| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lallante
   |
Posted - 2005.01.18 14:24:00 -
[1]
In theory, having huge shields on POSs is a good idea, it prevents small groups of enemies killing it while you sleep. However, the problem comes in that with very little effort, you can make a POS which is invulnerable.
We found that it took around 6-8 hours for 20+ BSs to kill a POS. The POS we attacked had no guns, and so we could just bring mroe people in as others logged off. There were also no defenders (we killed them first)
IF the POS had had just 2 large guns, a webifier and a scrambler, the process would have been entirely impossible. There is NO WAY anyone could be organised enough to have shield transferers tanking EVERYONE (switching targets whenever the guns change target) for 8 hours without break, its un realistic. You WILL lose ships to mistakes,
Secondly, once you have spent 6 hours taking down the shields with some losses, what do you actually get? A Few hundred mill in equipment and fuel? That does very little damage to the target (realistically, a few hundred mill is nothing) but you have wasted a HUGE amount of time and ammo to do it. A gang of less than 30 is unrealistic, so splitting the loot only provides each member with 10 or 15mill, for 6-8 hours work and with losses!!
Thirdly, the hypothetical assumed that the POS had only a couple of guns and no defenders. With just a couple of defenders who can focus fire on the shield transferers and support, and with more than a couple of guns, taking on a POS becomes not just unprofitable, but actually will likely make the attackers a LARGE loss.
Why are POSs so hard? Wouldnt it be more fun to have maybe 1/4 of the current shields, but make the reinforced state last longer for less fuel. The defenders would still get time to get online and ready, but the attackers wouldnt have to spend 8 hours being fired on.
Lall - THE Vocal Minority -
ShinRa
|
Oveur
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 14:31:00 -
[2]
Before decreasing shields on the current Control Towers, I would like to add a small and medium size Control Tower. This would result in more of the smaller ones which are used for more specific purposes (refining, storage, moon mining only) being used and the large ones used in a more "home base" scenario. The current ones might get some tweaking in CPU and Power to make room for the small and medium ones.
Anyways, that's what we're currently discussing, nothing decided yet since we are focusing on our getting out the current patch.
Tata 
_____________________________
I say hey sky, s'other say I won say, I pray to J I get the same ol' same ol. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 14:40:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Oveur
Before decreasing shields on the current Control Towers, I would like to add a small and medium size Control Tower. This would result in more of the smaller ones which are used for more specific purposes (refining, storage, moon mining only) being used and the large ones used in a more "home base" scenario. The current ones might get some tweaking in CPU and Power to make room for the small and medium ones.
Anyways, that's what we're currently discussing, nothing decided yet since we are focusing on our getting out the current patch.
Tata
What incentive other then needing less fual will there be to use smaller towers then ?
And I'm assuming they'll have less defenses ?
Tbh, providing fual to your pos is not that much of a problem when you take into account that by all means it provides an indestructible station as it is now.
I'm not sure I understand the reasons for pos to be indestructible in pratice. It's not like the margin by which they are is small, take away half the shields and half the possible defenses and they will still be insanely hard to destroy.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Colthor
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 14:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Oveur
Before decreasing shields on the current Control Towers, I would like to add a small and medium size Control Tower.
Hurrah!
Yes, please do! Pretty please!
*Colthor barely restrains himself from giving Oveur a hug
I'd really like my own little base. I'd like to go out to 0.0, and without a base it would be far too much (logistical) effort on my own.
Oh, Lallante: If a few hundred mil is nothing you can give them to me - I won't mind! 
--
OTO are selling Impel and Bustard transport ships. Contact Tsavong Lah or Lacero Callrisian for details.
Like mining, hauling or building? Join OTO! |
Majin Buu
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 14:46:00 -
[5]
maybee the stations wont be so indestructible when the new ship types come out.
Anyway everyone knows that stations are only expensive safespots 
BoB KillBoard |
Kar Harkuna
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 14:53:00 -
[6]
*coughs Dreadnoughts
But also like the idea to have different size/type towers to run specific things such as factories etc.
Nice to have a station that does it all but none of them can do. Unless you find that diamond moon you are going to need a minimum of two but more likely 3 POS's be able to produce a single complex reaction. If you really want to take out a POS you cut off its supply. Stop the oxygen (literally) and it'll starve - who needs to get through shields then? Otherwise for uber stations I'd suggest waiting for dreadnoughts 
The damage to killing a POS is that you can put one in its place. I doubt with the cost of POS's that whoever put one there did so with do a full survey which means they have chosen the best moon in the area - that is one reason for taking on a POS. Taking it on, because it's there, is a bit of stupid reason to be honest. If you are trying to cripple a corp let them carry on running it its bad enough as it is. If you manage to gank a hauler with consumables you'll do more damage to that corp than killing the POS esp if you manage to take it offline.
KH
|
Damajink
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 15:25:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kar Harkuna
*coughs Dreadnoughts
I'll eat my hat if we see those before September.
|
Lord Dynastron
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 16:16:00 -
[8]
Yea, loweing thier shields and making them easier to destroy seems like a splendid way to make them more desirable.
Can they be insured or is their destruction the ultimate gank?
|
Toran Mehtar
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 16:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Lord Dynastron
Yea, loweing thier shields and making them easier to destroy seems like a splendid way to make them more desirable.
Can they be insured or is their destruction the ultimate gank?
There is such a thing as balance. Currently, a POS with defences is pointless to attack, so it may as well be indestructable.
There is quite a lot of room between indestructable and 'ultimate gank'. I don't think it's too much to ask CCP to try and find it (when they have time)
|
The Chef
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 17:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Damajink
Originally by: Kar Harkuna
*coughs Dreadnoughts
I'll eat my hat if we see those before September.
Would you like that deep fried or lightly grilled?
====================================
EVEkill Visit our homepage |
Johnathan Roark
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 18:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Oveur
Before decreasing shields on the current Control Towers, I would like to add a small and medium size Control Tower. This would result in more of the smaller ones which are used for more specific purposes (refining, storage, moon mining only) being used and the large ones used in a more "home base" scenario. The current ones might get some tweaking in CPU and Power to make room for the small and medium ones.
Anyways, that's what we're currently discussing, nothing decided yet since we are focusing on our getting out the current patch.
Tata
As long as the smaller towers used less fuel, this would more than likely cause me to stop complaining about the cost to run versus profit.
On anotehr note, to kill a POS, you dont directly attack it.
POS are like castles in the middle ages, you wouldn't attack a castle when you first arrived while its defences where up, you sit out side the castle and starve it to death. You kill a POS the same way.
-------------------------------------
Quantum Industries
|
Bob Smithson
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 18:44:00 -
[12]
Let me get this straight Lallante. If you can't blow something up without losing something in return you cry because it's not fair and something is broke. I keep a barf bag in my desk drawer just for posts like this. A POS should be difficult to take down. You should lose ships when you attack one. The better defended it is the more ships you should lose.
What? You think if you want to blow up some poor saps stuff you should have an easy time of it? And then you cry because you're afraid you won't make a bloody friggin profit if it's too hard? BOO HOO HOO!!! GAH, where's that barf bag. |
Lord Dynastron
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 18:49:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Bob Smithson
What? You think if you want to blow up some poor saps stuff you should have an easy time of it? And then you cry because you're afraid you won't make a bloody friggin profit if it's too hard? BOO HOO HOO!!! GAH, where's that barf bag.
Pass me one of them barf bags while you are at it!
|
Dao 2
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 20:37:00 -
[14]
i agree witht he guy that said stuff about sieging it, thats a great idea, but prob is u cant reallly siege them when they can just warp there... yeah bubbles but they dont always work... still though ;p should try it :D
|
Johnathan Roark
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 20:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Dao 2
i agree witht he guy that said stuff about sieging it, thats a great idea, but prob is u cant reallly siege them when they can just warp there... yeah bubbles but they dont always work... still though ;p should try it :D
We are talking about industrials suplying fuel, they do not allign to warp very quickly, a few intercepters set up for fast lock and warp scrambling take care of that. I have lost industrial ships that way before.
-------------------------------------
Quantum Industries
|
Daakkon
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 21:07:00 -
[16]
I think we should be able to use mobile turrets sort of like sieging equipment (e.g. Ballistas, Battering Rams, Mangonels, and Trebuchets) etc...
that imho would help with taking out a pos
www.dark-cartel.com |
Arud
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 21:25:00 -
[17]
small and medium sized towers?
so these ones are large ones or just placeholders untill we get the others?
|
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 22:55:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Xavier Arron on 18/01/2005 22:55:43
Originally by: Oveur
Before decreasing shields on the current Control Towers, I would like to add a small and medium size Control Tower. This would result in more of the smaller ones which are used for more specific purposes (refining, storage, moon mining only) being used and the large ones used in a more "home base" scenario. The current ones might get some tweaking in CPU and Power to make room for the small and medium ones.
Anyways, that's what we're currently discussing, nothing decided yet since we are focusing on our getting out the current patch.
Tata
The ones we have at the moment are what I would term alliance class starbases IMHO. They are what is needed out in 0.0 to stand up against alliance fleets, and no doubt the new dreadnaughts when they come in.
However these towers are way too powerful considering they only cost a mere 100mill, they should of cost a lot more from the start.
I would rate the current starbases as XLarge in size. IMHO they should get more CPU and grid, but cost A LOT, LOT more.
Below this there should perhaps be L, M, S classes of POS also.
Small - cost 75 mill, 5mill shield points.
Med - Cost 150 mill, 10 mill shield points.
Large - Cost 300mill, 20 mill shield points.
XLarge - Cost 600mill, 45 mill shield points.
Something like that
IMHO also - battleships should be to dreadnaughts, what cruisers are to battleships . With that in mind, POS need to stand some chance.
|
Tobiaz
|
Posted - 2005.01.18 23:44:00 -
[19]
The general problem with Eve is that there is hardly a good middleroad. And I blame CCP for not listening to their players often enough and pushing their own, often 'jump-the-shark' balancing.
But it's also the fault of the playerbase for pushing the envelope.
Say POS will make good money, then EVERYONE will try to set them up.
Say POS will be destructible in a reasonable manner, then there will be groups of playes only flying around to gank EVERY pos they can find.
CCP needs to be a little bit more creative like giving the players more ways to defend themselves.
Like for instance allow POS in 0.1 -0.4 of maybe for the stations on the outskirts too, pay a daily fee and that will allow you to call in CONCORD defenders, giving the attackers a window of only a couple of hours to actually kill the pos.
Give the attackers better ways to shut down the supply of ice.
Give the defenders better ways to track down the players that safespot in the system.
Give the attackers special weapons for also the smaller ships to become feasible for POS attacking.
Etc...
Not just tweaking with the stupid shield.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 00:05:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Oveur
Before decreasing shields on the current Control Towers, I would like to add a small and medium size Control Tower. This would result in more of the smaller ones which are used for more specific purposes (refining, storage, moon mining only) being used and the large ones used in a more "home base" scenario. The current ones might get some tweaking in CPU and Power to make room for the small and medium ones.
Anyways, that's what we're currently discussing, nothing decided yet since we are focusing on our getting out the current patch.
Tata
I don't find it at all unreasonable to decrease shield size on current POSs as long as certain other things are done;
1. People need to be able to shield transfer & armor transfer the POS from inside the shields.
2. The Towers need to have CPU and PG balanced somewhat. If you decrease the shields I would recommend boosting CPU and PG proportionally.
3. You need to fix the control tower bonuses. If these remain inactive like they are now it will become unfair to a POS owner whose tower now has less shields.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 00:06:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lallante
In theory, having huge shields on POSs is a good idea, it prevents small groups of enemies killing it while you sleep. However, the problem comes in that with very little effort, you can make a POS which is invulnerable.
We found that it took around 6-8 hours for 20+ BSs to kill a POS. The POS we attacked had no guns, and so we could just bring mroe people in as others logged off. There were also no defenders (we killed them first)
Just for comparison it took about 90 of our ships to take out a POS with no defenses and 1 defender about 3 hours to finish the job (shields and armor).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Sticky Vicky
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 00:49:00 -
[22]
Its just a matter of time before the long range hard hitters are ingame. PoS turrets have a max range of 225km... Citadels can reach further but a few well placed smarbomb ships can make those redundant. Having never flown a gank gedodn i can only hypothosise(sp) that surely 20-30 gankgeddons with scorp boosting backup could kill a PoS with impunity once the defending fleet (if any) has vacated the area?
I think the situation atm is just about right, ccp have given the PoS owners a "calm before the storm" and rightly so. It would be silly to introduce a massive new area of the game like PoS's only to release dreads a few days later. Dreads will be the PoS killers, not battleships. Lets just hope ccp dosn't take 6 months to bring them into the game ;) |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 01:18:00 -
[23]
"Its just a matter of time before the long range hard hitters are ingame. PoS turrets have a max range of 225km..."
Behold
Spend just 5 mil and increase the optimal range of your PoS sentries 10 times with this itsy bitsy module...
I don't think ships are getting guns able to hit at over 2000 km anywhere soon.
|
Infinity Ziona
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 01:22:00 -
[24]
It'd be smarter to just prohibit sentry guns and players from firing inside the force field. When the field goes down they should be the 'Last Stand' against the invaders.
I'm a firm believer in Players killing other Players, 8 hours of NPC guns killing Players is just silly.
8 hours of Player defenders massing a force and sortying past the shield to counterattack and harrass the assaulting force is sufficient defensive advantage over the attackers.
Alternatively, sentry guns could be mannable which would at least insure some PvP rather then pure PvE defense.
Infinity Ziona
|
Daakkon
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 01:39:00 -
[25]
BLOCKQUOTE font class=quote size=9px face= verdana img src= /images/icon_quote_message.gif border= 0 b Originally by: /b i j0sephine /i hr height=1 noshade i Its just a matter of time before the long range hard hitters are ingame. PoS turrets have a max range of 225km... /i br br a href= http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/starbasestructures/turretbatteries/17701.asp target= _blank http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/starbasestructures/turretbatteries/17701.asp /a Behold
Spend just 5 mil and increase the optimal range of your PoS sentries 10 times with this itsy bitsy module...
I don't think ships are getting guns able to hit at over 2000 km anywhere soon.
the way ccp conduct balancing you never know
SoonÖ Amarr bs's (gankageddon) will be able to lock from 2000km away and will get x-tra low slots with xlow armor tanking modules so it can tank the damage and still take out ships in 2 or 3 shots with it's mega pulses
www.dark-cartel.com |
Sticky Vicky
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 01:46:00 -
[26]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Its just a matter of time before the long range hard hitters are ingame. PoS turrets have a max range of 225km..."
Behold
Spend just 5 mil and increase the optimal range of your PoS sentries 10 times with this itsy bitsy module...
I don't think ships are getting guns able to hit at over 2000 km anywhere soon.
Are they on the market yet? Hadn't seen them tbh  Maybe my POS will come out of storage sooner then expected |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 02:12:00 -
[27]
"Are they on the market yet? Hadn't seen them tbh "
Well, the item database says ORE sells them, so that'd mean need for long trip west into 0.0 space to check their stations. :x
|
rcxdude
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 02:22:00 -
[28]
Originally by: j0sephine
"Its just a matter of time before the long range hard hitters are ingame. PoS turrets have a max range of 225km..."
Behold
Spend just 5 mil and increase the optimal range of your PoS sentries 10 times with this itsy bitsy module...
I don't think ships are getting guns able to hit at over 2000 km anywhere soon.
just a note. it only doubles the range. for some reason the bonuses regarding POS are multiplied by 10 (check the bonuses on the CTs, you'll see the same thing)
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 02:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: rcxdude
Originally by: j0sephine
"Its just a matter of time before the long range hard hitters are ingame. PoS turrets have a max range of 225km..."
Behold
Spend just 5 mil and increase the optimal range of your PoS sentries 10 times with this itsy bitsy module...
I don't think ships are getting guns able to hit at over 2000 km anywhere soon.
just a note. it only doubles the range. for some reason the bonuses regarding POS are multiplied by 10 (check the bonuses on the CTs, you'll see the same thing)
The Bonuses on the CT's dont do ANYTHING.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.01.19 02:46:00 -
[30]
Edited by: j0sephine on 19/01/2005 02:47:04
"just a note. it only doubles the range. for some reason the bonuses regarding POS are multiplied by 10 (check the bonuses on the CTs, you'll see the same thing)"
Ohh, good call :o the database shows quite a few attributes in completely weird manner but never noticed it affected the PoS pieces, too... so that'd mean max range of turrets is 'just' 540 km + 225 km faloff for the large projectiles? -.^
(after the control tower boosts get fixed, anyway)
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |