EVE Search - POS nerf

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

POS nerf

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.06 01:12:00 - [31] Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm I can't decide whether to laugh out loud over "Players with a good conscience" from someone practically knocking on the door of racism a few posts before or just go and find a brick wall to bang my head against until the dirty feeling goes away from being "Agreed" with by said person. Is your intention here to troll? Please reference which of my statements were racist. Slavery exists in most societies today, some places more than others. To attack an evil within a society, is not the same as attacking the entire culture. And yes people do play this game with positive intentions.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.06 01:12:00 - [32] EVE Online \| EVE Insider \| Forums
pershphanie	Posted - 2005.11.06 11:27:00 - [33] Originally by: musashi myomoto As DevÆs you might not get on the Tranquility server very often. In the last few days all ôH E double toothpicksö has broken out in Empire. Basically a huge north- south alliance war has consumed empire. You may, or may not, know the genesis of the war. Basically the trigger was FiveÆs declaration that we were not going to spend all our time shooting RA POSÆs anymore. It is too easy, fast and cheap to set these POSÆs up. It takes too long to destroy a POS. Our leadership has decided to shoot other players instead. Not surprising, there are other alliances who feel the same way. Promptly, after this change in strategic direction, three separate alliances declared on the Five. And as time goes on the all out war is gaining mass and momentum like a snowball rolling down hill. As I understand it CCP is attempting to ôlevel loadö the eve universe. Might I suggest that you find a way to prevent the ômushrooming POSö tactic that is currently being used to ôbuyö sovereignty in 0.0. Some possible ideas Make the CTÆs cost 1 B isk or more. This increases both the risk and limits capacity to put out hundreds of these things. Increase the time to anchor a CT to say 18 hours. This way if you are setting up shop in low security space everyone can see it, and everyone can decide to react. Perhaps if you were to find a way to nerf the POS, the bears might all return to their caves. The opinions expressed here are mine. I do not make or influence policy for my corp or aliance. /signed It shouldnt take 20 bill isk worth of dreads 5hours to take out a 200mill isk pos. Something is seriously wrong with that.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.06 12:47:00 - [34] Originally by: musashi myomoto Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm I can't decide whether to laugh out loud over "Players with a good conscience" from someone practically knocking on the door of racism a few posts before or just go and find a brick wall to bang my head against until the dirty feeling goes away from being "Agreed" with by said person. Is your intention here to troll? Please reference which of my statements were racist. Slavery exists in most societies today, some places more than others. To attack an evil within a society, is not the same as attacking the entire culture. And yes people do play this game with positive intentions. I would hope anyone who has known me these last few years knows thats not my style. Obviously referencing text which has been edited out is going to be difficult. You will note I never actually said racist, but "Practically knocking on the door of" as many of the posts were getting so very close without quite crossing that fine line. I was witnessing an argument being put forth who's primary thrust appeared not to be "X game mechanic is broken and I think X, Y and Z could be done to improve it" which I probably would have supported but rather "X is wrong, Y is very wrong, Z is so very very wrong, insinuation that group A does X, Y and Z and the game mechanics should thus be changed to allow me to stop them because I am a so very righteous person" Which I could not ignore. Its very similar to that I've seen a lot of lately in Jack Thompson's crusade on video games over in the US, thats not my fight, however I love eve and won't stand for that sort of malarky over here if I feel I can fight it. My feelings in my last post are Not entirely dissimilar to the feelings expressed here to be honest, there was a good bit of frustration. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
High Sierra	Posted - 2005.11.06 19:17:00 - [35] could you two take this personal disagreement elsewhere? this really isnt the place to sort out your differences. I just want to see a discussion on the 'POS war' issue.
Nifel	Posted - 2005.11.07 11:14:00 - [36] Having sov count only towards large towers is good for station system, but a very crappy solution for those that use small towers to actually moon mine in 0.0. Best suggestion I've seen so far has been an increase for sov to start upped to minimum 3 days. Having small towers count for 1 point, medium for 3, large for 7. Increase cost of CT (but not by any really stupid amounts, between 50-100% maybe). 1 large tower would equal 7 small towers and 2 medium + 1 small. Large towers along with the fuel needed is a major investment in isk (especially if price is upped on the ct), and as such it should count for a lot more than small and mediums. I also think it should count for 1 more point than 2 mediums simply because it would give the defender the edge. "We wield swords for the sound of laughter that used to be there long ago." RKK Ranking: (MIN12) Marinda
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.11.07 11:32:00 - [37] perhaps averaged over 3 days as well would lead to longer build ups and sustained attacks
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.08 18:12:00 - [38] To me to address the POS warfare issue we have to look at the problems POSÆs are hard to kill. We have a relatively cheap asset monopolizing major assets for lots of time. If you want to keep the POSÆs with strong defenses then there are a number of ideas that can constrain their proliferation. Delay POS anchoring û this allows for the kill before the POS is anchored. Not a problem if you have the escorts providing security. Create a mechanism to bust POSÆs more efficiently. (ie enhanced seige capabilities for Dreads) Start POS shields at an uncharged state after anchoring, letting them charge up at the normal rate. POS are relatively quick to set up. This allows for sovereignty to be ôpurchasedö in a short period of time. To me this is the major obstacle. In less than 8 minutes a single player can anchor a small CT. Thus a single player can easily spam a whole system. There are a number of ideas here as well. Delay POS anchoring û which will reduce the opportunity to anchor numerous POSÆs in a short period of time. Limit the numbers of POSÆs a single character can have anchored. Allow corps to only anchor a POS once per week in a given system. To me size of CT does not matter in the sovereignty discussion. The people employing this tactic have isk to burn. The differential in CT cost and fuel cost represent a trivial expense for them.
Jade Ro	Posted - 2005.11.10 11:57:00 - [39] Originally by: musashi myomoto To me to address the POS warfare issue we have to look at the problems POSÆs are hard to kill. We have a relatively cheap asset monopolizing major assets for lots of time. If you want to keep the POSÆs with strong defenses then there are a number of ideas that can constrain their proliferation. Delay POS anchoring û this allows for the kill before the POS is anchored. Not a problem if you have the escorts providing security. Create a mechanism to bust POSÆs more efficiently. (ie enhanced seige capabilities for Dreads) Start POS shields at an uncharged state after anchoring, letting them charge up at the normal rate. POS are relatively quick to set up. This allows for sovereignty to be ôpurchasedö in a short period of time. To me this is the major obstacle. In less than 8 minutes a single player can anchor a small CT. Thus a single player can easily spam a whole system. There are a number of ideas here as well. Delay POS anchoring û which will reduce the opportunity to anchor numerous POSÆs in a short period of time. Limit the numbers of POSÆs a single character can have anchored. Allow corps to only anchor a POS once per week in a given system. To me size of CT does not matter in the sovereignty discussion. The people employing this tactic have isk to burn. The differential in CT cost and fuel cost represent a trivial expense for them. I think.. thats the most reasonable suggestion I have read yet. Well spoken. CEO - Aurora Empire
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.10 19:46:00 - [40] Originally by: musashi myomoto To me to address the POS warfare issue we have to look at the problems POSÆs are hard to kill. We have a relatively cheap asset monopolizing major assets for lots of time. If you want to keep the POSÆs with strong defenses then there are a number of ideas that can constrain their proliferation. Delay POS anchoring û this allows for the kill before the POS is anchored. Not a problem if you have the escorts providing security. Create a mechanism to bust POSÆs more efficiently. (ie enhanced seige capabilities for Dreads) Start POS shields at an uncharged state after anchoring, letting them charge up at the normal rate. POS are relatively quick to set up. This allows for sovereignty to be ôpurchasedö in a short period of time. To me this is the major obstacle. In less than 8 minutes a single player can anchor a small CT. Thus a single player can easily spam a whole system. There are a number of ideas here as well. Delay POS anchoring û which will reduce the opportunity to anchor numerous POSÆs in a short period of time. Limit the numbers of POSÆs a single character can have anchored. Allow corps to only anchor a POS once per week in a given system. To me size of CT does not matter in the sovereignty discussion. The people employing this tactic have isk to burn. The differential in CT cost and fuel cost represent a trivial expense for them. I think care has to be taken not to drastically affect aspects of POS that are already quite frustrating to normal users of POS who are not engaging in the wars over sovereignty, as doing so could potentially upset a far greater number of people than it limits. Likewise while you believe the primary people you want to affect have money to burn (I haven't a clue myself) I know there are many people who do not, therefore we cannot completely ignore that aspect. Tower size : larger towers already take longer to anchor, right now if you just want to claim a moon for sovereignty there is little reason to use anything but the small since it is the smallest, the cheapest, the lowest maintenance and the quickest. I think the first thing that has to be done is remove this imbalance towards small towers. The simplest thing is to give them a sovereignty value, 1 for smalls, 2 for mediums, 4 for large, this would restore the balance back into the system (large take four times as long to anchor, four times the space, four times the fuel, four times the purchase cost) At that point it has to be decided how large an affect purchasing and logistics power should be allowed to have before decisions can be made as to how severe any further changes need to be. My own opinion on that is that industrial might should be at least equal to military power, otherwise space will not develop as it should, but at the same time industrial power certainly cannot be allowed to make up the entire deciding factor over space ownership. One issue in the crux of the problem is that if POS are made too easy to destroy then all of CCP's plans for having them be corporation bases for operating in space (including the forthcoming factorys and shipyards they expect tech II production and tech III research to occur in apparently) will not work - people don't want to live and devote time and resources to a paper house. Ideally some way to seperate sovereignty and player bases would be in order in my opinion. Perhaps something like this : Claiming sovereingty reduces (50%? 75%?) the shields on a POS, making it easier to destroy and requiring the owners defend it more, this means we don't have to reduce POS players actually live at to paper houses. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Caeden Nicomachean	Posted - 2005.11.11 23:14:00 - [41] Quote: Ideally some way to seperate sovereignty and player bases would be in order in my opinion. Perhaps something like this : Claiming sovereingty reduces (50%? 75%?) the shields on a POS, making it easier to destroy and requiring the owners defend it more, this means we don't have to reduce POS players actually live at to paper houses. I sure do like this idea. Or make claiming soverignty cost a *LOT* of fuel in m3 size, so that freighters have to be exposed to upkeep them if they are used to claim territory.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.12 15:03:00 - [42] Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm Ideally some way to separate sovereignty and player bases would be in order in my opinion. Right perhaps this is the keyà What about a new POS module that must also be deployed and powered to capture sovereignty? Without the module the POS is just a basic player base for refining, parking or moon mining. With the module the POS can then impact sovereignty. Any manner of nerf can then be placed upon the module. High cost for the sovereignty module. Slow anchoring times for the sovereignty module. Very steep fuel costs to keep the sovereignty module on-line. Reductions in the POS shield capacity or recharge rate while sovereignty module is on-line.So that this POS would then be substantially easier to kill. This would be a slick and easy way to eliminate POS spamming. BTW sorry for agreeing with you Zyrla, feel free take an extra shower if you like. LOL.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.12 17:16:00 - [43] Originally by: musashi myomoto Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm Ideally some way to separate sovereignty and player bases would be in order in my opinion. Right perhaps this is the keyà What about a new POS module that must also be deployed and powered to capture sovereignty? Without the module the POS is just a basic player base for refining, parking or moon mining. With the module the POS can then impact sovereignty. Any manner of nerf can then be placed upon the module. High cost for the sovereignty module. Slow anchoring times for the sovereignty module. Very steep fuel costs to keep the sovereignty module on-line. Reductions in the POS shield capacity or recharge rate while sovereignty module is on-line.So that this POS would then be substantially easier to kill. This would be a slick and easy way to eliminate POS spamming. BTW sorry for agreeing with you Zyrla, feel free take an extra shower if you like. LOL. Funnily enough I was thinking about a sovereignty module, but I wasn't actually thinking about it in conjunction with the shield reduction (Which came to me as I was writing the last post) But I must admit it sounds good done that way. Meh You've stopped being offensive so I consider that all over and done with myself, Good to be discussing sovereignty for what it is. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Flying Dagger	Posted - 2005.11.13 12:14:00 - [44] Many other things in Eve are becoming specialised, so why not POSs. POSs for mining should have High CPU and good defense and be able to fit moon harvesting kit. They can be fairly cheap. POSs for sovreignty should have high Powergrid, and be expensive and need active management and be larger. Simple.
Hatch	Posted - 2005.11.14 14:09:00 - [45] Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm You are using an argument involving such terms as "Human rights" "Slavery" "Slavers", you are tarring a lot of people indirectly with said argument, though largely those who happen to be playing the game in a way you don't consider to be fun and where they happen to have an edge over you. From the very beginning you make insinuations that could be seen as being towards largely one race. You then specifically go on to name one group (Who happen to be of said race) as being among the practicioners of these unethical acts, which seems to me at the very least defamatory. If you simply argued on the merits of the game mechanics I would probably support the argument : I seem to recall suggesting even before the small/medium towers came in that they should contribute a variable amount to sovereignty based on there value. (1:2:4 = same ratio of purchase cost/cargo/fuel/toughness) But you are accusing others of crimes and unethical behaviour and using that as your argument for change and I cannot support that, Nor do I think it should be considered valid on these forums. OK, 5 has always complained, like any other pirate, when they loose fights, they say the game is unfair. You have no evidence to support your accusations of exploiting RL people for the use of their time for rock mining. Please do try and come up with a better way for us to laugh at The 5's desperate attempts to assualt the north, and do keep crap like this out of the deb forums. It serves no usefull purpose here
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.14 16:27:00 - [46] Originally by: Hatch OK, 5 has always complained, like any other pirate, when they loose fights, they say the game is unfair. You have no evidence to support your accusations of exploiting RL people for the use of their time for rock mining. Please do try and come up with a better way for us to laugh at The 5's desperate attempts to assault the north, and do keep crap like this out of the deb forums. It serves no useful purpose here Arguments based upon generalizations are generally wrong. As IÆve written before the ideas expressed here are mine. I do not make policy for my corp or my alliance. Mods please lock this thread for flaming/trolling.
Grismar	Posted - 2005.11.14 22:17:00 - [47] Edited by: Grismar on 14/11/2005 22:27:33 Edited by: Grismar on 14/11/2005 22:25:40 Inflaming a discussion by exaggerating a situation to its full extremes, just to further your own cause, can be as malignant and reprehensible as the extremes you reach. By effectively accusing CCP and carebear players of creating a situation that causes worldwide slavery and deprives people of their human rights, you seek to effect only one thing: a change in a game that will benefit your gameplay. Mind you, I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm saying that I think your motives are all but wholesome to the game and the discussion here. The important points have been made and carry much more weight than any exacerbation of the situation you care to add. POSs -should- have weighted impact on sovereignty. Dreads -could- get more powerful without instantly breaking the game. POS could even be raised in price. Other solutions might work too. For instance, rules could be added that say you don't just have to have the most "POS points", you could need more than double what the sovereign has at the time. Or perhaps we need a rule that limits the number of POS you can be anchoring at any one time (controlled by a skill perhaps?). The time it takes for a POS to go online could be followed by a much longer period for it to get its weapons online for the first time. Etc. I suggest you start adding more solutions or critize the ones given sofar instead of blaming the world's problems on CCP and some game players and then making it a point to claim -others- are trolling and inflaming the thread. [Edit] Removed the edit, since it sorta covered what others were saying :) Work in progress: EVE Explorer
Snake Jankins	Posted - 2005.11.14 23:32:00 - [48] Implement a new sort of towers to claim soverenity and balance them individually like price, defense etc. And maybe limit the number per system. Then it's possible to balance soverenity stuff without effecting the production/mining poses. 'This is either my own opinion or not an opinion at all.'
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.11.14 23:50:00 - [49] In Testing Changes to Sovereignty Calculations Starbase Control Tower Size should be taken into consideration when calculating Sovereignty. New system makes size of Control Towers override smaller Towers. If a Small Tower is claiming Sovereignty, deploying 2 small OR 1 Medium Tower will claim Sovereignty. To get Sovereignty of a system with for example 4 Medium Towers, you need to deploy 1 Large Control Tower OR 5 Medium Towers. This approach was take in favor of a point system, which would not have made it into RMR. Sidenote to this change, Control Towers will be increased in price, especially Small Towers. Time-to-Claim of new Control Towers is also increased. Estimated to be either 5 or 7 days until a Control Tower can claim Sovereignty.
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.11.15 00:01:00 - [50] Edited by: Dionysus Davinci on 15/11/2005 00:01:43 Edited by: Dionysus Davinci on 15/11/2005 00:00:59 That is exactly what they needed to do, sort of. They should make it though still that 2 small = 1 med 4 small = 1 large 2 med = 1 large OR Simplay you need to keep the POS up and running for a 5 days before it can claim soverienty and also the point system. I think this is better because though the point system is close, you could still just spam a bunch more cheap smalls to make up for ever they laid. Making them wait a 5 days will actually force them to hold the ground and also give defenders time to respond to pos spam attempt to take over a system.
Captin Biltmore	Posted - 2005.11.15 00:44:00 - [51] The EASY way to fix this would be to allow only 1 new POS to be activated in any given solar system in a 24hr period. EXCEPTIONS: If the pos that was onlined today was taken offline another could be put up (example, moving a pos). If the pos that was onlined today was DESTROYED, another could be put up (example, enemy sets up a POS, you destroy it and place up another as insurance). This would keep the balance the same as it is now (and T2 prices low), but keep people from POS spamming for sovernty rights. Assasin For Hire - Contact in game
Red lensman	Posted - 2005.11.24 18:58:00 - [52] Another way to do it would make it so only 3-5 POS'es could claim soverenty and you woul need to destroy one to take it's place :)
Elberet	Posted - 2005.11.25 00:51:00 - [53] Let me just throw in some silly suggestions: * Require POSs to be meaningful before they can claim souvereignity. This could be determined by defining a minimum powergrid and CPU usage that must be met before the POS can claim souvereignity. Mushrooming would be suppressed because the people doing it will have to not only haul the control tower but also several modules, e.g. turrets. * The slots system someone suggested earlier sounds good, too: Limit the number of souvereignity-claiming stations to 1/10th of the moons in the system, but at least four. Souvereignity-claiming POSs should then be identifiable throughout the system, tho. * Remove the whole souvereignity thing from control towers and add a starbase structure that does it. The structure must be anchored within a control tower's force field and has a 48 hour anchoring delay. After the first 2 hours of anchoring, it should be visible throughout the system. In general, a fix for this problem is definately required, but it should not affect legitimate uses of POSs. If small CTs are made significantly more expensive, they will just - once again - lose all their meaning as moon-mining structures.

Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.