| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cummilla
   |
Posted - 2005.11.01 21:09:00 -
[1]
I dont know why players would endorse the idea of continuing to have "sovereignty through pos" in any form. It was and is one of the worst ideas of the Exodus\Cold war time frame.
Territorial advancement\progression in Eve MUST be tied to an ability to put people in ships to defend space. Not just gimps(you know who you are!) in haulers to sneak in before downtime.
|
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.11.01 21:18:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: Cummilla
I dont know why players would endorse the idea of continuing to have "sovereignty through pos" in any form. It was and is one of the worst ideas of the Exodus\Cold war time frame.
Territorial advancement\progression in Eve MUST be tied to an ability to put people in ships to defend space. Not just gimps(you know who you are!) in haulers to sneak in before downtime.
I agree with that...but other than removing POS sheilds...how would you go about it?
Do something that involves outposts and seeing them convert from vulnerable to invulnerable if a set of "time based victory conditions" are met. Invulnerable outposts would be your "win" peice on the gameboard. You'd only get it after you've held that structure in a vulnerable state for X amount of time. I'm not saying this is THE answer...but hell, at least it focuses on, imho, the right things, ie...holding a structure with miltary presence for a period of time. Your industrial prowess would be demonstrated in simply constructing the outpost to begin with.
|
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.11.01 22:44:00 -
[3]
Yeah but you see that's the deal....it shouldn't hinge on the POS situation in any way, shape or form.
That's where things started going bonkers and rewarding gimps in the night in haulers deciding territorial progression in Eve.
Something else, anything else, would be a better "counter" in a wargame sense, than POS's are for determining soveriengty.
|
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.11.01 22:47:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: Rufus Roughneck
Simple.
pos need to have far fewer hp's, same defenses, and small and medium ones need to be disregarded for sovereignty purposes.
Oh, and make a system have a max of 10 pos's in them.
having 80 moons is what makes it a farce.
I can agree with that...however it should be an odd number like 9.
As for Small and Medium towers, they should count, but they should count for a quarter and half of a Large tower.
So theoretically a system held with 9 Small Towers could be turned with only needing to kill two Smalls and setting up two Large.
Another reason why I think POS's are lame as a fixture in determining soveriengty is because CCP just isn't up to the tasks of un-nerfing dreads. The natural enemy of the POS is massive gimped at the moment.
Since they can't or won't perform that task we should go back to the old days where fleets of ships decide things. I guess that's my bottom line conclusion.
|
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.11.01 23:00:00 -
[5]
At some level they have some good ideas in place. It's just the same ole tune in that they are moving headlong into new content before making critical balance adjustments in "less than new" content.
There should not be a single carrier or mothership in Eve before dreads are un-nerfed. Why are they moving ahead? Does t0mb really enjoy seeing phoenix's mine in Orvolle? What a mockery -- yet it's all his own fault.
|
| |
|