Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
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 [email protected] - 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 IÆm 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] û 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 itÆs in reinforced.
I know there is actually maths to this in game, but IÆm 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |