Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 20:38:00 -
[31]
There is an artificial limit on how much dps you can bring to bear in a system. Whether it is the max dps a ship can do or the maximum number of pilots that you can put in a system before the node chokes, it isn't a whole lot when you compare it to the defenses of stations. Again, a dozen stations would probably make a system invincible, as you would likely spend the entire day (downtime-to-downtime) and end up unable to reinforce the last station.
That's what I'm getting at.
Nah, Stations have only about 100 mil hp. Dread does ~3500 ... 6000 dps (long or short range). Let's say 3500 dps. 28 571 seconds for solo dread. Approx 8 hours. For single dread. 48 or more dreads will do a station in one siege cykle (10 minutes). Any territory holding alliance and many non territory holding ones can field that. We have seen that you can stick about 1600 pilots in one system without node melting. Not very playbale ofc if every shot takes 5 minutes, let's say 800 pilots. With 800 guy in system you can bring about 100 dreads and 300 .. 400 support. Dozen (12 stations) would take about 2.5 hours for 50 dreads (2 hours of shooting and 30 minutes for warping around).
Sticking 20 stations in system will not make it invunerable even now, not to mention should the sov system tweaked a bit to take it into account. Actually I think that the idea that if one of em falls all become vunerable is also something that might even work.
Stations alone do not defend space any better than putting death star at every moon did back in the day. And unlike death stars they do not even shoot back. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 20:52:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Carniflex There is an artificial limit on how much dps you can bring to bear in a system. Whether it is the max dps a ship can do or the maximum number of pilots that you can put in a system before the node chokes, it isn't a whole lot when you compare it to the defenses of stations. Again, a dozen stations would probably make a system invincible, as you would likely spend the entire day (downtime-to-downtime) and end up unable to reinforce the last station.
That's what I'm getting at.
Nah, Stations have only about 100 mil hp. Dread does ~3500 ... 6000 dps (long or short range). Let's say 3500 dps. 28 571 seconds for solo dread. Approx 8 hours. For single dread. 48 or more dreads will do a station in one siege cykle (10 minutes). Any territory holding alliance and many non territory holding ones can field that. We have seen that you can stick about 1600 pilots in one system without node melting. Not very playbale ofc if every shot takes 5 minutes, let's say 800 pilots. With 800 guy in system you can bring about 100 dreads and 300 .. 400 support. Dozen (12 stations) would take about 2.5 hours for 50 dreads (2 hours of shooting and 30 minutes for warping around).
Sticking 20 stations in system will not make it invunerable even now, not to mention should the sov system tweaked a bit to take it into account. Actually I think that the idea that if one of em falls all become vunerable is also something that might even work.
Stations alone do not defend space any better than putting death star at every moon did back in the day. And unlike death stars they do not even shoot back.
how many attacking dreads would be left if they would just shoot the station for 2.5hours? 0?
you should bring realistic numbers and not base on "they wont defend anyway". |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:04:00 -
[33]
If the defenders can't defend 1 station in a system, how will they defend 2 or more? Shooting a station is what happens after the system has been secured.
Seriously, it's a non issue. If you want to spam stations to make your space a grind to conquer, it's hugely more effective to put 12 stations (and 12 ihubs) in 12 systems than it is to put 12 stations and 1 hub in 1 system. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:12:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Malcanis If the defenders can't defend 1 station in a system, how will they defend 2 or more? Shooting a station is what happens after the system has been secured.
Seriously, it's a non issue. If you want to spam stations to make your space a grind to conquer, it's hugely more effective to put 12 stations (and 12 ihubs) in 12 systems than it is to put 12 stations and 1 hub in 1 system.
you are sure about the station thing? from http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=709 it seems you need to reinforce ihub and outposts to get the system. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:06:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Bagehi on 18/03/2010 22:14:28
Originally by: Malcanis If the defenders can't defend 1 station in a system, how will they defend 2 or more?
The reason stations get reinforced without being defended is usually because there isn't enough time for a decent defense fleet to form up, get in position, and attack. As was stated, with enough dreads, it only takes a cycle.
The longer you spend with a cap fleet in enemy space, the more likely they are to start dropping titans in and popping you ships, the more likely they are to start harassing your ships, if not enough time to call every last friend they have and hit your fleet with a few hundred dreads. That's what would happen.
So, sitting in a hostile system, logged in, in siege, for 2.5 hours... this would be silly, bordering on suicidal. I'm fairly certain it would take far longer than that anyway. I've been in fleets led by Goons, -A-, Atlas, TCF, and Razer FCs. Getting from 1 tower to the next tower in the same system takes a LOT longer than the 2 minutes you give it. And that's assuming there are no problems. That's assuming intel doesn't come that a hostile fleet is near and everyone has to safe up. That's assuming everyone sieges and warps like clockwork (which never happens in a big fleet). That's assuming you can keep a fleet together for hours just to flip one system. |
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 04:57:00 -
[36]
You can 'blitzkrieg' only the initial assault. Taking a system takes at best 4-5 days with all the RF timers in defenders prime time. It's not like your 50 dreads come out of blue when defender has 2 days of RF timer to stare at and organize defense fleet for particular time in his prime.
Let's take for example D-G in providence. I would say that no matter what amount of stations would have been in the system the outcome would have been the same. Even without defenders inexperience dealing with lag. As far as saying that 50 dreads can't stay around 2 - 3 hours that just silly. I have seen dreads sitting in POS during 40-U campaign for 2 weeks straight 4-5 h a day waiting for action. If you are taking over station system where defenders do actually turn up you do not 'go home'. You stick to it until job is done.
The RF timers make damn sure that there is absolute max numbers present on both sides. If defender cant bring that big blob he loses and if he can he wins regardless if attacker has to kill 1 outpost or 20. |
Salasilm
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 13:47:00 -
[37]
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 14:52:00 -
[38]
This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 16:36:00 -
[39]
Allow stations to change hands but disallow any station management unless sovereignty is held (ie. anyone can dock/undock until system outcome is determined). Or go even further and disallow access to services entirely unless sovereignty is held. You can dock/undock, providing a beachhead but not much else.
Want to take a multi-station system? Make sure you have the logistics in place and the manpower available because it is going to be a long slog.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 17:54:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things.
The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 22:34:00 -
[41]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things.
The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid.
This argument has already been dealt with. Why are you still going on about it?
|
Brian Khan
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 06:59:00 -
[42]
Support
|
Yldrad
The Dandy KillerS
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 09:40:00 -
[43]
Only if we can destroy them.
|
Doris Dragonbreath
|
Posted - 2010.03.21 19:25:00 -
[44]
Sounds reasonable.
|
Mia Silverfang
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 09:55:00 -
[45]
I would like to see that.
|
Omega Flames
Last Resort Inn SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 01:29:00 -
[46]
------------------------- "Forsys > WAR Forsys > HUH Forsys > WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR Harry Sunday > loot Forsys > touchT" |
Tehnomaag
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.23 22:36:00 -
[47]
Well. Seems like my doubts have been already addressed and this idea does seem reasonable.
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 01:34:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Lykouleon on 24/03/2010 01:34:05 Can you imagine what providence would be like if you could have multiple player-built stations in a system?
Answer: my worst ****ing nightmare.
not supported.
Quote: CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
|
NeutronRonk
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 12:22:00 -
[49]
I don't think providence would have been any different than now. With 50 dreads a station is only 1 siege cyckle and with the upcoming insurance changes dreads will get even cheaper.
So supported.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 16:56:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Bagehi on 24/03/2010 16:57:19
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things.
The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid.
This argument has already been dealt with. Why are you still going on about it?
No, it really hasn't. As was said, it takes several days already. Claiming that additional stations in a system wouldn't make it more difficult to flip is just plain silly.
Originally by: Carniflex As far as saying that 50 dreads can't stay around 2 - 3 hours that just silly. I have seen dreads sitting in POS during 40-U campaign for 2 weeks straight 4-5 h a day waiting for action. If you are taking over station system where defenders do actually turn up you do not 'go home'. You stick to it until job is done.
You hit the nail on the head right there. In between each attack, caps warp off to a safe POS. So, again, I point out that even if a single station can be flipped during 1 siege cycle, the actual attack takes more than an hour. Multiply that by a dozen stations. Add an hour for formup. Add an hour to get everything in place. Add some cushion time and you can't do it in a day. While you are taking down one, defenders can easily be messing with another one.
One important thing to remember is the idea of hitting a station just before downtime so you don't have to worry about it being re-flipped. If there were multiple stations, you would have to have 50 dreads and 50 carriers. Repping a station back up so it can't be flipped by a wing of bombers isn't a minor feat.
Bottom line - the more stations in a system, the more static sov will be.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 17:22:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 24/03/2010 16:57:19
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev This argument is stupid. stations are a logistical backbone, not defenses. if you whant alliances to be able to concentrate their logistics, you will need more then one station per system. Obviously taking the station over takes time, what, you whan to get it for free? if someone invested money into building multiple stations, it will take more effort to take that away from him, that much seems obvious to me. there isn't an artificial limit on amount of people, you will crash teh server, that's a technical limit. They are two different things.
The point is that it takes multiple days for a system with a single station already. So having multiple outpost in one system and having to take them one after each other is just stupid.
This argument has already been dealt with. Why are you still going on about it?
No, it really hasn't. As was said, it takes several days already. Claiming that additional stations in a system wouldn't make it more difficult to flip is just plain silly.
The additional difficulty is trivial. And it's far, far less than the difficulty of taking those same 12 stations in 12 different systems.
+1 station in the same system = add 1-2 siege cycles per station reinforce cycle. Call it an hour tops.
+1 station in another system with another iHub = add 3 more station reinforce cycles and 2 more ihub reinforce cycles. Call it another week, minimum.
Yeah... an hour vs a week. Which to choose... so difficult...
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 20:51:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Bagehi
No, it really hasn't. As was said, it takes several days already. Claiming that additional stations in a system wouldn't make it more difficult to flip is just plain silly.
Originally by: Carniflex As far as saying that 50 dreads can't stay around 2 - 3 hours that just silly. I have seen dreads sitting in POS during 49-U campaign for 2 weeks straight 4-5 h a day waiting for action. If you are taking over station system where defenders do actually turn up you do not 'go home'. You stick to it until job is done.
You hit the nail on the head right there. In between each attack, caps warp off to a safe POS. So, again, I point out that even if a single station can be flipped during 1 siege cycle, the actual attack takes more than an hour. Multiply that by a dozen stations. Add an hour for formup. Add an hour to get everything in place. Add some cushion time and you can't do it in a day. While you are taking down one, defenders can easily be messing with another one.
One important thing to remember is the idea of hitting a station just before downtime so you don't have to worry about it being re-flipped. If there were multiple stations, you would have to have 50 dreads and 50 carriers. Repping a station back up so it can't be flipped by a wing of bombers isn't a minor feat.
Bottom line - the more stations in a system, the more static sov will be.
Dreads warp to POS when stuff is reinforced and they do not have any more reason to sit around in space. Not inbetween warping between locations that need shooting. At least in my experience. We go to system, drop SBU's, then dreads go to ihub, RF it then after they exit siege they warp to station and RF it. If there would be few more stations then they would be warping there and RF'ing those also.
Reason why taking a system takes several days is RF timers, not hardship of ganking few hundred mil hp structure or two.
From your replys tho I get impression that you might have not been involved in sov warfare recently. If you are then my apologies - in that case our game experience differs quite a lot.
You do raise a fair point tho - at what moment will the station be reinforced so it can't be repped up again when there is many stations in the system. Then again all this fuss about 'so hard sov warfare' is relatively easy to cirumenvent by just letting owner of the system point one of the stations as 'capital' of the system and making all stations in the system flip when capital station flips. Exactly the same sov warfare system as currently just with multiple stations in the system.
|
Komi Toran
|
Posted - 2010.03.24 23:00:00 -
[53]
If putting multiple outposts in a single system would make it too difficult to take over, then you simply need a mechanism where you only have to conquer a single outpost, which would make the rest flip to the attacker when it falls. Let's say, a system capital upgrade that must be installed on an outpost before multiple outposts can be deployed. If the outpost with the capital upgrade falls, so does the system. No need to go attacking the others.
|
Rebekbar
Honored By Death Galactic Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 03:59:00 -
[54]
I agree!!! There is no reason why a player own 0.0 system can not have several stations.
Come on CCP....lift the ban!!!!
|
Kaarnakivi
|
Posted - 2010.03.25 12:11:00 -
[55]
I like it.
|
Johnny Dexter
|
Posted - 2010.03.26 00:57:00 -
[56]
I endorse this product / service.
Having a refinery and a factory in the same system would be absolutely charming ( especially if their undocking ramps are pointed to each other )
|
Vlad Wormwing
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.28 08:19:00 -
[57]
Good idea.
|
Li Freeman
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 07:05:00 -
[58]
Well, why not. Few doubts I had have already been addressed in the replys.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.29 09:42:00 -
[59]
Supported.
Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale |
Linda Dreamwalker
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 10:27:00 -
[60]
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |