EVE Search - I have one question for Oveur

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

I have one question for Oveur

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Snappers	Posted - 2005.10.11 09:05:00 - [61] The only short-term viable option at the moment is a point based system. Small = 1 Medium = 2 Large = 3 Each system has a Sov point system of 25 points. To claim that system you need atleast half of the points. IE: 3 Large POS & 2 medium which then equals 13 points. If someone else wants to claim sov they need to put up the same amount of POSs as you (but will only get 12 points hence no sov) and they will need to take out atleast one of your POS's The only short-term solution i can see at the moment, although Bhaal for a long term solution your idea ROCKS!
Magnum III	Posted - 2005.10.11 09:15:00 - [62] Originally by: Bhaal Is the POS-Time Zone-SOV-Ping-Pong game working as intended? You know what that reminds me of? PlanetSide Online, a great game but I bored after 3 days, that's it. Because it seemed like nothing was ever accomplished for more then a few hours. So yeah I do feel bad for you guys having to put up with this ping pong effect.
Matthew	Posted - 2005.10.11 09:38:00 - [63] The main problem I see with this is not that it's possible to zerg in with small towers, but that the defender does not have an adequate chance to defend against it. I think we'd all agree that fully locking down a system 23/7 isn't a realistic requirement, which leaves some ability to combat the small towers themselves. This basically boils down to the claim delay Oveur talked about. If you can't get a POS-nuking fleet organised within 72 hours, then you don't really have the forces or area control to justify the claim on the system. One thing I'm not clear on is how reinforced mode affects the POS's claim on a system. My feeling is that a POS in reinforced mode isn't a great advert for your control over that system, so shouldn't count. One important effect of delaying the claiming rights on a tower will be that the towers will have to defend themsevles if they are going to survive long enough to contest the claims. Unless the defenders are completely useless, this will mean that they will need defence modules as well as the tower. It may also mean that the small tower isn't enough to hold out with. This has 3 desirable effects: 1) The attackers have to make a greater monetary investment - I feel this is a better way of doing it than just increasing the tower costs. 2) Greater deployment time, increasing the chances of being caught unprepared by your opponent 3) You need more haulers to achieve the same tower zerg. This on it's own should alleviate the problems as described. I'd be wary of some of the other suggestions. The 60-40 hysterisis for example. If an allaince is trying to do Sov "on the cheap" by only using the bare minimum number of towers required, they they should be vulnerable to a staight 50-50 takeover. If they want the safety of a hysterisis margin, then they should be paying for it with a few extra POS. You can do anything. But you can't do everything.
PPhearr	Posted - 2005.10.11 11:18:00 - [64] Sovereignty points based on tower size (Small = 1, Medium = 2 and Large = 4) coupled with a full day of the tower being online after next DT before soverignty is claimed (to stop people putting towers up right before DT) should be enuf to all but solve the problem in the short term. I'm guessing neither would require too much work to get into the next patch either ____________________________ Phear AKA G1mp NRG Corporation CEO Firmus Ixion Joint Chief of Staff PPhearr - Purveyor of fine ships. G1mp - Destroyer of fine ships.
Treebeard dk	Posted - 2005.10.11 11:49:00 - [65] Again Bhaal, you post what many of us have been troubled with for many months, you are damn good at putting it down into constructable words/solutions, well done my friend. My personal opinion about this being in the center of this POS hell, is that I think 48 hours or 72 hours anchoring time would solve some of this. Add the point system to it and disregard the DT need for the sovr. to kick in and you got yourself a short term solution Oveur. I think the need to change this pretty soon is there or you will find 0.0 space changing hands every 2 months as people will grow tired of it and new people will take over and so on and so on, this means you wont get more people out into 0.0 but have the same constant amout and they will be different each month. Thank you for being so open to changes and suggestions m8, its what makes this game so much of a difference to other games !
BOldMan	Posted - 2005.10.11 12:01:00 - [66] As I see, you want alliance to be able to build brick by brick a little version of empire corner in 0.0 space. The plan will be fine but remeber to force the little emire to be restrict in small spaces to avoid to choke again hundreds of stars with one entrance point. And fine by me, who can raise this amount of buildings deserve to achieve more and more tools to defend them.
Treebeard dk	Posted - 2005.10.11 12:26:00 - [67] Another one of the main problems today is that it takes approx 10 mins to anchor + online a small CT for 1 person but it takes a 40 man fleet in BS's about 20 mins to get just the shields down. Something aint right here, since the cost of a small CT is about 25 mill it should take a LOT less time to shoot or go with my suggestion above regarding the anchoring time (basicly the work involved in setting up the tower.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:01:00 - [68] Well, I can of course understand that the POS-rushing method of conquering stations is an annoying tactic. Its a way of using efficient logistics coupled with timezone diffrences to ones strategic advantage. Now, arent dreadnaughts made for destroying POS and meant to be used in exactly this situation ? Maybe the dreadnaughts are too expensive in comparison to their firepower/survivability ratio to be efficient tools for enforcing sovereignty. A solution thats a lot simpler than fiddling with POS is just cutting the dreadnaught mineral reqs with 50%, making it actually affordable to lose a dread in a POS assault. The skill requirements alone will ensure that only a dedicated combat pilot will fly the dreads. Personal opinions only ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
Treebeard dk	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:16:00 - [69] A good point, but not one that has not already been thought of :) You see, the way it works now is: approx 1 hour before DT person X and Y shows up in a hauler each, they may have stored another one in system already or make 2 runs in the hauler. They spam out 20 POS's and sit and wait until they can claim sovr. and then take the station. Even if you have 5 dreads, it will take a LOT of time to shoot all those. Meanwhile person X and Y will just do the same the next day again. Many people simply dont wish to spend 80-90% of their gametime shooting POS's that it takes 2 people 1 hour to setup, something is not balanced right.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:25:00 - [70] all good ideas but i think dreads need to be used properly nothing wrong with mineral requirements as elite mining barges coming online but those destroyed so far have been used not properly ie in siege mode protected by fleets of BS

Professor McFly	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:40:00 - [71] Originally by: sonofollo all good ideas but i think dreads need to be used properly nothing wrong with mineral requirements as elite mining barges coming online but those destroyed so far have been used not properly ie in siege mode protected by fleets of BS several Small Control Towers + Indy right before downtime = 1 or 2 pilots and less than 100mil Dreadnaught + fleet for its protection = dozens of pilots and in excess of 4-5bil what part do you not understand?
Liet Traep	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:51:00 - [72] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: Winterblink Edited by: Winterblink on 07/10/2005 17:45:11 Originally by: Professor McFly There have been a few <big_finger_quotes>suggestions</big_finger_quotes> in this thread, have a read. Did, thanks. I decided your reply needed some additional emphasis. :) Edit; Anyway, I'm of the opinion that this whole system is still too new to tell whether it's working or not. I say give it a bit of time and wait to see how things settle out. You're probably right. I just want to know what Oveur thinks. If indeed this was the intent and everything is working as designed, or if something went wrong and it needs to be re-visited... Well, yes and no. Alliances have started claiming Sovereignty, so there is obviously some added benefit which makes it worthwile to do in addition to get your color on the map. Likewise, hostile parties to those Alliances obviously see some benefit in contesting that Sovereignty, what ever the reason they have for doing that or what their goal is. However, I think it's obvious that it's still to easy contest Sovereignty with a zerg rush of Small Towers. Then again, the main point about requiring 51% of the moons claimed to ensure you keep Sovereignty and thus require any force contesting Sovereignty to attack the defending Starbases. Therefore, you have to ask yourself, if it's so easy for the one attacking to pop up a couple of Small Towers to contest Sovereignty, why don't you just do it in the first place, requiring the attacker to spend time attacking you? However, as always, there are compromises here. It is too easy to pop up a Small Tower in my opinion (or any tower) in general - this just being one of the reasons - and I think we can also use a bigger lead time to the point where a Tower can start claims. So, I've been pondering a couple of things suggested here and there, increasing the base price of all towers considerably, putting them in the 100's of millions price range and also increase the lead time to 72 hours for them being able to claim Sovereignty (or even more). Neither should stop the tactic of popping up Starbases to "ping-pong" Sovereignty while at the same time requiring more investment to a siege than a couple of indies sneaking in and anchoring some Small Towers. I much prefer staggering the level of sovereignty a pos gives. making large towers count for more than smali or medium. I also favor a sovereignty delay of 24 or 48 hours. 72 though. I'm not the most patient person. That level of delayed gratification will just **** me off to no end. The other thing you have to remember Oveur is that the largest number of people complaining about the currenty pos situation are tyrying to control 7 regions of space. If they concentrated their 1k of pilots in 2 or 3 regions they would have the forces needed to stop their opponents from contesting their regions. Just something to consider.
Revolting	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:55:00 - [73] Edited by: Revolting on 11/10/2005 13:55:49
Helmut 314	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:57:00 - [74] Originally by: Treebeard dk A good point, but not one that has not already been thought of :) You see, the way it works now is: approx 1 hour before DT person X and Y shows up in a hauler each, they may have stored another one in system already or make 2 runs in the hauler. They spam out 20 POS's and sit and wait until they can claim sovr. and then take the station. Even if you have 5 dreads, it will take a LOT of time to shoot all those. Meanwhile person X and Y will just do the same the next day again. Many people simply dont wish to spend 80-90% of their gametime shooting POS's that it takes 2 people 1 hour to setup, something is not balanced right. Oh, I do understand how it works, its a very simple and apparently effective strategy. My point is that maybe the problem doesnt lie with the POS, but with the damage/cost/survivability ratio of dreadnaughts. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson
PPhearr	Posted - 2005.10.11 14:45:00 - [75] They can't cut Dread req's, there would be a outcry from those who have built them already, same would happen if they changed the cost of POS. Changing the price of something screws over or gives an advantage to those who already have them. However cutting the shields on the POS would work fine. 1/2 the shields of POS but give them more resources to fit defences. This would stop people just putting up POS with none or very little defences. This along with Soveriegnty points based on size and a 48hr wait to claim sovereignty would do the trick IMHO. ____________________________ Phear AKA G1mp NRG Corporation CEO Firmus Ixion Joint Chief of Staff PPhearr - Purveyor of fine ships. G1mp - Destroyer of fine ships.
PPhearr	Posted - 2005.10.11 14:54:00 - [76] Could also implement a Shield Extender module(s) for POS (combined with the shield cut) with say a 1hr anchor time. I would suggest these would use entirely, or mainly CPU, with little or no power grid req's (as there are very few CPU intensive defensive POS modules atm). These would compensate for the Shield cut for those who genuinely want to setup a defensive POS platform. ____________________________ Phear AKA G1mp NRG Corporation CEO Firmus Ixion Joint Chief of Staff PPhearr - Purveyor of fine ships. G1mp - Destroyer of fine ships.
Somatic Neuron	Posted - 2005.10.11 22:50:00 - [77] was kind of hoping that Oveur would pop his head back in here and let us know which ideas he likes and thinks are doable. ----------
Sorja	Posted - 2005.10.12 06:23:00 - [78] Just a small note: do not catter to the most powerfull. The game is more and more geared towards the high end, and dreadnoughts are a good (or bad) example of that. They require both insane skills and wallet. If you expect all players to join existing forces, it's fine. First join an alliance, later on create your own if possible. If you want to allow smaller forces to emerge, it's bad. So, increasing costs on towers and whatnot seems a bit strange as a solution, since those complaining they lost sovereignty didn't secure their systems in the first place. I know... fuel isn't cheap... face the consequences. Kill mails
Matthew	Posted - 2005.10.12 08:21:00 - [79] Originally by: Liet Traep I also favor a sovereignty delay of 24 or 48 hours. 72 though. I'm not the most patient person. That level of delayed gratification will just ** me off to no end. Territorial control is the long game of eve, it should play out at a slower speed to individual skirmishes. Otherwise it becomes just another level in the ganking tree, which isn't really needed. Originally by:** Liet Traep The other thing you have to remember Oveur is that the largest number of people complaining about the currenty pos situation are tyrying to control 7 regions of space. If they concentrated their 1k of pilots in 2 or 3 regions they would have the forces needed to stop their opponents from contesting their regions. Just something to consider. The problem is that currently to take sov of a system, you don't actually need to be contesting the region in any significant military way - all you need to do is infiltrate a few haulers into the target system and spam away with the small control towers. However big an alliance you have, there are always going to be gaps in timezones which opponents can use to sneak that sort of force in. Deploying contesting POS and taking over sov should be the end-game of a conflict, indicating that the defending power has lost significant military control of the system. Right now it's more an indication of who can sneak more haulers full of small POS through just before DT. You can do anything. But you can't do everything.
Treebeard dk	Posted - 2005.10.12 08:40:00 - [80] Originally by: Liet Traep The other thing you have to remember Oveur is that the largest number of people complaining about the currenty pos situation are tyrying to control 7 regions of space. If they concentrated their 1k of pilots in 2 or 3 regions they would have the forces needed to stop their opponents from contesting their regions. Just something to consider. m8, dont know if you just didnt get it or what, it has got nothing to do with numbers or regions, we could have 5000 people sitting in one system for all this matters, someone can still sneak in 20 POS's when we log of or leaves the system for a few hours to go fight somewhere else and POP, there you have 20 nice new shiny POS's setup. There simply is NO weapon against that as you cant guard even ONE single system for 23 hours a day, no way.

Somatic Neuron	Posted - 2005.10.12 16:06:00 - [81] Originally by: Sorja Just a small note: do not catter to the most powerfull. Alliances are supposed to be the most powerful entities in the game, if I am not mistaken. Originally by: Sorja The game is more and more geared towards the high end, and dreadnoughts are a good (or bad) example of that. They require both insane skills and wallet. If you expect all players to join existing forces, it's fine. First join an alliance, later on create your own if possible. If you want to allow smaller forces to emerge, it's bad. There is nothing ingame that prevents smaller alliances from getting their start. Originally by: Sorja So, increasing costs on towers and whatnot seems a bit strange as a solution, since those complaining they lost sovereignty didn't secure their systems in the first place. I know... fuel isn't cheap... face the consequences. So, you think that throwing up a **** ton of small control towers with no defenses and no military show of force should allow just any 'tard claim a system away from someone that actually has a legitimate claim to a system? No, that's just crazy talk. There should be some cost involved...both to the alliance wanting to claim an unclaimed system, and the alliance wanting to claim a system that has already been claimed. In the case of the invading alliance, they should be required to destroy the claiming objects before being allowed to claim on their own. And, if you make the claiming object expensive, it is going to be well defended. ----------
Stepping Razor	Posted - 2005.10.12 16:33:00 - [82] Originally by: PPhearr Sovereignty points based on tower size (Small = 1, Medium = 2 and Large = 4) coupled with a full day of the tower being online after next DT before soverignty is claimed (to stop people putting towers up right before DT) should be enuf to all but solve the problem in the short term. I'm guessing neither would require too much work to get into the next patch either Yes. This is totally what is needed. Larges take roughly 4X the fuel and take up 4X as much space to transport, so giving them 4X the sovereignty bonues is just fair. It also elmininates the zerging of sovereignty. Razor
Somatic Neuron	Posted - 2005.10.14 14:38:00 - [83] Perhaps now that he is browsing and responding, he'll venture to provide some more feedback.... ----------
Bhaal	Posted - 2005.10.14 14:50:00 - [84] Originally by: Somatic Neuron Perhaps now that he is browsing and responding, he'll venture to provide some more feedback.... There's really nothing more for him to say tbh. This thread gives many ideas, and we can only hope the DEV's think some of them have merrit. Now it's just a wait and see type of thing... Of course if ppl still have ideas that have not been put forth in this thread, plz tell us what you think! :) ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE
slip66	Posted - 2005.10.14 15:27:00 - [85] I have to say this is one of the most consrtuctive threads I've ever read in eve. Some great ideas here. For a short term fix remember "keep it simple stupid" less chance of f'ing it all up :)
booh	Posted - 2005.10.15 15:15:00 - [86] The system needs changes. It sux as it is now tbh. I thought about it and doesnt sound bad. Here is what i came up with. First there should be 2 types of POS. The one that are "hidden" and the ones that count for souveregnity. The second ones are shown on overview like other (NPC, conquerable) stations and with proper standings towards the player (if selected in the overview). The first ones are like they are in the moment. Second there should be some difference in the POS sizes counting for souvergnity. I'd say 4 small = 2 medium = 1 large POS. Example 1: Alliance A has 5 small POS in system and alliance B one large, alliance A wins the race. Example 2: Alliance A has 3 small POS, and alliance B has 2 medium ones, B wins. And as third point, the POS that are being anchored for souveregnity should take alot longer to anchor, like 3h for one POS.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.15 15:23:00 - [87] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/10/2005 15:25:05 How about this. One specific complaint is about undefended small towers. So... Towers with no active defences (guns, etc.) can be unanchored by someone with the hacking skills in 30-(2*hacking skill) minutes, possible using a new hacking module. So, you HAVE to put up at least one gun with a PoS... (and L giving 1, M giving 0.5 and S 0.25 soverinty is a good idea too) "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Alede Pestot	Posted - 2005.10.15 15:41:00 - [88] Originally by: James Lyrus Well, I've not been involved in the starbase pingpong, but then, I do run a few towers, so I thought I'd throw in my thoughts for simple solutions. Problem isn't the price, IMO, it's the fact that a 'hauler rush' can topple the balance. Well, for the players, have you considered just plonking a small stack of GSCs or offline towers at your moons? 'least then they've got to spend a little while knocking those over first. As a longer term solution, IMO weight by tower size is good, but the to my mind, the 'proper' solution is to implement a decaying average. Change it so your 'POS points' in a system can only change by (for example) one or two per downtime. So if you fire up 15 'points' of towers, and clear a system of all other sov claims, it takes a week (or two) for it to ramp up to full effect. But after this time, if someone deploys 20 towers, and kills off your 15, your 'claim' drops by 1 per day, and theirs goes up by 1 per day, meaning that after a week you lose sov and they gain it. But if you react quickly, you can retake it, meaning they've got to sustain a campaign, and keep those towers fueled if they want to claim it. Ok, it does mean that if you get it onto a knife edge, then ping-pong happens, but at least it means you can't just log in one day to find that someone's fired up 20 towers and you've lost sov over d/t. Actually, something like this would be quite good. So you set up a POS and claim a system. Your control becomes 100% at DT. Your POS gives you 1 'control point'. Someone else comes in and plonks down 2 POS's.They now have 2 'control points' (CP's). Now,at each down time, for every CP they have over yours your control drops by 10% (with a max capp of 50% change per DT). Once your control hits 0% the system becomes contested, and your opponents control starts to raise.Once their control hits 100% the system is theirs. With this method, it would take a full 4 days for a system to totally change hands. Small,Med and Large POS's could give varying CP's. I dont know how hard this would be to implement, but it would seem to be a good compromise between the short term 'quick fix' proposed by Oveur and the more ambitous long term solutions proposed by others (plus it lets you have cool 'contested' markings on the map ) ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Drilla	Posted - 2005.10.16 17:10:00 - [89] Oveur - as I see it and as Bhaal and others have said - the downtime should never be an advantage in PVP situations. Work on getting the DT to be what it is - downtime and not an advantage and it's not explotable as it is now. I trust you guys at CCP are monitoring this closely and with usual resove will fix this problem. Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost!
Liadrin	Posted - 2005.10.16 17:52:00 - [90] Some very great suggestions here, I do agree with Bhaal's long term solutions, but for a quick fix I'd go with a pointbased system (like many suggested, no need to run it over again) just my 2 isk Carebears\|Me



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.