Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:04:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Carniflex 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.
I was in the fleets rolling WI. out of Geminate right after the expansion. Early on, there was a constant threat of counter attack. If nodes wouldn't have completely lagged out nearly every time a fleet jumped/warped, that war would have had a lot more action than it did. Because the threat of lag was increasingly more feared than enemy fleets, fleets had to be split up more than they traditionally had been.
This means cap fleets often do not have their support fleet near them for protection. This means things like this are a big worry in the current sov warfare system. IT moved a cap fleet without support because support + caps often means people get stuck. Grids don't handle anywhere near as many people as they used to. NC seems to have forgotten their experience in Geminate and elsewhere, and tried to load too many ships into the fight at the same time. So, even before the node died, many in the NC fleet were not involved in the fight, so far fewer ships were lost by IT than would have been lost if the NC fleet managed the entry of ships better.
So, the point of that story is attacking a system with 12 stations would require a very large, very split up fleet. A fleet with a game mechanics weakness that will be exploited (unless fixed), making it impossible to take out a system. When fixed, it will only be a matter of re-flipping stations back with a handful of bombers or repping stations. Without a really large fleet, you won't be able to roll a system with a lot of stations.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:47:00 -
[62]
You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:24:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Bagehi on 31/03/2010 17:26:27
Originally by: Malcanis You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs.
Because you can flip a station in one system right before downtime. When the servers come back up - presto-chango - it is fully repped, requiring a fleet to flip it back (rather than just a few stealth bombers). For this reason, station attacks are timed so the station will be flipped within minutes of downtime. Even if you managed to magically flip each station in a system with 1 siege cycle each and no time between, 12 stations would take 2 hours. That's plenty of time for the defender to sneak in and flip some of them back.
Thus beginning a never ending flip back and forth of stations. A.K.A. Static Sovereignty. This would be rolling back the sov changes made in Dominion to the POS wars of old, but worse. With this mechanic, neither side would have to haul in and setup new resistars as stations don't die. So, if taking sov before was bad, taking it with multiple stations allowed per system would be impossible. |
Manalapan
Dynasty Banking General Tso's Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:33:00 -
[64]
I support this idea, but the idea should come with a thorough analysis of the sov system and not just it takes x amount of time to conquer the system with x number of stations. If an unlimited number of outposts are allowed maybe how outposts function needs to be reviewed, systems like destructable, operating costs, and total hp, so that while you can support a dozen outposts in a system maybe it becomes increasingly less cost effective to have a large number of outposts.
Dynasty Banking |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:41:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Manalapan I support this idea, but the idea should come with a thorough analysis of the sov system and not just it takes x amount of time to conquer the system with x number of stations. If an unlimited number of outposts are allowed maybe how outposts function needs to be reviewed, systems like destructable, operating costs, and total hp, so that while you can support a dozen outposts in a system maybe it becomes increasingly less cost effective to have a large number of outposts.
... and then what? Stations can't be destroyed. If it costs too much to run all the stations, what does the alliance do? If they can remove/add stations at will, it is the old "drop towers on all moons" POS slog but worse. Most of the big alliances can easily hold a collection of strategic station eggs to make systems invincible in the face of attack.
If you want more stations in systems, then sov can't be tied to the stations at all. |
Manalapan
Dynasty Banking General Tso's Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:12:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Bagehi
... and then what? Stations can't be destroyed. If it costs too much to run all the stations, what does the alliance do? If they can remove/add stations at will, it is the old "drop towers on all moons" POS slog but worse. Most of the big alliances can easily hold a collection of strategic station eggs to make systems invincible in the face of attack.
If you want more stations in systems, then sov can't be tied to the stations at all.
Agreed, like I and most everyone else has said for this to work sov needs to looked at. I was proposing a way to discourage the have an unlimited number of stations.
You do bring up an interesting idea of unanchoring an Outpost like we do with POS. I feel that this would substantially lessen the value of an attack on a system with an Outpost if the defenders can just take it and run. Could easily come up with a back story that prevents the unanchoring of an Outpost, but still have a destructible capability.
Also, what if we took the approach and removed the Station-Sov connection entirely. You don't need Sov to own a station maybe even to build a station (would obviously need to rework how stations are built then or let sov charge for planet anchoring or whatever). In empire there are Caldari Corporation Stations in Gallente Space and such why shouldn't a similar thing be possible in 0.0?
Dynasty Banking |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:41:00 -
[67]
I believe station ownership/rights are connected to sov, and have been since the dawn of time. So, asking CCP to change that would (probably) be a major undertaking and met with similar "oh god, oh god, run and hide" response as to the repeated beating the dead horse threads.
If stations are disconnected from sov (not in the OP proposal), I would support this proposal to a degree. However, I don't think CCP would even blink before saying "no" if CSM proposed it.
|
Zoltar Torzoid
Gallente Swag Co.
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:21:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Zoltar Torzoid on 31/03/2010 20:25:22
AFAIK, the only connection to sov an outpost has is that you have to have sov to deploy one. Since Sov is an alliance level option, and outposts are corp level structures I see no reason why there should be a arbitrary hard limit on the number of stations aloud to be deployed in a system. On the other hand is SHOULD be limited in some way.
I would suggest any additional stations in a system have certain limitations, or expenditures associated with them. Monthly fees should be added to additional outposts so you have to decide if the benefit is worth the cost. It's not so hard to come up with he ISK and materials to build a spare outpost in a system, but if it's going to incur a recurring cost that stacks with even more additional outposts then you now have some choices to make. EDIT: if the fees cannot be payed, or there is no controller of the outpost then start it on a decay timer and start letting rats use it as a base of operation, sorta like a dynamic mission based on lack of payment. Adds some atmosphere to the loss of an outpost. If it's left long enough, and it's decay timer runs out (very long timer) then blow it up. If the argument is that every new outpost has the potential of stressing the database with all new market information because they all have markets, simply force one of the outposts (first one obviously) to be labeled as the primary outpost and be the only one with market services.
As far as overpopulation of 0.0 with outposts is concerned; at some point in the future there will be an outpost in every claimable system. Then those that wish to build their own are screwed. If you think this is impossible, open your map in-game and sort the star colors by services and select insurance as the filter. There are already a LOT of outposts in 0.0, and there will only be more in the future.
-Zoltar
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:45:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Zoltar Torzoid AFAIK, the only connection to sov an outpost has is that you have to have sov to deploy one. Since Sov is an alliance level option, and outposts are corp level structures I see no reason why there should be a arbitrary hard limit on the number of stations aloud to be deployed in a system. On the other hand is SHOULD be limited in some way.
A corp not in the alliance holding sov in a system cannot control the system's station. Flipping a station is one of the ways to flip sov in the Dominion sov mechanics.
Originally by: Zoltar Torzoid I would suggest any additional stations in a system have certain limitations, or expenditures associated with them. Monthly fees should be added to additional outposts so you have to decide if the benefit is worth the cost. It's not so hard to come up with he ISK and materials to build a spare outpost in a system, but if it's going to incur a recurring cost that stacks with even more additional outposts then you now have some choices to make. EDIT: if the fees cannot be payed, or there is no controller of the outpost then start it on a decay timer and start letting rats use it as a base of operation, sorta like a dynamic mission based on lack of payment. Adds some atmosphere to the loss of an outpost. If it's left long enough, and it's decay timer runs out (very long timer) then blow it up. If the argument is that every new outpost has the potential of stressing the database with all new market information because they all have markets, simply force one of the outposts (first one obviously) to be labeled as the primary outpost and be the only one with market services.
As far as overpopulation of 0.0 with outposts is concerned; at some point in the future there will be an outpost in every claimable system. Then those that wish to build their own are screwed. If you think this is impossible, open your map in-game and sort the star colors by services and select insurance as the filter. There are already a LOT of outposts in 0.0, and there will only be more in the future.
-Zoltar
Agreed. However, CCP said a while back that stations/outposts cannot be destroyed without a massive overhaul of the code. At some point, this should happen. When that happens, sov should also be disconnected from station ownership. When those two things happen, then multiple stations per system wouldn't be a problem. |
Seriously Bored
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:58:00 -
[70]
I think this is a great idea. Seems silly to have a limit of one.
Though I think there's a reasonable upper limit to have...say 5? 10?
|
|
Zoltar Torzoid
Gallente Swag Co.
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:02:00 -
[71]
Yes I know outposts cannot be destroyed at-current, that would have to be changed to impliment the other crap in y post. ;-)
Although, I gotta ask, If a corp owns an outpost, and is kicked from an alliance, they no longer have sov, and are no longer in the alliance, but they still own the outpost right? If it is impossible for a corp to own an outpost while not in an alliance then they would have to hand over the outpost before the alliance could kick them, but I assume that things of that nature happen between people on good terms, not between people that are mad enough to give someone the boot. Just wondering how that works right now, I've never encountered it so I don't know.
-Zoltar
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.31 21:32:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Seriously Bored I think this is a great idea. Seems silly to have a limit of one.
Though I think there's a reasonable upper limit to have...say 5? 10?
Well logical limiter is number of planets you can deploy the station at. I'm not especially keen ofc about the limit of having to install it at the planet ofc either (as long as you can't install it in the same grid as POS) It's not like you can hide a station as it shines in the overview.
As far as current sov warfare goes ofc it sucks and so does lag, but basing development decisions on lag is not that good idea either. Anyway - several ways to circumenvent the 'omg many station to shoot thru' issue (if it is issue) have been already posted. For example having to point one station in the system as capital or master station and if this flips then so do others in the system. So in my eyes the condition of current sov warfare is not a reason to keep that limit in place as it's easy to adress the concenrs related to many station in one system if so desired.
I also do not see immediate danger of 0.0 getting filled with stations, as if this would be the issue it would be already happening. Eventually yes - there will be 1 station in every starsystem in 0.0 under current mehanics as CCP made sure of it when the sov was tied to station in the way it was done. After there is already a station in the system is that so big step upwards if there is several in the system ?
|
lilrez
GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 09:14:00 -
[73]
If the goal is to allow "100's" of players in a single system, multiple stations will make this actually desirable rather than merely possible. |
Marked Ugler
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 13:53:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 31/03/2010 17:26:27
Originally by: Malcanis You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs.
Because you can flip a station in one system right before downtime. When the servers come back up - presto-chango - it is fully repped, requiring a fleet to flip it back (rather than just a few stealth bombers). For this reason, station attacks are timed so the station will be flipped within minutes of downtime. Even if you managed to magically flip each station in a system with 1 siege cycle each and no time between, 12 stations would take 2 hours. That's plenty of time for the defender to sneak in and flip some of them back.
NOw i finally see why so many people hate the idea- it would not let them station flip any more! OW my god! You would actually have ti fight? ISn't that what nulsec warfare is about?? thanks for being honest at least, 0 times suported. You are not suppose to be able to take over any system yourwhat easelly, if someone tok there time and invested money into building up 12 stations, they are suppose to be harder to take over. Maybe we should not allow people to get together in big fleets because they are harder to kill like this, huh?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 14:08:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Marked Ugler
Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 31/03/2010 17:26:27
Originally by: Malcanis You still haven't explained why this would be more challenging than taking the same 12 stations in 12 different systems supported by 12 ihubs.
Because you can flip a station in one system right before downtime. When the servers come back up - presto-chango - it is fully repped, requiring a fleet to flip it back (rather than just a few stealth bombers). For this reason, station attacks are timed so the station will be flipped within minutes of downtime. Even if you managed to magically flip each station in a system with 1 siege cycle each and no time between, 12 stations would take 2 hours. That's plenty of time for the defender to sneak in and flip some of them back.
NOw i finally see why so many people hate the idea- it would not let them station flip any more! OW my god! You would actually have ti fight? ISn't that what nulsec warfare is about?? thanks for being honest at least, 0 times suported. You are not suppose to be able to take over any system yourwhat easelly, if someone tok there time and invested money into building up 12 stations, they are suppose to be harder to take over. Maybe we should not allow people to get together in big fleets because they are harder to kill like this, huh?
you know it already takes a few days of fighting to take over a station system? I wouldnt call a few days of almost constant fighting an easy take over.
|
Orb Lati
Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 03:47:00 -
[76]
Absolutely not. I'm sure others before me have stated the obvious but more than 1 outpost per system provides a massive benefit to the defenders. 2 Additional semi random reinforcement timers per additional station.
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
xChevalierx
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 23:34:00 -
[77]
propose this again when every single 0.0 system has a station in it?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |