding targets in many systems at once. Link sov targets across systems to tank each other in such a fashion so a lone target (POS or whatever) is nigh invulnerable, but the set of targets is quite vulnerable. More numerous targets that are quicker to kill/heal/build will should make life in the cap fleet more interesting. With the hauling nerfs, POS will not be more numerous so another sov holding target would need to be designed. Perhap 'sovereignty sentries', and they can be deployed anywhere in a system. Links to other sentries in constellation could either boost tank or boost dps depeding on player choice. A single sov sentry linked to a network of other sentries could tank a large dread fleet as long the rest of the network is idle. As soon as a sov sentry is assisting another sentry, its own tank and dps drop drastically. Players can focus on fighting off the enemy squads, or perhaps micromanage the network of sov sentries. Or, players may be entirely offline during alarm clock invasions. Are such multi-solar system networks feasible to implement??
Pattern Clarc Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:41:00 - [39] Bring sovereignty to the star, one central solar station, one major battle per system, with the POS's acting only to help fuel the star. Basically, a solar station takes parts and fuel from the POS's, if the POS's are sieged it will starve and can be destroyed in a full on attack . If the solar station is sieged directly, then it'll go into reinforced, coming out exactly when it would naturally run out of fuel. (in siege you can't add more fuel ofcourse.) Reduce the amount of stront a POS can keep to 4 hours worth and make them have far less hit points as secondary/alternative objectives with the idea being you can either take on the one massive solar stations head on or the POS's which fuel it over a longer period of time with a smaller force. It might not change much, but it gives commanders an option. POS warfare was is mono dimensional and tactically void, this would go somewhere to changing this. This would also work with tactial enviroments, in which solar stations would reside in the stars corona, requiring a difference set of ships and tactics to those used in POS warfare.... (See my Sig) "Now follow this link to enlightenment"
Rhaegor Stormborn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.11.13 18:42:00 - [40] I don't have the time to write out a huge post of ideas when I have seen it done in the past many times and I am sure many people with much better ideas than my own will do it for me anyway. That said, I once read a pos by a Goonswarm guy, it was like 4 posts long on how to change the Sov system having it based around planet control, which was linked somehow to moon control, which made placing POSes much more important rather than just spamming as many as you could at any given moon. I liked that idea. Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread

TheSard Viziam	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:03:00 - [41] Remove sov mechanics from pos's placed at moons - the only way to claim sov is to place a pos at the systems star.
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:08:00 - [42] Edited by: Helison on 13/11/2007 19:11:17 I havn&t any real solution, but I&ve a stupid dream and perhaps something is useable. Question: Is it possible / could you imagine, that players (in this case sov-owners) create deadspace-dungeons for other players (enemies)? Dream: One Sov-claiming battlestation inside Dead-space. The owner "buys" sentries (maxed amount per stage) and additional stages (perhaps maxed by amount of POS). It&s possible to create a cyno in the last stage for capitals, but the stages before have to been done without caps. Members of the owning alli can support any stage, if they want so (with special gates or bookmarks). Great would also be to create several pre-requisites before able to open the last gate (spread up the attackers). Reality: I don&t know if anything like this is doable (how can CCP make sure, that it&s possible in each case to fill all conditions?). And I have no idea, if this really works in some way to hinder blobbing. PS: @Nozh: After 1-2 weeks of brainstorming it would be great, if you could propose your ideas, so we could discuss them a bit. Better to have this a multi-stage process than you present a ready "solution" in 6 months, which will be hated by most players.
Keldjos Falzir GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:10:00 - [43] Keep the sov-system as is but make POSes cheaper, use less fuel, have less stront but also make them easier to kill and faster to set up (in terms of anchoring timers). Make station services and pos moduals have less HP over all so they are faster to both take out and rep. All of this would make for faster, less super-blob combat, which seems to be what CCP want. At the same time, it would make logistics easier (since you could carry more fuel for more towers in one run) and lower costs as barriers to entry into 0.0 for smaller groups, for whom fueling a bunch of Deathstar POSes is a pain. Less modual/service HP makes them into viable raiding targets for smaller gangs, since now you actually need a pretty large force to take down services and moduals. Possibly include some way for station services, though not POS moduals, to repaire themselves over a long period of time. Also, stacking nerf POS shield hardening arrays if they aren't already.
Tel Nikerym Caldari Man Train Inc. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:18:00 - [44] I think I'd like to take a ***** at it too. Building on ideas from Bein Glorious and another guy in this thread, maybe in BoB, I don't really remember, sorry.... Planets control sovereignty. This is an easy fix to a big problem in systems with a ton of moons. Don't have planets controlled by moons, that adds another layer of complexity, unless you get rid of strontium timers on POS's at moons. This is just generally a good idea, as long as you keep it simple. Simple is better in this situation, but that does not mean that simple has to be easy for attackers. Towers at planets could be huge structures, that take a lot of punishment to take down, almost like mini-stations. NPC's Fuel Towers. If you have a system under your control, with a station in it, the idea that you could set standings to an NPC faction is really cool. Those NPC's could charge you ISK to fuel your towers with fuel that you provide, or even more ISK if you do not provide the fuel. This would make a 0.0 station-system more of an active hub, and passing raiding parties could look to to try to gank the NPC haulers moving back and forth between the towers, etc. Also the idea that you could choose the faction, and subsequently get that faction's enemies showing up in the belts, forces you guys at CCP to balance the Factions so that one race is not the I-Win of easy-to-shoot easy-money rats. Right now there are some imbalances there, at least from my experience. Keep it simple. Simple does not have to mean easy to attack, but the less time that alliance's logistics guys have to spend carrier-jumping or freightering around fuel and fueling towers is more time that they could spend in offensive warfare, making the game that much more dynamic and making it so that no alliance is always 'secure' in the sense that they cannot have a system taken from them. Fueling POS's is boring. Attacking a ton of POS's is boring. Fighting enemies that have brains of their own is fun.
Yuki Nagato GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:22:00 - [45] Simple suggestion: make it faster. Reduce the amount of fuel needed by towers, and reduce the volume. This helps logistics people. Move sov-claiming towers to planets instead of moons. Have benefits for having towers anchored at the moons, but don't make it so that it becomes necessary. Reduce the effective HP of POS modules, the POS itself, and station services. Reworking the POS system from the ground up at this point would be too difficult: either way someone is going to get screwed, albeit the logistics people, the people who own dreadnoughts, or any single minority group of players. The problem with the "two places at once!" mentality people are no doubt going to throw around is, what is to stop the defender from just blobbing one of the split fleets? It's the reason nobody splits up their dread group when sieging towers, because it's just stupid: dreads are defenseless glass cannons that will get completely massacred by a fleet of 30 battleships, especially with the associated lag. Even in siege mode. They require the biggest support fleet one can muster to protect because of their inherent nature. If you had a few Moroses with you in the past you could do alright against something like that, but after the "two targets only" nerf the Moros is just as defenseless in siege mode except for the tank, which can only be run for three or four minutes tops. It's the way EVE is laid out that presents this problem. It takes a lot of time to go from one station system to the next if they aren't right next door or in the same constellation. In the time it takes to make ten jumps, five of your dreads could already be dead. Outpost and constellation claims are so ingrained in the game that if you were to change it you'd have to change the fundamentals of the game, like travel between solar systems.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:36:00 - [46] I have a very, very large idea brewing. I am currently fine-tuning the specifics and will post it later today.
Trac3rt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:39:00 - [47] - Untie SOV from POS. Let POS be used for manufacturing, moon mining, research, invention and other industrial improvements. As a related change, make it so that you can make slots 'public' for your corp or alliance for a fee encouraging alliances to develop their regions using POS. They will remain a valuable asset that can be attacked to cripple an opponents industry but will not be tied to SOV. - During the Fanfest Q&A, someone mentioned moving the Sov mechanic to planets rather than moons. There can be dozens of moons in a system but rarely more than 12 planets. I like to consider that if I wanted to 'conquor' the Milky Way, the important objects to capture would be the planets and not the moons. I would care more about capturing Earth, Mars or Venus over Saturn Moon #32. It just simply makes more sense to me. You can still do other stuff with planets at the same time, so the excuse given at Fanfest that you have 'other plans' doesn't hold water. - Introduce 'Tug-of-war' gameplay to take SOV. The easiest way to explain this would be to compare it to the capture system in Team Fortress 2 (or any control point orientated game) - you stand on a control point to capture it, if you die and have an opponent stand on the point the capture is reversed and eventually negated. Lets say you have a POS/Sov Generator/whatever at a planet that is claiming SOV for alliance X, you shoot it and it starts a timer for Alliance Y. If Alliance X shoots it to retain SOV the timer isn't reset but instead starts counting back down to 0. Once the timer hits a set amount (4-7 days) then the sov claim for that planet switches to alliance Y. This way you don't just reinforce all the towers and come back in four days once the POS is out of reinforced, but have to maintain a constand presence in the system. It gets around the timezone issue because it is less about who is in the most conveniant timezone, but who can control the system for the most time each day. - Allow objectives to be acheived without the blob and allow multiple objectives to be acheived at once. A fleet of 50 ships of mixed class should be able to acheive any SOV objective within a reasonable timeframe. More numbers may win you the fight, but should not win you the war - it's what you do with them that counts. In a 200v200 situation, one side may blob up and defend a single objective or system, but the other side may split their fleet and hit 3-4 objectives at once. In an uneven fight, say 200v50 and one side splits their fleet into 4x50 groups the numerically disadvantaged may be able to engage the seperate groups seperately. This would tie in well with 'tug-of-war' gameplay, because you can blob up a single system all you like but the timers in all of your other systems will be slowly ticking away until you only have the one system left. Blobbing only happens because currently we only get one target to hit at a time, and a very narrow time-period in which to hit it. Moving to a system where it is about controlling multiple objectives at once that are relatively easy to cap would mean that the fleets would spread out over an entire constellation or region playing tug of war rather than blobbing up a single system for 12 hours at a time for a victory determined almost entirely by numbers. This would also tie well into the fleet system and the new Eve-voice improvements which allows a single fleet to be split into multiple wings which can be 'commanded' seperately. ___
bh75	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:41:00 - [48] Well my big problem with sov now is that it is nothing like what the empires do to claim territory. I have never seen a Minmatar Republic tower at a moon. Empires do it by force and then by gate guns. If Amarr where to try to take a system the Minmatar would show up in force and remove the Amarr invaders from the system and stay for an amount time to make sure there is not another attack. I think alliance would follow the same suite. You would conquer a system by holding the system i.e. you have more ships in system then others for a set time (hours) then you must deploy gate guns and bring them online. They require fuel and ammo. Sov is conquested by another alliance coming into a system and destroying the gate guns. If there is a station in the system then the station must be attacked and conquered like a pos without the stront. Once below a set hull damage it loses its sov to an alliance and plays no further role until someone gains sov. To get sov you must follow the same rules above. Once you have sov, you may repair the station to bring it back online. In systems with no station, sov can change easily if the holding allaince can not defend it. But in systems with a station, it takes much more work to take sov away. To keep people from just claiming and never going back to that system, you must fuel your guns or over time sov fades and guns slowly take damage and do not work so they are easier to destroy. This is a general framework and will need specifics to really make it work but I am not sure what those numbers should be.
Tamsin Jakiri GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:42:00 - [49] Edited by: Tamsin Jakiri on 13/11/2007 19:43:00 Before I say this, I must mention that I haven't engaged in pos warfare since term started a month ago, but I don't believe anything major has changed since then. The main things that would make pos warfare more fun would be to introduce greater limitations on the cynojammer. Right now, taking down a properly armed cynojammer pos with battleships is not only time consuming, but also boring and extremely dangerous (a potent combination). As things stand, a cynojammer is something that the defenders can assume in all but the most dedicated seiges. It can stop all hostile capital ships from entering the system, but provides no such barrier to friendly ones (I know that the jammer stops ALL cynos, not just hostile ones, but there are ways that this can be gotten around). It provides the focal point of almost all sieges (look at Tri's attack at XZH for a good example), and yet has a huge imbalance of numbers required for the attackers and the defenders. For the attackers to take it down means a large number of tanked battleships, who need to take down gun after gun before getting to the pos-level HP of the jammer itself. For the defenders to defend against anything but the largest groups, you need to have two pos gunners. I would much prefer it if the cynojammer was a tactical and strategic boon, but not one that could be relied upon in almost all circumstances. To this end, here's a few ideas: 1. Give the cynojammer a fraction of the number of hitpoints it currently has. This will make it faster to take down, but also make it faster to repair for the defender, meaning the cynojammer can go down or up much faster, meaning the tactical situation is less distinct and more "fun". (I don't find the same fights going the same way every time particularly interesting, why not shake things up a bit?) 2. Have the cynojammer require CPU to fit. As things stand, you can come into a system, take down the cynojammer, incapacitate every module on every pos and put every pos into reinforced, only to have the cynojammer repped back up to full operation again if you do not have superiority over the system during the whole reinforced timer. Eve is otherwise very good at making focal points for strategic combat, so this seems a little out of whack. 3. Have the cynojammer take more grid to fit. More grid means fewer guns, meaning a lesser number of battle/logistics ships are required to arrive at "critical mass" for tanking the guns, meaning that taking down the cynojammer can be accomplished by smaller groups. It would take even longer to do so, but "difficult" is better than "impossible". 4. Limit the offline -> online gun process midfight This is more of a general point, but currently you attack a well armed pos, and start taking down the guns. When you take one down, its fitting requirements are removed from the pos, and one of the defenders onlines another gun from the vast number of offline ones that you can put on a pos. This can keep going essentially indefinitely on some poses. Solution? Either vastly reduce the HP of merely anchored modules, so they can be destroyed by the attackers before they are onlined, or have incapacitated modules use up grid. 5. Have the cynojammer require constellation sov, but changing nothing else We have not yet seen a truly fought over Sov IV constellation, so I don't know whether the other benefits of constellation sov are that great or not. Restricting the jammers to places with constellation sov provides much more of a tangible advantage to meeting the prerequisites, and may encourage more people to actively persue it rather than have it as the result of previous outpost placement. Doing all of these simultaneously might be going a bit far; making it easier to take down the cynojammer, limiting its use pre-invasion, whilst simultaneously making it go out of commission during the invasion might make it useless.
Tamsin Jakiri GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:43:00 - [50] However, as things stand I can't think of many greater barriers to 0.0 entry for a small corp than trying to take down a cynojammer, a harrowing task that many probably feel isn't worth the effort.

Pattern Clarc Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:44:00 - [51] star's should be what generates sov, without a star, nothing else in the system can exist - as a system. Lore wise, and game play wise star's are a much stronger alternative to moon's and planets and when combined with tactical enviroments would greatly enhance the experiance of taking a system instead of in the current system in which the process is drawn out over days, and different, banal objectives (POS's) give the players the option to take the system in one move (for a potencially higher causuality rate) "Now follow this link to enlightenment"
Oam Mkoll Caldari HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:48:00 - [52] Edited by: Oam Mkoll on 13/11/2007 19:50:12 Originally by: Goumindong 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. Oh god no! Please don't turn EvE into World of Warcraft territory contorol game... One idea I wholeheartedly approve are deployable Sentry Guns available from Sov 4 and up in systems with outposts.
Psimitry	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:53:00 - [53] Edited by: Psimitry on 13/11/2007 19:53:47 I definitely agree with the concept of making sov based on planet control. These sov claiming towers would be a new form of tower in the form of XL towers. They use more fuel and whatnot because of their size, but they would include modules built in to them such as a SMA or something that would make it worth it to use an XL tower (anchorable only at planets). Perhaps even offering things normally reserved for stations, such as refining capability. They would initially have the efficiency of a POS refining array, but you could add on support modules to make them near (but not as) efficient at refining as an outpost. However, these support modules would be so CPU/Grid heavy that adding hardeners and guns would be difficult (i.e. you can get them pretty efficient, but every efficiency boosting module you add makes them more vulnerable to attack) One thing that could make it a bit more interesting though would be a "support POS." This (assuming that SOV towers are tied to planets) would make it so that systems with multiple moons around a planet would be harder to conquer in that say...each POS that is anchored to a moon could have a "tower shield transporter." In this way, the towers of each planet would have a shield recharging bonus based on how many towers were slaved to it (to a limit of 5 or so, or stacking penalties if nothing else). This would make the planet tower tougher, but not invincible. In addition, the slave POS' would not be a necessary component, but it would be valuable. In addition, once the planet tower came out of reinforced, the slave POS' could be switched into some sort of ultra-charge mode that drained their stront from the support tower but increased the effectiveness of the POS shield transporter module by like 500%. This would quickly charge the shield of the planet based POS but leave the support POS' much more vulnerable. These POS shield transporter systems would also be extremely grid/CPU intensive.
Exioce Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:55:00 - [54] Changing POS sov-claiming to planets from moons may indeed be a band-aid rather than the surgery the system needs, but it is easy to implement and until a better solution comes along it should be done. You do not allow a patient to bleed out just because you can't currently put him under the knife.
Corporati Capitalis Tollan Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:58:00 - [55] How about going away with system sov completely? Instead, you can only gain control over a whole constellation. A good idea would be to introduce a new type of tower like others already suggested - "Sovereignty tower" - only one can be placed per system and they can't be destroyed or even put under reinforced. They won't have a force field either so you can't use them as invulnerable shield to hide behind. They won't be able to be used for anything else either (mining, R&D, etc.). Basically, they would be just anchorable structures that do nothing but claim sov. To make it more interesting they could be anchored in orbit directly at the system's main star, which could also serve to explain how they can be invulnerable (in RP terms) - they would somehow draw power directly from the star or something like that. Another benefit of my idea is that it could serve to prevent the warring alliances from claiming sov by means of blobbing. Anyway, here is how it could work, with different situations: 1. "New" constellation (ie. without any current sov claims over it) An alliance must anchor a "Sovereignty tower" in each system, at which point it gains sov immediately (or with some delay) Now this alliance can deploy outposts in this constellation 2. "Claimed" constellation (ie. one which is already under another alliance's sov) The attacking alliance must SIMULTANEOUSLY attack and put below 50% shields the Sovereignty towers of the defenders in at least 5 systems. By simultaneously I mean a very short time period, so as to make it impossible for the attackers to blob one system quickly, then move to the next and so on - maybe 10 or 15 minutes for example After at least 5 Sovereignty towers are brought below 50%, a chain reaction of sorts happens, causing all Sovereignty Towers in the constellation to enter "self-diagnostic" mode or just reinforced mode or whatever you want to call it. They will still be shootable (though it won't bring any benefits to do so), but they won't be claiming sov anymore. At this point the defenders have effectively lost sov and can't reclaim it immediately, though the attackers don't have it just yet either. For the next 2 (or 5, or 7) days, the defenders still have access to their stations in this constellation, but they can't put up new ones and also lose all sovereignty benefits (reduced POS fuel costs, Jump Bridges, etc.). So now all they can do is evacuate their assets or prepare them for a counter attack. For RP purposes you can say that during this time the Sovereignty towers are recharging their shields, thus the inability to claim sov. After the set amount of time has passed, the disabled Sovereignty Towers start functioning again, but now they are all controlled by the attackers, causing the sovereignty to switch. All stations belong to the attackers and they can dock and use them normally If the previous defenders want to recapture the constellation, they will have to attack it just like the current owners did. Now, a few more explanations might be in order. About blobbing - because the attackers have to attack multiple systems simultaneously, they will have to split their forces. If they are smart, they will attack more systems than they actually have to (for example 8 instead of 5), then the defenders will have to split their forces too and defend multiple systems, so as to prevent the attackers from "reinforcing" the required 5 of them at the same time (Continued to next post)
Corporati Capitalis Tollan Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:59:00 - [56] (Continued from last post) To somewhat mitigate the TZ problems, alliances can hire NPC mercenaries to defend their Sovereignty towers. There will be a limit to the number of NPCs that can be hired for any given system, so human players will still be required to be present if they want to stop or slow down any determined attacker. The allowed number of NPCs can also be dependent on the amount of human defenders present - if there are enough of those (during their prime time or an alarm clock op for example), then the NPCs will disappear. Obviously the defending NPCs would have to be made a bit smarter and/or stronger than the current ones, so that not all attacks become simple turkey shoots for the attackers. Maybe have the amount of NPCs dependent on the total amount of members the attacking alliance has - so if it has 1000 members, then each system of the defender can only have 30 defending NPCs. If the attacker has 2000, then 60 NPCs and so on. If two alliances gang up, then their memberbase gets counted together for the purpose of determining the amount of defenders.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:06:00 - [57] Originally by: Exioce Changing POS sov-claiming to planets from moons may indeed be a band-aid rather than the surgery the system needs, but it is easy to implement and until a better solution comes along it should be done. You do not allow a patient to bleed out just because you can't currently put him under the knife. Agreed; but it should be understood to be a bandaid and not an entire solution. Also, if new towers meant exclusively for sov claiming are implemented, sure they should require decent fuel costs, BUT existing towers should have their fuel consumption slashed in half. Shooting down towers is an exercise in patience, but logistics is practically an exercise in self-flagellation atm. Even worse with the upcoming nerf...any changes to sov mechanics should make things simpler to implement/maintain, if not something you could call easy--there is a difference. Also, Originally by: Vitrael I have a very, very large idea brewing. I am currently fine-tuning the specifics and will post it later today. Quoting for irony of a JF member offering ideas on system ownership mechanics. ----------------------------------------------- Adm Vladimir Tinakin CFO Hadean Drive Yards
Bu Jinkan Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:07:00 - [58] I've pretty much spent my entire eve-life doing 0.0 warfare. I don't know much about missions, but god knows I spent enough time camping gates in my punisher. So this is a topic that's pretty dear to my heart. But before we dive into what we ought to do with POS warfare, we have to admit something. Obviously, it's not so flawed that people don't want to do it - there are multitudes of people living in 0.0 and participating in alliance warfare. So something is right. And to be honest, there isn't anything in this game more satisfying than, after days of skirmishing and fighting in an enemy system, watching sovereignty finally flip and then earning yourself a new home. So what's fun and what isn't fun? Fun: (feel free to disagree, obviously) 1. Epic battles (except when they're TOO epic, see below) 2. Goal-based combat (i.e. fighting for an easily defined goal instead of just for fighting's sake) 3. ...and all the things that appeal to your base nature (bickering enemies, propaganda wars, dying alliances, etc) Not so bad: 1. Blowing up POSes (this is okay in moderation. blowing up dozens is pretty boring) 2. Fueling POSes (as long as I'm not the one doing it) 3. POS spamming (This is only a problem when there's a stalemate, see below again. We all saw what happened to poorly planned POS spamming tactics with ASCN) Bad stuff: 1. Stalemate (neither side can kill the other's POSes, leading to what is basically an endurance contest) 2. EPIC EPIC battles (Nobody wants a 500v500 battle being determined by what is basically the roll of the dice) 3. Massive time sink (It takes 100+ people and hours to do ANYTHING at all in strategic warfare because there is just so much HP to go through) So what can we determine from this mostly arbitrary list of stuff I like/dislike in POS warfare? Well, the concept of POS warfare isn't really a bad idea. I mean, maybe there are better ways, but at its core it's not too complicated and has requires a little bit (or a lot of bit) of everything - logistical ability, isk, and that whole PvP thing, too. The real problem with it is that it is far, far too drawn out 99% of the time. You see, a relatively short and decisive war is far more fun than a 6 month long campaign. A decisive war is about momentum, lots of battles, and relatively small amounts of POS shield hugging. A drawn out war is about stamina and your willingness to endure long hours of AFK tower approaching until it's your primetime. In other words, a short war makes you want to have more wars. Drawn out wars make you want to quit Eve. The next question is, "how do we encourage short and decisive wars instead of long, boring stalemates?" I think the core of the problem lies in stront timing. Here's what happens now. a. Alliance A reinforces 10 strategic Alliance B towers. b. Alliance B sets them all to come out within an hour of each other in their primetime. c. Both alliances put out big important "COME ON THIS OP OR I'LL KICK YOU OUT!" posts to get as much participation as possible. d. Both sides get tons of participation and an EPIC EPIC 400v400 battle occurs. Alliance A lags out and gets killed by POS guns and ships they can't see, proceeds to complain on eve-o and a bunch of people get fed up and quit for a few months/forever. That pretty much sums up high level Alliance warfare at the moment, and we all can agree it's far from optimal. My solution involves reworking stront timing by giving the attacker ways to influence it beyond kiting. Perhaps attacking a beacon or something causes stront timing on POSes to go haywire and only use a random partial amount of the strontium when it goes into reinforced, thus making it a bit less predictable and causing a greater amount of POS turnover - which in turn encourages shorter and more decisive wars. Even better, it encourages alliances to actually go and fight outside their primetime instead of just conceding it and timing the POSes, which is another major problem.
Aeaus The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:11:00 - [59] Why have a mechanic like Sovereignty in the first place? Soverignty should depend on who controls a system and not who can put the most POSs there, but since there's no good way to keep track of this why even bother? Sovereignty is only a mechanism to a) protect your station / outpost investment, b) give a 25% fuel reduction (very minor and inconsequential). Why not then make sovereignty directly related to outposts and station in the first place then? Make sovereignty be contested by outpost ownership, allow more then one outpost / station in a system, and allow for a limited form of "reinforced timer" on stations, as well as several more "services" to help in the defense department. Introduce a "Reinforcement Modifier" service that adds 20% to shield resists (uniformly), or maybe even 50M more skillpoints, but make them conflict with the existing services (so you can't have an uber outpost that does everything and is a tough nut to *****), thus "core" outposts would have all services but are much easier to kill (If you're using this outpost all the time, then you should be able to provide a defense), but strong outposts would have limited services. However, sovereignty would only be a namesake, you get no bonus but the minor POS fuel bonus, and that's fine. Outposts should additionally have a "strontium timer," as somebody mentioned you should be able to control how long the station is in a reinforced mode (nothing but docking / market works), depending on how much strontium you've loaded up in it (like POSs you can't extend this timer by dumping more in, you work with what you have). To make it more interesting, let outposts be destructible, I have an interesting gameplay proposal for this one, but it might be extreme. Outposts should not be free, infinitely running stations, they should require fuel to operate (Heavy Water, anyone?). Once fuel is put into a station (make a separate hangar accessible by owning corporation) it can not be taken out, and there is a 14-day fuel capacity on the thing. If an outpost is unfueled nothing within the station works, you can't even dock (but you can put in fuel from the outside and bring it online). Thus, under the worst case scenario, the conquering corporation will have to wait 14 days before the outpost completely runs out of fuel and is destroyable. I believe this focuses the attention from "destroy the towers so we could get the outpost" to "fight for the outpost," obviously some overall changes to health, resists, etc, will need to be made so that outposts could stand up to a concentration attack without falling instant victim, but at the same time it makes the fight that much more immediate, and not the whole "Oh they attacked us, so we have a month before our outpost is even threatened," situation. Threats should be very immediate and present, if you can't defend your outpost you will lose it, you don't need a one month grace period. I have more ideas on how to make the entire situation more interesting, please consider them as being separate from the above as I don't want those ideas to get ignored for this. But I think that introducing full-blown stations would be an extremely interesting idea, I don't like the idea of having requirements to prop them up (really, goes against the spirit of EVE), but they should be extremely expensive. I'm talking about 50-80M here, more facilities, more defense, etc. Oh, and I want to reiterate that specific requirements like sovereignty to deploy an outpost, or immunity when sovereignty is present is absolutely horrible when it comes to gameplay. Lore wise, there should be no reason that you should have the sovereignty flag in Concord's database to deploy something in null-security space where Concord has no power or oversight. Although I would support an idea for POSs to augment an outposts defense (remote, really remote shield transfer, etc), but not to a point of making outposts invulnerable to any sort of attack. Oh, 2K Chars.
Gerome Doutrande Rue Morgue	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:13:00 - [60] I'm certainly happy to see that you are considering changing the sovereignity endgame mechanics. I've been favoring the "planets claim systems" idea for a while. They reduce the number of moons to be claimed if moon sovereignities are aggregated for planets and also if poses at the planets themselves are used. The solution doesn't really "solve the problem" though in my opinion, but it would be an improvement without invalidating peoples' current infrastrucure, especially if moon sovereignities are aggregated for planets. I do however think that the "one place claims a system" idea would ultimately allow for better gameplay. The most logical choice for me would be a station (since that is usually what people fight about), but an artificially chosen point in a system would also be possible (and allow you to add for example environmental effects as Pattern pointed out). When I refer to stations in the following, please read it as station/"single special structure per system". Station sovereignity could work as follows: - Stations get a strontium depot like towers (you could consider offering upgrade modules to increase stront hold), get conquered by reinforcing, then "killing" them. - Stations could get the ability to have defensive modules anchored (haven't given this much thought, I am not much in favor of it though, as it also hinders raiding type attacks). - poses in a system have a supporting function: one can anchor a single "station support" module per pos on poses in the station system, which improves shield recharge/increasing resistances or something similar. - To prevent station support module spamming, their effect is subject to a stacking penalty. Additionally, it should take a very long time to online a station support module (longer than the reinforcement timer of the station). - It may also be beneficial to either set a fixed max amount for station support modules that can be anchored per system or make running them very expensive (I don't believe into the use of costs as a deterrent though). Station support modules could be restricted to being anchored outside of pos shields. It might be good to reduce the onlining time for station support modules that have been reinforced and then repaired - note however that this would be exploitable (people might put their own modules into reinforced mode as backup that can be onlined quickly). - A nice twist would be that if a station support module is online in a hostile system, it actually has the reverse effect it would have normally (i.e. lower shield recharge or lower resists etc.). This way an overwhelming force may be able to overrun a starbase, but the still existing station support modules would benefit the defender when trying to retake the station. This would however only work if a fixed limit of support modules per participating side is enforced - this would have to be solved, maybe via standings of the owning corp/alliance (maximum for all "blue modules" vs. red ones, but that would still be eploitable for defenders). I would also urge you to rethink the sovereignity mechanism. The current sovereignity rules are very artificial and require pos spamming. A possible idea would be to have a station "radiate sovereignity" with decreasing effect the further away from the station. Several stations with overlapping sovereignity emission would (maybe again with a stacking penalty) increase the sovereignity rating of a system. Hostile overlapping sovereignity could for example reduce the effect of sovereignity. Again, it would be possible to boost the "sov aura" with station upgrades. The post is a bit unstructured, my apologies for that. Maybe there is something useful in there still, and I'll post more when I have time to think about this some more and see what other people come up with.

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:13:00 - [61] I hammered out something I think might work in a thread here, I would appreciate any and all feedback. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in ~~pink~~ Forum Warfare
BlackHorizon Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:15:00 - [62] Edited by: BlackHorizon on 13/11/2007 20:16:28 Nozh, a large problem with the way sovereignty warfare currently works is actually warp to zero... Warp to zero has made fleet movements and uber blob formations way too easy. When it's easy to make such huge blobs and move them, you get the current situation of laggy stand-offs, etc... all problems you're aware of There is also significantly less opportunity for non-consensual fleet combat and skirmishes because of warp to zero.
Bu Jinkan Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:17:00 - [63] Edited by: Bu Jinkan on 13/11/2007 20:18:33 Edited by: Bu Jinkan on 13/11/2007 20:17:51 ^^Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Unless you're fighting your war in lowsec, you probably have dictors and bubbles around anyway. And moving a big blob around is actually not much more difficult than moving a small blob around - same concept. Gang warp to a bookmark. Reducing the number of required POSes doesn't actually make sov warfare any more fun. After all, when you want to blow up a Titan-laden CSAA, it's just one tower. And we all know how the last two of those ended up.
Jonathan Xavier Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 20:31:00 - [64] Here's an idea to make POS management less tedious with respect to fueling, while keeping the risk / reward ratio high: Starbase Solar Array A module that would be capable of keeping a current tower running, without fuel. Design this module to cost about roughly the amount of isk that 6mo. of fuel in a large deathstar would cost (~1B isk). It would require much of the same npc goods that towers currently require to build, in addition to minerals. By costing roughly the same as 6mo worth of fuel to construct, the isk sink required by fueling towers remains the same, but the logistics are greatly simplified. The module itself would exist outside the shields and would have around 1M HP. It would take the same amount of time as a tower to online and offline (30m/2h). Anchoring one would also reduce tower fuel capacity by 90%. The module would be approximately 20,000m^3 in volume. A small gang could come in and deal a 1B isk blow to a hostile corp by destroying a SSA. If the module were destroyed, the tower would only run for as long as its existing fuel stocks provided for. In times of war, or when the POS was in imminent danger, the corporation could simply unanchor the module, and return to fueling the POS as it is currently done or risk losing the module and making the tower vulnerable by leaving the module anchored. Naturally, most alliances would love modules such as these as it would greatly simply POS fuel logistics. However, by taking the easy route and anchoring these modules, it would leave the POS towers vulnerable to attack and subsequent offlining if the toweres were not refueled within ~3 days of the SSA being destroyed. A successful attack would leave the victim -1B isk for the module and leave the tower with at most, 3D worth of fuel (-90% fuel capacity while anchored) or none (immediate offline timer) if the victim forgot / didn't bother to fuel a tower with an SSA anchored. It would give small gangs an opportunity to wreak havoc on logistics networks in the home system of an opponent, where such modules would likely be common, far from empire space. Additionally, it would provide an alternative to current POS logistics; while less tedious and less time consuming, SSAs would carry significant risk. I'll post additional thoughts and ideas on Sovereignty and POS towers soon.
Dagam GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:02:00 - [65] Edited by: Dagam on 13/11/2007 21:02:45 Make sov less of a time sink and more of a money sink (if necessary, I don't think it is). I don't care how you get there but it's clear the time sink nature of sov is the main problem. It might mean POS towers get more expensive, are easier to fuel and fit, and their hp is lowered drastically. Fuelling and fitting POS towers should be quick and as painless as possible; tedium involved shouldn't be the main obstacle to getting sov, money/military strength should be and it's time this is changed.
Nials Corva Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:04:00 - [66] I'd like to see a class of sovereignty claiming towers separate from the large/medium/small distinction. Only one of these can be anchored per planet. The are a large tower with a -50% modifier applied to all offensive and defensive attributes (shield amount/regen, resists, damage, scan resolution, etc). Add a Sovereignty Logistics module that can only be hung outside of a small tower for a large chunk of cpu. It gives the sov tower at the same planet +50% to all the nerfed attributes, but -50% to it's own shield and resists. The goal is to limit the number of fuel hungry towers and effect of tower spamming while spreading out the battles to take the important towers. The idea being that the sov towers are nasty when they have small tower support, weak without. Fleets would have to split up between multiple points in space, breaking apart the blob a bit. Capping the number of support towers at 5-7 keeps the sov towers from getting too far out of hand. Helps defenders - much less total fuel. No need to spam every moon with online towers. - can adjust timing of the smalls so that attackers have to take them down twice to break a sov tower - easier to secure the high-moon systems. In a system 12 orbits, fueling 7 large towers and a few online smalls would be adequate, even if there are tons of moons, total. Helps attackers - defenders have to be reactive in protecting support towers - easier to get a toehold in small moon systems - small gangs can be effective at knocking out the small towers Helps everyone - eliminate 5/day limit - not overly complicated - ideally spreads out fighting within a system to keep the 500v500 fights to a minimum, though it'll still happen on the gates a lot. Hurts - could interfere with moon mining in some cases, making economically valuable systems easier to take. Don't know if this is a flaw, though. Transition concerns - if a system lacks sov towers, revert to the current system for sov to maintain the status quo - current deathstars still provide moon denial as well as cynojamming, cyno arrays, jump bridges, etc. Massive networks can be gradually phased out rather than immediately obsoleted.
EdFromHumanResources Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:07:00 - [67] Id reccomend giving dreads/or other ships the ability to make a pos chew through its stront faster even after going into reinforced mode. Forcing defensive fleets to form so its not always "let them reinforce we will save it later"
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:20:00 - [68] Ok hears an idea which will hopefully need minimal alterations to the game. Remove use of POSFs for sovereignty and replace them with one object. Battle Stations. [Make them look cinematically massive] One allowed per system. If you put one up then hold it for 7 days you gain Sov 1. If one is already up then you have to destroy it and erect your own to start gaining Sov. +Territory (Sovereignty 1) oA single Battle Station, set to claim sovereignty. This needs to be in place for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. +Protectorate (Sovereignty 2) oTerritory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days. +Province (Sovereignty 3) oProtectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days. +Constellation Capital (Sovereignty 4) oProvince level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days. oConstellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation. In order to acquire constellation sovereignty, the following is required: +At least three outposts or conquerable stations within the constellation. +At least one system with sovereignty level three, with the two following added requirements: oAn outpost or conquerable station located in the system. oThis outpost/conquerable station set to be the capital under the station management tab. +Sovereignty held in at least 51% of the systems in that constellation. +All of these conditions need to be met for 14 days. My point is that the rules are fine but there are too many separate goals that are easily affordable to hold or get Sov. Also POSFs seem to have lost all meaning and are now just flag poles that get put in and taken out. If you focus the enemy forces attentions to destroying an expensive Bastion you can get: Big cinematic fleet fights. POSFs have more meaning again as they will provide logistics to keep an alliance running (I know they already do but they wont be flag posts anymore) POSFs become legitimate targets for trying to slow or disrupt logistics that keep the Battle Station running. Make for more exciting fights than POS spamming and sieges night after night. (One big starwars like siege in one night rather than 50 sieges every night.) Will inspire different tactics, better planned and thought out tactics, and lead to more skirmish warfare to damage another Alliances logistics and capability to defend the station. Presents a more tense battle because the soverenty of the system hangs in the balance. Basically your just changing and condensing the focus of POS warfare. I think that is a minimal change. And to actually put it into the game without causing too many waves. All alliances will receive a 1 off, 1 run battle station bpc, for each system they have sovereignty for. They will receive it 2months in advance (something like that) so they can build it and deploy it by the date of release. (Continued in Next Post)
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:21:00 - [69] Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 13/11/2007 21:25:12 Battle Stations Continued Here is an idea for the BS stats. (We will use Amaar Technology again, with this example) Amaar Battle Station Base Cost: 10,000,000,000 isk 75% Bonus to Energy Sentry optimal range 50% Bonus to Energy Sentry damage 25% Bonus to Ship Maintenance Array capacity 15% Bonus to shield hardening array effectiveness 98% reduction to CPU for Battle Station Fighter Hanger Penalty: Amaar Battle Station cannot support: Assembly Arrays Mobile Laboratories Refining Arrays Silos Moon Harvesting Arrays Reactors Corporate Hanger Arrays Fuel consumption is increased by 25% Only 1 Battle Station can be built per System. Armour Hitpoints: 150,000,000 Shield Hitpoints: 648,000,000 (The rest of the stats are the same as an Amaar Large tower) And finally the starbase structure to go with the Battle Station: Battle Station Fighter Hanger Power Grid Output: 300,000 CPU Output: 44,400 Armour Hitpoints: 15,000 Shield Hitpoints: 15,000 Drone Capacity: 100,000 m3 (The rest of the stats are the same as the Ship Maintenance Array) Penalty: Battle Station Fighter Hanger can only store fighter drones. Battle Station Fighter Hanger can only release up to 5 fighters at one time. Only up to 3 Battle Station Fighter Hangers can be anchored to a Battle Station The Fighter hanger would be automated much like the guns used to be. You would have options to: Launch Fighters Attack as a swarm (single target) / Attack multiple targets at once/ alternate between the two options. What ship Class to attack (Battleships/Cruisers etc) Launch new fighters whenever able. Recall Fighters after 5mins (With 1 min cool down)/ 10mins (With 2 min cool down)/ 15mins(With 3 min cool down)/ 20mins/ (With 4 min cool down)/ 25mins (With 5 min cool down) I think a station that you REALLY have to plan to siege, (maybe use hacking during the fight to sabotage parts of the station) and fight hard to beat with a wide range of tactics would be a lot of fun. Also with the A.I controlled fighters that could potentially do massive damaged to an unprepared fleet, it would give pilots of smaller ships something to do in the siege by dog fighting with the fighters to keep them off the Battleships. The station guns are a bit more powerful (ever since I saw a gallente carrier passive shield tank (with no shield mods on) a large POS fortress of guns I have always felt they were too weak- more just fodder to drag out a POSFs imminent death) so maybe they would provide a challenge. ItFs pricey, but nowhere near the price of an Outpost and so would be an investment to make between the time of the large POS and the Outpost.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:26:00 - [70] so the Devs really read through all these ideas? Im kinda new to these forums btw.

Bu Jinkan Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:30:00 - [71] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus My point is that the rules are fine but there are too many separate goals that are easily affordable to hold or get Sov. Also POSFs seem to have lost all meaning and are now just flag poles that get put in and taken out. If you focus the enemy forces attentions to destroying an expensive Bastion you can get: Big cinematic fleet fights. We already have these. They are big and they're fleety, sure, but the "cinematic" and "fight" parts are missing. Quote: POSFs have more meaning again as they will provide logistics to keep an alliance running (I know they already do but they wont be flag posts anymore) But POSes are meaningful. Right now, everything is irrelevant in a battle for system sovereignty except for POSes. Okay, they're flag posts... but so what? Removing their essential function (sov claiming) makes them less meaningful, not moreso. Quote: POSFs become legitimate targets for trying to slow or disrupt logistics that keep the Battle Station running. They already are legitimate targets, but more important. Quote: Make for more exciting fights than POS spamming and sieges night after night. Sure, I see less POS spamming. But I'm not seeing the lack of sieging night after night. If POSes are meaningful, then you want to siege them more, right? Quote: (One big starwars like siege in one night rather than 50 sieges every night.) Do. not. want. Quote: Will inspire different tactics, better planned and thought out tactics, and lead to more skirmish warfare to damage another Alliances logistics and capability to defend the station. Presents a more tense battle because the soverenty of the system hangs in the balance. Already have all of these.
Nials Corva Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:44:00 - [72] Any viable solution - cannot contain "one epic point of battle for a system". Servers cannot and never will be able to handle it. Ideally (IMO), it will do the opposite, forcing multiple points of contention simultaneously, forcing more degrees of freedom for tactics and the n in n^2 among multiple grids. - must account for the "multiply by 10000" factor. Just because it's expensive/training intensive/resource prohibitive/etc doesn't mean that next year someone won't be doing it 10000 times at once. See: motherships and carriers
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 22:40:00 - [73] Originally by: Bu Jinkan Originally by: Archivian Specialatus My point is that the rules are fine but there are too many separate goals that are easily affordable to hold or get Sov. Also POSFs seem to have lost all meaning and are now just flag poles that get put in and taken out. If you focus the enemy forces attentions to destroying an expensive Bastion you can get: Big cinematic fleet fights. We already have these. They are big and they're fleety, sure, but the "cinematic" and "fight" parts are missing. Quote: POSFs have more meaning again as they will provide logistics to keep an alliance running (I know they already do but they wont be flag posts anymore) But POSes are meaningful. Right now, everything is irrelevant in a battle for system sovereignty except for POSes. Okay, they're flag posts... but so what? Removing their essential function (sov claiming) makes them less meaningful, not moreso. Quote: POSFs become legitimate targets for trying to slow or disrupt logistics that keep the Battle Station running. They already are legitimate targets, but more important. Quote: Make for more exciting fights than POS spamming and sieges night after night. Sure, I see less POS spamming. But I'm not seeing the lack of sieging night after night. If POSes are meaningful, then you want to siege them more, right? Quote: (One big starwars like siege in one night rather than 50 sieges every night.) Do. not. want. Quote: Will inspire different tactics, better planned and thought out tactics, and lead to more skirmish warfare to damage another Alliances logistics and capability to defend the station. Presents a more tense battle because the soverenty of the system hangs in the balance. Already have all of these. Having a BS focuses the fighting into one area. POS's do have meaning, you absolutely right. Dry, boring and repetative meaning. The use of them for soverenty is so varied, I mean you get to go out and blow up a whole bunch of them. Then you get to put a whole bunch up just to make the other guy blow them up. And the great thing is that you can keep doing it over and over and over..... Also POS's can be important in another way. And yes if you want you can siege POS's if you want to, but the point is you dont have to. You can try and go straight for the source. But to make life easier for your fleet it might pay to try and cut off its resources first eg. POS seiging, as well going for convoys and wittling down their numbers in peperation for the night you want to try and take the station. Im sure there is alot to POS sieging, but it seems that alot of other people think it generally consists of trading POS's back and forth and moons for possably months on end. Which lets face it, can start to make you feel more like a member of a productionline. My idea (which isnt perfect granted) is trying to allow lots of different routes to the same goal, in the hopes that when all the preperations are finally done you can launch your attack and hope that yo have prepared properly. One fleet might just MASS gank it and hope they can force down the station and its defenders. Another might spend weeks undermining its fuel supply by going after its fuel supply if that means killing fuel convoys or the POS's them selves. Another again might just go straight for POS's to cause them massive financial hurt and make it expensive to keep running the BS. Or maybe they would spread their troops to thin in trying to defend POS's that they leave the BS without much support . The BS itself could be a decoy, by putting it into reinforced. The Defenders pull back to defend it leaving POS's open for attack. If you have more money than sense you can keep sending ships to die until it runs out of ammo. And I'm sure there are alot more options that didnt come to the top of my head.
Kaylana Syi Stimulus	Posted - 2007.11.13 22:42:00 - [74] I believe in a two tier approach. First you need to somewhat decouple POS numbers from the equation. 0utposts would be able to hold sovereignty on their own from the downtime after the egg is deployed. Outpost's would be directly attackable like a tower however it would have 2 times as much shield HP + up to a 5 day strontium capacity for reinforced. Towers could still hold sovereignty in non-outpost systems but never in an 0utpost system. Towers would still tie into the constellation sovereignty system. Furthermore, the only way to attack system sovereignty would be to attack the tower directly and not by putting up your own tower(s) to match it. Then I think you need to consider making Outpost combat more logistic oriented. One of the ideas I've thought about is making the outpost take over a set of goals. First you would need to take sovereignty away from the outpost holder by turning it into a derelict object by dropping all the station services. Sovereignty would be taken away from the system until the station is put back into a non-derelict state. To re-online a station you would require 1 fourth to 1 half of the materials that is required to actually BUILD an outpost and only a freighter/jump freighter could dock at the outpost to do so. No more capture games. You want the station bad enough you need to really want it. If you go off to fight more wars you need to have good relationships with other locals or have logistics and combat in place to defend it. I just feel right now there is still far too much spam going on and timezone wars are way out of hand. Also, I would start adjusting the HP on exposed offensive modules for towers. Roaming gank squads should be able to assault different tiers of modules. HAC/Command ship gangs should be able to atleast offline small weapons as well as ewar in a reasonable time frame. Sovereignty should also allow for gate sentries and 0utpost defenses for off timezone defense against raiders that take into account of standings (hello Factional Warfare plug - ALL GATES in 0.0 should react in such a way to standings even in NPC regions !!! ) Also, consider implementing industrial made tactical environments. For instance, towers should be the centerpiece of 0.0 industry for small to midsize corporations/alliances. They are tied to moons and moons generally are being mined, etc. Why couldn't moon mining generate gas clouds as byproducts in the system that randomly ( ok not so randomly ) breeze about the system and add flavor to combat. If someone wants to fight you in that system they just might have to do so with their Ladar strength lowered to 8 from 18. Or Shields might take 35 damage per second in another type of environment. But, this would only be IF the system was being moon mined, mobile refinery use, ship construction array use. Possibly with these types of changes you can make risk vs reward ( and logistical investment ) actually mean something in 0.0. Castles in the sky and all that, but allow medium sized corps/alliances the chance to be naughty and assault things, or build things. If 150 man corp comes into a 600 man alliance to turn off their outpost they won't do it over night, but at the same time it won't be out of the question to do so. Team Minmatar
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.13 22:42:00 - [75] Cities in the Sky Project This is an idea for a new sovereignty level. Empiric Sovereignty Requirements: Constellation Capital Sovereignty undisturbed for 30 days. Empiric Sovereignty Warfare If one of the following requirements are met, Empiric sovereignty will change to a contested mode: +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation. +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations. +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses all Capital Outpost Nodes. +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station. Description: It allows you to by a new space station structure called a Capital Outpost node. The Node has all the same stats a large tower but with 3 main differences. 1: Only 50% of the CPU and Power grid can be used for Gunnery placements and shield hardeners. 2: Only 50% the CPU and Power grid can be used for deployable structures other than Gunnery placements and Shield Hardeners. 3: Does not have a reinforced mode. The Capital Outpost Node counts as an extension of the Outpost and so is immune to attack until fThe alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stationsF. Also you can link another Capital Outpost Node to the first one. And keep linking them forever (maybe 15km between each one). You can keep adding Starbase Structures to each node and eventually build a city. Also you can Dock at an Node and the walk around it with ambulation, though it would be very small. And maybe even add living quarters to the nodes. Essentially you can build your own city of science labs and factories and the like. If CCP want to take it to ambulation then it can be made into a proper city with shops and all sorts. Hopefully one day you will have a city hundreds of kilometres long and depending how you set everything up, you can have trade, industrial, military port and research sectors. Well IFm not sure how doable it actually is to get to that scale. But I donFt think it should be to hard to add the node and get started.
Quutar Ars ex Discordia	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:32:00 - [76] How about something simpler, instead of a full overhaul. Right now, pos spamming is encouraged, since it is one of the easiest ways to claim sov in a system from an enemy. The 5 towers per alliance helps, but just makes it a race. If you can put up towers faster than the opponent, or keep them from putting up towers, you win. how about, while any entity has sov in a system other than your self, you can't attempt to claim sov, just like in NPC regions. You can anchor towers in a system, but can't claim sov until you take out the towers in the system that are claiming sov. This will discourage defenders from going with 51% coverage, making them decide how many towers they think they can defend vs how many they can keep feuled -- making it a choice of defense. A key component in this is that towers would take 7 days before they could begin to claim sov. It is not like currently where as long as your tower is onlined before sov drops it is counted as if it had been up all along. This would give a big advantage to constellation sov systems, since they only take 1 day. Quutar Research Services Amarr Outpost BPCs ME:10
s73v3n2k Caldari UK Corp	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:36:00 - [77] How about this as a new system which doesn't really require many changes and allows many of the mechanics that relate to POS warfare to still remain part of the game. one problem with POS warfare is fueling which everybody hates and the ability to POS spam so what should be done for 0.0 systems only is the following:- POS can be put into 2 states - industrial and sovereignty states When a POS is put up it stays up much like outposts are and there should be a limit to the ammount of POS's in a system that can have the soveregnty state enabled say a max of 10. these pos can't be destroyed but when put into a disabled state by an attacking force the attacking force can then take control of it or change its state. once they have control of all the POS in the system they can then take control of the station in the system. Points to note with the POS's - you can anchor modules at them when you gain control of them which allows the current system of modules to still remain useful in the game. Also the fact that you need to attack these pos's still means dreadnaughts and carriers will still have a use too. POS's in a sovereignty state will not require fueling!!! Fueling Pos's is bad for morale, PvP characters should never have to do it. stations can be taken 24hrs after the attacking alliance claims all sovereignty state POS's in the system. Once an alliance takes control of a station they can not stop other alliances from entering the station and using the facilities but the owning alliance receives bonuses for controlling it. This is to stop peoples assets from being permenantly locked in hostile stations after losing control of it. This is to help with the affect of 24hr conquring time, people can't play every day you know!! Addition of gate locks controlling a system allows you to put temp locks on gates in that system. this is controlled from the station and when i say temp i mean there will be a way devised to hack/unlock the gate which would take say 30mins before alliances without positive standings can enter the system. This allows the defending alliances to muster their forces before an attack and prevents gank squads from entering the system while your alliance has control of it. Also stops half an alliance getting camped inside a station. The lock will only unlock the gate for your alliance (helps against blobbing) and will only stay unlocked for 30mins before it requires unlocking again. On top of this all you could add a UT2004/planetside style system where you have to claim systems linked together first before you can attack / unlock systems. This would mean that building outposts adds an extra obsticle for attacking alliances in the link. Although links would only expand as far as say a constellation and would start from existing NPC conquorable stations. This still is a long winded system and can result in long wars but i believe thats how i should be and its only attacking forces that say otherwise. Sovereingty shouldn't just be handed to you on a plate you know .
Zeoliter Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:45:00 - [78] Edited by: Zeoliter on 13/11/2007 23:45:12 1) Sovereignity Tower Big Bad Tower, only one in system claiming sov. No stront timing for TZ warfare but takes 8 hours to take down. So defending alliance has chance to mobilise. 2) Sovereignity Contesting Once the Tower reaches 1% shields the system goes into Sovereignity conttest mode, Two new gates appear in a system. These gates lead to a deadspace area that contains a Sovereignity Beacon that needs to be capatured in order for the system to be taken. The Sovereignity Beacon Deadspace Area is on another server with lots of beef. Only gangs of 150 can enter the gate with a max of 50 caps on each side. Lag free battle with sensible numbers. TZ Warfare fixed - check POS spam fixed - check Lag in system deciding battles fixed - check And now we have a system that takes a sustained and co-ordinated attacked with one final and awesome lag-free battle at the end. Zeo is God's gift to women - Valorem
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:50:00 - [79] I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned. Stacking penalize focus firing. It will make the little guy more important again Fleets will involve more than just primary calling. More won't just equal better. Multiple objectives just means the blob moves from one site to the next. Simultaneous objectives means bigger blob = win. Make more mean less and less mean more. An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Magnus Crane	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:57:00 - [80] Here is my suggestion for sovereignty. The three big issues with pos warfare are as follows: 1. BLOB. The current system makes gigantic fleets of hundreds of ships the most useful way to engage the enemy, with small gang warfare thrust to the wayside. This leads to the second problem of 2. LAG. no one likes de-synchs or module lag, but they are virtually unavoidable in extremely large scale engagements. Both of these contribute to make the only interesting part of conquest virtually random, while marginalizing small gang specialists and a not-insignificant array of pvp ship setups. 3. pos warfare is BORING. nobody wants to fuel poses, nobody wants to lose ships in huge fleet ops lagged so bad you cant move, pos warfare just isn't fun. This is the best solution I can think of. 1. Eliminate NPC suppliers of POS fuel. This removes the need to import materials from empire to run a pos network, allowing large or well-organized alliances to operate completely independent of NPC based resources(trust me this will make sense). 2. For each sov claiming tower, spawn 3-5 encounters in the system, preferably within 4 au of the tower. These would function similarly to basic exploration encounters with an overseer or deadspace structure and a number of bountied guardian craft. Only allow corporations and alliances to get loot or bounties from enemy encounters with an active war declaration. (additional incentive to wardec a 0.0 sec alliance) Each of these structures would respawn in a day or two, with the guardians respawning slightly faster, perhaps comparable to a belt. 3. These supply bases would be the source of material to a given pos. Each one supplies x amount of mechanical parts or scrap metal or whatever, in such a way that with all of them functional you slowly accumulate a SMALL surplus. This allows small gangs to potentially cause a sov claiming pos to offline. (the fuel capacity of poses would need to be significantly reduced) 4. If a non-friendly ship enters a supply base, there is a % based chance that the defenders will be notified. This makes small elite strike forces more attractive for this sort of attack. Additionally, if the overseer/key structure is attacked, the defenders are automatically warned of the incursion. 5. As sov levels increase, the quality of supply depot defenders should also increase. For example: A new pos in a hostile system might only spawn a few small gun turrets and a garrison of a few t1 cruisers and frigates with a t2 cruiser overseer, whereas the bases in a capital system would have a small fleet of t1 and t2 battleships with a capital class overseer. 6. As sov levels increase, the chance of a supply base radioing for help decreases, as the npcs feel more secure. The net result of this system would allow small strike forces to disable key system resources, and would encourage smaller fights surrounding these supply bases, while at the same time reducing the amount of time and effort required doing the unfun aspects of sov warfare and logistics. the current unwieldy fleets of today could break up into small strike forces and hit multiple locations, and defenders can engage these small strike forces on equal terms. This would level the playing field to a degree between large alliances and small corporations while adding an alternative, fun approach to pos warfare and logistics. Furthermore, the current POS infrastructure does not need to be changed, and implementation of this would mostly use resources already in the software (pirate rats, gate guns, encounter structures etc) and therefore shouldn't take too much additional work. I know that I, for one, would play a whole hell of a lot more eve if this was how we fought for territory!

Kvarium Ki Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:59:00 - [81] Make planets, of a certain class (M class I think) colonizable. To colonize a planet you need to anchor a special POS (beanstalk) at one of it's moons. An alliance can have only one POS of that type per planet. Let alliances hire ground troops and colonists that they can drop on planets via the beanstalk POS. Ground troops of opposing alliances fight it out on the planet, players would have no role on these fights other then the quantity of troops on the planets and the quality of the troops' equipment. The battle between ground troops would rage on 24h a day. These troops would need to be resupplied, so you have to defend your beanstalk POS and try to take out the enemies POS to stop them from resuplying their troops. The alliance who can control the most planets in a system gains sovereignty over the system. I better go get an other beer.
Spazzle GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 00:10:00 - [82] Edited by: Spazzle on 14/11/2007 00:14:12 One thing I've been discussing for a while is how to make smaller gangs or alliances more relevant. Right now there are a number of super large alliances/coalitions that have what amounts to a very large shield around each of their posssesions. The developers have made those shields attackable (by hitting poses and attacking station services). But because of the number of people a single group can pull together, the defense of those breakable objects is very high. For example, it typically takes hours with a lmoderately sized gang of battleships to do appreciable damage to station services, and those services can just be repped back up by a few carriers when the gang leaves. This presents a couple of problems, Namely: 1) There is no incentive for a defender to actually engage, since they can basically wait it out. 2) Only large gangs are relevant due to the hitpoint buffers of the structures involved. This reduces the bulk of meaningful alliance warfare to a series of superpowerful strikes into enemy territory to raid the infrastructure, with a number of skirmish gangs about to wear down enemy morale and moneymaking. What I'd like to see to begin to deal with this is to create more levels of targets, targets that people are able to defend (ie not some pointless marker that you have to toss up in every obscure solar system). Here is one suggestion that addresses this issue: Make there be a much larger number of shootable station services. Currently there are something like 6 types with varying number of hit point. I propose that there be something like 10 types, with on the order of 4-6 "levels" each. Basically every aspect of an outpost should be damagable, to various stages. The levels would become progressively more difficult to damage, but with increasing effects. Level 1 would be shootable in 5 minutes by a small cruiser gang, with increasing difficulty to where the highest dificulty would take an hour of dread siegeing. The flipside of this plan is that defenders should have an incentive to engage these fleets instead of sitting it out. One way to do this is to give each level the same amount of hitpoints to repair, but to have them take various amounts of damage. If it took an hour to repair each stage, but only a few minutes to damage the first few, the defenders would have to come out and play to prevent this. This could be achiecved if each level had 1M (or some other large amount) hp, but various amounts of negative resists. The Negative resists could get lower with each progressive level so the ability to repair remains the same (but difficult), but the ability to do damage goes down. To clarify, negative resists would mean the amount of damage done is amplified, rather than reduced. As for the effect of the levels, it might be something like this: Possible levels for a shootable docking service 1) Add an additional 5 seconds to docking 2) Add an additional 10 seconds to docking 3) Add an additional 15 seconds to docking 4) Add an additional 20 seconds to docking 5) Docking is not restricted (anyone can dock despite station settings) + 30 seconds to docking time Have gradations like this for every possible function a starbase has, from cloning, market, refining, docking, repair, fitting, production and more. Make there be gradations, and make them be meainingful. The all or nothing station shooting should be removed. This same philosophy could probably be applied to poses and pos structures. I bring this up in a sovreignty thread because I feel this is an important part of the whole sovreignty process. Making harassment be a viable way to drive people from space, and preventing the typical method of just turtling up and ignoring a threat. If you want to pull away from blob warfare you simply need more targets that are much softer than they are now. Anything else requires blobs.
Magnus Crane	Posted - 2007.11.14 00:18:00 - [83] An addendum to my above idea: instead of offlining when it runs out of fuel, the pos you hit should go into reinforced instead so it can still be stronted to negate timezone warfare to a degree? Then perhaps destroying the tower when it comes out of reinforced mode should still be done with the traditional dread fleet. Alternately, if the tower runs out of fuel from supply bases being hit, it stops contributing to sov? I'm not sure where to go form there.
Sloth Arnini ORIGIN SYSTEMS	Posted - 2007.11.14 00:43:00 - [84] Edited by: Sloth Arnini on 14/11/2007 00:45:15 Edited by: Sloth Arnini on 14/11/2007 00:43:40 While I don't have any specific proposals to add at this juncture (I need to read and re-read some of these proposals! ;)), I would suggest that rather than making it a question of simply seeking the magic bullet (as most of these very thoughtful posts have been trying to do) the best solution is to allow several ways of achieving sovereignty. Now, many of us in 0.0 want to play the territorial game. We think that is what should make EVE head and shoulders above other MMOGs- it may be almost unique in that it encourages players to band together into what are essentially sovereign nations. The problem, as was evidently made clear at the fanfest is that the tool in place (the POS) is a chore, both to attack and to defend. Clearly then, the sovereignty mechanics has to be made interesting. The problem with the magic bullet approach is that a single way soon becomes boring. What would make the sovereignty contest interesting is having a variety of ways (ideally structured in a modular fashion, so that alliances could pick and choose the ways they want to maintain sovereignty). The current situation where attacking one territorial alliance is much the same as attacking another, although the scale changes, it always follows this format: 1) Dispatch cyno jammer with BS blob. 2) Deploy capitals/blobs to reinforce the towers OR just drop towers of your own. 3) Try and muster sufficient support to destroy the towers once they come out of reinforced. 4) Launch enough POSes to take sovereignty, defend them from counter-attacks. 5) Shoot station until it surrenders. However, consider a situation where alliance A claims sovereignty in one way (for instance planet based sov towers), but alliance B claims sovereignty in another (e.g. a mega-deadspace complex with all sorts of obstacles that must be fought through to threaten sovereignty). All of a sudden, two different kinds of war are opened up and alliances need to fight each other in new ways. Rather than treating all the ideas in this thread in isolation, consider ways in which they might be synergised to create a more dynamic sovereignty system (apologies for the management speak). That's what I'll be doing when not doing constructive stuff such as essays for university. Incorporating several ways of taking sovereignty will undoubtedly mean more coding than just using one sovereingty mechanism, but if they can be coded in such a way that one can pick and choose elements from several systems, I think the work would be worth it.
ardik TunkbwahCorp	Posted - 2007.11.14 00:58:00 - [85] Ok really simple suggestions here: Cut down HP on station/pos related stuff dramatically, this means you aren't forced to come up with a million man blob to do any significant damage to something in a reasonable amount of time. That gets rid of some blobs and makes it a little bit more fun since you can actually see things taking damage :o Might even give smaller corps a chance to fight over space. Reduce the amount of sov holding POS in a system, for example restrict it down to 3 or something, make a module that needs to be anchored at the pos for it to claim sov and limit that module to 3 per alliance per system. That would get rid of some pos spam and actually force people to fight over systems rather than just spam it. That's the only simple and reasonable changes I can think of, it won't solve blobbing for when important sov holding pos comes out of reinforced, but then again I'm really not sure what would. Hey how about reintroducing static complexes so stopping complex runs would be small gang objectives that the defenders have to defend if they want to make isk? Or does that make too much sense?
jeffb GoonFleet	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:15:00 - [86] Seperate moon mining & sov claiming poses. Reduce fuel needed to run poses. Reduce max stront. Can place as many moon mining as you want in systems you have sov, max of 1 sov claiming pos per planet placed on any of its moons. No tower claim timer. If sov is neutral all sov poses claim a point, if an alliance has sov a pos will only claim a point after a hostile tower is blown up. Add a decay mechanic to all anchored structures. If a structure isn't online at 10 & 20 days the amount of damage it will take when attacked will increase. After 30 days the structure will unanchor. Cyno jammer hp reduced, fitting increased. Add more alliance tools to manage pos networks. A tool to remotely check the fuel status of poses & a fuel calc would be a start. Add an outpost expansion that will refuel poses in the same system from a stock of fuels its been given. Add npc agents to stations. The longer the system is held the more agents the station attracts, extra agents in sov4 systems. Alliances holding sov have the option to restrict market access in their space by standings.
Althorn Caldari Azure Flame	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:29:00 - [87] My 2isk: First, I think the idea of having borders and interconnected systems with relation to sov sounds kinda cool, but with the new black ops ships on the horizon I can see that raids deep into enemy space are expected, so forget that proto idea of mine. I (like others) think it's odd that the number of moons in a system determine how much of a slog it is to take the system. So, my idea is to link "ownership" of systems to who is winning the fight. 1. Add a facility to the UI so that a player can "declare" for his corp/alliance/faction (assuming it gets dovetailed with faction warfare) - what this means is that every kill the player takes part in would count for whomever he has it set to at the time. Default option of "none" - so that friends can fight on your turf without stealing points. (points could be per kill, or based upon ship size) 2. For each system a "top 10" of owners would be maintained - and viewable - this would have a max of 100. (but will start with less) 3. This leader board would only get updated each downtime, the points gained in the previous day would get tallied, and the top three earners would get +4, +2, +1 rank and the other 7 would loose a point if needed. (to keep it at or below 100). This would be really cool if it was APIed. With this system in place winning fights would win systems. As for pos'es? They would work the same as currently (apart from the determining sov bit) but with the additional feature of only being able to fuel/online in a system that isn't owned by sombody else. ...
TheDevilsJury GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:32:00 - [88] There is a massive problem with any idea that focuses the fighting on one focal point like a "Battlestation", a single "Sov POS" or a "Star POS". The fights that you theorize you will get aren't going to happen, as the servers won't be able to handle a 500 vs 500 fight. Look at the complaining that happened after JV1V and F-T, then imagine that for every fight about a station system. You don't want this to happen to this game. Here's what I think are the problems with the current system that cause boredom. 1. POS Spamming 2. Everything that is involved in anchoring and onlining and maintaining a POS 3. Shooting anything POS related takes forever 4. Defenders don't show 5. Attackers don't show 1. POS Spamming There's nothing wrong with being able to anchor more POSes than your enemies, except that it makes fighting for a system unncessary. It is currently a viable tactic for both the attacker & defender. I personally really like the "POSes at Moons claim Planets which claim Systems" solution. This keeps the ability to anchor more POSes than your enemies a benefit, but doesn't mean you can avoid fighting by spamming, and it means that defenders don't have to spam either as they get first pick on which moons to claim. Also make Medium and Small towers count again, large=4, med=2, small=1, and look at the stacking penalty someone proposed for this. 2. POS Anchoring Mechanics It takes forever to anchor and online a fully fitted deathstar POS. This is because literally everything has a timer. I suggest cut all timers in 1/2 and making them easy to activate all at once. So what you do is select all the modules you're putting on the POS, give a command that says "launch and anchor" which launches all the modules and starts the anchoring timers. Once the anchoring timers are up, the mods automatically move to correct positions (inside/outside shields and allowable distances from each other). Then you go to the tower control panel and click an "online all anchored modules" button. Allow putting ammo into guns from the tower control panel. Minimal time consumption for setting up a POS. Also have an "offline and unanchor all modules". 3. Shooting anything POS related takes forever Taking down a cyno jammer is the big one here. A 100 battleship fleet vs a cynojammer faction deathstar isn't fun at all. Other POSes modules take forever to kill, and the tower itself takes a long time too. Cut the hitpoints of all POS modules in 1/4. Cut the hitpoints of large towers in 1/2, and medium towers in 2/3. 4. Defenders don't show You put the POSes into reinforced, and the defenders decide to throw the system by not showing up. But you still have to go through the motions of shooting down the towers, clearing the moons, reinforcing other towers, and anchoring your own. I think there should be a reward for the attackers if the defenders don't show. I propose that half an hour after exiting reinforced, if a defender has not yet confirmed their presence by doing some sort of check-in procedure at the tower, the tower becomes unanchored. This way if defenders don't show or if the attackers prevent the defenders from getting one ship into the shields, the attackers skip the boring part of POS shooting. Note that even if the defenders confirm their presence they will still have to recharge the shields to restront the tower. 5. Attackers don't show The reason this is boring is if the attackers don't show, the defenders still have to recharge the POS which takes a long time. Since we've cut hitpoints in 1/2 in point 3, this should be faster, but you could also give all remote reps 200% bonuses when repping towers. These changes mean everything sov-related gets done faster, and encourages both attackers and defenders to show up. I don't think there is anything inherently broken in the current system.
TheDevilsLawyer	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:45:00 - [89] Edited by: TheDevilsLawyer on 14/11/2007 01:45:36 god damn alts
Scarlet Magnate	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:55:00 - [90] Edited by: Scarlet Magnate on 14/11/2007 01:56:24 Ring Defense - Sov Model ->A<->B<->C<->D<- ... A, B, C, and D are a new "POS" model that are based at the sun of the system forming a ring defense, one per system. A/B/C/D - invulnerable except during certain windows Ring Defense ------------- Structure that leeches power from the sun and links with other ring defense structures. Every X unit of time the ring defense structure must open its defenses to vent excess heat from the power fluctuations within the Ring Defense Grid. The rest of the time the other X ring defense nodes reinforce each other making them invulnerable. The cycle could be either fixed or hopping. More on this later. Ability to display current Ring Defense structure that is venting and is able to be repaired or assaulted. Venting (aka Window of Opportunity) ----------------------------------- When a Ring Defense structure is venting it is the ONLY time it can be repaired or assaulted. This venting normally hops from Ring Defense structure to Ring Defense structure within the period of X minutes. The caveat to this is that the Ring Defense structure can only receive Y repair amount before the energy added to the system will cause instability or Z damage before the automatic defense systems of the Ring Defense structure will close its vents in response to the threat. This promotes multiple objectives and breaks up the blob due to distributed repair and assault points. One blob could hop systems, but since Z damage or Y repair will cause the Ring Defense window of opportunity to hop it would be more effective to split forces. The defender will have the upper hand of knowing which Ring Defense structure is active(through some kind of mechanism TBD if needed) and better able to direct its forces. You could add all kinds of bells and whistles of deadspace items that can hack or counter things as another layer to this. Within the deadspace add an interactable item that can be hacked to elongate the Window of Opportunity. This is extremely rough, but should provide an alternate idea.

TheDevilsJury GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:56:00 - [91] Originally by: Bu Jinkan But before we dive into what we ought to do with POS warfare, we have to admit something. Obviously, it's not so flawed that people don't want to do it - there are multitudes of people living in 0.0 and participating in alliance warfare. So something is right. And to be honest, there isn't anything in this game more satisfying than, after days of skirmishing and fighting in an enemy system, watching sovereignty finally flip and then earning yourself a new home. So what's fun and what isn't fun? Fun: (feel free to disagree, obviously) 1. Epic battles (except when they're TOO epic, see below) 2. Goal-based combat (i.e. fighting for an easily defined goal instead of just for fighting's sake) 3. ...and all the things that appeal to your base nature (bickering enemies, propaganda wars, dying alliances, etc) Not so bad: 1. Blowing up POSes (this is okay in moderation. blowing up dozens is pretty boring) 2. Fueling POSes (as long as I'm not the one doing it) 3. POS spamming (This is only a problem when there's a stalemate, see below again. We all saw what happened to poorly planned POS spamming tactics with ASCN) Bad stuff: 1. Stalemate (neither side can kill the other's POSes, leading to what is basically an endurance contest) 2. EPIC EPIC battles (Nobody wants a 500v500 battle being determined by what is basically the roll of the dice) 3. Massive time sink (It takes 100+ people and hours to do ANYTHING at all in strategic warfare because there is just so much HP to go through) So what can we determine from this mostly arbitrary list of stuff I like/dislike in POS warfare? Well, the concept of POS warfare isn't really a bad idea. I mean, maybe there are better ways, but at its core it's not too complicated and has requires a little bit (or a lot of bit) of everything - logistical ability, isk, and that whole PvP thing, too. The real problem with it is that it is far, far too drawn out 99% of the time. You see, a relatively short and decisive war is far more fun than a 6 month long campaign. A decisive war is about momentum, lots of battles, and relatively small amounts of POS shield hugging. A drawn out war is about stamina and your willingness to endure long hours of AFK tower approaching until it's your primetime. In other words, a short war makes you want to have more wars. Drawn out wars make you want to quit Eve. The next question is, "how do we encourage short and decisive wars instead of long, boring stalemates?" I think the core of the problem lies in stront timing. Here's what happens now. a. Alliance A reinforces 10 strategic Alliance B towers. b. Alliance B sets them all to come out within an hour of each other in their primetime. c. Both alliances put out big important "COME ON THIS OP OR I'LL KICK YOU OUT!" posts to get as much participation as possible. d. Both sides get tons of participation and an EPIC EPIC 400v400 battle occurs. Alliance A lags out and gets killed by POS guns and ships they can't see, proceeds to complain on eve-o and a bunch of people get fed up and quit for a few months/forever. That pretty much sums up high level Alliance warfare at the moment, and we all can agree it's far from optimal. THIS is exactly what is wrong with POS warfare at the moment, and it won't take massive changes to fix. I would look into this change to discourage POS spam, and also this suggestion to change cynojammers, and finally a sov point stacking nerf suggestion which I'll quote from the goonswarm boards in my next post.
Aypse D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:57:00 - [92] We need POS structures in which an attacking force and defending force can fight for in small gang combat that are NOT in the target system. These structures need to be attacked around the time in which a target system is going to be attacked. Requirements for structures outside the target system: -Enough HPs so that the defending force has an opportunity to defend them -Low enough HPs so that bringing in more than a 1-3 capitals would be overkill. -Not contribute to boring POS structure remote repairing. -Multiple structures spread through multiple systems surrounding the target system. -Enough strategic value that its beneficial to the attacking force, but that its not absolutely critical to the defending force's ability to defend the target system. Those first two requirements I will leave up to CCP and people who know more about HPs of POS structures. We are looking for a 10-man HAC/support gang to need 1 hour to offline. The third area is about remote repairing POS modules. Its boring, I hate it, and if you like it....see a psychiatrist. What I would like to see is the structure's shield have considerable amounts of HPs. This is the HP area that keeps the attacking force there for an hour or so. The shield gives the defending force time to defend the structure. It also has enough recharge so that it recharges itself to maximum within 6 hours. (yes, I said six hours. More on this later.) The structure has small amounts of armor, a few thousand maximum. The structure has a ton of structure HPs, about 1 siege cycle of a dread. The HP structure is designed to make it worthwhile for an attacking force to kill it, has enough HPs for a defending force to arrive, but is difficult to permanently destroy in the days preceding a full on attack. The structure is online if it has 100% armor and 50% shield. It gets destroyed at 0% structure (duh). Basically we have a structure that would be a good target for a small gang that is dispatched out from the blob into a different system. The shield recharge on the structure would necessitate the structure being attacked within a few hours of the system assault. But WTF is the structure doing and why should an FC attack it? All POSs are decreased in HPs(shields, armor, and struture). POSs are given a turret/ewar/and launcher slot maximums that are considerably below their ability to fit currently. The structures in adjacent systems then modify these amounts. We have a missile launcher structure, a turret structure, an ewar structure, an armor hardener structure, an shield hardener structure, HP modifier structure, etc. What we now have is weak POSes in the target system, but their turret slots /missile slots/ewar slots /resistances/HPs can be modified by structures OUTSIDE of that system. We now have targets spread through multiple systems that can impact the battle in a target system. Structures can be anchored at unoccupied moons in adjacent systems. Structures provide an interface that the used specifies what POS in the adjacent system he is modifying. Each structure can field 1-2 webbers/scramblers and 1-2 small guns. The defender would have an advantage while at the structure, but not so large an advantage that the attacker would need to send overwhelming numbers. The structures do most of their own healing and are fairly quick at it, so the attacking force cannot simply offline all these structures in the days preceding the target system attack. The whole point is to spread the blob out amoung multiple targets in multiple systems. Creates a nice opportunity for small gang combat at alliance/territory conquering operations. Originally by: Oveur Eve is primarily a PVP game and hence our focus is on making that experience balanced.
TheDevilsJury GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 01:58:00 - [93] Someone with an inactive account made this excellent suggestion on the goonswarm boards. I think it can be combined with the "POSes on moons claim planets claim systems" idea to end POS spam completely. Originally by: Bernhard Strauss I was always sort of toying with the idea of adding a stacking penalty for sov claims. So the base value of a large is worth 4 sov points, a medium worth 2 sov points, and a small worth 1. Then the second of each tower type is worth 0.8x (or whatever the usual stacking penalty is, or even some other value), the third is worth 0.6x or whatever, and the fourth 0.3x or whatever. This means that at some point mediums become more valuable in terms of sov points than adding another large, but the tradeoff is that mediums are more vulnerable to sieging. Also this takes all value out of spamming because it takes only a handful of towers to start to approach your maximum amount of sov points, once you get past maybe 10 towers you're only adding a fractions of a point to your total, and spamming to cut off open moons isn't as worthwhile because it takes so few towers to get a large sov claim. I think this idea has some merit since it adds a lot of strategic depth to POS choice and placement while making spamming a ***load of towers nearly pointless. Of course the stacking values will need to be adjusted to whatever makes sense. My account is inactive so I can't post this on eve-o but feel free to post this if you think it's good or whatever. Addendum to this: the server only cares about entire sov points when it calculates who has sov, so since towers eventually count for fractions of a sov point eventually you'll get to a point where you cannot possibly increase your sov claim any further, and there's a wide range of tower numbers and types that can attain this same number of whole sov points. So for example, 4 larges would give a sov claim of 4+.84+.64+.34= 10.8, which is a sov claim of 10. However, 3 larges and a medium would get you 4+.84+.64+2 = 11.6, which is a sov claim of 11. So 3 larges and a medium beats out 4 larges, but the former is more vulnerable to siege.
Alias11 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:16:00 - [94] Ok hows about this: Poses no longer have anything to do with sov. Sov is delegated to some kind new sov structure, which we're going to call the System Control Array(SCA). SCAs are anchored at some point in a system(Planets? The Sun? Some random point in space?). A maximum of Three SCAs can be present in any system. They will have light defenses, enough to send a <40 man BS fleet packing, but not much more than that. Something like 5 million Hitpoints or the other, no hardeners. They have a reinforcement system similar to the current poses. When an SCA comes out of reinforced, the crazy new **** happens. The SCA is replaced by some kind of wormhole. Selecting a SCA out of reinforced and warping to it will give you a yes/no prompt to jump through it, and a team select prompt, offering Attackers and Defenders (of the SCA). Through the wormhole, there's a battlefield. 240 AU apart, identical battle stations sit. These are the victory conditions, the destruction of either of these battlestations will expel everyone in the battlefield, each being tossed to a random point in a 100 AU radius of the star. If the attackers win, the SCA is destroyed. If the defenders win, the SCA comes out at full health, yay. Battlestations have some amount of HP (70 million?) and no hardeners. Each of the battlestations will be defended by an absurd number of guns. Like, crazy. 8 of each stationary guns, 8 large, medium, and small Blasters, Rails, Beams, Pulses, Arties, Autocannons. 10 Torp Batteries and 10 Cruise batteries. 48 large guns, 48 medium guns, 48 small guns, and 20 missile batteries. Each gun has infinite ammo of each type. By default, they have short range loaded, but anyone with a newly introduced corporation role (Which we'll call "Battlemaster") can change the ammo in them and control the guns like at a normal pos. In between these two battle platforms, 10 beacons(points) placed 20 AU apart will form a string. You gain "Control" of these points by outnumbering your opponent at them for five minutes. Pods, shuttles, and rookie ships don't count towards your number there. For each point you control, 10% of the guns(selected at random) at the enemy battlestation will despawn. If you lose control of this point, the guns respawn. so If you control 3 points, 30 percent of the enemy guns are gone, if you control all ten, all the enemy guns are gone. Controlling more than half of the points conveys bonuses onto your team. Controlling 6 results in a 10% bonus to all of your guns damage modifiers, 7 gives all your ships a 20% bonus to all shield and armor resistances, 8 points gets you a 40% damage increase, 9 points gets you a 40% bonus to all shield and armor resistances and an 80% increase in damage, Controlling all ten points will net you a huge bonus, 200% increase in damage, and a 75% increase in all shield and armor resistances. These bonuses would not be cumulative, but they don't count towards and aren't affected by stacking penalties. The idea is to force sov to be contested by a bunch of smaller battles. Even if the other guy turtles, they suffer a huge penalty. Their battlestation has no guns, and all of your ships have incredible damage and tanking bonuses. If either team doesn't show, the whole thing can be over in fifteen minutes. You can send three guys to take each point, and then drop on the enemy base with your enormous bonuses, and since it only has 50 million HP and can be shot by anything and has no defenses, you'll probably be fine
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:25:00 - [95] Edited by: Vitrael on 14/11/2007 02:28:28 I have typed up my recommendations on POS changes. It's very long, so it has been heavily formatted to organize thoughts. Posting it in plain text on the forum would be catastrophic, so please download and give it a read: Microsoft Word 2003 version Rich Text Format version It took me nearly 4 hours to organize all the thoughts and type them out. Please, please read it. Thank you so much for this opportunity to share my thoughts on POS. Quote: Quoting for irony of a JF member offering ideas on system ownership mechanics. Laughing The majority of us believe system ownership is AOK as long as the owners leave it open and free for any to use. Maintaining sovereignty and NRDS is a very noble endeavor indeed.
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:30:00 - [96] I'm going to assume for a minute that the information released at fanfest with regards to planetary control is the way that CCP wishes to drive the future of the game. Assuming that is the case, the only thing that really makes sense is to get away from the ludicrous situation where POSes control sov to where planets control sov. Ideally, very long term after planets are no longer just things that you warp to when you get killed and are trying to get your pod out, it only makes sense that the side that controls the most real estate should control the system. However, this is, by all believable accounts, a long way away currently. Therefore, the best short term, low programming move that could be made is to follow the solutions proposed in http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=530688 where moons are de-emphasized and planets become important. This solution proposed here everyone seems to agree would be an improvement on the current system we live under and I can see no good reason not to go foward on it. In addition, since it starts pushing the "control of planets" idea, this means if and when you move to a planetary control model the basics will already be in place. It only makes sense that to gain control of a planet, you'd need to control the space around it first, so the transition between systems would be as pain free as it could be. However, longer term, one of the things that I think people find annoying about the current system is that you have to spam 30+ 500m towers in system to ensure that your 50B+ station can be protected. This makes no sense...you can arm a 500m tower, but the 50b station can't defend itself? Or that you need to attack basically palisades in space to attack a completely seperate and unrelated (except by weird game mechanics) station? Make the POS claim sov in systems without a station. In a system with a station, the STATION claims sov, and this is what the entire fight should be over. You should be able to arm it and protect it. If you (CCP) are concerned that this may encourage stations to change hands too fast, impliment a tiered system to station attacks. First you must destroy the shield generators, next then the guns, etc. Something like that. The current system has no logic to it and makes no sense, at least look into changing that. Last look at the POS themselves. Ever make a tour with a polaris frig through 0.0 space and see what POS are used? Don't bother because I'll tell you, every single tower except for few exceptions are minmatar large towers, because these are the type of towers that have the most firepower and therefore are most defendable. You see caldari towers used for lab type operations and gallente used for mining, but that's it. There's basically no reason to ever use a amarr tower, none. In addition, with regards to missile batteries, these use CPU, so if the tower goes into reinforced, a caldari tower has nothing to shoot the enemy with. EW modules are the same thing, no reason to use them, as they have huge lock times generally and take CPU. Caldari towers also have a bugged, bonus on them (EW cycle time), plus it's now useless. Any real POS defense would use manned gunners, who would be controlling the jammers anyway. CCP should seriously look into changing the amarr tower so that it has a bonus to damage and ROF, and look into changing caldari towers so that it has a bonus to say, lab speed (copying, ME etc). They should also remove or change the fact that some defenses are useless in reinforced mode. They should either all work, or they should ALL be useless, take your pick.
Mr Mozzie Evolution	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:39:00 - [97] I really like the idea of a single sov tower per system. But I do see a problem with it - sov pos spam. Sov poses will just make it really easy to claim soverignty in a very large number of systems. People will be able to anchor these towers in empty systems deep within their enemies space. There really needs to be a mechanism to prevent this. Perhaps the ability to anchor a pos should be tied to the soverignty level, perhaps there should be small soverignty poses that would be easy to kill on the front lines, but easy to defend in controled space. Perhaps their numbers can be controled by logistics or the cost of the towers. Anyway, there are probably much better ways of doing it.
Vladimir Tinakin Caldari Hadean Drive Yards Archaean Cooperative	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:43:00 - [98] Originally by: Vitrael The majority of us believe system ownership is AOK as long as the owners leave it open and free for any to use. Maintaining sovereignty and NRDS is a very noble endeavor indeed. I stand corrected...or rather, clarified. Much <3 for you guys--but on the surface it seemed there was ironic comedy in them thar hills
Xy Kintar	Posted - 2007.11.14 02:57:00 - [99] Edited by: Xy Kintar on 14/11/2007 02:57:11 Originally by: Vitrael It took me nearly 4 hours to organize all the thoughts and type them out. Please, please read it. Thank you so much for this opportunity to share my thoughts on POS. If I understand correctly you want to make it so that you have to manually refuel a pos every hour or two, and this is in order to cut down on "boring logistics"? I appreciate the need to create openings for small man strike gangs, but I don't think making poses defenseless if they aren't maintained for more than 6 hours at a time makes the game easier. Alliance level pos fueling is relentlessly terrible right now even though they can hold a month of fuel each. I think forcing fights is a good idea, but forcing perpetual maintainance is bad.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:07:00 - [100] Originally by: Xy Kintar If I understand correctly you want to make it so that you have to manually refuel a pos every hour or two, and this is in order to cut down on "boring logistics"? I appreciate the need to create openings for small man strike gangs, but I don't think making poses defenseless if they aren't maintained for more than 6 hours at a time makes the game easier. Alliance level pos fueling is relentlessly terrible right now even though they can hold a month of fuel each. I think forcing fights is a good idea, but forcing perpetual maintainance is bad. If you looked at my implementation, you'd see that once a POS was established with Sov1, the task is limited to 12 times a day on a large, non-faction tower. Presumably this task should take less than ten minutes for a single pilot in an ice barge. That adds up to 2 (being generous, 3) manhours of maintenance per large POS per day with Sov 1. I don't think that's too much to ask for an alliance of a few dozen. At higher sovereignty it the amount of work drops dramatically. Also, it wouldn't all rest on the carrier pilots anymore. Anybody who can use a barge (more than you'd think) could handle the refueling task. Additionally, as I said, an ice-logistics mini-profession avenue would be opened up. Perhaps the numbers need tweaking to make the load a little less demanding, that's okay. I'm completely open to that as long as logistics are still vulnerable.

Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:10:00 - [101] Reduce the hp of POS and POS modules. It will mean you don't need dozens of dreads to take down a POS, dozens of battleships to take down a cyno jammer. As it is, people either defend their POS or their don't, and the hp just makes things take longer --and that isn't fun for anybody. Just cut the hp.
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:36:00 - [102] Originally by: Vio Geraci Reduce the hp of POS and POS modules. It will mean you don't need dozens of dreads to take down a POS, dozens of battleships to take down a cyno jammer. As it is, people either defend their POS or their don't, and the hp just makes things take longer --and that isn't fun for anybody. Just cut the hp. Removing someones 0.0 home should take time, whether they're able to defend it or not, not everyone live out of 30 something outposts. These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:37:00 - [103] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/11/2007 03:38:35 Originally by: Oam Mkoll Edited by: Oam Mkoll on 13/11/2007 19:50:12 Originally by: Goumindong 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. Oh god no! Please don't turn EvE into World of Warcraft territory contorol game... One idea I wholeheartedly approve are deployable Sentry Guns available from Sov 4 and up in systems with outposts. I am not familiar with that system. All I am saying is there should be a way to hurt alliances financially without consistantly holding forces in the area. I.E. Make "dock up" not work as well because then you lose financially.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:44:00 - [104] Originally by: Vitrael Originally by: Xy Kintar If I understand correctly you want to make it so that you have to manually refuel a pos every hour or two, and this is in order to cut down on "boring logistics"? I appreciate the need to create openings for small man strike gangs, but I don't think making poses defenseless if they aren't maintained for more than 6 hours at a time makes the game easier. Alliance level pos fueling is relentlessly terrible right now even though they can hold a month of fuel each. I think forcing fights is a good idea, but forcing perpetual maintainance is bad. If you looked at my implementation, you'd see that once a POS was established with Sov1, the task is limited to 12 times a day on a large, non-faction tower. Presumably this task should take less than ten minutes for a single pilot in an ice barge. That adds up to 2 (being generous, 3) manhours of maintenance per large POS per day with Sov 1. I don't think that's too much to ask for an alliance of a few dozen. At higher sovereignty it the amount of work drops dramatically. Also, it wouldn't all rest on the carrier pilots anymore. Anybody who can use a barge (more than you'd think) could handle the refueling task. Additionally, as I said, an ice-logistics mini-profession avenue would be opened up. Perhaps the numbers need tweaking to make the load a little less demanding, that's okay. I'm completely open to that as long as logistics are still vulnerable. With those numbers, heck, with any numbers anywhere near that, it would be impossible to hold space on any reasonable scale.
Bu Jinkan Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:53:00 - [105] I'll say it again: POS spam is not really a problem. POSes are the tools of alliance warfare. If you want to claim conquerable space, you need POSes and you need capital ships. And I don't see why that needs to change. If you can't maintain the logistics of an invasion and be willing to risk billions of isk in alliance assets, you shouldn't be in conquerable 0.0. As long as the cost of a deathstar is non-trivial, there is no reason to get rid of POS spamming. The real solution is to make it easier to destroy POSes so that we see less of the stalemate that promotes POS spamming in the first place.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:53:00 - [106] Edited by: Vitrael on 14/11/2007 03:54:49 Originally by: Goumindong with those numbers, heck, with any numbers anywhere near that, it would be impossible to hold space on any reasonable scale. Define reasonable scale, please. I don't think 100 people of average play time should be able to maintain any more than one large nullsec POS. If they are dedicated, they could maintain a system with several medium and small POS, or 2-3 systems with a large at the very most without having a full time POS freak staff. I would project roughly ~100 members per system owned, as compared with the present ~23 members per system owned in BoB and Goonswarm. Originally by: Goumindong Do you lie to your mother with that mouth too? Sorry goon, not in this thread. If you want to troll Fractionites on their RP you may meet us in IGS, IN CHARACTER.
Bu Jinkan Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:55:00 - [107] Originally by: Vitrael Originally by: Goumindong with those numbers, heck, with any numbers anywhere near that, it would be impossible to hold space on any reasonable scale. Define reasonable scale, please. I don't think 100 people of average play time should be able to maintain any more than one large nullsec POS. If they are dedicated, they could maintain a system with several medium and small POS, or 2-3 systems with a large at the very most without having a full time POS freak staff. I would project roughly ~100 members per system owned, as compared with the present ~23 members per system owned in BoB and Goonswarm. On the other hand, that's a totally arbitrary number that doesn't reflect the reality of actual resource usage - i.e. there are not enough good systems to go around with 100 members per system owned.
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:56:00 - [108] Originally by: Wendat Huron Originally by: Vio Geraci Reduce the hp of POS and POS modules. It will mean you don't need dozens of dreads to take down a POS, dozens of battleships to take down a cyno jammer. As it is, people either defend their POS or their don't, and the hp just makes things take longer --and that isn't fun for anybody. Just cut the hp. Removing someones 0.0 home should take time, whether they're able to defend it or not, not everyone live out of 30 something outposts. Whether a POS stays alive or not is largely dependent on the Strontium timing, not the hp of the modules/towers. As is, the way people take space is by triggering the Stront timer until the defenders get bored or mess up.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 03:58:00 - [109] Originally by: Vitrael Edited by: Vitrael on 14/11/2007 03:54:49 Originally by: Goumindong with those numbers, heck, with any numbers anywhere near that, it would be impossible to hold space on any reasonable scale. Define reasonable scale, please. I don't think 100 people of average play time should be able to maintain any more than one large nullsec POS. If they are dedicated, they could maintain a system with several medium and small POS, or 2-3 systems with a large at the very most without having a full time POS freak staff. I would project roughly ~100 members per system owned, as compared with the present ~23 members per system owned in BoB and Goonswarm. Originally by: Goumindong Do you lie to your mother with that mouth too? Sorry goon, not in this thread. If you want to troll Fractionites on their RP you may meet us in IGS, IN CHARACTER. And 20 people could siege you out of the system in two hours.
TheDevilsJury GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:00:00 - [110] Originally by: Wendat Huron Removing someones 0.0 home should take time, whether they're able to defend it or not, not everyone live out of 30 something outposts. But this massive ammount of time is exactly what's wrong with POS warfare at the moment. To remove someone from their space takes a half dozen 5 hour long ops, with zero resistance, shooting immobile targets that rarely shoot back. If an alliance and their allies aren't capable of defending their space, they really shouldn't be in 0.0 in the first place. If they are capable, they have the tools necessary to make it so they have the opportunity (4+ day stront timer).

Hutchins Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:11:00 - [111] I think that trying to 'counter the blob' is treating the symptom rather than the disease. The real question that needs to be answered is 'How do we make small gang actions relevant without making life hell on sov holders?'. Massive HP reductions look good on the surface until you realize that sov holders are going to have to live in their pospreys 23/7 because every time a 30 man gang rolls through something important is getting incapacitated. Most definitely not more fun. The biggest problems that need to be overcome are: 1. The '51% deathstars' phenomenon. Planetary sov and stacking nerfed sov claims by tower size will help a lot in this area. Several good suggestions have been made in this and other threads, and should be implemented. As long as sovereignty rides on the back of deathstar POSes, the blob will be summoned regularly. 2. Move objectives away from point targets. Towers outside of station systems don't mean jack in POS warfare. Nobody cares about them short of ***ing enemies off by blowing up their moon mining chains, and entrenched defenders have little incentive to do more than turtle up behind stront timers and cyno jammers and let the attackers get bored. To solve this problem, I propose overhauling how constellation sov works. The current implementation doesn't really have anything to do with combat or logistical effort. Just drop some towers and every so often the Const Sov Fairy comes by and gives some bonuses. I'd like to see this done away with and replaced with a more strategic option. Maintain the current status quo of 'simple planet majority = Sov 1 within the system', and existing stront mechanics. Yes, that means there will still be 500 man blobfests, but they will be few and far between. The attacker still has to commit to a decisive battle to take a system, which is as it should be, but it won't be necessary to summon the blob every time a single tower needs to get reinforced. * At the constellation level, introduce stacking-nerfed (to prevent pos spam) 'constellation sov points' from controlled planets in each system + a bonus to constellation sov points for holding sov in a system (to give defenders an incentive to defend sov in these systems instead of just writing them off). * Do away with the time-based sovereignty levels and perks and instead make them purchasable with constellation sovereignty points. Things like cyno jammers and higher sov levels will be bought instead of waited for. The nastier defensive perks can be priced exorbitantly enough that alliances that want them will be forced to hold sov over (and defend) several 'farm' systems to afford these perks in their 'fortress' systems. This will force defenders to plan strategically not just in setting up their defenses, but in fighting from them as well. It will also scale benefits directly with logistic and combat effort. * Allow anyone who has constellation sov points to spend their points on their own improvements, or 'against' the improvements of others in the constellation, causing the owners to either have to pay more for the improvements, or risk them going away. This will give attackers the option and incentive to do something other than throw blobs at cynojammers in station systems. * Tweak reinforced mode mechanics some. Ideally I'd like to see 'reinforced mode' become a sliding scale where the POS' sovereignty claim (and attendant const. sov. point production) gradually weakens as it becomes harder and harder to kill until it goes fully reinforced. This would allow several small gangs working in concert across multiple systems to have the same (or even a greater) effect as summoning the Blob and beating your head against a deathstar for a few hours, but to take the tower all the way out you're still going to have to risk your capitals.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:14:00 - [112] Originally by: Bu Jinkan On the other hand, that's a totally arbitrary number that doesn't reflect the reality of actual resource usage - i.e. there are not enough good systems to go around with 100 members per system owned. I address that in my possible problems section. I recommend increased exploration content in 0.0 content and pointed out that increasing the number of people it takes to hold sovereignty would result in a great deal of unclaimed or unsecured space. You don't need to (and shouldn't be able to) make a living just ratting off of the systems you own. That's why you expand as an alliance and exploit moon mining.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:34:00 - [113] Originally by: Hutchins I think that trying to 'counter the blob' is treating the symptom rather than the disease. The real question that needs to be answered is 'How do we make small gang actions relevant without making life hell on sov holders?'. The only real way i can see achieving this is by introducing monetary and non-monetary benefits for holding space that can be disrupted by small gangs. This mechanic needs to be independant of sov mechanics. So i dont know if this is the right place.
Delwin Amber GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:47:00 - [114] OK, first lets look at what Sovereignty is and what it does for you { or more importantly what it could be and what it could do for you. What does Sovereignty currently do for you? 1)Allows anchoring of Sov only items at POSFs (Jump Bridges, Cyno Beacons and Jammers, CSAA, CSMA, etc). 2)Puts your name in the upper left corner 3)Shows up on the Map 4)Reduces the fuel needed for POSFs 5)Reduces the time it takes new PoSFs to claim Sovereignty (at Sov 4) 6)Makes PoSFs untargetable (at Sov 4) 7)Make it impossible to anchor new PoSFs (at Sov 4) How do you claim Sovereignty? Have more PoSFs of the highest type claiming sovereignty than anyone else in the system. Getting from Sov 1-3 is a matter of time, Sov 4 requires a lot more (multiple Outposts in the constellation, no other entity holding an outpost in the constellation, etc). Really you can break up Sovereignty into fSystem SovereigntyF (Sov 1-3) and Constellation Sovereignty (Sov 4) so weFll take them as separate things. OK, now that we have what is, let us look at what can be: Sovereignty should not be something so simple that it can be computed on the back of a napkin. It should however have its rules (for once please CCP) published so the Alliances know what goes into it. Suggested things that count towards Sovereignty include mining, ratting, running exploration in a system. Presence of structures (POSFs and at least a few new ones that arenFt so hard to kill). Possession of the station or a nearby station. Etc. There can be literally dozens of things that contribute little pieces towards Sovereignty. Obviously the large expensive pieces (PoSFs Station possession, gate guns, solar energy arrays, ice and asteroid mining stations, planetary colonies, any number of other possible things) should count significantly more than just mining or ratting in a space, but mining and ratting in a space should make raising and keeping your Sovereignty easier. Now, on top of things that raise your Sovereignty in a space we also have Sovereignty synergies and caps. Without Constellation Sovereignty you cannot have more than 0.3 rating in a system. This equates with current Sov 3 so there would be no change. The trick is that thereFs more ways to get to that rating now because of synergy. If you have two systems within a set number of light-years (amount TBD) then they will both gain a small Sovereignty boost. This is greater if theyFre in the same Region and still greater if theyFre in the same constellation. If you have sovereignty in all systems of a constellation then they all get another boost { likely putting your highest one over the barrier into 0.4. Now for the fun part { just maintaining a single constellation cannot get you much, but if you have two adjacent constellations then you get yet another jump, and so on up to a cap at 0.7 until if you get an entire region (yes people thatFs 100% sovereignty in a Region) then that cap breaks and your capital will jump to 0.8 with your other major systems trailing down from there until at the fringes youFre back to your outlying 0.1 systems. Get more than one region and you could eventually bump your Capital system to 1.0 { the mark of an Empire in its own right. *** NOTE: This will not affect ftrue secF of the system. You still get Ore and rats of the proper power levels for the systems true sec. This is because you also donFt get Concord { your Empire is not one of the signatories and you donFt get dictor or cyno immunities (unless you anchor the modules yourself to get that). OK, so what does security ratings above 0.4 get you if you already get untargetable PoSFs and people canFt even anchor PoSFs in 0.4 or higher? Well letFs look at EmpireFs High-Sec and see. 0.4+ benefit: Starbase Charters: PoSFs not controlled by the owning Alliance now burn charters that they must purchase from the owning alliance. There would be either a role or Directors could spawn as many of these as they wanted and se
Delwin Amber GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:48:00 - [115] Edited by: Delwin Amber on 14/11/2007 04:49:58 Edited by: Delwin Amber on 14/11/2007 04:48:31 *** NOTE: This will not affect ftrue secF of the system. You still get Ore and rats of the proper power levels for the systems true sec. This is because you also donFt get Concord { your Empire is not one of the signatories and you donFt get dictor or cyno immunities (unless you anchor the modules yourself to get that). Also - for the love of anyone listening please change from "Sov 1-4" to "0.0-0.4" and let us use the same sec rating that Empire does. OK, so what does security ratings above 0.4 get you if you already get untargetable PoSFs and people canFt even anchor PoSFs in 0.4 or higher? Well letFs look at EmpireFs High-Sec and see. 0.4+ benefit: Starbase Charters: PoSFs not controlled by the owning Alliance now burn charters that they must purchase from the owning alliance. There would be either a role or Directors could spawn as many of these as they wanted and sell them for whatever price they wanted. 0.5+ benefit: Gate Guns { yes gate guns that will aggress anyone with negative status to the owning alliance. This will give Black Ops yet more things to do as they can jump bridge in. 0.6+ benefit: Dunno, IFm sure CCP can think of something nice 0.7+ benefits: reduce PoS fuel requirements more than current 0.8+ (Requires Regional Sov): Agents: the Alliance can declare + status to any number of factions that are not { to each other. Corporations of these factions will send agents to the stations in systems of 0.6 security status or higher. Factions that are { to the ones that are invited will now appear in your belts as rats. 0.9+ (Requires Regional Sov): NPC traders will come and sell NPC goods at your stations. This means things like PoS parts, NPC trade items, etc. No Faction Specific items however (so no blueprints except from the LP store, no shuttles, etc). 1.0: PoSFs no longer require fuel to operate (yes, this means you can max out the CPU and grid on faction large towers on every moon in the system)
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:49:00 - [116] Originally by: Goumindong The only real way i can see achieving this is by introducing monetary and non-monetary benefits for holding space that can be disrupted by small gangs. This mechanic needs to be independant of sov mechanics. So i dont know if this is the right place. What if Sov1 allowed for the anchoring of a module that uncovered exploration content and exploration got an enormous boost in 0.0?
Kovid Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 04:49:00 - [117] I like some of the ideas that are trying to make fuel non-jumpable. With jump bridges, carriers, and soon to be jump carriers fueling towers is easy. Attacking the logistical aspect of towers has become something of the past it seems. And to give purpose to transport ships, traders, and 0.0 markets seems like a good thing instead of leaving it to carrier pilots who hate doing it anyways. ---------------------------------- An informal Star Fraction FAQ \| ----------------------------------
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 05:07:00 - [118] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/11/2007 05:08:18 Originally by: Vitrael Originally by: Goumindong The only real way i can see achieving this is by introducing monetary and non-monetary benefits for holding space that can be disrupted by small gangs. This mechanic needs to be independant of sov mechanics. So i dont know if this is the right place. What if Sov1 allowed for the anchoring of a module that uncovered exploration content and exploration got an enormous boost in 0.0? But then a roaming gang cant come and make you suffer. I wrote this on the first page but lets examine it a little, [the goon above me wrote something similar and more indepth] You know those convoys that run around Empire? What those existed in 0.0 space? Why do they exist in 0.0 space? To haul stuff for alliances. They buy stuff off the market, and then haul it to where it would sell. This makes life easier for the holding alliance and generates taxes. Now add some NPC miners that put up sell orders for the low end minerals they mine.... Also generates taxes. Now a small gang comes along and ganks the NPC miners. Or the Hauler. Then they get the items bought, and destroy the minerals mind. And the benfit is not transfered to the owning alliance. Basicially you want non-static objectives that dont affect sovereignty, but do affect the welfare of the holding alliance. So if a gang comes into my space i cant just dock up, he will gank the NPC miners and NPC haulers and take the loot they were going to sell to some other guy in my alliance. Not saying my idea is the best or that its good at all, just saying that you want normal small roaming gangs to be able to do real isk damage to alliances without affecting sovereignty. And that needs to be defended. POS modules dont really count in that because you need a large force to defend against the pos while taking out the module. And even then the benefit is something that they wouldnt be doing with hostiles in system anyway.
ardik TunkbwahCorp	Posted - 2007.11.14 06:32:00 - [119] Originally by: Vitrael Originally by: Goumindong The only real way i can see achieving this is by introducing monetary and non-monetary benefits for holding space that can be disrupted by small gangs. This mechanic needs to be independant of sov mechanics. So i dont know if this is the right place. What if Sov1 allowed for the anchoring of a module that uncovered exploration content and exploration got an enormous boost in 0.0? What if they just reintroduced the old static complexes?
Evelgrivion Athanasius Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.14 06:52:00 - [120] For the sake of the idea, I stopped reading after the first page in the hopes of dodging the bullet of convolution. In my eyes, the mistake was tying sovereignty in with player owned starbases and the baggage that comes with them. The cure is to cut it out of the equation completely; otherwise, the idea of holding onto your systems through the mechanics of space stations is fairly solid. I cannot take full credit for this idea, as it was largely inspired by another person whose name escapes me at the moment. The solution is to create a new type of sovereignty system based on the straightforward control of planets. It would work similar to the system we have now, except instead of POSes with forcefields, we'd have space stations, attached to planets with potential colonies and space elevators (but we can delve into planetary interaction later) that serve to provide a geopolitical base for your sovereignty of a solar system. Whether the colony is a bunch of drifting space-hippies or neo-fascists really doesn't matter at all, as they're just the body count for recognition by the hidden world of sovereign territory recognition. With the orbitally controlled colony (eventually a gateway to planetary interaction), people can feel free to dish up orbital defenses in the form of stellar forcefields powered by planet-side generators if we want to add some sort of high-speed quake-online gameplay - or just nuke the stuff from orbit. Or, the idea could be kept the same as POSes currently are, and supply them with the needed commodities to keep them running and the sovereignty supplying populations alive. Since everybody hates the maintenance involved in keeping towers alive, it could be possible to use the colony to become self sufficient. For the sake of feasibility, this would likely have to be through a web-style, text interface. By adding self sufficient elements to the colony, the daily cost of colony maintenance could be cut, or possibly eliminated, over time. Now in terms of conquering, counter-colonization could be the order of the day, or those with a more sadistic bent could opt to put dreadnoughts in orbit of the planet and lay waste with their enormous ordinance. The mechanics would be similar to what they are now. The all important difference is that the sovereignty system is held back by a substantially lower quota of structures to maintain. This could be held back further by limiting which planets are capable of supporting colonies to the terrestrial and or within a certain difference of their star. However you treat the idea in the end, it becomes a case of who controls the most people in a solar system, either by colonizing competing worlds - or by blowing the ever loving crap out of each other's space supported colonies in orbit.

Ort Lofthus Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.14 07:43:00 - [121] The most bitter, bloody conflicts in human history tend to occur when defensive tech is better than offensive tech. For instance WWI degraded to trench warfare because trenches were easy to hold and costly to take, much as POS are now. As mentioned earlier modern tactical FPS often use a node system whereby controling a node gives a benefit. This means that both the attacker and defender are spread out defending nodes because holding Node A helps you hold Node B and vice versa. The defender needs to defend both, but the attacker can pick and choose. This can be emulated. I propose this: 1) Nail the HP of control towers by 75%. Remove SOV from them. Remove stront timers. Reduce gun HP. 2) Add in battlestation/star tower/whatever. It has the HP of a current minnie large and fittings for many guns. Hardeners can only improve effective hp by 50% on the low resist. Controls system SOV. This thing is a terror to conventional fleets for breakfast and is a threat to dreads if its guns and neuts are not offlined first. 3) The star tower (ST) gives all POS in system invulerability. Fluff is that the ST is harvesting the solar energy, thus powering the 'hardened modes' of the POS and station. 4) ST gets max 24 hour hardened mode, settable to any time. Adding time takes an equal amount of time for the tower to 'charge', but reducing time is instant. Once hardened, hardening time may be voluntarily reduced, but once out of hardened it does not gain more 'charge' until repped back up, and then at a rate of 1 hour per hour. New towers start at 0 and gain time at a 1:1 basis. 5) Every friendly ST in neighboring systems adds up to 24 hours to this hardened timer. This time is deducted from its own charge. Reinforced towers be set to assist other towers, unless already set to do so. Assistance needs to be set in advance, like stront timing now. 6) Every hostile ST in a neigboring system may 'drain' a reinforced hostile tower by up to 24 hours, consuming its own charge. Reinforced towers cannot drain. Drain can be used up to an hour after the target is reinforced so it is reactionary but the defender gets to react back to it. 7) Use Bein Glorious's idea for hacking: A guy hacking a POS can drain time at a 1:1 ratio, so if i sit here for 1 hour, I kill one hour of your timer. You can also use a small hacking gang with some logistics and BS, to hack the guns. The guns get their locktimes increased like 10x, so the look like their working until the defenders use them. Hacking is needed to reverse the gun jamming. What does this mean? High level strategy with greater importance on hitting multiple systems while reducing alarm-clock ops. I can spend my defensive ability to hurt your defensive ability. I can focus my defensive ability in one spot, but it weakens the rest. I can take an out of the way system, but you can use drain to get it back fast, but if you don't it will be a thorn in your side. If you hit me in an off time, I can self-drain to get out of reinfoced, but I killed my charge as a result.
Kolloth Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 08:47:00 - [122] too many posts to read so if this has already been said, please forgive me. 1) change the basis of sov from POSes to stations. 2) allow multiple stations per system. 3) make stations use fuel (it seems kinda dumb that POSes need fuel while stations don't), just make em use their racial fuel exactly like POSes do. 4) Let sov spill over from system to system. Say there are 5 systems A<->B<->C<->D<->E (<-> denotes a gate connecting them) and alliance X hold sov in A and alliance Y holds sov in E. the sov deciding algorithm would set sov in A and E during the first pass. during the next pass sov would spill for alliance X from A into B, and for alliance Y from E into D. during the third pass sov would try to spill from B to C AND from D to C, making C a contested system. 5) Allow the sov holding alliance to lock down stargates to prevent unfriendly/hostile pilots from using them. This would require a new corp role kinda like starbase management. For example if alliance A hold sov in systems X and Y (with X and Y being connected by a jump gate) then they can set the gate between X and Y to allow jumps based on standings. This would also allow a new module that allows a hostile pilot to "hack" the gate which would temporarily allow access to jump thro. 6) Allow the station holding alliance to aquire agents that operate from the station. How to do this: you could have them directly hire for the agent from another corp; link it to faction warfare, where alliances can choose to side with one faction in order to receive the agents; or even just make agents randomly apply to the station holding corp for an agent job, limit the number of agents to the sov level, or some skill of the CEO of the holding corp or summit. I'll probably think of more later, but its early and i havent had coffee yet
Serrano Balthar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.14 09:10:00 - [123] Edited by: Serrano Balthar on 14/11/2007 09:16:29 Edited by: Serrano Balthar on 14/11/2007 09:14:18 i will try to requalify the sov at how they must work for me, somes facts : => It disturb me to be allow just by 'waiting' you get from no sov to sov 3 => It disturb me to be able to go from sov 3 to sov 0 in 1 DT so i made soems reflection, and it's what i get : Sov level 0 : you have 1-X Pos in system in claim mode: => 10% reduction fuel => appear in the map like now -> Outpsot NOT invulnerable Sov level 1 : you have somes pos in system for more than 7 days each system have now an hidden exploration complex (Strengh 0.01) -> contain NPC(no bounty, no loot) -> random composition and position spawn -> Can be doable in 5-10 bs with proper support -> NPC type of the region (blood for delve ...) -> In the last room, you have a blood resupply small station, you need to use archeology or hacking to claim the sys. -> When you get success, you have can scoop the "NOL-M9 battle station prototype". -> You Anchor the "NOL-M9 battle station prototype" at a planet the sytem at next dt become "SOV1" -> Somes times the end of the plex is just like an expedition now, says 'this system don't have it's resuply station, go to another system in the constelaltion (evil )) -> Owner have 2-4 days (not a lot, it's not to hard to do it when you live here to do the plex) to regain the ressuply station -> If you have an outpost in the system, he become now invulnerable How to go from sov level1 to sov 0 : -> Hostiles can comes and do the plex (he move place each DT) to pick the "codebreaker of NOL-M9 battle station prototype". They can fit this mods on a ship and start hacking the battle station prototype (time 2 hours to be able to do it, mods is destroyed) Now the owner have a grace periode of 4 days to redo the plex, and get piece to repair they prototype station (the repair time of the proto station is like 2 hours and must not be interupted.) this mechanism need to be tuned a little to take into account the timezone stuff -> at this stage DESTROYING ALL THE OWNER POS Don'T SWAP FROM SOV 1 TO SOV0, remember, they are he for "living" here, not claiming. benefice of sov 1 : => 25% of reduction Fuel Sov level 2 : you need to be in sov level 1 for more than 7 days ( with or without the delay if hostile do the hidden plex) It's somes days you are in the system, now you can etablish yourself by erection a structure at a planet. Name : Orbital station (like MIR or ISS is atm around earth) or somethings like that Price : range of 500M This things have MORE hp and little more cpu/pg than an actual pos in reinforcement mode : gun / missiles stay active can't fit any factory / labo / ship maintenance / reactor / moon mining ... pos utility can fit guns ppl can store they're ship into a "mini ship bay" and control the gun, NO SHIELD, but they are invulnerable and can pick they ship after the controle Method of build : Like the actual outpost (750 000 m3 for the base plateform, somes items to put on it ...) Allow you to : put ON IT the actual sov 2 pos mods (cyno gen, system scanner) The attacker can't now do the hidden plex to force ppl to go to sov 0, they need to interract with the orbital station. The station can't be conquered, but can be destroyed at sov level 2(remember price 500M). -----CONTINUED--- ----------- Igvar Thorn arn !
Serrano Balthar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.14 09:11:00 - [124] Edited by: Serrano Balthar on 14/11/2007 09:13:09 How to go from sov level2 to sov 1 : 2 method : => erecting at another planet a "missiles batterie station" who start a grace period of 4 days, owner of the sys need to destroy it. If unsuccesful, the orbital station is DISABLED, sov go from 2 to 1, attacker => Attacking the orbital station (can fit gun like a POS, be gun controled like a pos) The stront management can't be change IF the battle station have been shoot for more than X damage last X (protection mechanisme to protect the stront from explosion, theses things are instable !) Sov 3 Level : condition of sov 2 level for more than 7 days plus : You need an outpost !!! benefice : => allow you to build capital ship array & fitting array in a pos => Allow you to reinforce you'r battle station (maybe more cpu/pg, allow bigger guns or stuff like that) => Battle Station can't be destroyed at sov 3 all the actual sov 3 mods can be put on the orbital station (cyno jam, 2 jump bridges ...) How to go from sov level 3 to sov level 2 : => Attacking the battle station like sov 2 and "disabling" it for 7 days => Erecting at another planet a "missiles batterie station" can't contest sov at this level, but allow you to jump capital in a difficult, costly way if the missiles battery station is put in the sys for more than 7 days Sov 4 : Same condition as now (3 outpost, sov 2 minimal in all the system of the constellation (yes the battle station) now POS are for commodity , production. They work exactly like now for stront, guns .... but they don't count at sov, exept for level 0. (and attacker don't need of if they put the missiles staition, it count as a pos) ----------- Igvar Thorn arn !

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.14 09:34:00 - [125] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus so the Devs really read through all these ideas? Im kinda new to these forums btw. Yes, we're reading it all. Takes a little time though so replies from us might not be instant.

Serrano Balthar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.14 10:05:00 - [126] Edited by: Serrano Balthar on 14/11/2007 10:05:41 i've updated my idea with lot of info : http://vinpel.free.fr/new sov 0.9.doc take a look, it allow a lot of fun stuff :p ----------- Igvar Thorn arn !
Vaslav Tchitcherine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 10:35:00 - [127] Sovereignty does three things: 1. Gives in-game representation of ownership, on the map and your name in the corner. 2. Lets you anchor special stuff. Originally outposts, now fancy toys. 3. Reduces fuel consumption. #3 is important due to the insane logistics required by the current mechanics. It's silly but saves logistics-bear lives. I'd say lose it and reduce actual fuel costs if they're a problem, but I don't care much either way. People fight over sovereignty because they don't like each other, and because they want stations. Stations are the prize. POS are speedbumps. Decouple outpost anchoring from sovereignty. Just anchor the damn things, why should one tower make a difference? Sov then radiates from outposts in a manner similar to the dynamically generated sovereignty map, modified by average pilots in space. Sov level is strongest in the center, weakest at the edges. This way if you control more stations than you actually have any use for, your sov claim on that area will be weakened. Suppression of enemy forces on the borders of a controlled area will cause sov claims to retreat, requiring active defence and that a 'claim' actually mean something. Big boys in a hurry still have the option of driving right in and going directly up against high-sov fortifications. Reinforcement timers, while annoying, are necessary, because in a global game timezones are an issue and mustering your defenses takes time. Give outposts a timer, and let them be hit directly. Allow them to be hardened by modules at POS at nearby moons, stacking penalized. Hardeners use CPU, and have significant grid requirements, thus allowing them to be secondary targets for support fleets. POS goes back to what it was originally: little holes in which to store your stuff while you get on with things, or a mining/production palace, or whatever. If it's not useful for itself, there's no longer a reason to put it up. Multiple tactical avenues to reduce sovereignty claims, suitable for different size alliances. Claims tied to actual space presence, interest and commitment rather than anchoring timers. Tying sov to POS at planets is a stopgap; it's the same pile of crap, only the pile is a bit smaller. Smells the same though. -- Star Fraction recruitment: come join the Yarrletariat!
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium	Posted - 2007.11.14 11:38:00 - [128] Take it in steps. First fix the current starbases and all the problems associated. Next make them look better a la POS: Flogging the dead horse. Also, I'd like to suggest some far out and unusual ideas about where POS warfare could go: 1. Get rid of POS forcefields. Seems silly storyline wise if a POS can erect one but not a titan or mothership. Or perhaps make the bubbles really small. Just big enough to cover the modules inside. Have it so to interface with anything other than small frigs, shuttles etc, you need docking ports. But ambulation would mean you'd risk going inside the POS during a seige to be able to operate the guns etc. 2. Anchor anywhere. Be a bit more realistic, and people could scan down POS not at moons. make them feel more like secret bases than something you could almost accidentally stumble on and has a nice easy warp in point sat next to it. Also once we get system wide belts, then let us place POS in belts too. 3. Conquerable POS. Should only be conquerable if anchored but offline, and should take a few days (like reinforced mode usually lasts a few days) at the end of which, you need to be there with your own fuel etc, so you can online the POS and stop the enemy taking it back. So cut the fuel supply lines to your foes or if the enemy let their POS refuelling slip or abandon POS, then they shouldn't be only destructable having already been written off by the retreating forces. Soveriegnty: You've made it too hard once someone has sov, for someone else to come along and take it without either POS spamming or blobing. BUT sov shouldn't be any less hard to maintain from a point of view of how much time the industrial / support / logistics people put in. So perhaps move the focus away from sov warfare based purely on POS warfare. Include planetary development as a part of sov. You have to manage the NPC civilians who live on the planets and moons and that is what gives your soveriegn status legitimacy. E.g. to Claim: Throw up a POS to Sov lvl 2: Colonise a planet/moon to Sov lvl 3: Have planetary and intra-system civilian infrastructure in place So, you may want to place a POS around an inhabited planet to stop it getting bombarded and you losing sov level. Destroying NPC traffic between POS or civilian infrastructure in the form of mining colonies NPC civilians have placed up should also damage sov legitimacy, and over time / repeated destruction of infrastructure in space and on ground, lead to dropping a sov level I.e. make multiple things in a system decide sov (not just POS). Some things are more/less important to defend/cost more/less to maintain. You can harass a system to get it from 3 to 2, but then you have to properly seige to get down from 2 to 1 or 0 and take. Khaldari khanidpublic : RP channel for supporters of the Kingdom PLDN Recruiting
Gyro DuAquin1 Tri Optimum Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.14 11:47:00 - [129] I think that this whole sov, pos and claiming thing needs to be simple again. Its nto needed to be rocket science, simple things can be fun, when i want to do complicate stuff I talk to my prof about rocket science. In general iam cool with shootin poses in my dread. There are tougher things out there and I can normaly run mission while doing that - but you get the point its boring as **. Considering that Revelation Pilot can go afk while shootin pos is somethign that nothing that needs to be done day in and day out by the playerbase. Anyhow, normaly when you put the pos into reinforced nothing happens (when you are running a supprise attack) problem comes when you have the pos exit the reinforde mode, defender showed up, is waiting for the pos to come out of of reinfoced mode and in general the attacker have to serve the his multi billion isk investment on a silver plate. When you go for it and attack the pos, a cyno open next to your Capital gang, bigger capital gang jumps in and wtfpwns you. Some call it risk, I think its just - when an alliance has the balls to put a sizeable amount of isk on the silver plate it should be harder for the defender to kill capitals. With simply opening a cyno, and gettin in more capitals its a simple and easy gank. A few week ago we did exatly that, an allliance had reinforced a pos they came back to finish it, 2 minutes after their 2nd siege cycle began, they where dead. We jumped in a bigger capital gang - end of story gank, not much thrill but 7 cap kills. So moving the sov away from the pos, the force field, the pos gun would benefit the ballance imo. At the moment as a defender you can wait in your force field till the attackers arrives, warp in grid (a grid that you have already loaded) to a spot, start the turkey shot. With a sov claiming opbject that is not related to a pos there is no advantage for the defender. This also would shift the balance, as pos gun have no lag, so loosing a ship to pos gun because you lag is quiet annoying and can be solved. The claim beacon itself shouldnt be easy killable or being shot into "incapacitate" mode form a few nano ships that are **ed because they didnt get a fight out of an entety. It should be a challenge, with a better sov level maybe it should be kind of upgradable, but it shouldnt be a savespot for on side. PPL need to move more to hold/gain sov. This would also address the normal 17h waitin period before something happs in a sieged system. When one side defends the beacon the other side can warpin /jump in and a fight may take place. as there would be no force field it would be assured that everyone is there and not afk - simple So my Change would be to remove Claiming absolut away from pos, pos can be ss, industrial base or a mobile lab. Thats all cool, in general iam cool with pos as a small station with a giant window. But pos shouldnt be too much involded into fighting, pos should be primary an industrial assets that can be a ss or a base. This also would solve the moon issue, some alliances have stations with 70+ moons, when you want to covert 51% of those moons that is an ass load to fuel, and hauling fuel is not sooo much fun, consider those pos have no real use except for being in space and save your assets. So in a nutshell, an upgradeable beacon that has no force field is claimg sov, this beacon would not be easy to kill not ridicously hard to do that. I think this would stop spam, as you only need a few savespots, and maybe a hangar array for your loot. This beacon should need fuel and upgrades would be. In general - 5% more hp per sov level - 10% less fuel consumpetion per sov level Also I considerd putting different bonues towards the 4 different race beacons some sort of industrial/exploration bonus that you actually benefit from such a beacon more then just to hold your sov. Sov 1 a 25% increased fuel bay Sov 2 some guns spawn around it Sov 3 cyno jamer can be anchored at that beaco cont.
Gyro DuAquin1 Tri Optimum Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.14 12:14:00 - [130] As stated in my first post, I would move away all combat related stuff from pos. So this would include to move the cyno jamer away from a 650km optimal range large domination battery, that sends its salute before you loaded the grid. Also I think that this cyno outside of forcefield change was in general a bad idea. When you have to get in more capitals, or a new TZ start or ppl simply had to deal with other thing in RL they shouldnt be punished by puttin their carrier outisde of a force where it maybe that it gets ganked by the enemie. Considering that you could secure all cyno that you make its a lot of effort to just get one or two pilots in. For most ppl eve is not the 1st priroety so it may happen that you are not arriving at 19:00 ET but 19:10 and this is something that should be addressed. OFC this all becomes a different taste when you mvoe in whole capital gang, but in general capital gangs have nothign to fear expect other capital gang. So for the cyno i would have two points, first would be to be able to move cyno inside or at least that cyno gens are inside the force field again. Also that a cyno has a certain bandwith, which will rechare after an amount of time. This would also introduce a new skill which will increase the bandwith of you cyno. A carrier has 1 A dreadnought 2 A mothership 5 A titan has 10 A standard cyno char with adv skill 4 has a bandwith of 10. This addresses that the hotdropper has to put up more cyno or cant jump in his whole gang at once. Mainly addresses the issue that hotdropping a big cap gang on a smaller one is to easy these days. Also recoon ships get a new role bonus in which they get a bandwith bonus for their cycle time bonus. Also cynos should be kind of blocked for the first minute or so. Kind of a warm up phase, this addreses the issue also. Also i saw ppl talking about the station services, tbh those shouldnt be killable by a romaing gang. A full BS gang shouldnt have too much of an issue with shottin some of those. But it should be like a 30 minute for the smallest service for a 100men gang. When a 10 men hac/recoon gang can kill one of those services it would has acutally no value. As putting one of those down effect the station and therefore the ppl in it it should be a bit harder then just to nano around it and kill it and run when the first ship undocks. In general a SOV war should take long when the enemie is there, so presence is a key to this whole system I was thinking about. This could encourage the blob, which is in general bad - we all know that. But with making those beacons not pos likley its easier to shift your targets, when you have giant blob at on beacon it may make sense to split up and capture the other one too. That why sov shoulnt flip over right away is ofc a decent point. But I must admint that this problem is the easiest to solve. When ppl would have mroe sense about blobs and would put fun into their focus again the blob wouldnt be an issue. If the player base would be able to control itself but not bloobing the ** out of eachother but trying to maintain numbers at a reasonable level most of the issues wouldnt be as tough as they look like these days. When a blob happens a simple convo in which can be arranged to split up the blobs that everyone has fun and not just the ones that loaded the grid first is something that should be doable in general for someone who has the IQ to not on the floor. Last thing i want to adress is that, when ppl are not there to defend their home a sov war should be kind of quick, when one alliance hasnt the organisation or is falling apart the attackers should have an easy going, when the defender general lacks of showing up I see no point why the attacking ppl should have the problem of removing tons of ** with total bordeom. By quick I mean like a week or so not like 3 weeks of pos bashing, stront adjusting, pos bashing/kittin, pos finishing. cont cont

Gyro DuAquin1 Tri Optimum Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.11.14 12:20:00 - [131] Ok last post... :D This whole systems needs an asbolut overhaul, it needs to be simple, but not that simple like a wow pvp bg. In general fighting needs to be encouraged, at this very point eve sieges are general done by a blob which is boring/bad and the absolut wrong way. And mostly are no explosion involded. Most of these things can be addressed by ccp one war or another, its quiet obivous that players are currently trying to get as much advatage out of the mechanics as possible. So what the players need to adress is that this is still a game and no one out there cares if you have conquered a station or not. When ppl would start finaly to keep gangs at a resaonable number and also to stay in the borders of the intended mechanics most issue are done. At this very point has the simple problem that most of its powerblocks have formed and are hammerd in stone, most of these have formed by simply adopting the needs of modern pos warfare, as a blob can save you, its a common idea to form a blob. CCP should make live in .0 tough again, not such super empire with 30 station in 5 different regins. Alliances should have space they can covert and not that space they can fuel. So nutshell, make pos bashing fun again and players should be enocuraged to not blob that hard
Ghost Reaper Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.14 13:06:00 - [132] Edited by: Ghost Reaper on 14/11/2007 13:08:03 The main problem is that POS and the resources for them are nothing these days, so people can spam towers without a care. IT really needs to be changed for a pos to specifically hold sov. You can do this buy introductiong Sov POS, special pos for this (i dont persnal like it, but its a option) or the better option of putting sov modules, much like a cyno jammer (same requirements, but NOT outside the pos) let me explain this. If you put them outside the pos, then theoreticaly you could knock out a system in a day with the right capital fleet. To add to the sov module, i think you should limit every conquerable syetm in eve to having 10-20 'Sovereignty slots' not moons, but slots. So for example a system has 60 moons, and there are 20 towers up in that system (doesnt matter which moon, all count) and they all have the Sovereignty Module, then no more towers can have a Sovereignty module. So this would mean that a invading force would be forced to actualy attack and destroy a tower. Again linking in that the module would have to be inside the shield, so they have too acctualy destroy the tower. Also make sure Sovereignty module only acts wen its online, so people cant exploit it by anchoring them, then letting it go offline and then leaving them at a moon, but it stil counting. what you think? Ghost Latest Vid: Blood Shock
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 13:23:00 - [133] Sovereignty change suggestion Right... IMHO, the POS sovereignty system is completely broken! I don't mind the tiered sov levels, but the way sov is determined (i.e. by POS warfare) is fatally flawed..... All the grand words before the latest additions about 'small gangs making a difference' (multi-100k/million hp's on structures, multi-million HP on services, go figure...) are a nice theory, but simply not working in practice. Blobbing is much more effective, so that's how people do it (total amount of boredom is the same, but spread thinner on more people)! What happens when you go to attack a POS? 1. You get a fight the server can handle... Great (doesn't happen atm., at least where I am) 2. Blob-fest galore... Frustration all around, petitions, forum anger etc. 3. No fight. You're bored out of your skull shooting structures... What happens when you go to defend a POS (reinforced)? 1. ...as above 2. ...as above 3. No fight. You're bored out of your skull repping structures... Exactly the same thing for station services, only usually no fights involved at all..... Just endless boring shooting/repping of structures.... The main thing going on in TS are sarcastic comments about the 'great' things CCP are adding to POS warfare (structures take longer to kill after the POS is dead than the bloody POS).... So, after this pre-ample, I'll move to the point. I suggest the following changes to how sovereignty is determined! POS are taken OUT of the calculation (well, almost).... Instead, who has sovereignty of a constellation is determined by alliance/corp activity in the area. Introduce an accumulative 'counter' for each corp/alliance for each constellation. Whenever a corp/alliance does something in the constellation, they get SovPoints. The points should accumulate over a period, but gradually 'expire' (3 months maybe, or whatever)... So, your alliance/corp would get point for: 1. Kills (should count a lot with bigger ships=more points) 2. Mining ('roid/moon/gas) 3. Ratting 4. Exploring 5. Producing 6. Researching 7. Invention 8. Setting up infrastructure 9. Killing infrastructure 10. Running missions 11. Trading 12. ...other activities I haven't thought about Each of the activities should be weighed by some sort of formula which I'm not going to speculate about. That part would be up to CCP..... Having a weighted formula would make it very easy to adjust things too... POS could in general stay as they are, with the new modules etc., but now they would be economic (production/research) and infrastructure (cyno jammer/beacon) targets only, which would be optional to attack, not required as today. The same with the sov level system which could also quite easily be incorporated into this. A sovereignty determination model like this would have a number of advantages (IMHO): 1. Time zones would be taken out of the picture to a large degree, since sov is determined over a period (maybe 1-3 months or so), not at very specific times determined by Stront management. 2. POS warfare would be a factor, but not an all-deciding one. NO MORE POS SPAM!!!! 3. Ship-vs-ship warfare (what most people claim is THE 'fun' part of 0.0 life) counts! It should count a lot to encourage fights. 4. Since sov is calculated for an entire constellation, just blobbing a single system will not do. 5. It will become more difficult for alliances to hold huge amounts of space. 6. Small, but dedicated alliance/corp will have a chance at 0.0 7. Encourage people to actually DO stuff in 0.0, instead of doing most production/etc. in empire 8. ...Generally... MORE FUN STUFF, LESS BORING STUFF!!!! In short, it would make it possible for players to do the activity they WANT to do (and that they find FUN to do) in 0.0, and still contribute to their alliance/corp sovereignty. They'll not be locked to this mind-numbing, utterly boring 'THOU-SHALL-SHOOT-POS' sovereignty farce we have today. (continued...) Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 13:24:00 - [134] (continued from above) A few minor changes that would make this even better: 1. At sov level 1, you can not control access to stations (i.e. everyone can get in and use services) 2. Remove production/research/refining from outposts themselves, but make them give bonus to POS in the system doing those things. The hazzle of moving things to and from the POS should be removed by a 'short-range teleport system' (or whatever you want to call it), which would make POS in system operate as if their facilities were actually in the station (ie. no hauling needed)... 3. Dreads would probably need tweaks as their primary role is POS-shooting, which would not be as useful after such a change. 4. Remove the station service shooting. Shooting/repping them is just a waste of time, AND encourages blobbing..... Well, these are my thoughts on the subject..... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Arra Lith	Posted - 2007.11.14 13:26:00 - [135] I like the idea making planets sovereignity claimers. Let current towers (moon poses) be only for industrial/mining/logistics. Of course they still can be attacked (to break war corp economy) - so guns still are needed there. To claim soverenity there would be new towers - starbases, anchorable only at planet's orbits. Only modules anchorable near those towers would be guns and resist amplifiers. Those towers doesnt need any fuel (they drain energy from planet). After placed tower gets 24 hour invincible time. During that time alliance cannot put more towers - only 1 planetary starbase can be anchored per system by 1 alliance in 1 day. I would change also reinforced times from strontium based into eve-time based (defender set time). If tower was attacked in last 24 hours time cannot be changed. Time change apply 24 hours after it is set. This time can be seen by everyone (so invaders scout can note them and plan can be prepared when it will be best to strike). Attack looks like it is now: once shield is taken to 25% starbase goes into reinforced untill time that was set by defenders (from 0 minutes to 22 hours). Reinforced mode doesnt happen if tower was put into reinforced in 2 hour window from time set. After starbase destruction defenders gets 24 hours invincible mode on all other starbases in system. All guns on planet orbit gets destroyed once tower goes boom. Invading force can place their own tower on conquered planet (a new placed tower gets 24 hour invincible timer as well). Defenders cannot place any tower in this 24-hour period. Starbases counts towards sovereignity immediatelly after they leave their first 24 hours lifetime. Percent amount of planets owned determine system sovereignity level: level 1: minimum 1 planet owned and more planets than any other alliance (if there is tie then system get contested sov = 0 lev) level 2: minimum 51% planets owned in system level 3: minimum 76% planets owned in system level 4: constellation capital (as it is now) That would give: - only 1 planet in system can be destroyed per side per day (other systems in constellation can be still attacked) - system can be taken in (planet count/2) days (5 days if it has 10 planets) - system sovereignity level 3 can be gained for attackers 8 days after system is invaded (for 10-planets system, 80% owned planets -> >76%) Note: All times can be rebalanced of course, like only 1 tower can be placed per 3 days instead of 1.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 13:31:00 - [136] If sovereignty by POS is the system that is to continue, then as quite a few has pointed out at least take the POS spam out of the equation. My suggestion for that would be (similar to others), to implement a specific type of POS for sovereignty claiming. They should probably be roughly the same as current large POS (maybe a bit tougher). The restriction on them should be that only a maximum of 3 (total number, not per corp/alliance) could be anchored in any system. If you want sov of an enemy's system, then you have to knock down theirs and put up your own. Sov should not change until one side has all sov claiming POS in the system. TBH, I prefer a solution like I outlined above, but at least something working as described in this post would take the POS spam out of the game.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Manufakturka	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:07:00 - [137] Aaaand we have a winner theeeeeeeeee Kefira. Your system has few nice advantages not mentioned anywhere: 1) It's totally pro-small fleet combat, but it also provides a huge incentive for proper fleet/dread ops: With most of jobs moved from station to POSes, there is a strong incentive to amass large dread fleet and evict target from the system by killing most of funcionality they had. 2) It encourages small alliances more than anything else proposed here. Small graduated alliances are better because they serve to naturally increase amount of conflicts and pewpew, as opposed to superalliances where everyone is forced to stomach all the gripes they have toward their neighbors or risk getting hunted by entire Goonland/GBC. Few suggestions: 1) PvE kills should be incorporated, but with diminishing returns and generally long weight. 2) No teleport system - I want everyone hauling stuff, so there are more occasions to get everyone killed. 3) Add exploration mechanism for achieving higher sov levels as desribed by some BoB guy. Having more people exposed to ****ton of deadspace content there is would be really cool. Few questions: 1) How will solarsystem vs constellation sov calculations look like? 2) How do you envision loosing (aka downgrading) sov level in regard to point scores?
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:15:00 - [138] This issue is one I have thought about for a few weeks now and I come up with an idea that could be a potential solution. The first thing I looked at though was making the system balanced. Right now moon mining POS claim systems sovereignty and the fact that it uses the moons has some inherent imbalances. I have seen system that range from only 4 moons in the entire solar system to having more than 70 moons in one solar system. This makes certain system easier to lock down and at the same time there are system that could potentialy be harder to maintain sovereignty in (large moon count system either require the defender to spam the system to stop a potential attack from spamming them out, or they require a proactive defense that is on call at any time to take out hostile towers when they are anchored.) Depending on the number of towers the defender spams into the system, there is an increased need for fuel in that system and depending on how it gets there will determine how well they can maintain those towers. Some people suggest moving the system claim to special towers at planets. Again this is feasable but what do you do with outpost? Outpost can only be put at planets and right now, they get moved to the center of the grid to eliminate the issues that rise out of crossing the boundaries of various grids. The POS get the same treatment as should any new tower for claiming a solar system. You could just require that the outpost goes up at an empty planet but that could pose problems and create other issues. You also have various numbers of planets in systems though the range of planets in not quite as vast as the range of moons any system might have. There is still one heavenly body that every system has that we could look at (some have suggested it before me as well). That body is the sun. There is pretty much one in every system (I have heard of one system with two suns but I have not seen it). This give us a good place to set up for claiming a system. There is one place the system claiming tower can be and if someone else claims the system you have to destroy their tower first before you can claim the system. The solution of using the sun as the location for the system claim tower open some other issues that need to be solved. The biggest issue is that now the attacking fleet has one objective if they want to take a system and they know exactly where it is. Therefore I think an additional structure is needed to help change it away from being extremely standard in its implementation. The solution is special support modules that go at the standard POS. These support modules are limited in number and require some amount of sovereignty before they get added. The purpose of the support modules is to help scale the abilities of the system control tower. Therefore the system control tower can be designed similar to a large POS now. then as the owner gets higher levels of sovereignty they add these support modules at POS at the moons to change the abilities of the system control tower. (continued in my next post)
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:22:00 - [139] Edited by: Kerfira on 14/11/2007 14:24:26 Originally by: Manufakturka Few suggestions: 1) PvE kills should be incorporated, but with diminishing returns and generally long weight. Ratting was put in as #3 on my list of activities.... Exploration and missioning should also be on the list. Every activity players can do should contribute. Originally by: Manufakturka 2) No teleport system - I want everyone hauling stuff, so there are more occasions to get everyone killed. The problem with this is that for people to actually produce stuff in 0.0, it has to be reasonably easy to do so. This mechanism makes producing close to what it is today, except that you build on the current POS system to make stations expandable. Players would still be vulnerable while GETTING the resources to build from... I don't think the short hop from station to POS really matters that much. Originally by: Manufakturka Few questions: 1) How will solarsystem vs constellation sov calculations look like? Dunno really, but I think it could work more or less on the same level as individual solar systems, or it could work on a basis of you having 50% or more SovPoints in each system of constellation/region. It should be pretty easy to make a system that would work. Originally by: Manufakturka 2) How do you envision loosing (aka downgrading) sov level in regard to point scores? Haven't really thought of that one either, but I can envision several ways that'd work. Sov could be relative to the percentage of SovPoints you have.... Sov could decrease as now (5/7? day countdown) if you loose majority SovPoints.... ...just to mention two.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kuentai coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:26:00 - [140] Bring back proper supply lines, remove the current ability to jump fuel from empire to pos. This would spread the conquering of systems around a larger area, reducing singular system lag and making pos wars more interesting. Have very expensive planet pos rather than moon pos forcing sovereignty and only allow one per planet. REMOVE CYNO JAMMERS - possibly the most important thing, this just ridiculously balances the favour for defenders more than it already is. "The good man has few enemies, but the ruthless... None."

maarud Knight of Anubis	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:36:00 - [141] I've had some idea's about this and I'm still not conviced they're completely bad. If a system has 12 planets, then a choose a random number of those planets with a min of 3 and a max of 12 and will always be a odd number. Then ONE SPECIFIC moon around that planet will be a sov claiming moon. This does a couple of things. It will halt POS spam in its tracks. There would be 0 point in placing POS's on moons in that system to try and gain sov as it would have no affect. Also, by making the number of sov moons a odd number, there will always be a optimal amount of moons to have. IE: in a system with 7 sov claiming moons, you could place POS's on 4 of them and not have to worry about an hostile entity coming in and POS spamming 1 more POS than you to gain sov. POS towers that get blown up should have all their modules offline and unanchoard so they can been scooped by the victors. Currently the reward for blowing up a POS is little to nothing. Any factories should have their jobs stoped and the contents of the job spilled out (except the BPO/BPC if installed from a station). Shorten the max time a tower can be put into reinforced, perhaps to 36 hours. Increase defensive abilities of POS's. In otherwords, make it harder to put a POS into reinforced, but then it comes out roughly the next day sometime. Battles will be more intense but won't be drawn out over a week. Or you could go a completely diffren route... Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member <t20> i'd rather have a python in my pants than a sleipnir
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:36:00 - [142] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 14/11/2007 14:36:38 Originally by: Kerfira Sovereignty change suggestion So, your alliance/corp would get point for: 1. Kills (should count a lot with bigger ships=more points) 2. Mining ('roid/moon/gas) 3. Ratting 4. Exploring 5. Producing 6. Researching 7. Invention 8. Setting up infrastructure 9. Killing infrastructure 10. Running missions 11. Trading 12. ...other activities I haven't thought about The general idea is wise, but contains some problems; 1.grinding sov ; people will do nonsense stuff to get sov: (1) Bring alts in insured BS with no fittings and blow them up. (5) producing millions of Kestrels in order to reprocess them and produce once more if You have enough slots (6)researching PE of everything up to heaven just to gring sov (11) doing 10 billion transactions back and forth just to get sov. 2.grinding sov part 2: people will use blob tactics in a funny way; (2) Attack! We need to conquer this system till tommorow and we need 1500 more sov points. So we will do a 200 man veldspar mining op in our prime time with 50 more guarding station just in case while the enemy is asleep! Yarr! 3.(1) If kills give so many points, one blob battle can change sov. 4.(1) It was always possible for a little weaker (porrer pvpers) but rich enemy to try to defend by simple virtue of having more battleships in reserve and people willing to get back to fight. With many points for ship kills, financial sacriface (courage, heroism and whatnot) of defenders who unluckily stand against a better FC, suddenly works in their disadvantage. A totally artificial statistic kill efficiency (equipment+pvp skills) becomes more important that the current "complex efficiency" combining equipment, pvp skills, logistcs, resources and morale.
maarud Knight of Anubis	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:37:00 - [143] ... contd Objectives Scenerio: Faction A wants to put up a station in a system. They drop 1 tower in the system to gain sov and then once they have sov, they put the tower up. A couple months down the line, Faction B wants to invade. They drop a POS in the system with the station, they are given the option to try claim sov to be able to take the station. They are then asssigned a random objective with variables that taken from the holding Factions assets/members/what ever. So lets say they get X of the following Objectives to complete: Destroy the network - Faction A has a pos in sysem A-A moon IV-2, B-B moon III-5, C-C moon 6-1 and D-D 7-2. You're objective is to destroy these POS's to break up Factions A'a POS network. You're objective will begind in 24hrs and you have 7 days to complete it. Hold the line - System XYZ is crucial to the supply lines of Faction A. Blockade the system and you'll deal a blow to the supply capabilites of Faction A. You would need to bloackade the system for 2 days to be successful. (You would need to come up a with a proper mechnic for this. Perhaps a ships destroyed count for each faction where Faction B has to have a 60/40 death ratio combined with a pilots in system sort of thing.) Rouge Agent - Agent ABC (A npc enity spawned for the objective) is located in system MNO-P. He's willing to aid you in your endevour to overthrow Faction A, but he requires the following items. (Basically a glorified hauler mission where there amounts needed to deliver could be quite massive, could be done in multiple deliveries for people that don't have access to frieghters/cap ships/whatever). Stop the services - Disable the station services in system. These services need to remain down for X amount of hours/days (A % of time is more convenient if going for days). Get the minerals - Intel has been recieved that Faction A intends to setup a moon mining POS in system D-D on moon IV-9. Setup a POS and start mining the minerals before they do. (Once the POS is setup, Faction A then gets an objective saying that they have to destroy the POS within X timeframe- Basically forcing Faction B to defend rather than making Faction A defend the whole time). You could come up with loads more objectives. All objectives would begin in a certain time from any where from 2-3 hours to 24 hours. Also, Faction B would be given more than one objective. The amount of objectives would depend on how long Faction A has had const sov and how long they have been in control of the Station. Faction A would also recieve intel about Faction B's objectives and the time frame etc, in order for them to try and counter and stop them from reaching the objectives. Faction B would not get all objectives at the same time, but rather one after the other. This would make things a whole lot more fun I think and completely remove the need for POS to be involved in large scale warfare (to a degree and depending on objectives). Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member <t20> i'd rather have a python in my pants than a sleipnir
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:40:00 - [144] Originally by: Kuentai Bring back proper supply lines, remove the current ability to jump fuel from empire to pos. I wholeheartedly support this (and more)! Resources used in 0.0 should be harvested in 0.0! This means that easy transport of fuel and minerals from high-sec should be treated to the XL nerfbat treatment! There are two problems that'd need solving first though: 1. All 4 types of fuels has to be readily available in 0.0. Ice belts should be more plentiful (maybe one or more per 2-3 systems), and they should contain all types of fuel. 2. The NPC sold POS 'fuel' goods need to be available in empire. This could be solved by simply having them for sale in outposts and NPC stations. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:42:00 - [145] Now that there is a basic idea in place more specifics need to be ironed out. Depending on the idea we come up with I think there is a wide range of things we can do. For instance, the solar system claiming tower can be designed to have lower CPU than current POS but with expanded powergrid to make them designed to utilize lots of weapons. Depending on the racial type of the claiming tower, the bonus could be geared to different things. These bonus could range from increase weapon damage or tracking or optimal range or even reduced fitting requirements of certain defensive modules (the same ones used at current pos). It might even possible to give them bonuses that do not affect the solar system claiming tower but instead something that remains at the normal POS still in system. Like bonus to refining array output, or maybe a bonus to production array time multiplier or time multiplier on lab arrays or anything else that the devs could possibly code in. Then the same is true for the supportive modules that would go at the normal pos. I think these should be outside the shields so that they can be disabled making the system claim tower easier to take down if th attacker wants to. They could grant specific bonuses to the system claim tower like increased resistances to shields and armor, increases shield recharge, increased hit points or may others provided that the bonuses are balance. These modules would also be limited so that there are benefits to holding a system longer. For instance, maybe at lvl 1 sovereignty you can only put up 2 of these new support modules. At sovereignty lvl 2 you can add one more support module, and again you could add one at sovereignty lvl 3. There would be no more added for lvl 4 sovereignty because the bonus of making all POS in system unattackable (which should be extended to the system claiming tower as well) is a good enough bonus for level 4. This allows for differences in the what the attacker might face, and still gives the defender options to make things different depending on which support modules they put up, and which claim tower they put up. I have not come up with any idea yet on exactly what stats these claiming towers should have or the support modules either. They should not be pushovers in terms of killing them though and they should have some benefit as being the system claim tower. For instance, they could be given grid wide locking range for the defenses meaning that the attacker either has to tank sub capitals really well or they have to relay on only capitals for the attack. this would mean that yes if the attacker had a massive fleet to lock down the system then they could just mass up the dreads and attack, but if they can not maintain a total lockdown (either due to jump bridges or other issues), then it should be smarter for them to go after the supportive modules at the random POS in system first and make the system claim tower easier to knock out. The claim tower should have a reinforced mode of sorts (fueled by stront or some other fuel) and maybe limited to no more than 48 hours. The tower should also need some fuel but maybe nothing for the powergrid/cpu used due to the tower drawing energy from the sun. This change would only require a minimum of 8 new structures as outlined and possibly more depending on support module numbers (4 racial towers and at least 4 racial support modules that can go with any tower). if you go with two support modules per race that opens up more variation. So maybe one caldari support module give increased shield recharge rate and cover 2 resistance types. The other caldari support one could give the claim tower more shield hit points and maybe some sort of increased shield resists. Maybe amarr support module affect armor hit points and resists. There are many possibilities assuming the game mechanics support it. More later when I come up with more details.
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:46:00 - [146] Originally by: Ort Lofthus 5) Every friendly ST in neighboring systems adds up to 24 hours to this hardened timer. This time is deducted from its own charge. Reinforced towers be set to assist other towers, unless already set to do so. Assistance needs to be set in advance, like stront timing now. Agreed. A sov scheme networking multiple systems is a key feature in my mind. Ideally the sov target network would be dynamic so it would be more vulnerable to simultaneous attack across systems. But I can see such a mechanic may not be feasible to program in CCPs architecture. So a static network like yours would have to do. As for the Sovereignty Target, several people have suggested it not be POS. My idea is t2 dreadnaughts. Instead of a Siege deployment module, they can use a Castle deployment module. The castled dreads can be anchored and networked together with sov targets in other systems to form a Wall which boosts stats as described by others. Network bonuses could be tied to the clock too -- pilots could to have stronger bonuses during parts of the at the expense of being much weaker during other parts of the day. This also may be too dynamic for CCP to program. After anchoring, pilots can leave ship. Castled dreads can be boarded by same-corp pilots with Starbasae Defense role to man the guns. When unmanned, ship operates under AI like POS do. Only one castled dread per grid. As many as you want in system. Further, mini-professions can be used. Explorers scan down locations of the castled dreads and hackers can analyze them to discover how these sov targets are networked together. Defenders configure bonus distribution through the Wall network choosing which sov targets are strong and weak. They could choose to boost one castle enough to tank 60 strong dread fleets, leaving the rest vulnerable to cruiser gangs. I doubt these devs are looking for anything so elaborate. Could be fun though for both offense and defense.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:08:00 - [147] Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 15:10:04 Goddamnit, again.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:09:00 - [148] Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Originally by: Kerfira My suggestion The general idea is wise, but contains some problems; 1.grinding sov ; people will do nonsense stuff to get sov: (1) Bring alts in insured BS with no fittings and blow them up. (5) producing millions of Kestrels in order to reprocess them and produce once more if You have enough slots (6)researching PE of everything up to heaven just to gring sov (11) doing 10 billion transactions back and forth just to get sov. I know the idea is not fully worked through yet, and it will require some adjustments, perhaps also of other game mechanics. On your comments: #1: I don't see a big problem (not on a 1-3 months scale of things). One thing that could rapidly make that unpopular is removing insurance from 0.0. #5: Easy (and physically logical) step to solve this would be a cap on reprocess efficiency of outposts/POS at 80%. Since the manufacturing would be at POS, you'd still pay fuel too... #6: The research equipment would be at a POS so you'd stil pay fuel. #11: Each type of activity would only count a relative part of the whole equation. Thus if you did 1 or 1000000 transactions, it wouldn't make a difference (since you control the only station in system). If there were people doing things like this to exploit it, the way the average was weighed could easily be tweaked. Or restrictions like the ones mentioned above put in to make it costly. Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon 2.grinding sov part 2: people will use blob tactics in a funny way; (2) Attack! We need to conquer this system till tommorow and we need 1500 more sov points. So we will do a 200 man veldspar mining op in our prime time with 50 more guarding station just in case while the enemy is asleep! Yarr! I never intended the points to be visible .....well, except maybe in a general sort of way.... Perhaps a ranking list for system/constellation/region, but without any scores would suffice. That way there'd also be an element of surprise in it (yay, we got sov!!)... Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon 3.(1) If kills give so many points, one blob battle can change sov. Would have to be balanced. If you as an attacker can prevent the current holder from doing significant activities in space (mining, ratting etc.), then eventually you should gain sov. One main thing though, if you as an attacker deploys your entire force to your opponents systems, someone can sneak right in and take your systems away with little effort. Alliances could be forced to keep forces at home as well as having them on the attack (part of breaking the blob). Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon 4.(1) It was always possible for a little weaker (porrer pvpers) but rich enemy to try to defend by simple virtue of having more battleships in reserve and people willing to get back to fight. With many points for ship kills, financial sacriface (courage, heroism and whatnot) of defenders who unluckily stand against a better FC, suddenly works in their disadvantage. A totally artificial statistic kill efficiency (equipment+pvp skills) becomes more important that the current "complex efficiency" combining equipment, pvp skills, logistcs, resources and morale. PvP should not count in the 50+% scale. I (without having made any calcs whatever) figured it maybe in the 30% scale. That would leave some maneuvering room for less PvP minded corps. After all is said though, this system was intended to encourage ship combat, not limit it, but at the same time open up current PvP centric alliances/corps to also want other player types! IMHO though, the alliance that IS the better PvP alliance should eventually win! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:10:00 - [149] Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 15:11:12 Revamped Starbase Warfare Draft: This is just a sketch on how to address the most common issues currently encountered with starbase warfare. I have other things to do today, so this isn't prepared or polished in any way. Bear with me. The major problems are: []Lack of small-scale goals []No limit on sovereignty claiming towers or moons []Bad overview/management tools for Starbases (Made bearable by out of game tools) []Spiraling logistics demands due to shoddy overview combined with a lack of limits []Unrefined anchoring/onlining system not in any sensible synch with structures being outside the forcefield []Forcefields mechanics: Webifier immunity, the ability to sit just 1m outside it and the excessive travel/logistics/repairing safety that entails. []The big time-grind that all the above create Sovereignty tower limit:* Every system needs a limited number of sovereignty affecting moons. A reasonable number would be any uneven number between 5 and 9. Possibly let the base number be 5, and purchasable outpost/conquerable upgrades increase it by 2 each. As it stands now though, the unlimited number of moons challenges players endurance more than anything else - which for a single system is only mildly annoying, but wars are fought over regions and dozens of station systems. Suggestions: - 5 arbitrarily assigned sovereignty moons per system. Entirely do away with size-based Sovereignty, these moons can be held by smalls if people please. - 4 week timer for Sov 4 reduced to 1 week - Three moons for any non-station system. - Massively increased fuel-consumption for cynojammers outside of station systems. Guns-outside-of-forcefield issues: Currently, an incapacitated gun is considered offline - so an identical new gun can just be onlined. This also is a problem with hardeners, which can be used to slow starbases going into reinforced at no real detriment once they come out of reinforced - since they all automatically offline and allow for weapons to be anchored. Another oversight is that manned guns have no lockrange limit, whereas unmanned guns have maximum activation and lock ranges. Faction modules also get twice the hitpoints of their non-faction counterparts, breaking the risk/reward of shooting anchored structures. Suggestions: - incapacitated modules keep using CPU/PG - 48h self-repair-to-75% timer on guns - 300km max lockrange on all manned modules - Faction modules get 20% more hitpoints than their T1 counterparts, not twice. Small scale goals: This is where moonmining should really shine, as a low-level disruptable operation. It is already somewhat right now, but cynojammers and the ability to use large towers put a crimp in this. Jumpbridges should also be a part of this, as right now they're too easily overdefended. The downside of making small scale objectives too easy would be overly time-intensive repairing efforts, hence a self-repair/maintenance system would be in order. Suggestions: - Moon Harvesters take half the current fitting, go outside the forcefield and can only be used on Small Towers. They get 2 million armor hitpoints to compensate, and will repair themselves to 75% armor and 100% structure 48 hours after being shot. - Jump Bridges take one quarter the current fitting and can only be anchored outside of Medium towers. 3 Million armor hitpoints and repairs itself to 75% after 24 hours.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:11:00 - [150] Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 15:15:55 Logistics and overview: Constantly having to keep starbases fueled is intended to make them vulnerable to starvation. But since all methods of fueling are quasi invincible, it's only a drag on players. Suggestions: - Corporation assets-in-space shows control towers and their fuel status, consumption and prognosis for time remaining. Modules get moved away from here and into the show info or a sub menu of the tower. - Strontium bays reduced by 33%, fuel bays increased by 66%. - Fuel silo structure or any equivalent mechanic requiring the tower to be fueled from outside the forcefield for vulnerability Forcefield mechanics and cynojammers: Forcefields are like stations, proximity to complete invulnerability. Unlike stations, they don't have docking or aggression timers and allow anyone to reach safety by simply moving a meter back inside it. In addition to that, we've got webifier invincibility. To top it off, cynojammers absolutely reward abusing this to no end while allowing no hostile capitals in system which in itself creates problems with carriers. Suggestions: - Statis Webifiers are untied from the "EW" trait and will affect anything, including Motherships and Titans. - Forcefield automatically keeps all objects ~5km away from it's edge. To enter the forcefield requires clicking on the control tower and selecting 'dock/enter forcefield' at which point the ship in question will commence coasting inside at cruise speed (about 60 seconds for a carrier). The pilot retains full control but remains webbable/shootable etc. Whether warping straight inside remains is a generic gameplay question and not specific to starbases. - Carriers retain all current TQ fighter bonuses/attributes, 50% capacitor boost and EW immunity. They and motherships cease to be remote-repairable however. This breaks the scaling issue of the remote-rep chain while maintaining the 'interesting/fun' aspects of carriers and eliminating the excessive EW vulnerability of non-supercaps. - Motherships get 2 extra highslots to compensate somewhat, allowing for easier Triage and Remote ECM Burst The grind Tower hitpoints overall just take too long, moving beyond giving a fair time to counter to just becoming a grind. If your opponent doesn't show up in 90 minutes, he probably won't show up in 3 hours either. This is massively alleviated with less starbases, but a few small tweaks to make it more interesting can't hurt. Suggestions: - No shield recharge for 12 hours after a tower hits 90% shields - 10% less shield hitpoints for large control towers - removal of faction hitpoint bonuses for towers entirely - 50% reduction in armor and structure of control towers Wait, some things are okay but I don't agree with everything... Well, that's the idea behind splitting it up into separate problems. Of course certain individuals will be enormously defensive about anything involving capital changes, and it might not be vital to change those particular things just yet (besides Statis Webifiers being considered EW :/ ). It's just an outline of how within realistic parameters starbase warfare can be revamped to be playable, goal-oriented and interactive for as many different sizes of corps/alliances as possible. It's not necessarily the only way to do things, although I'm convinced your ways are stupid or excessively contrived.

Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:13:00 - [151] Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg Logistics and overview: Constantly having to keep starbases fueled is intended to make them vulnerable to starvation. But since all methods of fueling are quasi invincible, it's only a drag on players. Suggestions: - Corporation assets-in-space shows control towers and their fuel status, consumption and prognosis for time remaining. Modules get moved away from here and into the show info or a sub menu of the tower. - Strontium bays reduced by 33%, fuel bays increased by 66%. - Fuel silo structure or any equivalent mechanic requiring the tower to be fueled from outside the forcefield for vulnerability The logistics required to keep sovereignty of systems needs to be made harder! Not easier! If it's made easier, this'll not mean that the logistics people will get more time to do other stuff. It'll just mean that more POS are put up! The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically. The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:21:00 - [152] Originally by: Kerfira The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically. The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use! Not really. Trying to bore and frustrate people out of holding space will just make them less interested in holding space, less interested in taking space and generally murder the idea of territorial warfare. The intention of fuel mechanics was that logistical lines would be a part of combat, and actually speed conclusion up or provide an alternate way to end a conflict besides brute force. That concept in itself is good. Trying to make it too tedious to hold space goes against the idea of a) having people want to play EvE b) having people want to play the particular facet that makes EvE unique. You are essentially just complaining that large alliances might hold a lot of space - that's the point of the system, that we have a method of fighting over space. We want to make fighting over it more attractive, not less so. Currently it is already a major headache to deal with acquired space and the single biggest disincentive towards a dynamic, fast-moving political scene.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:29:00 - [153] Edited by: Kerfira on 14/11/2007 15:31:06 Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg You are essentially just complaining that large alliances might hold a lot of space - that's the point of the system, that we have a method of fighting over space. We want to make fighting over it more attractive, not less so. Not complaining about it so much as seeing it being bad for the game.... You may think it ok for a large alliance to hold a lot of space, but at the same time you're denying that space to smaller alliances who might like to have a go at 0.0, but who don't have a chance in hell to grab a piece of it since it is all grabbed by big alliances. It might be nice epeen for BoB/Goons/RA/whoever, or your own alliance for that matter, to hold large amounts of space, but if its held just to not be used while there're smaller alliances who can't get into 0.0, I'm counting that as detrimental to the game. There's no way a small alliance can get a foothold in a large alliances space (blob ftw.), so the only really feasible solution is to limit alliances to no more than they can use, whether through logistics or sov determination mechanics. The main thing that needs to be taken out of territorial warfare is the usability of the blob. If that's done, then I think everything else would more or less fall in place nicely no matter what the mechanics. Dealing with the blob though is not possible if we keep the current POS sovereignty mechanics (even if we tweak numbers etc.) or similar centralised sovereignty targets. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:34:00 - [154] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 14/11/2007 15:37:16 Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 14/11/2007 15:36:40 Harder POS logistics means; Defender struggles to keep 10 POSes. Attacker has even bigger problem if he wants to win by POS spam. Since keeping 50 POSes is such a big effort, they rather attack POSes or defenders supply lines. Easier POS logistics means; Defender puts 100 POSes with little effort. Attacker puts 150 POSes with littl effort. Who has more patience in managing this crap, wins. One could say "but hauling fuel and mining ice is so boring and tedious". Well, since its done in war zone and has implied risk, its probably less boring then rinning missions in empire alt, buying fuels in empire and jumping them directly to POSes. Also, there would be simply less POSes on both sides. Also, every manhour of work for haulers and escorts creates "need" for the cool and exciting work for hunters and pirates :) --------------------- Aha, I thought on Kerfiras theory of sov thru activity and I came to conclusin that maybe the opposite would be better and less prone to abuse? Loosing sov by lack of activity :)
xiqx	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:52:00 - [155] suggestions 1: change the stargates. You get sovereignty by holding the gates and building a 'jump in scrambler' somewhere in the system. The 'jump in scrambler' is of course for keeping those ships out who can jump themselves. The corp/alliance holding the gate has access to the stargate of course. suggestion 2: being able to put a pos/outpost/station on a gate for defending sovereignty. suggestion 3: everything should be destructible within a reasonable time. (well except the gates maybe)( a stare contest between two fleets of 200+ ships is not my idea of fun.) suggestion 4: random jump in point from a Stargate. Make this point appear in overview for a period of time so people can warp to it. perhaps a specific scanner should be build/owned in the system to be able to warp to it.( a sort of half solution for gatecamping)the random jump in point should perhaps be somewhere at the edge of the solar system. Suggestion 5: When sovereignty is broken some benefits of holding the system should be suspended. Suggestion 6: make the posses cool looking, something customizable. major consequences: Defense moves from inside the system to outside it's own system. when the defense of a gate is down the gate is freely accessible. The 'jump in scrambler' does not have an affect on stargate use. the 'jump in scrambler' should be able to be destroyed only by ships that are not capable of jumping themselves. extra note: If I copied anyones idea I did it accidentally. You can't read everyones post.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2007.11.14 16:14:00 - [156] Edited by: Abrazzar on 14/11/2007 16:16:57 I think sovereignty could be regulated by populating the system with a colony, much like the outpost just in different sizes for different stages of sovereignty. So the alliance chooses a planet to set up their colony and start small. Sov 1 requires a Space Colony. It consists only of a couple of habitation modules, a landing pad and a silo or something and is populated by civilians. The colony is self sufficient, producing stuff and selling it for provisions and fuel. The corp/alliance that set the colony up gains some ISK in taxes per day. Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up. The colony only has little defenses, no facilities and can be easily destroyed by a smallish gang. It costs little in time and ISK to set up a Space Colony. Sov 2 requires an Outpost and two Space Colonies. The Outpost is build on a Space Colony by expanding the structures and facilities of it. It will yield greater taxes than a Space Colony. Two station services can be installed in an Outpost, a limited amount of ships can be docked at the same time. Only members of the alliance may dock at the Outpost and access the facilities. Ships up to Battleship size can dock. The additional Space Colonies can be set up at any moon or planet. Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up. The Outpost is fitted with some autonomous defenses that fire at any hostile entity getting in range. It cannot be destroyed but conquered once the shields are down. It needs one battleship to get within docking range of the Outpost and issue the conquer command. It takes 30 minutes to round up the opposition and convince the civilians to cooperate. During that time the ship cannot activate any modules. Should it get out of docking range or get destroyed, the conquer timer gets reset. More ships can issue a conquer command though it will not reduce the timer, but only keep it ticking down should one of the other ships become unavailable. Sovereignty changes to the new owners during the next downtime 24 hours after ownership changed. Should Space Colonies in the system get destroyed and are not replaced before downtime the sovereignty drops to 1 if there are fewer than 2 left. Sov 3 requires an Advanced Outpost and 5 Space Colonies. The Advanced Outpost is built on the base of an Outpost. It yields more tax, can hold more pilots and has more facilities than the standard outpost. Ships up to capital size can dock. The additional Space Colonies can be set up at any moon or planet. Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up. The defenses are strong enough to hold off a small fleet by itself. A Battleship will need 90 minutes to conquer the station. Should a carrier issue a conquer command, the timer will be reduced to 30 minutes. Should Space Colonies in the system get destroyed and are not replaced before downtime the sovereignty drops to 2 if fewer than 5 and to 1 if fewer than 2 are left. Sov 4 requires a Space Station and 10 Space Colonies. The space Station is build on the base of an Advanced Outpost. It yields a substantial tax income, allows unlimited ships docked and has a good variety of facilities and services available. It basically functions like normal space station. Any non-hostile pilot can dock. All player generated taxes are given to the controlling corp/alliance. The additional Space Colonies can be set up at any moon or planet. Sovereignty changes during the next downtime 24 hours after it was set up. The defenses of a Space Station are strong enough to hold most fleets at bay. A Battleship will need 270 minutes to conquer, a carrier 90 minutes and a Mothership 30 minutes. Sovereignty changes to the new owners during the next downtime 24 hours after ownership changed. Should Space Colonies in the system get destroyed and are not replaced before downtime the sovereignty drops to 3 less than 10, 2 less than 5 and 1 less than 2.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2007.11.14 16:15:00 - [157] Conclusion: Only one center of attention per system instead of several. Sovereignty can be sabotaged by smaller roaming gangs. POSes will only be set up when necessary instead of all over the place. Sovereignty still gives its bonuses to the POSes, making the investment worthwhile. Maximum Sov is limited by the amount of available colony spots. No upkeep is needed if you defend the colonies while ill defended systems can be sabotaged easily. Systems far off the area of influence of an alliance can be conquered without much chance of defense. Afterthoughts: How many systems an Alliance can control could be limited if the amount and kind of Sov Stations a alliance can set up is capped by the amount of members in the Alliance. Every member generates a Government Point and each Space Colony, Outpost, Advanced Outpost and Space Station requires a certain amount of Government Points. This would result that only important systems will be build up to Sov 4, while other systems will have a smaller station and thus more easy to conquer. If the Amount of Sov Stations is limited an Alliance needs the option to abandon a Sov Station. The system then would become neutral. A neutral station can be conquered for another Alliance by a single person in an appropriate ship without having to tear down the shield first.
Max Teranous BURN EDEN Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.14 16:36:00 - [158] I don't want a tweak to sov mechanics, i want to see a new system built from the ground up that solves or at least addresses the multiple issues that exist because of the current system. In no particular order, i'd like the following things to be included: * Reasons to fight for both attackers and defenders, ranging from small gangs to fleets with capital support. Defenders that don't defend should be penalised (as an alliance) but defenders that do should have some sort of advantage of home territory. * A design which discourages blobbing in some way. Split, multiple objectives, or some kind of stacking penalty on incoming fire on an object for example. I don't want to see people being turned away from gangs, rather them making a second/third gang and attacking/defending something else. * Less boring tasks. Shooting or repping hundreds of millions of hp's of static npc objects is boring ! * Remove "spam". Systems should only be taken with fighting and force, not putting up more static objects then the other guy. * Reduce the Timezone effects. Really tough one this, due to the varied people we have playing around the world, but always having attacking fights at odd hours is irritating. * Split the industrial use of POS and the Sov use of POS, if POS are kept as the Sov marking system. Trying to balance both simultaniously just doesn't work. I'm not really sure how to go about designing a system with the above in mind, but any new design should look at answering the above IMO. Max
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.14 16:49:00 - [159] Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 16:51:43 Edited by: Ernest Graefenberg on 14/11/2007 16:50:23 Originally by: Kerfira There's no way a small alliance can get a foothold in a large alliances space (blob ftw.), so the only really feasible solution is to limit alliances to no more than they can use, whether through logistics or sov determination mechanics. How much exactly can say, 6000 people use? How many moons are they allowed to exploit? How many station systems are adequate? Really, how small exactly do you expect these groups to be? And if Goonswarm are 'worthy' of say, 10 stations - you'd be happy with 0.1 stations for your small corp, right? It's all fine and dandy sitting on a soapbox about people owning too much space, but arbitrarily extending the tedium and logistics involved really does nothing, zilch for the small guy and everything for the game being completely unfun. Do you honestly believe more stringent PoS fueling will make people give up space? Hell no. And we won't be taking any less space either, because the only real incentive to do so right now is kicking other peoples ** in (and maybe moon mining, it's kind of nice). Their are a lot of small alliances in space that exist just fine, their is even a support structure in place specifically for alliances too small or defunct to maintain a PoS network, called NPC 0.0 stations. Bigger groups will crush smaller Sovereignty holding alliances without friends all the time, the game will never cater to making that impossible - make friends, manipulate politics or kick more ass are the only sensible options instead of mucking PoS warfare to a halt in hopes of creating a newbie-shield of sorts. Territorial warfare is like that by nature, groups competing to kick each others in. Stop trying to change it into something non-competitive which it's not and focus on the topic at hand, making the conflicts fun. Quote:** The main thing that needs to be taken out of territorial warfare is the usability of the blob. If that's done, then I think everything else would more or less fall in place nicely no matter what the mechanics. Dealing with the blob though is not possible if we keep the current POS sovereignty mechanics (even if we tweak numbers etc.) or similar centralised sovereignty targets. It's the exact same fallacy as the "Doomsday counters blobs" line: You don't want to actually marginalize players. More players need to have the advantage over less players, that's the end of the story. If it does not cater to elitist fantasies, that's too bad - but the point here is to make it fun, not fair. Remember that part about EvE being a harsh place? Well yeah. Also, splitting up the actual number of ships in any engagement on both sides will not lessen the advantage of numbers. Whichever side has the larger active playerbase will still win, even if the individual engagements are smaller. There's no good way to eliminate pivotal battles though, and their shouldn't be - they are an important part of the experience. The small-scale goals from a few posts ago go a long way towards making non-pivotal battles matter more though. Don't kid yourself though, the side with the larger active numbers will always be at an advantage.
Two step Amarr Chosen Path	Posted - 2007.11.14 16:52:00 - [160] I've got what is actually a pretty simple fix, and I think it would help a lot. Make POSes come out of reinforced at a random time anywhere from 1-4 days from when they are put into reinforced. Neither the attacker nor the defender should be able to see when the POSes will come out, only when they are actually out of reinforced. This would force an attacker to actually control the system for a long period of time and reduce the "all-hands" fleet battles which we all know the server cannot handle.

velocity7	Posted - 2007.11.14 17:50:00 - [161] I kind of like the idea with the NPCs and stuff being tied in to factional warfare: [1][2][3] Guns at stargates are also nice, but could encourage blobbing, depending. Although UT2004 mechanics were suggested earlier in the thread, I feel that they may result in short battles for sovereignty of a system rather than say a week or so. It doesn't give much time for corporations to get their stuff out and pull out of the system if they are going to lose.
Manufakturka	Posted - 2007.11.14 19:09:00 - [162] Ernest Graefenberg, you are member of the Coallition, we get it. Now go away. You are also an example of the worst filth that plagues this game, with your maniacal under-the-table peddling of I-WIN button poorly guised as solution. To answer your points: 1) Cynojammer is single POS warfare element that is actually fun. It forces you to actually use proper fleet and gives defender a chance against the megablob of doom. I have lost like 4 BS while attacking cynojammed POSes, so do have first hand experience. With cynojammer dedicated group of defenders can actually force you to make a sweat if want the inevitable to happen. 2) How much space 6000 characters (50% of that being alts) need? Surely not one quarter of entire conquerable universe. That would make world of EVE quite small, don't you think? To answer that - they needas much as they can maintain. The Kerfira system would work perfectly here, while current system fails horribly (with superalliances literally redefining the meaning of word 'overextend'). 3) You're asking for a mothership nerf in a highly moderated thread about POS wars. A mothership nerf, of all things. Relly, just end yourself or something. 4) "Small scalle goals" of making moon mining arrays targetable is a dumb griefing machine. nothing will make players more happy than hearning that their POS was offlined at 4AM local time, 7th time this week. If anything, such structures should be temporarily disabled after successful attack and not destroyed/incapacitated. 5) Jump bridges taking less PG/CPU. No comment. Kerfira, I was thinking about it a bit and I got to a conclusion that actually, why shouldn't decisive fleetbattle be of a great influence to sov calculations? It's pretty much what happens now and what people expect to happen. Ideally, I would like the system to knock the sov by one tier after short, heated campaign or decisive fleetbattle, but take quite long to completely evict someone and change sov to yours. This way we still have the place for PvP corps/alliances, mercenaries and alike who want to kick other guys ass, while providing defeated corp with rebuild strategy (unless attacker wants to move in, defeated alliance would still have sov 1-2 in few systems, which would encourage rebuilding and act as a deterrent to quitting). The whole thing might work internally by subtracting points of defending alliance when their ships are killed till a certain floor is reached, this way you can get fleetbattles that matter in system where persistence decides the day.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 19:12:00 - [163] Originally by: Kerfira The logistics required to keep sovereignty of systems needs to be made harder! Not easier! If it's made easier, this'll not mean that the logistics people will get more time to do other stuff. It'll just mean that more POS are put up! The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically. The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use! This is dumb. Also, your "grinding sovereignty" mechanic is dumb. There are only two real big problems with sovereignty right now. 1. There are too many POS. 2. There is no small gang activity that can damage an alliance outside of huge long duration cloaking ops. The first is easy to fix, you just reduce the number of POS by limiting it to 1-3 per system at designated spots. As in 1-3 depending on the design goal. The second is not so easy. Everyone seems to want every action to have to deal with sovereignty. This is bad, sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS. If people want to defend their systems they can hot-drop the enemy dreads and have a grand battle. If they dont, they can lose the system. But there still needs to be something for small gangs to do. Which means you need to decouple this with any idea about it working to grant any bonuses or penalties dealing with sovereignty. It might be based around destroying resources granted by sovereignty. But it means being able to do real isk damage to an alliance if they do not defend their space. Now you just need a way to have that consistant with the prime driving mechanic of "cant hurt people when they arent online" part and you can start working on an idea
Vaslav Tchitcherine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.14 19:26:00 - [164] Originally by: Goumindong Sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS. Why? Emphasis added. -- Star Fraction recruitment: come join the Yarrletariat!
Serena Hennessy Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.14 21:32:00 - [165] As I was part of one of the roundtables where this was discussed in depth, I'd like to add a short summary of what I see are the failings of the current systems, and some suggestions. The problems: 1) Warp-To-Zero + JumpClones + JumpDrives have combined to make Eve a VERY small universe. While it was previously possible to clonejump, it required podding yourself and wasn't without cost (who wants to pod themselves with a full head of snakes?) As it stands, I can be in delve one night, jita the next, and the drone regions the following day. While this isn't DIRECTLY connected to Sov and Starbases, it IS the primary reason that you guys are being forced into dealing with this issue NOW -> By shrinking the universe, you've increased the density of 0.0, and the resulting blobs have exposed the flaws in the current system. 2) There is no real cost to warfare. While NPC supplied towers are good isk sinks, it also means that supplies are unlimited, the constraint is solely on isk. Pre-Jumpclones, Jumpdrives and warp-to-zero, logistics governed, as it took a LOT of industrial trips (or well escorted freighters) to fuel a sizeable POS infrastructure. This was good, because it made spamming any big amount COSTLY. Not in terms of ISK, but in terms of PILOT TIME, which is the less abundant of the two. With the aforementioned logistical improvements, the burden has shifted away from pilot time to isk supply. This is bad. One person can spam an entire system in one night, and fuel it, alone. A side effect is that it rewards harbouring isk-farmers, as a cut of their income can really improve your ability to wage war. 3) POS warfare is BORING and ENCOURAGES blobbing, instead of more tactical combat. Whatever the new system is, it needs to be FUN and REWARDING. As a dread pilot, shooting POS for 6 hours != fun. The solution? Alliances and Empires are about PEOPLE, not THINGS. Whatever the end mechanic is, it needs to center around PILOT TIME, not ISK. It should also be rewarding and diverse. Require pilots to spend a certain amount of time uncloaked in space (outside of a POS shield) in order to gain sovereignty over a system. Something like 100+ pilot hours per day, averaged over a week. This would force alliances to actually LIVE where they have sov, which would discourage groups from one side of the galaxy from expending enourmous resources to fight groups on the other, and would then break warfare down to a more system-by-system, constellation-by-constellation and region-by-region level. Larger alliances could hold more space, because they would have the pilots to be able to. Smaller alliances would be forced to hold less space, because they would have to more carefully manage their human resources. Effectively, you'd shrink the universe again, leaving jumpclones for things like getting a new skillbook, rather than fighting a war ten regions away. Furthermore, there would me more incentives to have smaller fights more often - prevent enemy buildup in your territory before they pass your amount of territorial control time. However, if you're going to do something like this, you'll have to give incentives for people to stay in one place - expand trade, invention, exploration and manufacturing so there's more to do in any given spot. POS would remain industrial tools. Killing them would be inflicting economic harm. Furthermore, give alliances reasons to be at peace with one another beyond mutual defence. Make peace economically rewarding by asymetrically seeding npc trade goods in outposts, creating trade opportunities, and more opportunities for pirates and small gangs. By rewarding peace, you empower war: It hurts your enemies more, but you also incur a cost by not having guys at home. End result: more small gang pvp. Bigger universe. More fights more often. More to do in 0.0. Larger population capacity without adding regions. You'd have to give dreads more to do than shoot pos, but that's not bad either :)
Svetlana Scarlet Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2007.11.14 21:56:00 - [166] Edited by: Svetlana Scarlet on 14/11/2007 21:57:35 Well, my suggestion for population-based sovereignty was posted before here: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=595218 Basically, I think we need to make POSes and outposts useful things you can have in space, and not things that drive sovereignty. People shouldn't be forced to build POSes for no purpose other than to claim sovereignty; each one should be built by its owners for some sort of utility, whether its moon mining, research, manufacturing, or refining, and outposts should be to provide market hubs and places for pilots to gather. Instead of a bunch of absentee landlords having sovereignty over space just because they spam POSes, space is owned by the people who spend time there and live and work in that space. It would be a drastic change from the current paradigm, but I think there's a lot of people who think maybe that is what is necessary. Edit: Heh, it looks like Serena either read my article or came up with almost the same idea. ;) -- CAPT Svetlana Scarlet CAIN Chief of Diplomatic Staff
Serena Hennessy Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.14 22:16:00 - [167] Edited by: Serena Hennessy on 14/11/2007 22:21:52 Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet Edit: Heh, it looks like Serena either read my article or came up with almost the same idea. ;) You know what they say about great minds... But seriously, this is an MMORPG. Make Alliances, Sov, and terratorial warfare people-powered. That's why these games are great. The more you focus gameplay around people, the better and the more dynamic the gameplay is. The real shame about Eve right now is that the sov mechanics have stripped nearly all of the dynamic and emergent gameplay out of 0.0 and has replaced it with the almighty blob. Which wouldn't be so bad, except the blobs create a neverending feedback loop of further blobbage which makes the server go barf. 250vs250 fleet battles are still pretty crazy fun, and what other game has them, but really, they shouldn't be the only thing going on. Edit: And Svetlana, although I didn't previously read your post, nor do I read SHC, the main problem with your idea is that you allow pilots to be docked, cloaked, in pos shields, in warp, or otherwise safe to count towards sov. My way means every person counting towards sov could be killed, making it possible to actually defend a system, and more, FORCING you to engage in combat to protect what's yours, rather than relying on broken game mechanics (pos spam) or just sticking alts in stations which can't be countered other than by more alts.
Nifel Caldari PAX Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.14 22:22:00 - [168] Edited by: Nifel on 14/11/2007 22:23:30 Idea: Bring back station shooty shooty with a twist: Sovereignty adds layers of shields on the station. Once a layer has been shot down the shields can't be shot at again for 2 hours. A layer that's recently been shot down can't be repaired until 1 hour has passed since it was shot down. Sovereignty has "dams" (barriers) that once surpassed floods sovereignty into neighbouring systems. Each successive system after that has higher dams spreading sovereignty at an increasingly slower rate. The more stations that are held in a constellation the higher the rate of sovereignty buildup. If an enemy holds the station your sovereignty withers away at twice the rate it builds up at (base). You gain sovereignty points for the system while holding the station even if it was recently captured. High sovereignty allows placement of guns at the station that can be shot at to be disabled (ala current pos guns mechanics). A corporation that holds a station with minimum sovereignty level 1 can set for autodestruct. Autodestruct is always 1 week. If a corporation cancels the autodestruct it starts counting down the destruction timer at twice the rate (so 2 days until it's cleared if it's been counting for 4 days). That's my contribution to this. Numbers can of course be discussed and tweaked as always. I've tried to set them to allow for maximum conflict giving incentives to fight tooth and nail. Have some <3 devs... you're all too often abused (sometimes righteously though :<). "When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car."
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 00:23:00 - [169] Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine Originally by: Goumindong Sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS. Why? Emphasis added. Because stations need to change hands as a result of concrete combat.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.15 00:26:00 - [170] Ok hereFs the idea. IFm bracing myself for the smack down. -Slight change in Sovereignty Rules -POSFs are no longer used to gain sovereignty. -New station types introduced. Like PosFs each of these Space structures will be either Amarr/ Gallente etc. I also think there should be a racial set bonus, but I could not decide on a suitably system wide balance bonus. Here is what is required to gain Sovereignty. Territory (Sovereignty 1) Requirement A single Garrison, is automatically set to claim sovereignty. This needs to be in place for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. Sov 1 BonusFs: Your alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system You can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where your alliance holds sovereignty. Outposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable until you lose sovereignty. Your alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction. Can deploy Shield Enhancement POSFs Can deploy 1 Command Starbase in system. How to challenge Sov 1: Destroy Sovereignty owners Garrison Garrison [Only 1 per system] Price: 2billion The Garrison is automatically set to gain Sovereignty, so if you deploy one then you are attempting to claim sovereignty. Garrison (allows you to claim sov 1) [same stats as a large tower] -At Sov 2 it becomes a Fortress and gets: 50% bonus to shield HP -At Sov 3 it becomes a Bastion and gets: 50% bonus to shield HP -At Sov 4 it becomes a Citadel and is invulnerable unless Sov level drops back to Sov 3. (It can be anchored to any Landmark in a system: Moon, Planet, Sun, Asteroid Field. [and if there is Tactical Environments it can anchor in some of those, but would take relevant penalties] Except Jump Gates) Protectorate (Sovereignty 2) Requirement Must have 1 Command Starbase deployed in system Territory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days Sov 2 BonusFs: Cynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). Scanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). Can deploy up to 2 Command Starbase in system. How to challenge Sov 2: Destroy Command Starbase to drop the defender down to Sov 1. Or Destroy Fortress to drop defenders down to Sov 0. Province (Sovereignty 3) Requirement Must have 2 Command Starbases deployed in system. Protectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days Sov 3 BonusFs: Twinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system). Cynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only one may Can deploy up to 3 Command Starbase in system. be anchored per system). How to challenge Sov 3: Destroy 1 Command Starbase to drop the defender down to Sov 2 Or Destroy Bastion to drop defenders down to Sov 0. Constellation Capital (Sovereignty 4) Requirement Must have 3 Command Starbases deployed in system. Province level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days. Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation. Sov 4 BonusFs: All starbase control towers (Except Command StarbaseFs) are invulnerable and cannot be locked. Shield Enhancement POSFs receive 50% bonus to shield HP Sovereignty of the system cannot be contested, and is locked into place until the system is forced to a lower sovereignty level. How to contest Sov 4: Destroy 1 Command Starbase to drop the defender down to Sov 3

Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.15 00:29:00 - [171] Post Continued Command Starbase (CS) [same stats as a large tower] [Price:1 bill] Field headquarters { Can Link to 3 Shield Enhancement POSFs (Once a Linked Shield Enhancement POS has been destroyed, a new Shield Enhancement POS cannot be linked to the Field Headquarters until the others that are linked are either destroyed or the Command Starbase is off lined.) Sov 1: 15% Bonus to Turret Batteries Damage for all stations in system. Sov 2: 15% Bonus to Turret Batteries Damage for all stations in system. Sov 3: 15% Bonus to Turret Batteries Damage for all stations types in system. Stellar Energy Array { Can Link to 3 Shield Enhancement POSFs (Once a Linked Shield Enhancement POS has been destroyed, a new Shield Enhancement POS cannot be linked to the Field Headquarters until the others that are linked are either off-lined or destroyed.) 12.5% bonus to all stations Shield HP in system. (requires 10 Advanced Science Labs in system for Stellar Energy Array bonusFs increase by 100%) Furtherance Depot { Can Link to 3 Shield Enhancement POSFs (Once a Linked Shield Enhancement POS has been destroyed, a new Shield Enhancement POS cannot be linked to the Field Headquarters until the others that are linked are either off-lined or destroyed.) 25% Bonus to fuel efficiency to all stations in system. Bonus to all stations in system CPU/PG by 5%. (requires 10 Reactor Arrays and 10 Bio Chemical Arrays in system, Furtherance Depot bonusFs increase by 100%) Shield Enhancement POSFs (SEP) Sov 1 [Price: 500mil] Furtherance Depot Shield Enhancement POS Stellar Energy Array Shield Enhancement POS Field headquarters Shield Enhancement POS Medium towers with half the cpu and power grid. Can deploy at a moon. When 3 SEPFs are linked to a CS, the CS becomes immune to attack. You can select which CS the SEP is linked to in the station menuFs. Once a SEP is linked to a CS, it cannot break its link unless destroyed or the CS is off-lined. If one of the SEPFs are destroyed, the CS remains invulnerable until all the SEPFs are destroyed. Empiric Sovereignty Requirements: Constellation Capital Sovereignty undisturbed for 30 days. Empiric Sovereignty Warfare If one of the following requirements are met, Empiric sovereignty will change to a contested mode: +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation. +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations. +The alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station. Sov 5 (Empiric) BonusFs: (this was in a previous post but has now been revised slightly and added to this.) It allows you to buy a new space station structure called a Capital Outpost node. The Node has all the same stats as a large tower but with 3 main differences. 1: Only 50% of the CPU and Power grid can be used for Gunnery placements and shield hardeners. 2: Only 50% the CPU and Power grid can be used for deployable structures other than Gunnery placements and Shield Hardeners. 3: Does not have a reinforced mode. The Capital Outpost Node counts as an extension of the Outpost and so is immune to attack until fThe alliance holding Empiric sovereignty loses control of all capital outposts or conquerable stationsF in the constellation. Also you can link another Capital Outpost Node to the first one. And keep linking them forever (maybe 15km between each one). You can keep adding Starbase Structures to each node and eventually build a city.
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.15 01:49:00 - [172] Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 01:50:47 I think the focus on POS changes should be the inclusion of "objectives" for smaller gangs. Or a benefit for enemy to split between multiple pos's. I think we all agree, during a siege, assaulting 3 seperate pos's and having 2-3 smaller fleet battles happening instead of one giant fleet battle on one grid would be a vast improvement on the current system. I think when CCP made changes to Stations by putting station "services" on them was a step in the right direction, and those mechanics should be the focus on how POS warfare should change. For example: All POS should have "hard points" that a gang can shoot, much like we have for station services. I know this idea is almost in affect being that guns are shootable or cyno jammers can be taken down etc etc. But I think it was implemented wrong. First off, not just the guns or jammer should be targets, those kinds of targets are pre-emptive for a siege. The idea of POS "services" is not for siege, but day to day entertainment and harassment. One could be a "fuel service", when this service is knocked out, the POS will hemmorage fuel, increasing fuel burn rate by a percentage (I was thinking double speed). Another could be a "Lab service" that cancels any research jobs going on at the pos, or at least delays them. Another could be "Mooning mining service" , if you disable this service the pos will be forced to stop moon mining for "X" amount of time. A "production service" is another example. Etc. Etc. I think you can get the idea of where im going with this. This would create "objectives" for gangs. For example "tonight we are going to disable all moon mining on allianceX's ferrogel operation, that should ** them off" or "our spys tell us an Aeon mothership is under contruction in X system. We don't have the forces to destroy it, but we can disable production for 24 hours, delaying their mothership" Stuff like that, it makes day-to-day operations less focused on gate camping or station hugging, and its something that actually EFFECTS the enemy. Not just some stupid annoyance you have to remote rep. HOWEVER, There is a few very very important things that need to be done for this to actually work. 1) POS must be weaker offensively. I know ill get some flame for this, but I think its the number one thing that needs to change in POS warefare. Atm large pos are way to powerful. Any 30 or even 40 man gang looking to disable a pos "service" would NOT be able to do so with the current pos mechanics. Large POS should not be able to be destroyed by a 30-40 man support fleet. But yes they should be able to be harassed. Each POS "service" would have a decent amount of hitpoints but lowish recharge rate, meaning the gang would have to sit there for a bit, possibly waiting for a fight to happen over the pos service, but not so many hitpoints that it becomes dull, or something not worth wasting your time over. 2) Dreads tank must be toned down. This is to "compensate" for POS being less effective offensively. Do they really need that tank for anything but deathstar pos's? 3) (Not POS related) STATION services hitpoints need to be reduced! When I go to a system with a 25 man gang, I should not hear "don't shoot their services, your wasting your time" , it takes too long, recharge is too high for smaller gangs. Ontop of all this. I think certain pos's should effect sov. while others should not. Intoducing a sov. module would be a step in the right direction**, but I think the module should have negative affects on the pos (such as making it worthless for anything but sov.). This would force alliances to use less pos for sov. claiming and shorten sieges. Phew, that was a lot to type.
Drogher Forerunner	Posted - 2007.11.15 02:11:00 - [173] Originally by: Veng3ance 1) POS must be weaker offensively. I know ill get some flame for this, but I think its the number one thing that needs to change in POS warefare. Atm large pos are way to powerful. Any 30 or even 40 man gang looking to disable a pos "service" would NOT be able to do so with the current pos mechanics Cant large gangs/fleets of small ships (AF, Inti's HACS) take out the services without getting hit but the guns?
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.15 02:28:00 - [174] Originally by: Drogher Forerunner Originally by: Veng3ance 1) POS must be weaker offensively. I know ill get some flame for this, but I think its the number one thing that needs to change in POS warefare. Atm large pos are way to powerful. Any 30 or even 40 man gang looking to disable a pos "service" would NOT be able to do so with the current pos mechanics Cant large gangs/fleets of small ships (AF, Inti's HACS) take out the services without getting hit but the guns? I guess it depends on the hitpoints of each service. Realistically we do want to see battleships taking on large pos's. I think it would be a bit too easy if a nano gang had the DPS to drop a service.
ardik TunkbwahCorp	Posted - 2007.11.15 03:36:00 - [175] Just an FYI in case people are missing it, Kerfira is purely a troll and nothing he says will make sense.
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 05:59:00 - [176] I just want to say that I agree with just about every one of Ernest Graefenberg's points and think the ideas really could work well, and it's only a few simple changes from what you have now (1 2). The limitation of 5-9 sov claiming POSes per system I don't quite agree with, and I would prefer the "POS -> Moon -> Planet -> System" idea. The change to carriers giving them +50% to capacitor and EW immunity is a little out there, and so is forbidding remote-repping other capital ships at least a little bit. I also did not like the idea of making cyno jammers use much more fuel outside of station systems and the "docking" sequence with POSes sounds a little wonky but it's got the right idea. Overall, it's a scheme of ideas that could definitely work, with or without some modification. I'd also be in favor of reducing the hitpoints of POSes and POS modules substantially, since they are honestly just too high in general. People will still be able to respond and defend their towers because their destruction is mediated by stront timers; the HP at its current levels is just a grind that makes larger "blobs" than necessary a prerequisite. The only POS module I would not change too much is the cyno jammer, since I see it as an essential tool in POS warfare at the moment. Halving cyno jammer HP could be okay; much more than that could be over the top. I also had an idea a few months back that's pretty simple, here ya go: Originally by: Intermediate Levels of Disabling for Station Services Okay, so with station services, you've got two sides of the boredom issue: Wayne: "We want small gangs to have effects on sov besides just ganking miners, but the services have too much HP!" Perry: "We don't want to have all of our god damn clone bays wrecked while we were at work, jackass" As a compromise, there could be a sort of middle ground between enabled and disabled for station services. This would not have the absolute effect of completely turning something off, but it could have less hitpoints so it would take less people to pull it off. So instead of the current way it works: Full shield, armor, structure: Enabled Shoot down to structure after hours: Disabled Change it to: Full shield, armor, structure: Fully enabled Shot down to armor: Made a little crappier Shot down to structure: Completely disabled Repaired up to just shield: Partially enabled Repaired to full health: fully enabled So what can "partially enabled" mean for a station service? For the factory and laboratory services its easy; just make jobs take twice as long (as an example). Doesn't take too long to fix, and it does have an noticeable effect on the outpost owner, but if you came back from work and somebody partially disabled your factory/lab jobs, it would have at least continued at a slower pace. For the Refinery, you could reduce refinery efficiency. Pretty self-explanatory. Fitting, Medical, and Repair services aren't so obvious. For medical the only thing I can think of as middle of the road is to make clones more expensive, or to make it so you can't set your clone to that station. For repairs, you could make repairs more expensive, but at conquerable stations you can get repairs done for free, so unless they change that, it won't work. Fitting is also a little tricky; could you maybe make it so it takes longer to fit a ship, or maybe make it so you can mount modules, but they can't be onlined in station so you have to do it outside with the tedious cap recharge to 97% stuff? Could work, anyway.
MasterDecoy Gallente Mass Impetus	Posted - 2007.11.15 06:15:00 - [177] Originally by: ardik Just an FYI in case people are missing it, Kerfira is purely a troll and nothing he says will make sense. mlyp Originally by: Evilempire1 good, im pentitioning you for slandering.
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 06:18:00 - [178] Also: Right now the "manage" button and the "offline" button are dangerously close next to each other on the starbase interface. Please fix this, since right now it's a little easy to accidentally offline a tower.
Vaslav Tchitcherine Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.15 07:23:00 - [179] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine Originally by: Goumindong Sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS. Why? Emphasis added. Because stations need to change hands as a result of concrete combat. Agreed, I was questioning what looked like your assumption that this necessarily involved dreads and/or POS. I'm hoping a solution arrives that involves parallel avenues. -- Star Fraction recruitment: come join the Yarrletariat!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 07:39:00 - [180] Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Vaslav Tchitcherine Originally by: Goumindong Sovereignty should be about jumping in dreads and sieging POS. Why? Emphasis added. Because stations need to change hands as a result of concrete combat. Agreed, I was questioning what looked like your assumption that this necessarily involved dreads and/or POS. I'm hoping a solution arrives that involves parallel avenues. I think it necessarily involves POS, you can siege a POS with battleships, its just not easy. The key is to get the number of POS down lower. That is the borning part. If you had to siege 1-2 POS per system it would be no big deal. E.G. Lets say that three new points are added to a system called "sov holding points" and at you can place POS there to hold a system. This means that the most POS you would ever need to siege is 2 to secure a system. It means that if you dont defend your system, attackers will take it over in short order. Sieging this system wont be boring, it will take a couple of hours tops once you can bring dreads in, spread accross both sieges. But what it does is it forces enemies to defend their POS instead of putting up d2 specials and hoping the enemy will get bored to death. And if the defenders lose the POS, in order to get sov back, or keep it from switching they have to siege a POS themselves instead of just finding open moons and putting more towers up. Defending a system becomes "we have to defend this POS" instead of "we have to plop down some more towers maybe?" Its really the prime problem, just too many POS. This needs to be coupled with a way for a small gang to do damage to an alliance that just docks up. As bane said on the previous page. A small gang cant realisticially shoot station services, in fact, a small gang cant realisticially do any damage to an alliance if the alliance docks. They dont have the time[or ammo likely] to shoot stations or the strength to shoot POS, all they can do is hope someone undocks, and all the alliance has to do to not take losses is dock up.

Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.15 08:36:00 - [181] Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg Originally by: Kerfira There's no way a small alliance can get a foothold in a large alliances space (blob ftw.), so the only really feasible solution is to limit alliances to no more than they can use, whether through logistics or sov determination mechanics. How much exactly can say, 6000 people use? How many moons are they allowed to exploit? How many station systems are adequate? Really, how small exactly do you expect these groups to be? And if Goonswarm are 'worthy' of say, 10 stations - you'd be happy with 0.1 stations for your small corp, right? Ahhh, argumenting on your big friends wishes instead of what would be good for the game. Class!!! Big alliances, like your good friends there, are pretty detrimental to the GAME! Big alliances cause lag-blobbing to occur! While I agree it would be great if the game could handle it, it can't! They hinder smaller entities in gaining a foothold (ie. raising the bar for high-sec to 0.0 transition)! They make 0.0 politics turn into an 'us' vs. 'them' place, instead of a more complex place af multiple alliances having complex relations. All in all, it dumbs down the game, taking away complexity and replacing it with simplicity! But keep arguing only for your own groupings advantage. Remember though that CCP asked for what could improve Sov. warfare, not what would be good for your grouping..... Originally by: Kerfira The main thing that needs to be taken out of territorial warfare is the usability of the blob. If that's done, then I think everything else would more or less fall in place nicely no matter what the mechanics. Dealing with the blob though is not possible if we keep the current POS sovereignty mechanics (even if we tweak numbers etc.) or similar centralised sovereignty targets. It's the exact same fallacy as the "Doomsday counters blobs" line: You don't want to actually marginalize players. More players need to have the advantage over less players, that's the end of the story. If it does not cater to elitist fantasies, that's too bad - but the point here is to make it fun, not fair. Remember that part about EvE being a harsh place? Well yeah. Ahh, again the egotistical argument.... "Blobbing is my friends tactics, don't you dare touch it!" Blobbing is bad on almost all levels! There's no fun at all in the lagged out blob-fests that are so common these days in 0.0, and of.c. again it hinders smaller groupings form doing much, even though they may be better players. 'More players' should NOT automatically have the advantage over 'less players'. If the 'less players' are better at tactics and better skilled at fighting (I'm not meaning purely skill points here), the 'less players' should have a very good chance of winning over the 'more players'. This'd provide incentives for players to get better at the game, not just better at gathering a bigger blob. If this is not so, then you've reduced EVE from being a game of strategy, tactics, skill and abilities, to being a game of who can gather the biggest blob. Whop-di-*****-do! Where's the incentive to get better? All in all, I think your arguments are totally biased. You're not looking at what would be good for the game, but only at what would be good for your grouping! Originally by:** CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.15 08:40:00 - [182] Originally by: ardik Just an FYI in case people are missing it, Kerfira is purely a troll and nothing he says will make sense. Or to translate your comment..... "Kerfira is making suggestions that'd make my friends unhappy. I have no good arguments against the arguments, so I'll try the 'troll' argument. If that doesn't work, then I'll continue to insults...." Just because I'm against the current POS-based warfare system and the polarisation of 0.0 into only two power-blocks doesn't mean I'm a 'troll'. Arguments instead of accusations, and you might make a point.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.15 08:59:00 - [183] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kerfira The logistics required to keep sovereignty of systems needs to be made harder! Not easier! If it's made easier, this'll not mean that the logistics people will get more time to do other stuff. It'll just mean that more POS are put up! The amount of space an alliance/corp can comfortably claim needs to be cut drastically. The main idea behind the solution suggestion I put forward on the previous page was that alliance/corp should not be able to claim more space than they could and would use! This is dumb. Also, your "grinding sovereignty" mechanic is dumb. Just because it'd prevent your alliance (and other biggies) from claiming huge areas you don't use doesn't mean an idea is 'dumb' (classic GoonSwarm argumentation there btw.)... It actually means the idea is good for the GAME as a whole (though maybe not for your group)..... Blobbing needs a good swift kick in the 'nads (yes, I know lag-blobbing is a favorite tactics of yours, but that doesn't make it good for the game). This doesn't just go for ship blobbing, but also for alliance/corp blobbing. This'd make for a more interesting 0.0 than the current 2-block situation. My suggested change would mean first of all that ALL player types (not just PvP'ers) would have a place in 0.0 alliances, and secondly that alliance warfare would be more about continually fighting your enemy until he could fight no more, instead of blobbing his station systems at your own prime-time shooting his POS and hoping he doesn't get his towers stront-timed. This would make POS warfare a sideshow (mostly economic and anti-cynojam/jumpbridge/cynogen), while making ship-to-ship combat over a large area THE way of Sov warfare. This is what most people claim they want (more ship-to-ship, less senseless shooting of structures). My idea is somewhat dependent on high-sec imports (mainly minerals) into 0.0 being nerfed a lot (which seems to be happening). What is used in 0.0 should be produced in 0.0, not imported from isk-farmers in empire! If this is done, then you actually have a good chance to starve your opponents out of their territory. If you can prevent them from gathering resources, then eventually they can fight no more when their stockpiles run out. Most importantly, it'll give plenty of small-medium level ship fights instead of the big boring lag-fests.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
MasterDecoy Gallente Mass Impetus	Posted - 2007.11.15 09:15:00 - [184] scratch what i said before, you're a **... i think you got an interesting idea, if you can't defend or explain it without turning into an idiot: CAOD is that way. Originally by:** Evilempire1 good, im pentitioning you for slandering.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 09:47:00 - [185] Originally by: Kerfira blobbing You do realize that your idea is entirely dependent on blobbing? "Putting up infastructure matters" - POS SPAM "Kills Matter" - Blobbing Mining, Ratting, Exploring - Stopped by blobbing. Blobbing allows you to do these activities. You think its bad right now when goons blob? Imagine if they dont even have to fight you, we just show up and park a couple hundred guns in your system and dont even bother to shoot the pos. You think a small alliance is going to be more nimble than a large one? Yea it makes it easier to nibble off the edges, it also makes it easier to be slaughtered mercilessly. Goons will do this as a hobby and as roaming gangs. We could take over entire alliances by the power of our production empire alone. Not to mention the ridiculousness of macro-ratters gaining sov in systems. The idea is terrible.
ardik TunkbwahCorp	Posted - 2007.11.15 11:20:00 - [186] Originally by: Goumindong The idea is terrible. Originally by: ardik Just an FYI in case people are missing it, Kerfira is purely a troll and nothing he says will make sense. Don't read his posts, don't reply, just go oh hey a kerfira troll and move the ** on. He ruins like every single thread in every *** forum he posts and is completely ***** useless. Apart from when you use him to get your threads bumped, in which case he's a pretty useful idiot, but really, this thread is stickied so lets not do that.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.15 11:29:00 - [187] If topic turns into flame, devs will probably stop reading it and posting is is useless ;)
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.15 11:57:00 - [188] And back to creative thoughts. The problem is timezones vs small gangs. Small gangs need many small targets over large area to be useful. Timezone balance requires some mechanics to prevent wiping out a german alliance while all Germans are at work. Those mechanics are currently POSes with zillions HP and strontium. General idea is: have small, weak installations that hide in POSes for half for part of the day when You cannot defend them. This could be automatic or manual. Installations should be a valit target for a small gang, like 5 minutes of shooting for 10 HACs. Installations should give tactical or economic advantage - like suppporting scouts probing, mining additional moon resources, reinforcing POS shields, making Your safespot harder to probe, giving command-like bonuses to nearby friendly fleets. Installations should be hidden but possible to probe out without extreme effort. They should be located in characteristic areas (like near belts, near moons for POS support, near sun for scanners). This would be like tactical locations to controll. They should have area of effect, like half or 1 AU, so there can be parts of system domineted by one force and another. Installations are hidden in POSes in hours Your alliance can't afford to defend them. If You cannot keep Your installations safe for at least 6 hours a day (like in a completely unused far region of Your alliance, prone to roaming gangs), and enemy can put his own installations, he should be able to take over the system without capital fights (imagine hidden hacking installations hanging 100 000 km off Your POS, that take 3 days to hack POS computer systems and let enemy pass shields - If You can't regularly guard, probe and patrol Your system). Installations should be cheap (20-50mill) and mobile (5 minutes anchoring or so). This way a spread force anchoring and moving 5 at once, can gain some tactical advantage over a blob taking 1 at once.
Shayleigh Snowflower DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 13:48:00 - [189] I think, that with the Heavy Interdictors and the new black-ops ship, and some maturing of the current POS stuff, that EVE will be OK. Espesially after the POS modules unanchor and becomes stealable. One feature I would like are POS module Killmails. POS module incap mails. If possible, to have the amount of damage dealt to a module on the killmail for each particapant would be great fun. Should also be the same for station services. I am fairly sure that would invoke all kinds of 'competition' for gangs. A POS Sabotasje ship would maybee be fun? Maybee a ship that can, over a couple of hours construct a 'doomsday machine' to clear away pos modules? Would ofcurse require carriers etc to rep his shields so he do not die from POS guns while making the device? If the device are not destroyed within 36 hours, it will start to generate disturbances so that modules inside the POS shield (hardners, moon-miners, silos) shut down, and if not destroyed within 72 hours, it blows the POS and everything else on the grid to Hotel Echo Lima Lima with a 100 000 000 damage magneto-black-worm-hole-banana bomb. This device shouldn't need more than a million HP so it is easy to take out, IF there are a defending party. How this would work, how to defend against it and how to counter it, I don't know, but, it would be nice to shorten the long weeks of clearing out.
Garr Anders Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.15 14:57:00 - [190] Edited by: Garr Anders on 15/11/2007 14:57:37 Im a total noob, never been in a POS war not even have any real experiences in PvP, and to be honest I think it's very delicate for me to even post here but I just got an idea I want to throw it in here for brainstorming regarding the Blob. Anybody now the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battletech#The_Clans]BattleTech [/url]Universe and remember how Clans decided on who and with what they achieve a wargoal? They try to underbid each other using less resources than the other bragging their clan can achieve that objective with less (mechs/pilots/unites) than the others. Is something like this feasible ? This idea is totally raw and probably a stupid but what comes to my minds is something like. Alliance A wants to gain sovereignty over system X from B. They declare "contest of sovereignty" stating before hand + their planed fleet size in points something alike for the tournament + a given time window when they want to attack + the time they need to achieve their goal (what ever those might be) Now the Alliance B has time to put up a defense to match the point score of the attacking fleet, but they have to declare how many points they need as well but: + taking more points (e.g. taking more/bigger ships) could - reduce the number of goals the attacker has to achieve - give him more time - allowes him to up his fleet to the same number of points only once + taking less points on the other hand could: - adds additional objectives to achieve by the attacker - decreases the time for the attacker - allowed the attacker to tone down his fleet to similar points score Just to brainstorm on. What goals ? No idea How big the time windows for attacking / how long you can take for an attack ? no idea either How to calculate points ? the same. Yes this makes combat more "formal" no real sudden hit and run tactics, although it might offer "sabotage missions", stuff you can take out/attack on the fly which are needed to open up a formal attack window to contests a system. Again just a very raw idea to counter the blob. When this sounds like an arena fight, yes, I know, good bad, I dont know, this all is just an idea to focus the ppl using dedicated ships rather than just blobbing away. Oh regarding the fight itself, some when within the starting attack time window the fleet commander of the attacking fleet "registers/broadcast" a contest for the system and from that time on his fleet is kinda registerded. Only a defending fleet comander can accept this broadcast, also registering his fleet as is. Only these two fleets are able to damage each other (and objective defense stuff or so). Where they keep their fleets with the system doesn't matter. Using a stargate unregisters you and when you re-enter you are out of the fight. I guess I wrote enough, so I ll go into the corner and hide my noob as from any buttkicks ... . :shock: Garr Anders - Minmatar

Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.15 15:17:00 - [191] Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12 I would just like to say a quick comment. All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea. It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs. There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system. Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously.
Cker Heel Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.15 16:45:00 - [192] Nerf the tank of control towers, but allow the pos in system or constellation to reinforce each other. Can the game engine support POS boosting each other's shield? It could be akin to the gang bonus system. Make lone tower shield far smaller, say a tenth of what they are now and add a structure to spider tank the towers. The spider tank would need too automatically boost towers under attack. The interlocking defense should much be more effective than the tower's own boost -- that is, two linked towers can tank much more than two lone towers. That also means its far more effective siege the two towers at once instead of sequentially. The remote boosting sturctures could have versions for in-system boost and in-constellation boost, linked like jump bridge structures. Then a system assualt would include objectives like taking out the remote boosting structures, and spreading blob DPS to multiple towers at once to defeat the spider network. Empire towers and lone towers should be easier to kill anyway. At higher sov levels, you can anchor better spider tanking structures, or they can be interlocked with more towers, or some such bonus. Perhaps hackers could analyze the structures to discover the tower links.
Cker Heel Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.15 16:52:00 - [193] It also occurs to me interlocking towers could cure POS spam as well. If only so many remote boost structures are allowed per system (like jump bridge limits), only a small set of towers will have the strong spider tanks. Spammed towers beyond that limit would be easy pickings for BS gangs since they have a fraction of HP of today's towers.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.15 17:37:00 - [194] Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12 I would just like to say a quick comment. All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea. It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs. There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system. Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously. Damn, I've put in so many ideas, tried to break up the pos fighting a bit. But your right, it still all focus's too much on the actual station fighting. Im going to have to hit the brain storm room again and get those hamsters running again.
Nifel Caldari PAX Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.15 18:51:00 - [195] Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12 I would just like to say a quick comment. All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea. It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs. There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system. Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously. Anything as strong as POS will always get a blob. It's not a problem to have the station as a focus point for huge megafleets as that is one of the selling points of EVE and if it wasn't possible a lot of players simply wouldn't play any longer. What's needed is escalation and one or more incentives to spread out your fleet. As an example: my suggestion could be engineered to encourage multiple hits in this way. Let's say you can deploy various structures to help gain sovereignty points in systems, slow down removal rate if your stations is captured, increase removal rate if you just took an enemy station and probably some other stuff as well that would help industry. The structures would be multi-part that would have to be placed over several places in the system(s) and that would have to be hit simultaneously in order to remove them in a timely manner. If just one part is hit the other parts of the multi-part structure would harden it significantly, but if all were to be hit at the same time they would be unable to harden the other parts. Oh and... this is a brainstorming session. There are no "bad" ideas ^^;;. "When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car."
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.15 18:53:00 - [196] Originally by: Goumindong 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... Well i read through the idea. Have to agree with them its a great idea. That pretty much solves the whole problem of POS spamming. Originally by: Goumindong 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. I also think that if your corp/alliance is [example 1] + to Amarr and another Corp/ Alliance (friendly for example) is + to Minmatar. Then you are automatically set hostile to them [or set hostile to them on a Faction warfare Standings section and your normal standings continue to work in a normal way] Either way, If you now kill the Corp./ Alliance that are Factionally hostile to you, then you recieve LP [A Higher amount than killing the NPC -maybe double or triple depending on ship class] and you raise your standing. [Exanple 2]Equally If you are + to Amarr and a hostile Corp is + to Amarr, You can kill each other, but you lose standing (and possibly LP, not sure how that works) at the same rate/way that you would gain it in the first example. One more thing. If you have Constilation Sov and are + to Amarr, then you can delclare it as join Amarr Empire Space on the map, (Amarr Space increases the map) and the area can recieve a bonus. Exmaple 1: 25% to fuel efficiency Exmaple 2: Amarr navy NPC's on gates. That shoot Factional Hostile targets. Exmaple 3: Gate guns shoot Factional Hostile targets. Also a corp or alliance can remain indipendent. But then they miss out on the chance to gain LP (or gain a low amount from killing Faction alligned Corps -NPC Amount.) also they can be killed by Faction alligned Corps for low LP - NPC Amount. Reason being is that they are infidels or something. I also think Level 5 Empiric Sov (I put this idea on a previous post) should be added, if for nothing but coolness factor. Well Goumindong, You solved POS spamming, Factional warfare. Now you have to come up with a way Sov fights that have more variety, then solve world hunger.
Svetlana Scarlet Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2007.11.15 20:00:00 - [197] Originally by: Serena Hennessy Edit: And Svetlana, although I didn't previously read your post, nor do I read SHC, the main problem with your idea is that you allow pilots to be docked, cloaked, in pos shields, in warp, or otherwise safe to count towards sov. My way means every person counting towards sov could be killed, making it possible to actually defend a system, and more, FORCING you to engage in combat to protect what's yours, rather than relying on broken game mechanics (pos spam) or just sticking alts in stations which can't be countered other than by more alts. I also came to this conclusion, but my intent was to come up with a good base system to work from and tweak from there. The other issue is that people docked or cloak can be working and adding to the economy and strength of the region as well. I wasn't sure it was fair to simply proclaim that they had no value because of that. You could be running the POS defenses, you could be taking care of industrial work, etc. All of those things shouldn't be invalidated as contributions. I suppose you could set an idle timer on people though; any account which hasn't taken actions other than chatting for more than X amount of time is considered idle and therefore does not count towards sovereignty. That would still allow for abuse, but it would at least be a least-effort way of cull the most obvious cases of abuse. -- CAPT Svetlana Scarlet CAIN Chief of Diplomatic Staff
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.15 21:15:00 - [198] Gaining Soverignty Points for activities in the system is a good idea. Soverignty is the extension of government into the daily lives of the populace. As such, you need an active population to maintain it. I'd link Soverignty to multiple factors, each contributing a small amount. The list of items which contribute to Soverignty would include: 1> POS's 2> Stations/Outposts 3> Isk generated by Ratting/Refining/Building/Missions 4> Kill/Death ratio 5> Neighboring Systems Soverignty 6> Designated Provincial Capital 7> Time Soverignty Held 8> Factional Warfare? 9> Planetary Populations? The point of this style of calculations allow both Massive Invasions and Constant Harrassment to push soverignty in one direction, while the defender can counter with Solid Defense or Attrition Warfare to push back.
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.15 23:51:00 - [199] Considering that the new system will have to be easily implementable, easy to calculate (no one wants to calculate gathered ISK per day for every sov system in game, nu uh) yet challenging AND fun, I think two changes could greatly benefit the current system. 1. Sov: Moons and Outposts 1.1 Moons First moon of every planet (that has moon) in a system is a primary moon, make sure all systems have at least 3 primary moons. This will reduce the amount of moons needed for Sov yet be easily implemente AND prevent you from having to put deathstars and glorified mining POS's where you can have nice research/production POS's. To implement this change all moons would require an attribute called (arbitrarily here) SovStr (sovereignty strength). Non-primaries get 0, primary moons gets 1. 1.2 Outposts Outposts act like an extra 2 primary moons under your control. Outposts should become siegable (sic?) but that is not the main subject of this post so I'll leave that one for now. Basically Outposts are an object in the system with a SovStr attribute of 2. 2. The grinding pain: POS fatigue Correctly pointed out in several occasions, having to wait for a stront time error is annoying. How do we allow attackers to overcome this issue without nerfing the hell out of any defense? It's called POS fatigue. The concept is easy, every time a POS is put into siege but then saved, it will suffer from fatigue (excertion on the shields eh). A POS that comes out of reinforced and is saved will have X % of its shields in fatigue (e.g. can not be repped) thus reducing shield strength for X amount of time (until fatigue wears off). If we set fatigue % to 10% and fatigue timer to 5 days: Alliance A attacks POS 1 of Alliance B and it is reinforced. Alliance A defends the POS when it comes out of reinforced and reps it up. --> POS 1 HP: shields 90%, armour 100%. Fatigue timer is at 5 days. 2 days later, Alliance B attacks the POS again, and darn it, Alliance A defends it again. --> POS 1 HP: shields 80%, armour 100%. Fatigue timer WAS at 3 days, but now at 5 again. ... The sieges continue and POS 1 was saved from destruction 5 times. --> POS 1 HP: shields 50%, armour 100%. Fatigue timer is at 5 days. The POS has reached critical fatigue and can't be reinforced for another 5 days. Alliance B now has a CHANCE to take out the POS entirely. You can adjust percentages and timers to balance this system, but it is flexible, less hard to implement than 100% new solutions and removes a lot of the current annoying issues.
Drakine MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.16 00:16:00 - [200] Make NPC Stations shootible so use people in NPC Space have some fun :( Regions were there are no POS Controling sov would be great. I wouldnt mind station ping pong :P

Dwindlehop Uninvited Guests	Posted - 2007.11.16 00:33:00 - [201] Remove sovereignty from POS altogether. Otherwise leave POS alone as they serve a useful function: labs, construction hangars, moon mining, etc. Give outposts some fitting room for guns, launchers, EW, hardeners, and so forth. Change the sovereignty level calculations to base off length of outpost ownership instead of length of POS ownership. To claim alliance A's outpost, alliance B has to shoot the defended, hardened outpost down to 0. Add the reinforced mechanic from POS in as well to remove ninja strikes at offpeak hours. My solution gives a nice balance between static 20+ moon POS wars and pre-sov station ping-pong. A better solution would involve force being projected on two or more nodes simultaneously for maximum success, but I can't think of any sensible ideas that utilize that mechanic.
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.16 00:44:00 - [202] Originally by: Dwindlehop Remove sovereignty from POS altogether. Otherwise leave POS alone as they serve a useful function: labs, construction hangars, moon mining, etc. Give outposts some fitting room for guns, launchers, EW, hardeners, and so forth. Change the sovereignty level calculations to base off length of outpost ownership instead of length of POS ownership. To claim alliance A's outpost, alliance B has to shoot the defended, hardened outpost down to 0. Add the reinforced mechanic from POS in as well to remove ninja strikes at offpeak hours. My solution gives a nice balance between static 20+ moon POS wars and pre-sov station ping-pong. A better solution would involve force being projected on two or more nodes simultaneously for maximum success, but I can't think of any sensible ideas that utilize that mechanic. Just as we want to go away from the 20 'it's-a-drag-to-kill-me' POS slugfests per system, we really don't want it to come to 1 superPOS slugfest. Less amounts of fights on multiple locations on POS that suffer fatigue will be less prone to superlag blobfests.The solution isn't 100% complete, but is a feasible basis from which you can build.
Serena Hennessy Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.16 03:16:00 - [203] Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet I also came to this conclusion, but my intent was to come up with a good base system to work from and tweak from there. The other issue is that people docked or cloak can be working and adding to the economy and strength of the region as well. I wasn't sure it was fair to simply proclaim that they had no value because of that. You could be running the POS defenses, you could be taking care of industrial work, etc. All of those things shouldn't be invalidated as contributions. I suppose you could set an idle timer on people though; any account which hasn't taken actions other than chatting for more than X amount of time is considered idle and therefore does not count towards sovereignty. That would still allow for abuse, but it would at least be a least-effort way of cull the most obvious cases of abuse. Right, but by forcing people to be active in space, you encourage pew pew. And besides, it's 0sec, it's SUPPOSED to be dangerous. I'd like to force people to expose themselves to it as much as possible :D
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.16 03:43:00 - [204] Originally by: Serena Hennessy Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet I also came to this conclusion, but my intent was to come up with a good base system to work from and tweak from there. The other issue is that people docked or cloak can be working and adding to the economy and strength of the region as well. I wasn't sure it was fair to simply proclaim that they had no value because of that. You could be running the POS defenses, you could be taking care of industrial work, etc. All of those things shouldn't be invalidated as contributions. I suppose you could set an idle timer on people though; any account which hasn't taken actions other than chatting for more than X amount of time is considered idle and therefore does not count towards sovereignty. That would still allow for abuse, but it would at least be a least-effort way of cull the most obvious cases of abuse. Right, but by forcing people to be active in space, you encourage pew pew. And besides, it's 0sec, it's SUPPOSED to be dangerous. I'd like to force people to expose themselves to it as much as possible :D Sadly, the sheer amount of number crunching that would require is not feasible. Not to mention it would not be very transparent bringing frustration to both developer and player, allowing for increased abuse of the system and favouring larger > smaller. You want a system with a reasonable number of deciding variables that can not easily be exploited. Whilst the deciding factor should definitely be presence related I do think the only feasible way is through some sort of structure and not the individual players.
Loedem Minmatar Knockaround Guys	Posted - 2007.11.16 06:30:00 - [205] Originally by: Dwindlehop Remove sovereignty from POS altogether. Otherwise leave POS alone as they serve a useful function: labs, construction hangars, moon mining, etc. Give outposts some fitting room for guns, launchers, EW, hardeners, and so forth. Change the sovereignty level calculations to base off length of outpost ownership instead of length of POS ownership. To claim alliance A's outpost, alliance B has to shoot the defended, hardened outpost down to 0. Add the reinforced mechanic from POS in as well to remove ninja strikes at offpeak hours. My solution gives a nice balance between static 20+ moon POS wars and pre-sov station ping-pong. A better solution would involve force being projected on two or more nodes simultaneously for maximum success, but I can't think of any sensible ideas that utilize that mechanic. I like this...maybe a combination of this and the existing system? For example...an Outpost is fairly tough to siege in comparison to a POS, however if your opposing team has spammed POS's, then a quicker alternative may be the outpost as a way to bypass. There would have to be ways to circumvent refueling the outpost from station hangars, maybe with time-outs, but other than that it adds a duel objective: - Conquer the system via the current POS warfare method. - Conquer the system via the Outpost, when the effort of POS warfare outweighs it. You could even add a strategic element to this by weakening outpost defenses for every POS in system aiding its sov, thus putting the defender in a position to decide which strategy works best. The point is you're fighting over the Outpost anyway...it should be somewhat a center of attention :) The defenses around the Oupost can be configured any way that's deemed a good balance...for example, you could have a large shield around the entire structure (bounces anyone without docking rights) or could have 2-3 towers in its proximity (if protecting undocking people is giving too much to defense...I'd prefer this config tbo...and incorporated in the sentry gun locations that empire stations would have.). Problem #2: Zerging - I think this should be treated as a completely different issue tbo. The point of this thread is to make POS warfare less drawn out and boring...but at the same time zerging does take a bit of the fun out due to the lag....perhaps some extra check and balances can be put in that periodically takes count of defenders and attackers (and penalizes, gives bonuses....I'll have to think on this one and edit this post later on)
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.16 11:29:00 - [206] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kerfira blobbing You do realize that your idea is entirely dependent on blobbing? "Putting up infastructure matters" - POS SPAM "Kills Matter" - Blobbing Mining, Ratting, Exploring - Stopped by blobbing. Blobbing allows you to do these activities. You think its bad right now when goons blob? Imagine if they dont even have to fight you, we just show up and park a couple hundred guns in your system and dont even bother to shoot the pos. You think a small alliance is going to be more nimble than a large one? Yea it makes it easier to nibble off the edges, it also makes it easier to be slaughtered mercilessly. Goons will do this as a hobby and as roaming gangs. We could take over entire alliances by the power of our production empire alone. I've never claimed that numbers wouldn't gain you some advantage :-) If you want to park 200 goons in a system/constellation for 2-4 weeks (or whatever time is deemed right) and shut it down for your opposition, you DESERVE to get the system! You may even shoot POS if you want, but you're not forced to.... The type of blobbing I'm trying to avoid with this suggestion is the 'occation super-blob', where everyone+dog blobs up because 'at 1837 EVE time a POS comes out of reinforced'. With my suggestion you'll still have the option to 'blob' in a way, but you'll need to do it over a long period of time instead of a half-hour interval that'd most likely be lagged to hell..... This means that even an inferior enemy will have timezones where he can score some points, not to mention that since the current owner will have the station, he'll score points on production etc. Depending on how each type of activity is weighed against the others, this gives the defender some advantage, but he'll still have to fight to keep what he's got. You say you can take any territory you want with this, but isn't that already the case then? With my suggestion an alliance will only be able to KEEP territory they actually use! It'll hopefully also mean a lot more ship-to-ship combat! Originally by: Goumindong Not to mention the ridiculousness of macro-ratters gaining sov in systems. If they're the only ones using it, I don't see it as anything to worry about really. They log off anyway when people enter, so once someone starts using it, they'll go away and so will their sov. Originally by: Goumindong The idea is terrible. No, the idea is DIFFERENT. It needs a bit of work on things like treaties to let allies work in your area without competing on sov with you, but that's what I call housekeeping. It may also be that it needs to work on a constellation basis instead of individual systems. That way you'd spread out any tendency to blob even further. The idea that all types of players should have an equally valuable place in any alliance empire IS a good one! Today, if you're not a PvP'er, you more often than not get told to f-off if you approach a 0.0 alliance (my characters are all PvP'ers except one which does the logistics for the other three. What I'm really after is more small-medium scale ship-to-ship combat). I see a system like this gaining us WAY more small fights than we currently have, since small fights (but a lot of them) will contribute a lot more to you winning over your opponent than showing up with a huge blob and not fighting at all. Less POS pew-pew (preferably none), more ship pew-pew! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Ghost Reaper Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.16 11:53:00 - [207] can we get a response from the gms, what ideas they like, what they wnat to test etc???? gr Latest Vid: Blood Shock
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.16 13:26:00 - [208] Originally by: Kerfira Lots of text and ideas In general I think it is a bad idea to have a system where you can take a system without the need for even one fight. When the opposing force can simply enter the system and AVOID any fight and still win, then there is a serious flaw. Unless you intend to somehow measure the activity of those present such as in other ideas. Something which doesn't remove the possibility of exploiting, but it is also technically very unlikely to be feasible. Number crunching every single occupant in every system in sov space all the time is just not happening. Bringing the focal points down to a reasonable number is the first priority. But blobbing will still occur at this stage. One way would be to force the attacker to focus on several points in one or several systems. That's a tricky thing to do though and some alliances would still be able to overcome it simply with numbers. In truth, eliminating the factor of numbers and thus blobs 100% is impossible without removing all that is sandbox about it. It would require something as deadspace gates to sov POS's that only allow 50 ships from either side to enter (with a defender and an attacker gate). Is that something people want? Artificial restriction of the number of participants? Because it will be the only way you will remove the blob factor out of this. If people can bring numbers they will, because that is how wars are won, out here and in game.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.16 13:38:00 - [209] Its not about denying people their holy right to blob, its about allowing other tactics to compete with blob and be useful :)
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.16 13:52:00 - [210] Originally by: Ramirez Dora Originally by: Kerfira Lots of text and ideas In general I think it is a bad idea to have a system where you can take a system without the need for even one fight. When the opposing force can simply enter the system and AVOID any fight and still win, then there is a serious flaw. Unless you intend to somehow measure the activity of those present such as in other ideas. Something which doesn't remove the possibility of exploiting, but it is also technically very unlikely to be feasible. Number crunching every single occupant in every system in sov space all the time is just not happening. The basic idea behind it I covered in my post on page 5, and it was intended to measure different types of activity, with each having a certain weight in the sov calculation. It was in no way intended that people should be able to avoid combat and still take a system. Ship-to-ship combat is still supposed to count very much! The main intention is that doing other stuff in your home area should also count (how much is up to balancing). The defender would thus get an additional advantage since his industrial activities in his stations would also count something. If he doesn't fight though, or looses most fights, he'll still loose sov, but in case of something close to a draw he'd keep it. As an example: Say if ship combat counts maybe 60-70%, and other activities 30-40% (I'm just using the numbers as examples). Then the defender gets an advantage if overall fighting end in a draw, but he'll still loose if he just hole up in his pos or fights badly. Secondly, another intention was to move territorial conquest away from the high-intensity but short-duration fights about POS, and into a longer-duration but lower-intensity fight where you would have a multitude of smaller engagements in an area that gradually moved sov. to the ones who proved to be the better players. Currently, you can conquor a station system by being present there for maybe 10 hours there over the course of a week, and it doesn't matter if your opponent is present there the whole week. This just seems wrong to me! My system would mean that you'd have to maintain a presence there when attacking and actively hunt for your enemy's ships, and they'd actively have to defend and counterattack. In all I think we'd get WAY more ship-to-ship combat and WAY less sucky POS combat. Originally by: Ramirez Dora Bringing the focal points down to a reasonable number is the first priority. But blobbing will still occur at this stage. One way would be to force the attacker to focus on several points in one or several systems. That's a tricky thing to do though and some alliances would still be able to overcome it simply with numbers. Lowering the nunber of focal points is NOT the answer as this will only increase the likelihood of blobbing! What is needed is that the objectives for gaining sov has to be achieved over a longer period (and I mean significantly longer, like weeks) than a few hours. It's 'easy' enough to gather 500 people for a couple of POS sieges, but being able to deny your opponent the use of his area for maybe 2-4 weeks before taking sov away from his requires you to be more dedicated and better players than the ones your're fighting. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.16 14:03:00 - [211] IF you find a way to do that without the possibility for timezone traps I'm all good for it. I do like the idea of multiple factors such as presence, i just don't see any easy way to quantify that, keep it exploit-proof and make it technically possible to calculate without spending a lot of server resources on it. Tough nut this one. Current focal points, especially in high moon count systems, is still way off scale.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.16 14:52:00 - [212] Originally by: Ghost Reaper can we get a response from the gms, what ideas they like, what they wnat to test etc???? gr Like we sad before. We're reading all the posts. It's a lot of ideas to go through, so it'll take some time but we haven't forgotten you .

Loedem Minmatar Knockaround Guys	Posted - 2007.11.16 15:48:00 - [213] Influence: What if there was a way to weaken sovereignty by simply throwing pure isk at it (kind of like a corporate takeover, in the form of influence...perhaps bringing the NPC factions of the area into the mix in a more hostile UN-like fashion. The reason I'd choose NPCs is that it would be a way to remove ISK from the game while also getting the payee something benificial for the campaign) Now I'm not sure how isk would weaken defenses or capabilities, but I would put it on a exponential scale so it's not just a matter those with the most isk wins... (eg. 2x, 4x, 8x, 16x...) but more isk certainly does help. And I would simply use this as a means to weaken defenses, but not gain sov...you would still have to fight for it. The individuals or corporation that bribe the NPC faction would also have to have positive standings with that faction. Siege Towers: Siege towers work like small towers but with less overall capabilities. Their purpose and design is to launch high-dps to the main tower under siege. They take awhile to anchor, so require good defenses while being put in place near the target tower (~200km perhaps). They can be filled with stront just like a normal tower and be left to siege on their own (abiet less stront than the main tower...there still has to be an agressing force). A siege tower can be incapacitated just like a normal tower...and are designed to fire on very large objects like supercaps and enemy towers...smaller targets will have diminished returns. Station Control: Perhaps an element of crippling Sov-related bonuses by attacking service modules at outpost. Not entirely overpowering by itself, but it would be something to do that would require a strategy. Thunderdome Challenge: Much like an empire wardec, but more like a contract that is made with the NPC faction of the area, declare a 1v1 (or tourney bracket). Both sides would have to agree on the time and the place. If it is agreed on (using in game form methods) a deadspace instance is created for the specified pilots chosen. Any other pilot entering this deadspace will be shot by NPC guards (concord strength). This is an idea that helps avoid a drawn out battle for both sides through a mutual sport agreement...they pick the best of their best..their elite..."two men enta, one man leaves!" Long range ballistic assault: The idea here is to open assaults from neighboring systems through cyno technology. Thus forcing pilots to split up and move away from the target system to address long range assault POS's. These generally take a long time compared to a direct siege, but some interesting aspects could be thrown in to make it very interesting. This is a followup to my previous idea...I'll keep thinking on new ones, hope you like em :)
Zagum Darkfin Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:09:00 - [214] Sorry if this off topic but it does play into 0,0 warfare. The problem with Blob/POS warfare is multi-faceted. Changing sovereignty is a major factor to the game play, however lets not forget about the consequences of holding space and fighting for it. Right now Insurance is breaking 0,0 space warfare. No matter how many times you kill a group of players, they always come back because Insurance allows the players in 0,0 recoup the costs of a lost ship very quickly and painlessly. There is not enough financial hardship in 0,0 and finality in our battles thus leading to time consuming boring sovereignty battles. I propose to remove Insurance from 0,0 space. Who in their right mind would insure a ship in a time of war or in known warzone. All policies are forfeit by an act of war. Spamming players in tech 1 ships all day leads to no real meaningful PVP. It becomes a war of attrition and logistics and not based on skill or tactics. Players are willing to blob systems because there is no real risk to loosing a ship. There needs to be a greater Risk/Reward in 0,0 than the current system. I would leave insurance for Empire space where there is a legal system in place that an insurance company can recoup costs. In 0,0, there is no legal system besides the one of the gun port. Please remove insurance from 0,0 space. ..i..
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:26:00 - [215] The other side is; -more financial imbalance between 0.0 and empire. empire = 40 million per hour with zero risk or effort for everyone 0.0 = low income big costs effect: less people in 0.0 -more farming hours per one pvp hour => less pvp. -less incentive for low skill characters (T1 ships with cheaper equipment are cheaper to loose due to insurance) to try to fight and compete older characters (T2 ships with expensive equipment are generally expensive to loose and not affected by insurance). => And this means low skill (first year?) characters feel they are useless in 0.0 and go grind missions or play WoW. In general, its good to have 0.0 full of various people strugling to survive, fight and do something rather then empty, with only BoB, TRI, Snigg and other alliances requiring high SP and and much time online from their members.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:45:00 - [216] My suggestion aimed to reduce blobbing during pos assaults which makes POS warfare with large alliances completely unplayable atm. In my opinion it is the only problem of current mechanics but solution described below should also promote smaller engagements during the fight over sovereignty. 1) POS chain: Multiple POSes from different systems can be linked together and if attacked they work like single entity with common hitpoint buffer. If you link two POSes the resulting system will have 2x shield hitpoints and if enemy attacks one you can in the same time transfer shields to the other and slow their progress. Once shield are down every POS in the chain became reinforced for the same amount of time. 2) Concentration penalty: Attacking or repairing multiple of linked POSes must be more effective than focusing on single one. If attacker brings whole his fleet to the one of such linked POS and starts to try to reinforce the chain, defenders can send shield transferring carriers to every other POS and transfer shields there. As a result attackers damage will be greatly lowered because whole incoming damage done to single POS in chain while amount of hitpoints defenders repair will be multiplied by some factor because they are doing it on different POSes at the same time. So attackers can't blob as they simply couldn't break POS chain tank. So even if no defenders activity attackers will reinforce the chain faster if they split their fleet and attack multiple POSes from chain at once. To make sure that nobody transferring shields to the chain attackers might have strike groups at other POSes. In the end attacking fleet becames a set of groups in different systems and the possibility of smaller fights is there. But what in this case prevents defenders to get their whole fleet and destroy smaller enemy groups one by one? 3) New mobile cynosural jammers and instant siege mode deactivation. If defenders will try to engage some attackers group with their whole fleet this attacker group should be able to evade fight while other groups in other systems will continue to do their job. The key for this scheme to work is the ability for the smaller group to evade fight fast and inability of larger defenders fleet to move around between attacker groups fast. For attackers to be able to react fast dreadnought siege mode should be changed to allow instant (or almost instant) deactivation. For the defenders to not be able to attack very fast bypassing scouts there is a new capital only (or even mothership only) module should be introduced: mobile cyno jammer which will prevent cynofield activation and jumpbridge functioning in the system. Ship with such jammer active will be visible on the overview as warpable object like the cynofield now. So the blobbing for the defenders will not work also and the only effective way to defend the chain is to split and engage multiple attacker groups in different systems at the same time. 4) More hardware: splitting the fleet fights to the multiple engagements in several systems will be useless if all those systems will still be handled by the single server node. Best way to solve this is a modification to load balancer so once POS chain is reinforced all the systems with POSes from this chain mapped to the separate nodes. Sovereignty and restrictions. POS chain claims sovereignty in the neighboring systems and protects outposts in such systems from being attacked. Of course there should be a restriction on amount of POSes in the chain. How far POSes can be one from another and how far they will claim sovereignty is up to balance: one chain per region claiming sov in the whole region can be too much but one per constellation is a too close because there should be at least few jumps between the POSes and average amount of POSes in chain should be 5-8. Good idea can be an artificially (by the developers) defined systems where POSes can be set to chained mode.
Cker Heel Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.16 17:04:00 - [217] Yesterday I proposed to nerf the tank of control towers, but allow the pos in system or constellation to spider-tank. The objective is to spread out fleets and to make weak POS quicker to kill, but not otherwise change territorial warfare. Here are some details to flesh out the idea. Nerf the shield hp count rate of a control tower to a fraction of current value. Eliminate shield hardener structures, but add the new remote hardener structure. Aim it so a solo large tower can be reinforced by a solo dread in 2 or 3 siege cycles. The new remote hardener structure could assist one other tower in system with a huge bonus, say 90% to all resists. Since a tower's hardener bonus extends to all its structures, this will protect all the modules at a POS. Limit number of new remote hardener structure to one anchored at any tower. The base defense strategy would pair POSes, where remote hardener on tower A boosts tower B, and tower B's hardener boosts tower A. Hardener should be scaled a POS boosted by one remote hardener has tank approximately like today's unhardened POS. Towers alone in a system will be more vulnerable than now. Now take a system with 3 towers. If A boosts B who boosts C who boosts A, the status quo is preserved. But a defender could have A boosted by B and C. A will have a great tank, but C is completely vulnerable. If defenders are free to redirect boost, the attackers best strategy is to split up the attacking fleet to attack all 3 towers at once. The sov level bonus can be used to allow a second new structure: the constellation remote hardener array. Sov bonus can be +1 constellation remote hardener anchorable per system per level. The constellation remote hardener can boost any tower in the constellation (similar UI to jump bridge arrays). Apply stacking penalty to the assist from these modules, so more than 3 booster is useless. A triple boosted tower could tank a big fleet anyway. The defense strategy will be to boost whichever tower is under attack to the point where it is impregnable. The offense strategy will be to find a vulnerable tower, or spread fleet evenly across towers. Alarm clock ops could still reinforce towers, but surely defenders will be online to direct remote hardeners after reinforced. Remote hardeners could stay inside pos forcefield and stay online in reinforced. The constellation remote hardeners could be outside shield and vulnerable to reinforced. The key is only one booster anchored per tower, so each boost is evenly spread, or towers are left vulnerable. Newly taken systems will need hands-on management of boost links. Systems with sov bonus will have the extra constellation remote boosting modules to reduce micromanagement work of defenders.
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.16 18:04:00 - [218] Originally by: Nifel Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 15/11/2007 15:21:12 I would just like to say a quick comment. All those people suggesting Stations themselves become the focus on battles; that is a terrible idea. It just pushes people to blob around the station. I think the key focus on these pos changes should be fleet battles going from one grid to multiple grids breaking up lag and blobs. There must be some sort of objective that will spread gangs to multiple pos's within a system. Ill brain storm on this "objective" a bit more haha. Its hard to think of a good incentive to attack multiple pos's simultaneously. Anything as strong as POS will always get a blob. It's not a problem to have the station as a focus point for huge megafleets as that is one of the selling points of EVE and if it wasn't possible a lot of players simply wouldn't play any longer. What's needed is escalation and one or more incentives to spread out your fleet. I agree fleet battles are the draw to playing EVE, however, I enjoy 100 vs 100, 150 vs 150 NOT 350 vs 350 super uber lag bomb fleet battles....thats just lame. See my previous post on "incentives to spread out".
Raid Caldari Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2007.11.16 19:55:00 - [219] Huge problem in my opinion is claiming more than you can persoanly defend because you dont have to be there to defend it. Result: Manpower needed to challenge soverignty even on a basic level increases. Its too easy for alliances to claim 100 solarsystems! Things been to change so that people need to actually occupy the space they have soverignty over. Currently Eve isnt big enough to allow everyone to have their own piece of land. The ease of logistics make claiming 100 systems too easy. You can thank jump drives and jump bridges for that... Theres no such thing as a remote location in eve. I propose making all starbase guns manual. You need to have people in the system who can man the guns to defend a tower. This will give smaller alliances the opportunity to mess up jump bridge towers and cyno jamming towers in systems the enemy don't even defend. Right now you need 20 dreads or 100 battleships so you dont get killed in 20 seconds. Make people have to defend everything on they own! A gang of 10 people should be able to shoot structures with no hostiles in local! Currently with POS guns you dont even have to be there to fight for your assets. This would help shrink the number of systems an alliance can hold to only what is defendable.
Serena Hennessy Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.16 20:31:00 - [220] Originally by: Ramirez Dora Sadly, the sheer amount of number crunching that would require is not feasible. Not to mention it would not be very transparent bringing frustration to both developer and player, allowing for increased abuse of the system and favouring larger > smaller. You want a system with a reasonable number of deciding variables that can not easily be exploited. Whilst the deciding factor should definitely be presence related I do think the only feasible way is through some sort of structure and not the individual players. I totally fail to see how. It's one integer for the server to keep track of, per alliance, per system. In fact, the server does this already - instead of counting people, it counts starbases. Changing WHAT you're counting doesn't in itself add load. The server also already has to check if you're targetable in space. (Inside a shield, cloaked, etc.) So you see, we're not really adding any additional mechanics, just changing the way the information is used. The server already knows you're in space, if you're targetable, and what system you're in. The only work it has to do is whilst you're in system, increment the variable (allianceXplayerTimer) by howevermany units you've been active when you enter a new session or become untargetable, and then check at downtime to see who has control (which it does already) I'd hazard a guess that whatever additional load this would incur on the server would be by far overshadowed by the savings from not having OMG 100000vs100000 dreadnoughts shooting a tower at the same time simply to outblob your opponent. The ONLY reason to have a static structure is to force large-scale battles to occur in a specific place. This is ALSO one of the reasons why the current system is broken - the nodes can't handle the numbers being brought to bear because of this very mechanic. Sure, a better server might HELP delay the appearance of the lag monster, but all you're doing with adding hardware is brinkmanship -> escalating the capacity, which the players then use, so you add more capacity.... And as for favouring Larger vs Smaller? well, we have that already. I spam more POS than you, I win. I have a bigger blob, I win. Rewarding someone from putting more effort (measured in terms of pilot hours) into taking a system seems sound, logical, and concise, and I fail to see where it lacks transparency.... It's kinda hard to notice a rival alliance killing all your guys, podding them, and preventing you from undocking or leaving a pos shield. If they CONTROL the system, give them sov!

Counterparty	Posted - 2007.11.17 00:12:00 - [221] Originally by: Serena Hennessy I totally fail to see how. It's one integer for the server to keep track of, per alliance, per system. So a table of some 300 alliance by 5000 systems. Would this be a daily measure? If averaged over a number of days, such a table has to be stored for each day to calculate running average. Say 10 days. That 15 million integers to track dynamically. As alliances and systems are added, this table would need to be resized. What happens when pilots and corps join/leave an alliance? Are subtotals kept for them so the alliance total can be corrected? Per system per day per alliance? POSes are counted once at downtime statically. No data storage is needed at all. Will all pilots see the daily totals to know if they have to jump back home to keep sov? If so, these tables need an UI element as well. Can they see totals for themselves, their corp, other alliances, other days? For any system, or just the one they are in? The server and client do not do all this already.
ElfeGER Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.17 00:33:00 - [222] I wonder if it would be possible to stacking nerf and share the hp so one large ct = 40m + second adding 20m hp a third 10m hp and so on each large ct get total/count hp 1 ct 40m hp 2 ct 30m hp each (total 60m) 3 ct 23m hp each (total 70m) (numbers are just an example) ----------- - reduce light, medium and heavy drone rof (default 2 sec) - server side event filtering for turret and effects - module grouping for less server calls - fix grid loading isses
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.17 01:42:00 - [223] Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 17/11/2007 01:42:45 Also keep in mind that anything that forces the attacker to have to spread out his forces must also force the defender to spread out. If you have a system where POS would be linked up, and let's say, the damage you do to all the POS is the same as the smallest amount you are doing to any one of them (thus forcing spread fire over all of them). Disregarding the need for damage micromanagement for the attacker, a system like this would NOT discourage the defender from blobbing as they could simply bounce from attacking group to attacking group with their entire fleet easily wiping them out. So, if you're going to force the attacker to spread out, make a strong incentive for the defender to do so too or we'll be seeing a static universe soon
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.17 03:29:00 - [224] DEVS DONT SKIP OVER THIS ONE!!! After reading Goumindong from GoonswamFs post and his post at the start of this thread. I had a bunch of ideas that sprang from his main idea in his post. So I just threw it together and put it in the link below, because i couldnt fit it all in one post. I think this idea Solves Pos Spaming (well thats of that post i read) More varied types of POS sieges Links Faction warfare with PVP and Soveignty and still works as a bridge into what the devs seemed to have wanted in their DEV blog (part of that was from the post i read aswell) More to do in a POS fight Helps break down the blobbing a bit, and pushes for simultainius POS sieging. Somthing to do after constilation Something for the smaller corps to do Makes smaller forces and ships matter in a POS fight Some benefits for super empires (BOB/GOONS/RA etc) Ways for small corps to try and be recognized (Pirates/RP/AntiPorates etc) Additions for bounty hunters. More insentive for pew pew. Well its something I think could work anyways. Most of you wont read this but i would like to hear some feed back. -----------> Link to my post <---------------- thanks forum buddies
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.17 03:47:00 - [225] Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 17/11/2007 03:47:57
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.17 03:48:00 - [226] Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 17/11/2007 03:48:06
Doomed Predator Xoth Inc Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.11.17 10:52:00 - [227] A thing you could do is let POSes be anchorable at planets and only the POSes that are anchored at planets could take/hold/change/whatever soveringty. Also add XL POS towers which could be anchored at stars overriding all other towers, ofcourse making it the toughest thing to destroy but also very expensive so a system could be take in an large scale battle and not by planting 30 large poses and waiting 7 days. My 0.02 isk
Manufakturka	Posted - 2007.11.17 12:10:00 - [228] A little polish to Kefira idea: Noone cares about table sizes, since 100MB means nothing for an EVE cluster which generates 5+GB of data per day.. It's additional processing power that hurts. But, let me show you that it wouldn't be a problem: 1) For PvE, system would stealthy compute another number every 30 minutes. It's still a huge improvement and it wouldn't do so in Empire, so net effect should be unnoticeable. 2) For missions, PvP, manufacturing and invention it's just one DB commit once activity finished (think of it as one more line on the killmail). 3) mining will be a little problematic, but but every idea should have it's implementation challenges:P Now, a nice idea for tying up Kefira system with current one: Make POS generate sov points, except they would store what they generated. When the POS is blown up, the points it generated would be lost, thus making it non-preferred solution. This way the sov of today get's transfered to new system, but if enemy doesn't really operate in said system, it would be very easy to take it from them. Few things that should be changed if the system would be introduced: 1) Longer PvE aggression timers, depending on sov status (5 mins for owning alliance, 15 mins for farmers) 2) Scannable cloaked ships. 3) General logoffski timer (warpout to safe in 30/60 seconds as it's now, but stay there for another 3 minutes or so). To make system more natural, nerf mineral compression to hell so people will be in 0.0 carebearing stuff;-) To add extra twist, consider inter-alliance jumpbridges. Space claimed would be small and to compensate, ake NAPS actually mean **** (and by say allowing allies of B full use of alliance A jumpbridges cause A is napped with B, we have a nice reason to be careful with creating naplands).
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.17 12:35:00 - [229] A system based on # pilots 'active' in system just screams 'exploit me' imho. And trust me when I say that the accuracy of measuring the 'activity' will be the inverse of the needed number crunching, meaning that the more accurate you make it (as to prevent exploiting) the more power it will require. On a MMO scale there is no such thing as 'just another DB write'. Conquering a system should still be about the 'pew pew' side of things in the end (at least if you ask me). I'm completely for offering other alternatives to conquering a system such as allowing alliances to easily trade or transfer Sov systems they hold to someone else's control (e.g. officially done by the executor of said alliance). People don't keep growing vegetables in an area that is being fought over, and just like that I really wouldn't want my authority over a system to be determined by how much ore I can mine from a rock. For viable alternatives to come in place we need to both expand the military and political possibilities in Eve. Basically settling of a system/constellation must be able to progress (ableit slowly) to such a state that a political solution between alliances (regarding said system/constellation) becomes more attractive than simply stomping down the door and shooting anything that moves (which is still the dark, wicked way that is Eve). We would need expanded structure trees, at least basic planetary control (e.g. planet x under your control generates 2 million trit a day placed in silo Y at POS W) and such things as sentry guns, etc. THAT would be the ideal way forward, but it is a long way off and will require a LOT of work, but I have no doubt this is the roadmap that Eve is on. I mean, noone that holds Sov space right now can achieve anything along the likes of the NPC empires, whilst there is no reason they shouldn't. Guess I rambled a bit hmm.
Garr Anders Minmatar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.17 12:47:00 - [230] from the http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewforum.php?f=29 discussion: What if players could build up such static plexes which hold sovereignty ? System sovereignty is held by setting up a small complex. To conquer the system you have to enter the plex and achieve certain stages/triggers. The more systems you have in one constellation, the more stuff/stages/triggers you can add to your complex. Maybe as a short explanation where I'm coming from. Im an ex SWG and there you had different size of bases, which different numbers of NPCs guarding them. You were also able to set up mine fields and turrets. To take them down you had to enter these base facing (depending on size) from easy to PvPish strong NPCs and hold the base for a while to get a set of players into the base with very specific skills usually only used for PvEish content to hack the base to self destruct. Although the NPCs were a heavy resistance already, these bases were usually also guarded and defended by players. So you had to: + defeat the NPCs guards + defeat the player guards + protect your hacking characters (later there were special hacking characters with multiple skills but due the limited skill distribution in SWG these were very combat weak and not good for anything apart from base hacking ) + occupy the base for awhile to do the hacking (which were of a few puzzles you had to solve but which could took their time) + naturally get out alive These bases were usually only hack-able during a two hour window only know by the corp itself. Together with my previous idea A alliance /corp could set up either several strong plexes to be defended/protected within the siege ----- Garr Anders

Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.17 15:00:00 - [231] I think one of the problems is that Sovereignty doesnFt have a variety of scope to it at the moment. Fighting over resources seems to be a distant second most of the time. Most of the time its simply because people like to pew pew, or have to form a gang to protect themselves against the pew pew by doing pew pew. Im actually fine with that, I also think pew pew should be the mainstay of Sov. There are hundreds of different roles that can be played, and very few of them can be taken to the extent that taking over the universe with a big stick can get you. (even so, what would you do after that) You have miners, bounty hunters, arms dealers, pirates, anti-pirates, inventors, builders, transporters, smugglers, traders, market players, mission runners, role players and loads more. And in each one of those things you can specialize to at least to some degree. But most of those professions listed donFt have an equivalent scope as PvP sov. I think that if we can ask ourselves what we want from and least 10 of these professions and introduce an equivalent scope to PvP sov, they will start to tie together and Sov would have to change to encompass them. Or other types of Sov be invented Bottom line if we know what we actually want from having sovereignty and how far we can push it (realistically speaking). Then we can build a better Sov system. What do you want sovereignty to actually let you do? And I mean on as epic a scale as you can think of just short of populating planets. I personally would like to see Sov leap to actual empire scale mechanics. And even the RP have NPC fleets at their side when they fight. { what would you need to do that? Well I posted some ideas in my last post.
Maliber Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.17 16:38:00 - [232] Loads of ideas already on in this topic i would like to add another one: introduce a new module anchorable outside the pos. This module is for claiming sov. There is a maximum number of these modules allowed in a system per alliance. Lets say six. keeping these modules active should require a exponential amount of effort. So anchoring one and fueling that pos is no different then normal. But when you want to anchor 2 in a system the fuel consumtion of both posses that have this module double. Anchoring another one will double the previous amount needed in the system. This is both for normal fuel and reinforced fuel consumtion. Lets call this module the sov module. The module shouldnt be vunerable to disabeling and the maximum amount present for a alliance in a system should be for anchorable. The module stays for a while after distruction to keep people from spamming them. The modules have to be fueled from ouside the pos shield. (maybe even the pos fuel has to be put in this module thats a thing to figure out later) The rate of this extra fuel consumption has to be tweaked ofcourse doubleing is a bit to much, but the core of the idea is this. Once you escalate into a state of war you will put more of these modules online both you and your enemy will have to put up with the increased amount of logistics. This fueling will have be risky and susceptible to disruption. Besides this the time a pos is in reinforced mode will be shorter if more claiming modules are present in a system. This makes the timing of reinforced posses less of a issue and makes you more vunerable if you try to keep up the max number of claiming modules. This way its not really a good idea if two smaller corps are warring for sov to put up more than say two modules per corp. It makes them more vunerable and puts a heavy logistics load on them. But for two mega alliances or factions putting up the six modules can be easily done. It will bring a heavy logistic load with it but this will make the war more suseptable to intrige, tactics and human failure. Its now possible to disrupt these logistics without actually sieging loads and loads of posses and it will get more dynamic. A result will be forced more quicly as the posses will be out of reinforced far sooner so the dispute will drag on for far less time. I dont think blobs are going to be banned form alliance warfare as it is a result of a large amount of people fighting together for certain goals. The effect of fuel consumption and reinforced fuel consumption could also be depandent in a lesser amount to the ammount of enemy sov claiming modules. This so you have some influence on the reinforced timer of your enemy. for example it could be a valid tactic to turn off all you sov mods to make there posses that you plan to siege come out in the wrong timezone... A well just a rough idea most of the stuff has to be tweaked but i think you guys get the drift it could easily be combined with the other ideas presented in this thread.
TWD Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.17 17:16:00 - [233] Edited by: TWD on 17/11/2007 17:26:20 1) Stations can be placed without sov 2) POS have no effect on sov 3) a POS in a constellation with 1 station is sov 1, 2 stations is sov 2, etc. (can still be contested by hostile POS, but they can't gain sov without a station) 4) Stations get an increase in hitpoints and can be attacked directly 5) When the shields of a station hit 0%, a 7 day timer is displayed with sov 0 to 3, 8 days for sov 4 6) If the station gets repped up to 100% before the timer ends, the timer resets and disappears 7) Otherwise, the station changes hands and gets restored to 100% shields The benefits of having sov in a system are fuel and POS modules. POS become tools and are no longer mandatory for territorial warfare.
Jita TradeAlt	Posted - 2007.11.17 17:32:00 - [234] Edited by: Jita TradeAlt on 17/11/2007 17:34:46 Originally by: TWD Edited by: TWD on 17/11/2007 17:26:20 1) Stations can be placed without sov 2) POS have no effect on sov 3) a POS in a constellation with 1 station is sov 1, 2 stations is sov 2, etc. (can still be contested by hostile POS, but they can't gain sov without a station) 4) Stations get an increase in hitpoints and can be attacked directly 5) When the shields of a station hit 0%, a 7 day timer is displayed with sov 0 to 3, 8 days for sov 4 6) If the station gets repped up to 100% before the timer ends, the timer resets and disappears 7) Otherwise, the station changes hands and gets restored to 100% shields The benefits of having sov in a system are fuel and POS modules. POS become tools and are no longer mandatory for territorial warfare. not a horrible idea, but in practice it probably won't result in decent small scale fights. Not to mention that holding stations will just be a matter of having 40-50 carriers parked in dock range with remote shield transfers, not actual fighting. Too easy to just wait your enemy out and there's nothing really forcing battles. I still think static complexes were the best strategic objectives for small gangs to hit and would give ships such as jump capable black ops ships very nice targets to raid.
TWD Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.17 17:35:00 - [235] Then if less or equal to 0 meters from the station, can't remote rep? ;d
Arenis Xemdal Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.17 20:20:00 - [236] Hello, I really donFt have time to go over my suggestion with fine tooth and comb, but thereFs a lot of ideas here that worry me. People donFt seem to appreciate where we were before POS warfare, and why some things in the current one are good. So I feel compelled to comment on this part of EVE that IFve participated heavily in. Over 200 tower sieges (with Dreadnought), involving the conquest/defense of several regions if you can appreciate the amount of hours I spent in front of a tower thinking of ways to make this better for everyone. The following is what needs to be fixed for the next major post-Trinity expansion. Linkage Its about 2000 words, if you're bothered enough to read it.
Cain Calzon Caldari Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.17 21:09:00 - [237] can we get an Cancel and Queue system on the POSes? The cancel option is pretty simple. because this happens to me alot, i want to online/offline/anchor/unanchor something and then i accidently selects an array thats next to the real array that i want to interact with. example. i want to online an cyno generator and next to that generator is an offline cyno jammer. i then accidently selects the jammer instead of the generator and selects online. now i have to wait 30m looking at a timer when i could be doing something worth while. a Cancel feature would be good, it cancels what ever its doing and goes back to it previous state. Queing is another feature to help relief some "grinding of teeth". example, 1 of my towers has gone offline due to i couldnt get to it in time. the current system now is that i have to spend half a day reonlining every god damm arrays. what would be good is an Queue system that i can put on the arrays that i want to online. and also how about an Put Online option that onlines everything that was online previous to when the tower went offline.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 06:32:00 - [238] Ok this is pretty straightforward. Not much in the game would have to be changed except some stats and creating one module which doesnFt have to be balanced. The Boarding Module allows marines to board a Starbase Structure (not Outpost), offline it and give control of it to your corporation. The boarding ability can only work on a structure when it is in armour. Bonus: 20% reduction in activation time per Level. Activation Range 5km CPU: 35 PG: 20 Activation cost: 65 Activation Time: 30secs Ammunition: Marines Capacity: 284m3 Fitting: High Slot 1 unit of marines = 2SLP [to take over a Starbase Structure you must use the relevant number of marines to equal the Structures SLP. Sovereignty will be based on the logistics of running a system. By that I mean, every solar system is given a SLL grade. That grade is a representation of what the System is currently worth. Certain landmarks have been assigned SLP grades to represent the components that make up the Systems worth and logistical ability at its current Sovereignty Level. Sovereignty Logistics Limit. [SLL] (Cannot deploy Starbase Structures if it means going over SLL. Sovereignty Logistics Points [SLP] are classification of a systems landmarks. Stargate worth 8000 Planet worth 6000 SLP Moon worth 4500 SLP Asteroid Belts 1500 SLP Example: 8 planets + 40 moons + 10 Asteroid Belts + 2 Stargates= 156,000 SLL When you anchor a station structure, it uses up a certain amount of SLL. Each station is assigned an SLP grade Double the base price of all Starbase structures structures cannot be anchored within Station Shields. (Except for Corporate hangers.) Outpost Worth 50000 SLP Large Station worth 38,000 SLP Medium Station worth 20000 SLP Small Station worth 0 SLP Station Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers or Outpost) 2600
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 06:34:00 - [239] Sovereignty 1: [Territory] Requierments 30% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. How to challenge Sov 1: Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: 20% Bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Your alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system You can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where your alliance holds sovereignty. Outposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable until you lose sovereignty. Your Starbases get 25% bonus to their fuel efficiency. Your alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction. Sovereignty 2: [Protectorate] Requierments 35% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Territory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days How to challenge Sov 2: Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: 25% bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Cynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). Scanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system). Sovereignty 3: [Province] Requierments 40% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Protectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days How to challenge Sov 3: Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: 30% bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Twinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system). Cynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system) Sovereignty 4 [Constellation Capital] Requirement 45% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers) Province level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days. Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation. Constellation Capital Sovereignty Warfare If one of the following requirements is met, Constellation Capital sovereignty will change to a contested mode: The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation. The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations. The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station. Bonus: 35% bonus Sovereignty Logistics Limit Sovereignty of the system cannot be contested, and is locked into place until the system is forced to a lower sovereignty level. An idea like this is put into the game then there will be less POS spamming. The Starbase structures are made primary targets along side POSFs, giving small corps a fighting chance. And I think it might even help a little with blobing, because people will probably go for the POS defences which are weaker, which means they can use less people at once, which means they may split their fleet up into groups to attack multiple stations.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 13:16:00 - [240] I actually cant see any obvious problems to this idea, So I would people to see if they can rip apart the idea. (Devs feel free to join in the bashing) Or does it actually make as much sense as i think it does?

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 13:20:00 - [241] Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25 It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems. It is also uselessly complicated.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 13:40:00 - [242] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25 It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems. It is also uselessly complicated. Ah yes i see your point. So i will revise the Landmark SLL Stargates = 15000 Planets = 10000 Moons = 5000 That should cover it now.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 13:48:00 - [243] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25 It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems. It is also uselessly complicated. Ah yes i see your point. So i will revise the Landmark SLL Stargates = 15000 Planets = 10000 Moons = 5000 That should cover it now. Didnt fix anything, it still possible to lock systems permanently And its still uselessly complicated.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 14:04:00 - [244] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Archivian Specialatus Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25 It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems. It is also uselessly complicated. Ah yes i see your point. So i will revise the Landmark SLL Stargates = 15000 Planets = 10000 Moons = 5000 That should cover it now. Didnt fix anything, it still possible to lock systems permanently And its still uselessly complicated. how can you lock it doen completely? Lowest system that you can claim SOV in will be: 1 gate 1 planet, 1 moon. = which is 30,000 SSLL. 30% of which you have to use of Starbase Structures (9,000 = 30%) Thats space for 1 medium tower (20,000 SLU), 4 Starbase Structures (10,400 SLU). Remaining SSLL will be 600. Or you can put up a small POS and fill it with 11 Starbase Stuctures (28600 SLU) If you want to take the space then blow up their staition/structures or take them over. If you plop a station down and nobody attempts to claim sov then you gain sov. Just like normal. I really dont see how you can lock the system down.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 17:07:00 - [245] You put an outpost down in a system with less than 73000 SSL[35% bonus keeps it under 99000 SSL and impossible to put towers down to challenge it. Three systems like that in a constellation and you have uncontestable sov 4. Also, its uselessly complex
Dreadllama GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 19:08:00 - [246] I have a suggestion. It pertains not so much to outpost sieging specifically but to large battles in general. As large battles are synonymous with sovereignty warfare, I think it's related. All or most of us have had the experience of getting blown up in space. It's one of those things that happens to you and you get used to it. You were there, someone shot you, and you died. Simple as cake. The problem is, on nearly half those occasions, you were dead before you got there, there was nothing you could do about it, and you didn't even know you were being attacked until you woke up in a brand new alpha clone back in the station of your choice. How many people have clicked "jump through to XXX" or, "Warp to <gang member>", to see themselves align, (or sit on gate), and then nothing, and nothing, and nothing, and then there's a new mail in your inbox from your insurance company consoling you for the loss of your frigate. I'm talking about grid loading lag. You warp/jump in, the other guy sees you, and you don't see them. You get popped while your client sits there and tells you you're nowhere near anything that might want to shoot at you. Lag and grid loading are part and parcel of large fleets, and you're doing all you can to make them better, but I believe there's something you're overlooking that can help out a lot more than hardware improvements. Since y'all use TCP IP, this should be a familiar concept to you. Send and receive: No lost packets. No dropped data. One dataum says to the other datum, "I see you." and things go on from there. My suggestion is that you do the same thing for ships in fleet combat. That is, don't make my ship show up on the other guys screen until his ship shows up on my screen. That way I can at least look at the guy who's shooting at me. I grant you it'd look a bit odd to see a member of your gang shooting at someone you can't see yet, but you'll load him eventually (or he'll get blown up anyway), but he's got some semblance of a fair fight now at least. I don't know if it's feasible or not, but it'd make my jumping into a gatecamp experience a lot more pleasant than it is under the current system. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com - Cortes
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 19:27:00 - [247] Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 19:29:58 Originally by: Goumindong You put an outpost down in a system with less than 73000 SSL[35% bonus keeps it under 99000 SSL and impossible to put towers down to challenge it. The two things about that I think can do are: Do what i was going to do originally and Not have an Outpost have any SLU. [I will change it to that for the meantime.] Or The Outpost has 50,000 SLU, but also gives 25,000 SLL. After all, it is an Outpost. Originally by: Goumindong But what we really want is something simple to use. Originally by: Nozh Claiming and disputing sovereignty is very time consuming, and some people might even say it's boring gasp. Well yes its a little less simple to use than simply POS spamming. But its certainly nowhere near as complex as properly fitting ship. Infact its nothing more than looking at a ships Powergrid and CPU only, and just trying to fit a module that has a bonus or penalty to its Powergrid and CPU. its not rocket science. As a player you'll see: System has X SLL. How many Large/Medium/structures can fit into X SLL. To gain SOV i need 51% SLL. At least 30% of X SLL needs to be stuctures. Ok i need to build Y amount of structures. The thing is you are taking over an entire Solar System. And the planning involved in it at the moment seems to amount to: PLAN A 1.Dread blob 2.Kill enemy fleet (if there is one) 3.Blow up stations 4.Spam stations 5.Do it again. PLAN B... no plan b This is more complicated, but a calculater and basic maths will see you through. And you will have more options and more ways of defending/attacking and harrying. If you really want you can always resort to PLAN A, But it wont always be the most efficient means. Still if you want simple: Use your Claiming Planet SOV Idea And to add flavour into how to siege: Create a new structure, call Anit Capital Battery. Make it powerful enough so that a about 5 of them together will deal about 6000dps to 1 capital target. And allow a Large station to be able to fit up to 20 of them. I mean its a frikkin POS, why would you build a station that cant defend it self against 5 stationary Dreads. At least then you would have to send in the support fleet first to blow the guns up. before you resort to PLAN A as per usual.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 19:33:00 - [248] You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk. All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 19:41:00 - [249] Originally by: Goumindong You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk. All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system. see end of last edited post above.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 20:35:00 - [250] Originally by: Goumindong You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk. All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system. Your right. Your taking Sov of planets Is the best simple idea. So the problem of POS spaming is pretty much solved (Unless they want to cap the POS count even more) But the other problem is still there: Originally by: Nozh Claiming and disputing sovereignty is very time consuming, and some people might even say it's boring gasp. Your idea is so simple that there is no room to make the actual sieging more interesting or vaired. At least not without making your mechanic more complicated.

Alexi Kalashnikov Rat Lovers Anonymous GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.18 21:13:00 - [251] I agree that a Planet Based Sovergnity. It drastically cuts down on the number of structures, brings fuel costs down as well AND would allow the introduction of a new starbase (if wanted, might be good to have a bit of a unique structure at planets). I can see no downside to this as moon sovierngty towers are totally un-needed, every system has a decent level of planets AND logistics becomes far less time consuming: making it a win for everyone. Less targets to destroy, less targets to defend. Now if this were to be implemented, then CCP would have to grant a grace period where no alliances could place these structures in other alliances planets (massive spam, secure sov across EVE, et cetera) for a period of one or two weeks so everyone was brought up to speed. Planet Soviergnty has my vote.
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.18 21:59:00 - [252] Originally by: Alexi Kalashnikov Planet Soviergnty has my vote. Reducing sov targets puts the incentive on ever larger superblob 500 v. 500 battles to claim that one extremely valuable objective. We want a wars where 1000s fight, just not have them all fight on the same grid simultaneously. Likewise, game changes that reduce POS numbers means the pos fueling carebears can handling claiming ever more systems than today. Claim workload needs to high enough to encourage a resident population. More targets that are easier to kill than today's pos will make territorial battles more playable, and soak up all the carebear energy.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.18 22:26:00 - [253] So am i right in saying that we want: The Simple Goumindongs Planet Sov mechanic. But we also want something that adds more variety to territorial warfare instead of simply promoting the BOB/GOON style 100000 vs 100000 suberblob in one grid.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 00:52:00 - [254] Assuming we were to with the Planet Sov idea. Here are some changes that i think will POS warfare less boring. Or at least be useful. Boarding Module Allows marines to board a Control Tower, offline it and all structures anchored to it and give control of it all to your corporation. Bonus: 20% reduction in activation time per Level. Activation Range 5km CPU: 35 PG: 20 Activation cost: 65 Activation Time: 30secs Ammunition: Marines Capacity: 750m3 Fitting: High Slot Boarding Requirement: To successfully board a control tower, it must first be in Armour. Number of Marines required = 10% of station capacity. Sovereignty Beacon: When a Sovereignty Beacon is put online at a large control tower that is set to claiming sovereignty. Only then does the tower start claiming sovereignty. The Sovereignty Beacon is unaffected by reinforced mode. Only one Sovereignty Beacon can be fitted per station. Fitting: Power Grid: 50,000 CPU: 150 Base Price: 1bil Implementation IFm not sure how well this will work. There is no grace period for the Alliances. Instead a date is set and it is implemented on the day. All Large Control Towers set to claiming Sovereignty with enough CPU and Power grid available will receive a free anchored and online Sovereignty Beacon. Systems where Medium Control Towers are controlling Sovereignty 2 or higher will have one of the Medium Control Towers changed to a Large Tower and be given a Free Online and anchored Sovereignty Beacon Systems where Small Control Towers are controlling Sovereignty 1 or higher will have one of the Small Control Towers changed to a Large Tower and be given a Free Online and anchored Sovereignty Beacon With this form of implementation there are still some people that are going to getshafted. But a grace period regardless of the mechanic change could shift a game economy something as drastic as that. Also the Sov Beacon is another way to help reduce the POS spamming, and the price, well enough people over time has said that stations are too cheap. I've never seen CCP up the price on an item before and i dont think they would do it. Also too many individual player and small corps could get shafted by uping the prices of all stations. An announcement on rising POS prices would also lead to Rich Alliances stockpiling POS's for use, and to sell after the change and make rediculous amounts of isk. The same thing would happen with a grace period for changing the Sov mechanic, Rich Alliances would capitalize.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 00:59:00 - [255] Originally by: Jifai We want a wars where 1000s fight, just not have them all fight on the same grid simultaneously. (The rest of these ideas are to help encourage Multi POS combat/ fighting in waves, but not to get rid of super blob combat. I think the likes of Goons and BOB could super blob their way past this, but smaller Alliances would have more fun/variety and tactics at hand instead of trying to mimic super blobbing without the numbers/Capitals) Shield hardeners Array: Will be placed outside side the shields like the guns. Shield Hardener Booster Link: Is anchored outside the station: Boosts all Shield Hardener Arrays in range: Shield HP increased by 100% for each other Shield Hardener Booster Link in system. (30 Shield Hardener Booster Link in system = 3000% increase in shield hardener arrays shield HP Only one can be anchored per Control Tower. Fitting: PG: 200,000 CPU: 250 Shield HP: 2,500,000 Armour HP: 2,500,000 Range: 50km Advanced Shield Hardeners: They are the same as normal Shield Hardener Arrays: Fitting PG: 200,000 CPU: 250 Shield HP: 40,000 Armour HP: 40,000 Advanced Shield Hardener Booster Link Is anchored outside the station: Boosts all Advanced Shield Hardener Arrays in range: Shield HP increased by 200% for each other Advanced Shield Hardener Booster Link in system. Only one can be anchored per Control Tower. Fitting: PG: 200,000 CPU: 250 Shield HP: 3,500,000 Armour HP: 3,500,000 Advanced turret batteries. [Amarr Pulse Laser] { just for example ANTI-CAPITAL Battery Fitting Powergrid: 500,000 CPU:0 Shield Shield HP: 100,000 Armour Armour HP: 4,800,000 Structure Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races] Mass: 1,000,000Kg Volume: 5000m3 Packaged Targeting Max Locked Targets: 1 Radar Sensor Strength: 69 [Can be Jammed] Ladar Sensor Strength:0 Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0 Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0 Signature Radius: 500m Scan Resolution: 35 Miscellaneous Charge Size: X Large Activation Proximity: 300km Accuracy Falloff: 100km Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.00163 Rate of Fire: 20secs Damage Modifier: 700 Signature Resolution: 1500 Base Price: 800,000,000 ANTI-Battleship Fitting Powergrid: 250,000 CPU:0 Shield Shield HP: 100,000 Armour Armour HP: 1,800,000 Structure Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races] Mass: 1,000,000Kg Volume: 5000m3 Packaged Targeting Max Locked Targets: 1 Radar Sensor Strength: 32 [Can be Jammed] Ladar Sensor Strength:0 Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0 Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0 Signature Radius: 295m Scan Resolution: 95 Miscellaneous Charge Size: X Large Activation Proximity: 200km Accuracy Falloff: 100km Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.0337 Rate of Fire: 8secs Damage Modifier: 100 Signature Resolution: 350 Base Price: 400,000,000 ANTI-Cruiser Fitting Powergrid: 200,000 CPU:0 Shield Shield HP: 100,000 Armour Armour HP: 900,000 Structure Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races] Mass: 1,000,000Kg Volume: 5000m3 Packaged Targeting Max Locked Targets: 1 Radar Sensor Strength: 20 [Can be Jammed] Ladar Sensor Strength:0 Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0 Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0 Signature Radius: 345m Scan Resolution: 255 Miscellaneous Charge Size: X Large Activation Proximity: 80km Accuracy Falloff: 100km Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.0812 Rate of Fire: 5secs Damage Modifier: 3 Signature Resolution: 120 Base Price: 90,000,000 ANTI-Frigate Fitting Powergrid: 150,000 CPU:0 Shield Shield HP: 100,000 Armour Armour HP: 400,000 Structure Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races] Mass: 1,000,000Kg Volume: 5000m3 Packaged Targeting Max Locked Targets: 1 Radar Sensor Strength: 12 [Can be Jammed] Ladar Sensor Strength:0 Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0 Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0 Signature Radius: 295m Scan Resolution: 395 Miscellaneous Charge Size: X Large Activation Proximity: 50km Accuracy Falloff: 50km Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 1.2 Rate of Fire: 3secs Damage Modifier: 1 Signature Resolution: 100 Base Price: 20,000,000
sg3s Caldari O.W.N. Corp FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.19 09:27:00 - [256] Edited by: sg3s on 19/11/2007 09:27:43 Originally by: Archivian Specialatus snip too much tekst Great! Now we only need some intel on what jammer to use and a scorp fleet to take down an entire POS at 0 losses. /sarcasm Now really making them jam-able like that is a big mistake, I do however sign for anti-capital guns on a POS.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 10:44:00 - [257] Originally by: sg3s Edited by: sg3s on 19/11/2007 09:27:43 Originally by: Archivian Specialatus snip too much tekst Great! Now we only need some intel on what jammer to use and a scorp fleet to take down an entire POS at 0 losses. /sarcasm Now really making them jam-able like that is a big mistake, I do however sign for anti-capital guns on a POS. Well getting intel on what kind of jam wouldnt be that hard. you can just go to the market and look at the show info. Jamming the Capital Guns, well a well skilled falcon pilot would have about a 20%ish chance per jammer, lil under 50% chance for the BS gun, over 50% chance for cruiser and garanteed for the frigate guns (though by that point, if its all frigate guns you will need a small gang of falcons or just blow them up with bigger ships.
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.19 11:37:00 - [258] Originally by: Goumindong You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk. All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system. Do you think cutting down numbers (which I think is the way to go) will also stop the nuisance of stront timers or do we still need some kind of fatigue system in place.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 12:01:00 - [259] Originally by: Ramirez Dora Originally by: Goumindong You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk. All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system. Do you think cutting down numbers (which I think is the way to go) will also stop the nuisance of stront timers or do we still need some kind of fatigue system in place. I think that even if it was only 1 POS per system stront timers would still be needed. Think about it, if there wasnt, BOB could probably clear out a few systems in a night, whilst the defenders who are on different hours are asleep. Wouldnt be too fare if it were your POS's
Nifel Caldari PAX Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.19 12:43:00 - [260] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus I think that even if it was only 1 POS per system stront timers would still be needed. Think about it, if there wasnt, BOB could probably clear out a few systems in a night, whilst the defenders who are on different hours are asleep. Wouldnt be too fare if it were your POS's And yet people coped before POS sovereignty was introduced and I dare say had a lot more fun doing it. Having your station taken over creates incentive to take it back which sparks conflict. Sovereignty was mostly introduced so we could play empire games and hold vast swaths of space without having to patrol it all the time. Turned out it wasn't so great and here we are. "When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car."

Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 12:59:00 - [261] Originally by: Nifel Originally by: Archivian Specialatus I think that even if it was only 1 POS per system stront timers would still be needed. Think about it, if there wasnt, BOB could probably clear out a few systems in a night, whilst the defenders who are on different hours are asleep. Wouldnt be too fare if it were your POS's And yet people coped before POS sovereignty was introduced and I dare say had a lot more fun doing it. Having your station taken over creates incentive to take it back which sparks conflict. Sovereignty was mostly introduced so we could play empire games and hold vast swaths of space without having to patrol it all the time. Turned out it wasn't so great and here we are. Well that would explain why POS prices are so low and part of why they get spammed so easily. So what your saying is that they increased the life expectancy of a POS (reinfoced mode and what not) without increasing the cost? well thats just bad planning. lol. For POS's to keep reinforced mode it needs to hurt when you lose one. I would actually say that if they could increase the price of POS's as a fix (which is a type of fixing i dont think they would do) POS's should cost 5 times as much as they do now even if it does make life harder for smaller alliances. But thats not exactly a new idea
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.19 13:08:00 - [262] Control tower prices were raised -- in RMR patch if I recall. Large towers used to cost 100Misk. This was well after they conferred sovereignty bonuses. And yes people who paid attention to test server and dev blogs profited handsomely. This also benefitted everyone else since players could buy towers for well below the new NPC price for months.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 13:15:00 - [263] Originally by: Jifai Control tower prices were raised -- in RMR patch if I recall. Large towers used to cost 100Misk. This was well after they conferred sovereignty bonuses. And yes people who paid attention to test server and dev blogs profited handsomely. This also benefitted everyone else since players could buy towers for well below the new NPC price for months. Wow i didnt realise they were so cheap in a tme long past. I only started playing last year and i took a 6month break, and relative to most of the people in this thread, I'm new to POS warfare. Do you think the price needs to be raised again?
Blake Ice Gallente Northern Star Enterprises Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.11.19 13:23:00 - [264] Every thing in Eve is about waiting and not grinding. So, any system should be based upon time. I would assume behind the scenes that sovereignty means that the habitable planets in the system get populated with regular people--and slave girls. :-) So, every system must have at least one planet that is habitable for this to occur. You must have a space elevator to bring goods to the planet for the new colony--and slave girls. :-) Once the colony is established, you have sovereignty one that over time will grow to sovereignty two, etc. It should also make sovereignty in neighboring systems a little quicker since people are near by--and slave girls. :-) Destroying the space elevator before sovereignty one stops the process and everyone on the planet dies. After level one, the planet must be bombarded. The length of the bombarding required would be based upon population--and slave girls. :-) A system around this structure is what would feel natural to everyone I think. With ambulation, other diplomatic or combat related options are possible. Sovereignty should not give you any bonuses to your stations! However, population of the planets should. (and slave girls) :-)

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2007.11.19 13:29:00 - [265] A couple of requests to make this thread easier for us 1) If you really, really have to link to an externally-hosted file, please make it in a format which is guaranteed to be malware-free. Like, say, a text file 2) Please try and avoid making value judgements about other players' ideas. Pointing out mechanical flaws is great as it encourages discussion and development, but simply saying "I don't like it" (or more complex derivations thereof, even if you "know" you're right) generally doesn't lead to constructive dialogue.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.19 14:34:00 - [266] Edited by: Goumindong on 19/11/2007 14:35:46 Originally by: Ramirez Dora Originally by: Goumindong You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk. All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system. Do you think cutting down numbers (which I think is the way to go) will also stop the nuisance of stront timers or do we still need some kind of fatigue system in place. I am not sure about stront timers. On one side, stront timers are important to keeping POS structures from dissapearing overnight. No one likes to go to bed and wake up with all their stuff destroyed. And Eve has made it a goal to not have this happen. On the other hand, stront timers can be manipulated by both sides to avoid a fight by making the system come out in a bad or good time for the opposing alliance. If one side gets the tower to come out deep in their prime and out of the opponents prime the tower is saved/destroyed. I think that even a simple change such as "you can put stront in, but cant take stront out" or "you cant see how much stront is in the tower" might work. Because then each side is playing a guessing game instead of sitting there and timing it exactly as they want while the other tries to kite the tower into their primetime. But the basic design concept of "You cant got to bed and have your stations taken out from under you without warning" absolutly has to stay in the game.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2007.11.19 14:37:00 - [267] Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 19/11/2007 14:39:12 Originally by: Goumindong I am not sure about stront timers. On one side, stront timers are important to keeping POS structures from dissapearing overnight. No one likes to go to bed and wake up with all their stuff destroyed. And Eve has made it a goal to not have this happen. I've addressed this on the first page of this thread here :)
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.19 14:49:00 - [268] Edited by: Jifai on 19/11/2007 14:56:38 In the theme of more sov targets that are easier to kill, stront timers could become the time until tower and structures are unanchored. Sov claim is maintained during reinforced as is currently done. When tower exits reinforced mode, the whole POS is unanchored. The post-reinforce battle would just be a snatch and grab run. Whoever snags the tower and structures can deploy it for their side. The battle continues if the previous owner tries to anchor a tower before downtime. If anchored at same moon, the existing sov claim continues, same as now. Edit: added bonus is stront kiting is no longer an issue in this scheme. stront levels can be adjusted by owner right up to reinforced mode starting.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 17:20:00 - [269] I actually think it should be this hard to take a system rather than buying/building/blowing up stations so easily. Granted I do think the current way is boring. Any way. Well not sure about this idea, it seems a bit harsh to me but you all seem to really want these stations to die fast but without them getting killed overnight. First of all, change one key thing. You can refuel the stront in a POS whilst itFs in reinforced. I know there is actually maths to this in game, but IFm just using these numbers to explain it. A station has 2 set timers for reinforced. 12 hours and 24 hours. Station Capacity: 100 40 units for 12 hours 80 units for 24 hours If you have set it for 12 hours the station, when knocked into reinforced, will burn through all of the stront in 12 hours. After 12 hours, if no more stront has been put back in, it comes out of reinforced. However you can prolong its reinforced mode by refilling the station. (Only the 24 hour timer can be set if there is 80 units in the station) You can only refuel the POS in bulk. 12 hour timer = 40 units at a time 24 hour timer = 80 units at a time 12 hour timer: 40 units= +3 hours If you add more than 40 units, it will only use what it needs and the rest will sit there as surplus, un-useable until the station comes out of reinforced. 24 hour timer: 80 Units= +1.5 hours The station will remain in reinforced until it runs out of fuel. So you have to let the stront get as low as possible before adding more, to keep it in reinforced as long as possible.
ardik TunkbwahCorp	Posted - 2007.11.19 19:30:00 - [270] Edited by: ardik on 19/11/2007 19:33:29 Originally by: ardik Ok really simple suggestions here: Cut down HP on station/pos related stuff dramatically, this means you aren't forced to come up with a million man blob to do any significant damage to something in a reasonable amount of time. That gets rid of some blobs and makes it a little bit more fun since you can actually see things taking damage :o Might even give smaller corps a chance to fight over space. Reduce the amount of sov holding POS in a system, for example restrict it down to 3 or something, make a module that needs to be anchored at the pos for it to claim sov and limit that module to 3 per alliance per system. That would get rid of some pos spam and actually force people to fight over systems rather than just spam it. That's the only simple and reasonable changes I can think of, it won't solve blobbing for when important sov holding pos comes out of reinforced, but then again I'm really not sure what would. Hey how about reintroducing static complexes so stopping complex runs would be small gang objectives that the defenders have to defend if they want to make isk? Or does that make too much sense? Actually the more I think about it, the most important change you could do would be dropping the HP amounts, especially on station services since now you could rather put half a dozen large towers into reinforced with the damage needed to fully disable a station. Although with the passive recharge on station serivces and the fact that few alliances actually need to use their station services regularly then you're going to have to do a lot of tweaking to make them worth taking down. I still think static complexes would by far be the best small gang objectives, especially since you can't just wait your enemy out or something, which is what happens with station services.

Thera Romana	Posted - 2007.11.19 20:39:00 - [271] I have written several post for different type of items to add to systems to make more robust. Sov. should be about physical control, if you have mining colonies in all the belts, if you are harving all the moons, how many combat positions you have, how much of the space you can see with scanning network, how much of your space is covered by comm network. Combat Outposts/combat Pos's no mining, no production, just combat sites, smaller shields bigger guns(for some) but can be layed out all over. Mining colonies all kind of room for play here, if i know where a mining colony is i can mine the route between it and the station. mining colonies would have to be scanned out, they have defenses but lock down when attacked. ideal would be more to attack to and from mining, and less while mining, you could still do it but would take alot more. Mine fields. Pirate hideouts System scanning sucks the way it is, there is no hiding anything, you just warp to it really. talking stations should be allowed to decide if station is public or not. If you havent been to it, it shouldnt show up, thats everything, belts, planets, moons, maybe the sun would show but thats about it. Oh and stuff moves so the longer its been since you have been there the less accurate the info you have is. Scanners should not be able to see a whole system at first glance, as you move around, things should be detected, then you can scan for them, then they show in map. go away for a month you can go to the old spot but it wont be there, but you should be able to scan it down Local giving up who is in system needs to go, you should have to scan to find out. granted if i own the system and you get detected by a scanner tower, an alert goes to alliance members of your presence. Depending on how big of a set up, might even get a location for where you tripped the sensor. now if your chatting over local, you will show up, but thats your fault then. Defenses at gates, towers, sensors, drones but add a reaction time , if its my space you will have to kill the defenses at the gate, to camp, my gates. For attackers hide outs would be great, think outer rim of systems, I find a whole in a sensor array or i make one by hacking, i can put a hideout to bring in ships, store supplies. gain a foothold. There is no true tactical planning right now, its all about hey guys lets take 300 people and go hit that station. Shareable maps, once i find something in a system, i can transfer it to others in my groups or within com range of my ship. I can also sell it. this could bring in good traitor/spy scenarios. where they map out systems defenses and sell the maps to the highest bidder. info would only be good few days though as stuff moves.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.19 22:28:00 - [272] Originally by: Thera Romana Combat Outposts/combat Pos's no mining, no production, just combat sites, smaller shields bigger guns(for some) but can be layed out all over. Yeah I posted on Battle Stations to. Takes too long to kill for the current siege style of fighting. Originally by: Thera Romana . mining colonies would have to be scanned out, they have defenses but lock down when attacked. ideal would be more to attack to and from mining, and less while mining, you could still do it but would take alot more. I also wrote about having different types of stations. Originally by: Thera Romana Mine fields. They took out mines, at least so IFm told. Too much lag or something. Originally by: Thera Romana Pirate hideouts That would be cool Originally by: Thera Romana System scanning sucks the way it is, there is no hiding anything, you just warp to it really. Well it kind of has to be like that, though I think it would be cool if there was a dampening deployable that meant you had to be within 3 AU if you want to find that secret starbase. Originally by: Thera Romana talking stations should be allowed to decide if station is public or not. That ones a little out-there for me. Originally by: Thera Romana If you havent been to it, it shouldnt show up, thats everything, belts, planets, moons, maybe the sun would show but thats about it. Well if that were true, you would enter a system and only be able to warp to the other gate` actually you wouldnFt coz it wouldnFt show up. Originally by: Thera Romana Oh and stuff moves so the longer its been since you have been there the less accurate the info you have is. Originally by: Thera Romana In the EVETV lectures they said they took it out I think it was because things took so long to move, you didnFt notice it. Originally by: Thera Romana Local giving up who is in system needs to go, Totally with you on that one. Keep it mandatory in Hi sec, Optional in low sec, and gone in 0.0. Instead, erect a communications tower when you get SOV 1 and then your alliance has a local window for that system. Originally by: Thera Romana granted if i own the system and you get detected by a scanner tower, an alert goes to alliance members of your presence. That would be a new level of annoying mails and notices polluting your UI. Originally by: Thera Romana Defenses at gates, towers, sensors, drones but add a reaction time , if its my space you will have to kill the defenses at the gate, to camp, my gates. I did a post for Territory guns as well Originally by: Thera Romana For attackers hide outs would be great, think outer rim of systems, I find a whole in a sensor array or i make one by hacking, i can put a hideout to bring in ships, store supplies. gain a foothold. Well that will probably be when tactical environments come in. But hacking, is something that I think really should be in the game for 100 reasons the main one being that this is a sci-fi game. Still I think it would play a role in sovereignty and taking down POSFs Originally by: Thera Romana There is no true tactical planning right now, its all about hey guys lets take 300 people and go hit that station. I totally agree with 90% of the time, though when they defend itFs fun 5% of the time, the rest is slugging matches with an enemy fleet waiting to see whose dreads win, but thatFs only 5%. Originally by: Thera Romana Shareable maps, once i find something in a system, i can transfer it to others in my groups or within com range of my ship
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.19 23:23:00 - [273] My suggestion Ive posted before, but here goes. 1. What is soveriegnty: Well it assumes you have dominion over someone, i.e political control - which in turns implies you have sov over a populace. Protect that populace and you win their support, and it is this population that hails you as 'sovereign' (even if forced to do so). 2. That population would be vulnerable, rather like serfs living off the land around a fort during the middle ages. If this population was slaughtered then, in essence, your 'soveriegnty'is also destroyed: there is no one left to justify or support your claim on a territory. 3. If we now enable players to place small colonies on (for example) asteroid belts these colonies could act as indicators of soveriegnty. Each colony providing a certain value of soveriegnty 'points'. 4. Having seeded multiple colonies across multiple systems, a corp now has a fairly large expanse of terrain to protect. 5. Colonies would, Id suggest, grow over time becoming stronger and more impervious to attack: so if your corp nutured & protected a systems colonies for a period they would gradually become less reliant upon you. Younger colony 'spores' if left alone would be weaker and easily removed. Now defending colonies requires you to spread out your forces (hopefully reducing some blobing as a bi product). Equally smaller 'raids' could inflict light to moderate damage to a corps soveriegnty without having to destroy the enemies infrastructure (pos or starbase). This would be rather like raiding the fields and villages around a castle; without attacking the castle itself. Colonies could become part of a wider mechanic - for example colonies might be needed to produce goods and a population for plantary terraforming, perhaps colonies are 'farmable' for specific goods or products? So thats my generalised idea. Smaller 'objects' that count towards sov - easily 'seeded', and if erradicated swiftly easy to remove. I hope Ive explained that ok - happy to give more specifics if anyone want them. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:21:00 - [274] Jurisdiction can be claimed from 0.4 Sec Space to NPC 0.0 Space. This is just an idea that I rambled about back at the back on the first page. There are a lot of small corps/alliances that live in low sec and near by NPC 0.0 areas. A lot of them do hold space al be it on a more gang war basis. There are lots of gang and small fleet battles that happens to or 3 times day. They are very aggressive against one another and a week is classed a long period of peace. In low sec the main two sides tend to be Pirates Vs Anti-Pirates and in NPC 0,0 it tends to be more over resources and NPC Outposts. A lot of them actually regularly police what they call tTheir Spacev 23 hours a day, and really try to blockade each other on what can be seen a an insane amount of commitment for so small a member count. Example: The 23hour a day 4 month camp in 7Q, everyone working in shifts to lock off supply lines to an enemy whilst coordinating with allies on the secondary supply line achieved the same feat. Without the luxury of capital blobs they fight extremely aggressively day in day out in lesser ships sometimes racking up 120kills per person (main PvPer) per week. All to hold a territory that gets no real recognition for their efforts. As much big alliances are the movers and shakers of EVE, these small corps are that often the magnets pull the titans together in combat outside of POS fighting. They constantly shift alliances and almost all of them have an alliance to huge empires, but often get over looked. Anyway, I feel these small guys should get some recognition for hold their 1 or 2 systems. IFd like to stress that this is NOT proper sovereignty but more recognition with some bonusFs. Conditions of Claiming A Corp/Alliance CEO can go to his office and make a petition to claim on any system between 0.4 { NPC 0.0 space. They cannot claim on 0.5 Security Space or higher, a system that already has sovereignty 1 or higher. A Corp/Alliance can claim as the Corp/Alliance has more than 30 members. Once this is completed, your Corporation/Alliance and all of its members become Candidates. Petition to Claim Prices: A Petition lasts for 1 month 0.4 Systems: 300,000,000 ISK 0.3 Systems: 500,000,000 ISK 0.2 Systems: 900,000,000 ISK 0.1 Systems: 1,200,000.000 ISK NPC 0.0 Systems: 1,500,000,000 ISK What you have to do: Candidates must obtain Candidacy Tags from enemy Candidates trying to claim Jurisdiction in the same system/s and hand them in to an agent in system by downtime. After Downtime, the Candidate Alliance with the most Tags handed in then gain a level of Judication. Candidacy Tags can be found in the wrecks of enemy Candidates ships. Anyone can kill any Candidate anywhere and the Candidate will drop a Candidacy Tag. If show info is clicked on the tag, it will say whose tag it is and what system/systems that Candidates Corp/Alliance is trying to claim. The Candidacy tag can be taken to the target system/s and sold to their enemies. Jurisdiction 0.1 [Clout] Requirements Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 1% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Jurisdiction [Force] 0.2 Requirements [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.4 Sec] Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (2 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 2% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Jurisdiction 0.3 [Leverage] Requirements Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (3 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 3% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.20 00:25:00 - [275] Jurisdiction 0.4 [Connections ] Requirements [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.3 Sec] Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (4 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 4% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Petition to Claim price is reduced by15% Jurisdiction 0.5 [Influence] Requirements Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (5 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 5% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) How to Contest Sovereignty 0.1-0.5 After making a claim on the same system, Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Loss of one Jurisdiction level will occur if the Your Candidate Alliance have not handed in the most Candidacy Tags. Jurisdiction 0.6 [Mastery ] Requirements [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.2 Sec] Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (6 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 6% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Petition to Claim price is reduced by 25% Jurisdiction 0.7 [Notoriety] Requirements Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (7 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 7% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Jurisdiction 0.8 [Prestige] RequirementsMust hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (8 days). in that system. If you are the highest level of Jurisdiction in system 8% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Petition to Claim price is reduced by 50% How to Contest Sovereignty 0.6-0.8 After making a claim on the same system, Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Jurisdiction level will Fall to Influence 0.5 if the Your Candidate Alliance have not handed in the most Candidacy Tags. Jurisdiction 0.9 [Prominence] Requirements [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.1 Sec but continues to 0.0 Sec] Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Bonus: Recognized on the map as the .Corp/Alliance ELECT (9 days). in that system. 9% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any) Petition to Claim price is reduced by 100% How to Contest Sovereignty 0.8-0.9 After making a claim on the same system, Must hand in more enemy Candidacy Tags pertaining to the system than Enemy Candidates. Jurisdiction should be gained after the following downtime. Jurisdiction level will Fall to Prestige 0.8 if the Your Candidate Alliance have not handed in the most Candidacy Tags.
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:22:00 - [276] Originally by: Ramirez Dora Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 17/11/2007 01:42:45 Also keep in mind that anything that forces the attacker to have to spread out his forces must also force the defender to spread out. If you have a system where POS would be linked up, and let's say, the damage you do to all the POS is the same as the smallest amount you are doing to any one of them (thus forcing spread fire over all of them). Disregarding the need for damage micromanagement for the attacker, a system like this would NOT discourage the defender from blobbing as they could simply bounce from attacking group to attacking group with their entire fleet easily wiping them out. So, if you're going to force the attacker to spread out, make a strong incentive for the defender to do so too or we'll be seeing a static universe soon I think this is a very good point. However, I would like to point out that if the POS "linking" was done correctly that the attackers could just move off a certain pos when the attacking mega-blob came, basically kiting them pos to pos not letting them accomplish anything. This would mean a mechanic would have to be in place for the attackers to have an "incentive" to spread out but at the same time make it still useful for a single gang to attack a single pos. I think an easy solution would be for the attacking "incentive" to give a damage bonus if you are attacking multiple pos at once. For example, linked pos's when attacked simultaneously will lower their resists by 25% or somethen like that. So heres a setup scenario: Attacker goes to system. Attacks 3 POS at once. Because of the "incentive" all three POS drop by 50% resists (25% for each "extra" pos attacked). The defender now comes to destroy attacking forces. It can either do one of two things. 1) Super blob and try to take each attacking pos force one at a time. In this scenario the attacker can move away from one pos when forces come in to attack. This will allow the attacker to keep working at the other pos but at lower efficiency. But as soon as the defender moves to a different spot they can move back on the pos Or 2) It causes the defender to split and we have much pew pew fun. There are a couple problems with this idea, and these are the mechanics I think would need to change: Dreads siege cycle would have to be shortened. This would allow the attacker to move off a POS if a super-blob defender tried to "sweep" through the attackers 1 by 1. And second, there would need to be a POS module, that would "trigger" the lowering of other POS shield resists. This would do two things. 1) Allow the defender to quickly heal the module re-gaining resists on other POS. 2) Would prevent very small gangs or solo ships running around creating -100% resists Also, before this idea is torn to shreads. The resists "incentive" is an IDEA. The incentive does not necessarily have to be lower resists.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:41:00 - [277] This is how I think the POS fighting should be. It has variety, and thought has to be put into placing you Stations/structures. Blobbing still works, but it would be much better to split your fleet to hit multiple targets at once, or attack in waves, even send your small ships to complete an objective at once station whilst you capital blob pounds another one, and you BS deal with defences. Brains and strength as a combination would be the best key. There are points however where the fighting will focus on one station and at those points blobbing is very useful. There are plenty of targets for all class of ships to go for on their own, or work in conjunction with each other. And most of them donFt take epic amounts of time to destroy. Other than POSFs and a Declaration Embassy, no other station can go into reinforced. You do get notified via Eve Mail (maybe an automated private message) when one of your stations is knocked passed 75%. Here is one of the structures so you can get a bit of an idea: Declaration Embassy [DE] [Class: Medium Tower] [Sov 2 structures] Only 1 can be deployed per planet and its moons. Must have Sovereignty 1 to Anchor DE This is the only structre that can use reinforced mode (12 hours max) other than POS's After sovereignty 1 the DE has taken the place of POSFs in claiming space. The DE allows you to claim sovereignty over a planet by anchoring it at one of its moons. But only one can be anchored to claim a planet, which means your enemy has to destroy your DE to put his one up and claim the planet. By seeding the other moons with defensive stations you can make the enemy really have to work to destroy it. But seeding too many structures to boost its defence will weaken the logistics of your system, so you will have to echo the political climate in that area of space and balance your defences and logistics accordingly. Having at least 51% of the planets under your control allows you to claim higher levels of sovereignty as usual. POSFs are still important Structure Interface Bandwidth Command Centres: Shield Enhancement Station ANTI-Cruiser Advanced Turret Battery ANTI-Frigate Advanced Turret Battery Declaration Embassy ANTI-CAPITAL Advanced Turret Battery ANTI-Battleship Advanced Turret Battery
Maliber Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:59:00 - [278] Having a blob in sov warfare is a thing you can not really stop by having multiple goals. It's always nice to have a large group of ships to attack a target. It gives you a better hold on a system even if you have multiple targets in the system. It doesnt really matter if it is one target or 2 or 5 for that matter. The boring thing now is the waiting. The waiting untill a pos comes out of reinforced. Then the 2 sides clash and the lag makes a fair fight impossible. The timers are there for a reason and this is a good mechanic when smaller forces meet. But with large presences it hurts. It makes things clumbersome and a timing fault is usually the end of a fight. Why not make fighting at such a large scale harder? I think that the timers arnt really relevant when 2 sides with both 300+ ships are fighting for a system. If they want to keep the system the have to work for it and be present on a longer time basis than just to siege the posses. Make fueling of the posses harder and the timers on reinforced shorter when more sov claiming poses (or suggested structures) are present in the system is a solution in my opinion. This way it will be easier to disrupt eachothers operations with smaller forces and the resulting battle less predictable. Ofcourse you have to make fueling posses that claim sov only possible from outside the force field. This way it will be a battle about logistics and tactics instead of pos bashing. The war will be more continues and not as much about who can spam the most posses and who can one cycle them into reinforced again. Besides the larger logistics in a system you can also make it more intresting to hold a whole constelation or to conquer a constelation by make certain points in a constalation more important for claiming constelation sov. For example the entrances to a constelation besides the station system. This requires you to fight on different fronts and to make supply lines longer for large scale conficts. Together with increased fuel i would also shorten the timers on sov a bit when there are a lot of sov claiming posses present.
Thera Romana	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:43:00 - [279] oh, oh, oh I think I have got it. This is not all mine, its kind of a combo of everybody. Give structures point. Total points equals sov level, so you can take out one big thing or you can take out a whole bunch of small things. Love the people(citizens idea) Make planets mineable, so in a big system everything might be available. Planets are the best way to produce food, and materials for supporting citizens. Make structures automated, but you can augment by people. take a sensor tower, its range automated might be 2au, so if you dont have a planet to support food production you could still set it up, you would just have to use more of them. With a full staff, its range is say 4AU. Everything would be about networking your system Defense network, scanning, shooting, shielding, drones, comm. Supply network fuel, ore, moon mins, food, supplies. Personnel network miners, operators, maintainers. lets look at an example: You take over a systems and put up the first pos, you have to use member to go mine ice, and ore to start setting up. your goal is to build infrastructure. Rats will be in the ore fields and moving around the system. So even if you find a empty system, you will have to deal with them first. You select a planet that has a good surface, you colonize it. The people you put on it, start gathering food, and other items, clothing, supplies. You people start growing as well(people production) Now you tie a station or large platform to that planet. Now you have enough people built up to support the planet, and expand to other areas, so you find a belt and set up a colony This colony can mine. Now some of this can be automated but you have to set it up, if you want to move ore to the station you must buy ships for the miners to use if you buy a hundred indy 1's you can make a bunch of runs to different places but each run is a small amount. The goal is to balance things, if you arent emptying the colony when full it stops. These ships fly routes(not always a straight line you can map it but it always flys the same route till you change it) These ships are attackable. so small gangs can go in and play havick with an infrastructure. anything that is automated can always be done much better by a real player Stations can do everything, but everything a station can do can be done individually by smaller items. So as your system control builds more things are done in automation for you allowing you more time to go war, and wreck havock System defenses scanners must be layed out to define controlled space, comm towers must be layed out to control friendly forces. Have automated ships for defense, but they would work like the high sec patrols. You must stock your station with ships and people for it to have a defense force. These forces would orbit your station and key structures as you decide, so you can put a detail to guard your mining colony, but that means one less patrol group. when an item gets attacked defense forces will respond, I would say make it a level thing, so level one item being attacked gets one squad in response for starters and will escilate with time or damage. level 3 gets 3 squads. Now these come from your total ships available, so If you only can support 10 squads, and I attack 11 things, guess what one thing isnt defended. Also if I attack 10 small things, now there are no ships at the station. Combat posts decide how many defense force ships you can support at any one time. Combat post would generate replacements for lost ships as long as the have people and ships to do it with(reserves) but depending on size would determine how quickly it would do it. If you wipe out all my defenses and then stop, 12 hours later my defense force might be built back up. Each corps will set priorities for its items, so I could have defense force guard my miners, but only would respond to attack in system if it is the station getting attacked.
Thera Romana	Posted - 2007.11.20 16:27:00 - [280] Now lets look at detail into a few items Comm station Takes fuel, this can be automated to be delivered or a human can make runs to all the comm sites to fuel them(not recommended, because you will have tons. Takes people to run, but certain types of attack may not damage the station but kill the people. Downgrading its range. Takes food for people, cut off the food, and people die(over time) range goes down over time due to people dieing Planets once colonized will always produce people till taken over but, lets say for full food production it takes 1000 people, if planet gets attacked, food production stops till 1000 citizens is built back up, if you pull people from the planet and it goes below a 1000 food production stops. food production can be done in space but then cost fuel to run the food colony, which doesnt produce people Habitat would produce people, but doesnt produce food, and takes fuel. But both would be available for systems that dont have planets that can support life. Mining colony this is where it gets fun, cause you have alot of decisions to make on how, now it has an sma, and cha and slots so i can outfit it with say 2 hulks or, 5 covies or 10 retrievers, or 50 cruisers. 50 cruisers would take more people and food, but if attacked less isk is lost, but production is lower. I also have to balance hauling, 10 indy 1's or 3 indy 5's again if attacked do i want to loose a little or alot. Now if im using indy 1's i can have more routes and launch more of them, so i spread out my risk, but reward is lower. I can also use the indy 1's to service more items. so if im setting it to small refineries all over i might want 10 indy 1's but if im going to the station i could do one freighter(not wise) I could have no haulers at a mining colony, so i get more miners, but now i have to go and haul the mins when it fills. CHA fills, mining stops. automated miners for the most part mine at the very bottom bonus levels, now this can be raised by if a mining director is at the colony and real people are mining, the colony gets the directors bonuses as well, but only when he is actually there. Now you could bring this up by items added to structures, say a training attachment, but that would only bonus the automated miners a certain time after they arrive, so if all the miners get killed, you go back to the bottom of production till training is achieved. There is so much room for expansion, the sky is the limit. nice thing is if you dont want to automate, or cant afford it you dont have to, automation would be somehting that is grown into. Automation should help with alot of the grinding items, combat corps may want some ice mining colonies for fuel production, but they would get the bonuses, that a mining corps might get my having real miners and directors. Or if they dont want to deal with the management of the automation, then they can just buy the stuff, yes prices on ore and the like would go down, but production would go up, so you make the same isk, your just moving more to do it. Cheaper ore, means more ships, more ships means more combat, more combat means higher demand for ore. Such is the cycle of life. Automation should mainly be geared towards 0.0 space, some in low sec, for the most part none in high sec other than being able to pay local authorities for thier services.

Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.20 16:32:00 - [281] Originally by: Maliber The boring thing now is the waiting. The waiting untill a pos comes out of reinforced. Then the 2 sides clash and the lag makes a fair fight impossible. The timers are there for a reason and this is a good mechanic when smaller forces meet. But with large presences it hurts. It makes things clumbersome and a timing fault is usually the end of a fight. . Instead of having Reinforced make the station invulnerable for X hours. how about it just raises the all shield resists to 99.8% on all resists for X hours. Example: 50 Dreads = 150000 100BS = 100000 50 HACS = 15000 Total = 265000 After 99.8% resists 530 So i think it should take about 314mins (over 5 hours) to shoot through the rest of the shield. If the big blob REALLY wants to kill it that night then they can. Or more likley they shoot for about 2.5 hours, go away and rearm, and come back either that day or the next day for a another 2.5 hours of shooting. In all that time Defenders have the chance to gather forces and fight. Though maybe this is a bit too harsh on defenders.
Thera Romana	Posted - 2007.11.20 16:46:00 - [282] 0.0 everything can be done by the alliance or corps in house thru automation, security forces, colonies, defenses. 0.1-0.4 colonies/structures and minimal security can be done, but you can pay the locals with Loyalty or with Isk for protection, and hauling. Set up a mining colony and it may run you 500,000isk a week for a BS security detail from the locals. To not be publish on the local map may run you 100,000 isk per week. 0.5-1.0 no colonies, but you can rent space at a local colony, and pay for security. This would reduce the need for cans. Rates might be dependant on mining amounts to help against farmers. If your mining a ton, colony and security rates will go up. it should be bracketed so that the little guy can afford to get started, say 27k storage is cheap, but goes up quickly after that. Also all automation should come in sizes, small, medium, large
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:24:00 - [283] Edited by: Veng3ance on 20/11/2007 18:25:23 Veng3ance's Super Pwnage POS Idea This is going to be a bit on the long side. There is two main ideas to my POS changes. 2) Attackers and defenders should have an incentive to split between multiple POS to cut down on lag and the amount of people on one grid. And 1) POS need to be susceptible to attack and harassment, even when the attacker is not going to "siege" the pos. This post will be a combination of ideas I have expressed in other posts, and so may be a bit of review to anyone who read the entire thread. Attackers and defenders should have incentive to split between multiple POS 1) For a POS to contribute to sovereignty, the POS must deploy a "sovereignty module". A) The sovereignty module will also have negative impact on the POS. All "utility" structures will no longer be able to be onlined (refinery, labs, factory, moon mining) only guns and defense and possibly a ship maintainance array. This means alliances must choose between a POS for their utility needs or a POS for sovereignty, overall cutting down the number of POS that need to be sieged. B)The sovereignty module will "link" POS in the same system. If a sovereignty module is disabled on a POS, other sovereignty contributing POS in the system will be negatively effected. For now I suggest this as a negative effect. -20% to POS Shield Resists and -20% to shield recharge rate. This module will be easily repairable however, this is so sovereignty modules are fought over, and not just disabled and forgotten. That negative effect will happen for every disabled sovereignty module in the system. So, if an attacker splits between 3 POS, and attacks them all at once, or at least disables the sovereignty module on 3 POS before attacking, each sovereignty contributing POS in-system will have -60% to shield resists and shield recharge rate. What this does for warfare: 1) It makes the defender choose between number of POS and effectiveness of the POS in the system. ("Should we setup 3 POS or 5 POS in this system? If we setup 5 we could possibly recieve a -100% to shield resists and recharge rate, if the attacker destroys all 5 sovereignty modules"). And It makes the attacker decide if it wants to attack one POS, with the full hitpoints and recharge rate of a normal large POS, or if it wants to split some of its forces and have those forces focus on harrassing sovereignty modules, this takes away support from the main attacking fleet. Or if implemented correctly may even force the attacker to split its main force into seperate sieging groups. D) Dread siege module may need to be changed to a shorter cycle time. This would allow the splitting of forces within the same system. With the current siege mechanics a defender could just super-blob and go from one POS to another destroying each split up sieging force individually. part 2 below
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:25:00 - [284] POS Must be susceptible to attack and harassment. 1) All POS will now have "services" much the same as station services, these services will be attackable at any time, and if attacked will reduce the effectivness of the POS. The services will be the focus of day to day territorial warfare, and will allow harassment of the enemy without full siege, and takes away focus from gate camping and things like that. A) Services will include: Factory Service (Delays factory operations until repaired) Lab Service (Delays all lab operations until repaired) Moon Mining Service (Delays all reactors and miners until repaired) Fuel Service (Doubles the rate of POS fuel burning until repaired) 2) POS must be toned down offensively (specifically large pos) to allow harassment gangs to shoot POS services. I believe for a large pos to be harrassed you should need about a 25-35 man gang. Requiring the attacker to bring more ships only adds to the blob element. And also makes it "not worth the time and effort". 3) Dread Tanking needs to be changed. Possibly toned down to compensate for the loss in POS offensive capability. What this does for warfare: gives smaller groups "objectives" that may not be able to compete with a giant capital fleet. For example, a group could harass a moon mining chain causing loss of ISK for that alliance or corporation, maybe even harassing it to the point where the alliance or corp takes down said POS instead of wasting time fueling it over and over. This tactic could also be combined with attacking fuel services forcing the alliance into a heavier logistics role. It allows for a dug-in defender to be harrassed without a full on siege. And may bring a whole new dynamic to alliance warfare. (Such as trying to harrass an alliance into submission with a combination of POS harassment and normal raids, without going down the long "siege" road. And last but not least: Station services need to be lowered in hitpoints and recharge rate. Station services should be harassable by 25+ man fleets. Honestly right now even if I have a 25 man gang including 10 battleships its not worth it to shoot station services. It just is not worth the time and effort for something that can be so easily repaired. They should be more easily destroyable, adding more objectives for smaller gangs and groups.
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.21 05:09:00 - [285] Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 21/11/2007 05:11:04 Originally by: Veng3ance Edited by: Veng3ance on 20/11/2007 18:25:23 1) For a POS to contribute to sovereignty, the POS must deploy a "sovereignty module". A) The sovereignty module will also have negative impact on the POS. All "utility" structures will no longer be able to be onlined (refinery, labs, factory, moon mining) only guns and defense and possibly a ship maintainance array. This means alliances must choose between a POS for their utility needs or a POS for sovereignty, overall cutting down the number of POS that need to be sieged. B)The sovereignty module will "link" POS in the same system. If a sovereignty module is disabled on a POS, other sovereignty contributing POS in the system will be negatively effected. For now I suggest this as a negative effect. -20% to POS Shield Resists and -20% to shield recharge rate. This module will be easily repairable however, this is so sovereignty modules are fought over, and not just disabled and forgotten. Forcing the defender to give up a majority of their industrial/science POS abilities in a system because of an attack is a bit too favoritism towards the attack imho. Having to defend AND losing POS functionality across the system is too much. Instead of relaying the Sov bit to a module, why not keep it at the Planets with current POS's. Instead, give ALL POS a module for reinforcement. It takes negligible CPU and PG (100/100?), has a relatively low signature radius and has 16 million HP (?). Coup de grace is the fact that it has to be anchored outside of the POS shield. Nothing changes about how the current POS reinforced system works, it is now just tied into that module being anchored and online (else it just doesn't go into reinforced). So yes the defender can still play with the stront timers BUT it gives the attacker the option to take out this low-res-signature, 16 mil hp (see Cyno Jammer) module which would take them a considerable amount of time. You can increase the modules HP and resistances to tune the time it takes (it would still be vastly less than what stront can give you). It also forces defenders to take more note of a reinforced POS, not just go to sleep and come back in 3 days to rep it. Oh, and if you are wondering, the low res signature of the module would prevent (as it can't be TP'd) the module to be taken down by caps very easily, and it also gives smaller ships some more things to do. This basically allows the fight to continue at reinforced POS's (and since we have less due to Sov POS being anchored at planets only).
Maliber Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.21 09:49:00 - [286] Originally by: Veng3ance POS Must be susceptible to attack and harassment. 1) All POS will now have "services" much the same as station services, these services will be attackable at any time, and if attacked will reduce the effectivness of the POS. The services will be the focus of day to day territorial warfare, and will allow harassment of the enemy without full siege, and takes away focus from gate camping and things like that. A) Services will include: Factory Service (Delays factory operations until repaired) Lab Service (Delays all lab operations until repaired) Moon Mining Service (Delays all reactors and miners until repaired) Fuel Service (Doubles the rate of POS fuel burning until repaired) This will lead to needless harassment in lowsec. I dont think its a good idea to include the industrial side of posses in faction warfare. Already industrial posses are a easy target for a few dreads. Quote: 2) POS must be toned down offensively (specifically large pos) to allow harassment gangs to shoot POS services. I believe for a large pos to be harrassed you should need about a 25-35 man gang. Requiring the attacker to bring more ships only adds to the blob element. And also makes it "not worth the time and effort". I think the need for capital ships to siege large posses is not very harsh. Quote: 3) Dread Tanking needs to be changed. Possibly toned down to compensate for the loss in POS offensive capability. Look what happend to the carrier nerf ppl will not like this at all Quote: [b]And last but not least: Station services need to be lowered in hitpoints and recharge rate. Station services should be harassable by 25+ man fleets. Honestly right now even if I have a 25 man gang including 10 battleships its not worth it to shoot station services. It just is not worth the time and effort for something that can be so easily repaired. They should be more easily destroyable, adding more objectives for smaller gangs and groups. Well i agree with you here maybe station systems need to be a little bit more vunerable but on the other side they would be reppable more easy to so i dont know if this is a good tradeoff.
Maliber Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.21 09:54:00 - [287] Originally by: Archivian Specialatus Jurisdiction can be claimed from 0.4 Sec Space to NPC 0.0 Space. .... This sounds like the a play stile known in other mmorpgs dont really like the idea of farming points...
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.21 15:03:00 - [288] Originally by: Maliber This will lead to needless harassment in lowsec. I dont think its a good idea to include the industrial side of posses in faction warfare. Already industrial posses are a easy target for a few dreads. While I do see where you are coming from with this, considering many 0.0 alliances, or even solo industrial corps have POS in low-sec they are never really near too.... I have to ask; does a corp / alliance deserve a POS they are never around to defend? Quote: I think the need for capital ships to siege large posses is not very harsh. No, actually you are right. So many people have dreads now, a couple dreads to harass a POS is not over the top at all. However, I'm not saying a 30 man gang should be able to siege a POS with battleships / support. I think they should be able to "harass" it. However, with a bit more thought on things like timezone coverage, I believe your right, and that even to harass a large POS you should need some capital support. Quote: Look what happend to the carrier nerf ppl will not like this at all This is a bit different tho. Dread tanks are really only needed because of the Alpha strike on large POS. However, because I agree with your comment above, the tanking doesn't really need to change.
Cookie Muncher	Posted - 2007.11.21 16:37:00 - [289] The main problem with the current system is shooting umpteen poses is the most boring thing in the world. Ive only taken out 3 but damn was it boring. Warfare today is conducted quickly not over 4 days because your enemy loaded up on stront. So why not stop poses determining sov, and instead have 1 building in the system without a stront timer but a fair amount of hp. For the attackers to be able to attack this structure they have to declare war on the defending corp/alliance otherwise they can't attack the structure. This way the defenders will get a 24 hour warning about being attacked, and the attackers will spread out across multiple systems meaning the defenders will also have to spread out. This is reduce the amount of large scale engagements and also mean that a war wont last 2 weeks because your enemy had 1 week of stront in each of their poses.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.21 19:55:00 - [290] POS reinforced drones. Give each POS a drone bandwidth of: Large: 1000 Medium: 750 Small: 500 And lower their ability for reinforced down to 3 hours (maybe by upping the rate it burns through stront) 40% bonus to Strontium fuel efficiency for each reinforced drone it controls. In each station you can put Reinforce Drones. When a POS is put into reinforced, all the POSFs (including the reinforced one) at the moons of the same planet, release their drones and they warp to the station that is in reinforced. The drones are loaded with stront and they contribute to the shields reinforced mode. Meaning that the station and drones all need to use less fuel to keep the reinforced mode in place. For the defenders, with the right combination of drones, means they can keep a station in reinforced for a long while. Another advantage for the defender is that if the attack stops at reinforced, the defenders can retract the drones that belong to the other stations. The attackers can stay there and try and shoot the drones down, or they can send a fleet to a second station and put that into reinforced. When this happens that POSFs own drones returns to keep it in reinforced mode, and so do 50% of the other drones. The attackers can do this to as many POS as they want, and so keep halving the drones keeping the POSFs in reinforced. If a POS is in reinforced, but no longer under attack, they cannot call their drones to dock. Light: Orbit speed 6000 125m3 sig rad: 12 Shield 15,000 99.9% resists Armour: 3000 no resists. Drone Bandwidth: 125 (Can hold 1 hours of stront) 25% bonus to fuel efficiency for each other reinforced drone from the same POS. 50% resistant against stasis web Medium: Orbit speed 4000 175m3 sig rad: 17 Shield 40,000 99.9% resists Armour: 6000 no resists. Drone Bandwidth: 175 (Can hold 7 hours of stront) 25% bonus to fuel efficiency for each other reinforced drone within 100KM 50% resistant against stasis web Heavy: Orbit speed 3000 250m3 sig rad: 26 Shield 90,000 99.9% resists Armour: 12000 no resists Drone Bandwidth: 250 (Can hold 12 hours of stront) 25% bonus to fuel efficiency for each other reinforced drone within 100KM 50% resistant against stasis web

Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.21 21:42:00 - [291] Originally by: Maliber Edited by: Maliber on 21/11/2007 09:57:50 Originally by: Archivian Specialatus Jurisdiction can be claimed from 0.4 Sec Space to NPC 0.0 Space. .... This sounds like the a play stile known in other mmorpgs personaly i dont really like the idea of farming points... The gains of getting a reduction of station services in 0.0 is only a slight advantage because when you claim sov its for free. what is the advantage over the current system where one can anchor posses in empire when the correct standing is achieved? Advantages: 1.For corps who work out of a NPC station, but dont own a POS or want to own a POS (of which there are many) will enjoy the cheaper services (though i do wonder if i should have made the bonus higher) 2.Mainly Recognition/reprisentation on the map for your efforts. Which is a huge deal in this game "this is my town!" , though its nothing in comparison to actual 0.0 sov. I did not think much more needed to be rewarded, as this is not actualy sovereignty. If you want your name to be known and where your territory is, then you can claim. Alot of smaller corps want recognition. If they want it that bad then they can have this route to try and do it. This could also apply to faction warfare when they finally introduce it. And bounty hunters could actually have something to hunt. If you think there should be more reward, what kind of rewards should they be?
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.21 23:07:00 - [292] New idea Remove reinforced mode from POSFs. Shield Array. The shield array anchors to a moon. It has its own power grid and CPU, about the same as a medium POS, and you can anchor guns and shield hardeners to it, but nothing else. It permanently sits in reinforced mode. It has this bonus: 35% bonus to fuel efficiency when in reinforced mode. 50% bonus to fuel efficiency for each other Shield Array providing reinforced mode. Provides shield support to other Shield Arrays Penalty: -50% to fuel efficiency for each POS it provides reinforced mode to. It can only provide reinforced mode to POSFs in the same set of planetary moons. It can hold up to 30 hours of fuel. If any POS comes under attack and needs to go into reinforced mode, the Shield Array comes out of its reinforced mode and provides it for the POS instead. If X number POSFs requires reinforced mode at the same time, the Shield Array will provide reinforced mode to X number of POSFs concurrently. So to get to the POS you must destroy the Shield Array. The Shield Array will have the same shield HP as a medium tower and when it is providing reinforced mode for another station, the Shield Array can be offlined to cancel reinforced mode. If you have two or more Shield Arrays are anchored to the same set of moons, and X POS require reinforced mode then the Shield Arrays will all provide reinforced mode the POSFs. If a shield array is knocked down to 2% shield, it shuts down and stops providing reinforced mode and goes back into reinforced mode again, for 10mins. After 10mins its fuel efficiency drops to -500%. When the stront runs out it comes out of reinforced mode and can be destroyed. However if there are other Shield Arrays in the same set of moons, after 10mins from entering reinforced mode, each other station transfers 25% of their remaining shield, even if that means going to 2% shield themselves. This would mean that if there are multiple Shield Arrays, then the attackers would have to split their forces to kill multiple targets at once and save a lot of time. Otherwise, they will have to run down its stront. Because the Shield Arrays cannot be refuelled whilst in reinforced mode, the Arrays will have a window of time when it runs out of stront and has to be refuelled. If attackers can find out this window, or find out when the majority of Shield Arrays are running low on stront, they can launch an attack (or multiple attacks) to destroy the shield arrays in a much quicker time.
Bob Niac Gallente Meridian Dynamics FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 09:58:00 - [293] Edited by: Bob Niac on 22/11/2007 10:05:45 scale the outposts, make them more integral to Sovereignty. Also re-think the "one sovereignty per system" Outposts: Redux Small, Medium, Standard (current), and Large Outposts Systems allow 4 Small, 2 Medium, or 1 Standard with Sovereignty Level One. Large outpost is deployable in a Region Sov system (Yes, Region. No ... not Constellation Sovereignty). Region Sov is a result of the natural extension to alliances .. Coalitions. But that's another post. Sov1 is gained through semi-standard POS warfare. Put a tower up, check it for sov, then wait 2 downtimes. Sov2 is now a pita to get, but well worth it. Sov2 needs one week of Sov1, and at LEAST a small Outpost. Sov2 CANNOT be challenged by spamming POSes. (Outposts count as significant POS points, so even if POSes are down, sov 2 remains) Please note, multiple Sov1s and Sov2s can exist, the "leading" sovereign player base owns the system. Revoking Sov2 requires you conquer any/all Outposts owned by the Sovereign body. Sov3 (Upgrade Sov Level One) is the first actual step toward world domination. Sov3 means you held Sov2 for 15 days, and own the system for 1/2 that time. Sov3 is where the goodies come in. Cyno Jammers, Cyno Gens, etc. Sov4. (Ugrade Sov Level Two) This is where it get interesting. Sov4 needs majority of POSes and Outposts for a decent amount of time. This is the actual current system sov level. Sov5. (Upgrade Sov Level Three) constellation sov. goes off Outpost points in Constellation. Constellation Captial must be a standard outpost, no smaller. Mostly the same rules. Sov6. (OMGWTF BBQ Outpost Sov) Nice Region. We'll Take it. requires 70% or better const sovs in region. allows gate guns to be anchored on all gates in capital const (gates become manageable assets), and other capitals in region. Sov6 is a MAJOR endeavor. You need a coalition, standard outpost, AND a large outpost egg anchored and building. this is a wee bit simplified. but i hope its a good springboard. less stuff to take down = less hassle and more happy players. I would imagine the new outpost would come out, then sov changes in 6 months. edit: please note this would be almost a complete 180 from most of these proposals. i would imagine most of the other ones here are modifying existing POS warfare. that wouldnt work imo. there needs to be a complete re-write of sov (well, not complete, but ...) if you guys are going to re-vamp it. Sovereignty would have to be much like the requirements for modern day sov. this proposal also looks at how NPCs "hold" sov, and how POSes were originally used (as in: an OPTIONAL tool.) Cheers, Bob
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.22 13:34:00 - [294] A plan that allows outposts to proliferate sounds good to me. It makes more targets which is a key to making territory warfare more fun. Players have built only 150 outposts in over 2 years. How many have been upgraded? I bet none have been upgraded beyond basic. To make 0.0 more useful, it needs a lot more factory slots. My corp alone would need half dozen amarr outposts if we were to move operations to 0.0. Systems with higher utility would be a more desireable target. The popular opinion seems to be outpost should be destructible. I rather like the idea of permanent consequences. If outposts could be 'termporary' then the builder doesn't have to worry about outposts being taken away. Perhaps disabling services could be taken a step further -- wrecking services. Wrecked services need new construction materials to be rebuilt. Those materials could be of the scale of an outpost upgrade egg.
Ichabod Dirange Backwater Security Systems	Posted - 2007.11.22 15:03:00 - [295] Mere guntowers blocking moons you're not using from hostile POS' going up with one flagship POS in system would be a way to cut down on the POS spam. Then again how would less POS' affect the advanced materials market? It's already poor as is. Cloners Wanted
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.23 08:13:00 - [296] Heloo Mr Dev Just wondering if you could give us a nudge as to whether we are actually being helpful here, or if we have kinda gone of the point a bit.
DJTheBaron Caldari FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.23 19:07:00 - [297] Edited by: DJTheBaron on 23/11/2007 19:10:06 I keep coming back to the death star idea discussed with hammerhead in Iceland at a round table. One guy kept harping on about wanting to hack a pos in a system a, while being located in system b etc, and it sounded like a silly idea, however it got me thinking on ways to mess-up a pos, or an outpost, and I kept coming back to the way that we want small gangs of players to disrupt player owned structures. generally speaking, I want to be able to assault a soft target, and gain a hit on the enemy outpost/pos, but these new structures or revised current structures would have a role to play in their aoe in regards to a pos or an outpost Fuelling an outpost is a bad idea, maybe, but what if the outpost services required external shielding or bonus fuel. a moon with x features, good for mining etc, well if you were to link that moon starbase with the outpost someway, fuelling or indeed BOOSTING the outpost features, i want to disable or disrupt the operation of the enemies station service, but i dont have the man power to siege them directly, (they have pos style hp) but i would like to perhaps remove a boost or a percentage efficiency of their operation introduce deployable objects, that either boost or affect pos or outpost performance, that i can gank with my buddies but give the defenders a chance to react Star System X POS Y Outpost Z if you do not want to change the mechanics of sov and maintenance you could deploy a structure to boost their attributes, or if you do want to change mechanics, then you can have a deployable or "outpost pos" fuelling the below are attributes to be reliant upon a new deployable object either by the object boosting them or by the services being reliant on them starbase attributes: harder/extended shields, better refining, better mining, more dps outpost attributes: Factories (production lines with a faster build time, better material efficiency, but easier to be ganked by players) research (research lines with faster times or higher research yield) refining (a refine that takes time but yields more materials, but is easy to gank) (cloning and fitting are the two services i would like to preserve in the omg i need a dread fleet to gank them, as they are key) so i've basically rambles on that i would like to improve or link outpost/pos attributes to a soft target that either produces x% of the attribute, or acts like a bonus to the existing attributes how do i want players to affect its operation? currently to gain sov you currently need pos in the system for x period of time claiming it, and this gets you cheaper fuel costs, and an invulnerable outpost shield to counter this you must siege the pos, and stront makes them invulnerable, well lets change pos with the current system I would like to change siege modes I would like to see two types of reinforced modes, players could pick for their strontium fuel to burn and overheat the shield emitter for x duration and give a percentage shield increase equivalent to have the siege take 5x longer than it originally did, but the pos is still killable eventually Or they can become a damage dealer, by either overheating its current weapons 2 fold etc or focuses all reactor control into a focus chamber that unleashes a mega death ray and dishes an insane amount of damage while delivering a mothership style ecm aoe weapon that can ecm dreads, really becoming a threat to capital ships in the area, but not having the extra hp buffer to survive in this all or nothing engagement Or lets change pos too... "The Views & Opinions Expressed In This Post Represent Your Own, So Dont Bother Arguing" DJTheBaron: Diplomacy 4TW
DJTheBaron Caldari FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.23 19:07:00 - [298] Edited by: DJTheBaron on 23/11/2007 19:17:29 Or lets change pos too pos/outpost service structure/booster is located in grid point x, it can be an soft target high stront pos for example, with very little power grid/cpu and shields, but it has a pos industrial feature, remotely boosts another pos or outpost with x attribute feature industrial pos (factory, research, refining, boosting other pos/outpost attributes), I would be king of the hill deployable structures that have very little grid/cpu but can store large amounts of stront, so that small gangs can gank them and put them offline and affect their attributes, something that a fleet of 5 battleships and 5 support ships can gank inside 30 minutes, and the resident players can come quickly cleanup and repair Alliance pos, weFre talking sov & defence, cyno jammers, jump bridges, cyno gen, system scanning. Ganking **, but they go down hard however the softer indy pos affect their subsystems, such as jump bridges, much like they do the outpost Its inadvisable to gank an alliance pos without hitting its support pos first etc, while also creating a sub objective for smaller wings in a battle (keep indy pos x down while we takeout the alliance pos, because if the enemy manage to repair it, the alliance pos resists/hp/dps increase HACKING! we can also have players perhaps hacking using a module, skillset or ship class that will upset these new mini objectives, so rather than always have to throw damage at the mini pos, you may in fact have to remotely assist and protect your team mate as he hacks into the structure and tries to disable a feature, attribute, bonus or structure that the structure represents, but it must be done in grid at the object, not remotely, risk vs reward. In summary Either change stront modes to overclock dps output to try for an all or nothing gank or overclock shield generators to try and turtle for those few extra hours/days to keep the area or wait for backup. Or introduce small objectives by revising pos features, indy/bonus class deployables that boost other pos and outposts, or are required to fuel x feature/service/attributes and have an alliance/sov class deployable structure that is a tough nut to *, but you could perhaps wear it down over time by removing its smaller boosting nodes, assuming the owner hasnFt used their stront to overclock the dps and ecm of the structure and is trying to turtle you these features stretch out into constelation sov, requiring minin objectives to maintain a hol don the region, but giving smaller groups a chance to contest your space "The Views & Opinions Expressed In This Post Represent Your Own, So Dont Bother Arguing" DJTheBaron: Diplomacy 4TW**
Cker Heel Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.23 20:38:00 - [299] Previously I posted a way to make control towers interdependent with the purpose of spreading blobs off a single grid. Today's idea is to alter the sov rules to spread fleet objectives across systems. More systems to take, but they are easier to take and easier to reduce sov level. The sov level bonuses stay the same just the prerequisites change. Sov level one stays the same -- claim system a week with towers. Sov level two requires all neighbor systems be sov 1 for a week. Sov level three requires all neighbor systems to be sov 2 for a week. Sov 4 works as before. WHen sov is lost in a system, any neighbor systems that needed the lost system to satisfy sov requirement get knocked down one sov level next downtime. Taking a sov1 system will reduce any neighbor sov2 sytems to sov1 at downtime. The next downtime any sov3 neighbors of that former sov2 system get knocked down to sov2. When sov level drops, structures that require that level go offline. This means sov jammers can be defeated by knocking out sov in neighboring systems. It also means systems bordering anyone else's sov system (including empire) can only be sov 1. If advertised in advance, alliances can build up required sov ahead of the transition.
Archivian Specialatus Amarr Fairlight Corp FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2007.11.23 21:30:00 - [300] Originally by: DJTheBaron HACKING! we can also have players perhaps hacking using a module, skillset or ship class that will upset these new mini objectives, so rather than always have to throw damage at the mini pos, you may in fact have to remotely assist and protect your team mate as he hacks into the structure and tries to disable a feature, attribute, bonus or structure that the structure represents, but it must be done in grid at the object, not remotely, risk vs reward. I wrote a post on a different thread, to do with HACKING, I think it would go well with pos sieging, and your idea above.

Popychacz Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.24 01:19:00 - [301] Ok, here is one and it's pretty awesome: spread the process of taking over POS both in space and time. All POS are linked(up to 5 per network), sharing shield and damage. There is both minimal (5ly) and maximal (15ly) link range, to make sure all POS stay on different grids. This is how the initial siege work, assuming 5 POS network - POS you're shooting is taking 25% of total damage and all linked POS are taking 20% each. So, when you reinforce the one you're shooting, other three will be 80% done. Here is the first knicker - you need to reinforce majority of POS in the network, or they will sirepair themselves on next dt. But the moment you reinforce the majorty, entire network goes into reinforced. Now, spreading in time: Instead of having one battle, after stront runs out, have 5 windows of opportunity (1h window followed by 4 hours of indestructability). During that window you need to keep shelds over or under certain level (defenders reps them, attackers attack, simple). Either on majority of POS( each POS is separate) or just one (have them linked). Side who wont3 out of 5 windows of opportunity wins POS network are either destroyed or sasved (optional knicker - depnding on how many windows attackers won, POS might be saved but will be weakened for few weeks unless defender spends large amount of minerals to rep them up). This we have one guaranteed huge battle to reinforce the damn thing (or more likely 5 huge battles, depends how FC decide to play it:) and then 5 skirmishes (with one guaranteed huge battle). Cool things: -easy to implement (when one of POS in network drops to reinforced state, lower shields on linked ones by 56%). -minimalization of lag by splitting battles between multiple nodes and timeframes. -opening a pleora of tactical options -it's gona be an epic struggle that will take out entire networks at once isntead of endless, boring grind. -small gangs will really matter (if enemy don't field large fleet, your 30 man gang might win you a point easily and that point will be equally important that the one won by your 300 man flee during your primetime). Would work best with planetary or battledstation POS (limited number of sov claiming POS per system).
Jifai	Posted - 2007.11.24 01:36:00 - [302] Several posts here want more targets for small gangs and to seperate industrial from defense pos. I think those targets should be players, not structures. That is, use sov system to attract more people to live in 0.0 and have their pos not claim sov. Many schemes have been proposed over the years to attract people to live in 0.0, but this scheme is connected to the sov system so I'll post it here. Alliance have had associated groups all along (empire wing, carebear corps, tenants, etc). I propose to add in-game mechanism that formalizes the arrangement and give these corps sov bonuses to attract them to live in 0.0. Allow alliances to Sponsor corporations. Pilots of Sponsored corps flying in the sovereign space of the host alliance get these bonuses: same tower fuel/structure bonus as host alliance docking/services access at all host alliance stations blue to host alliance option to inherit standings of host alliance +10 warp core stab strength while flying in host alliance sov systems. The Sponsored corporations cannot be a member of an alliance. They do n