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 - 2005.10.19 23:57:00 - [1] 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.
Gwindor	Posted - 2005.10.20 23:01:00 - [2] Edited by: Gwindor on 20/10/2005 23:02:19 Originally by: musashi myomoto 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. Yes a good idea, However you would drive t2 ship prices sky high. why? because only people like our corp would own tons and tons and have monopolies on pos's since we can easly afford them at 1 billion. However anyone most people couldnt afford enough to make even a simple reaction at that rate. 18 Hours to anchor is nothing. Last time i put 5 poses up i put them all at once and left them alone. So that would not resolve the time period.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.10.21 00:53:00 - [3] Originally by: Gwindor Yes a good idea, However you would drive t2 ship prices sky high. why? because only people like our corp would own tons and tons and have monopolies on pos's since we can easily afford them at 1 billion. However anyone most people couldnt afford enough to make even a simple reaction at that rate. 18 Hours to anchor is nothing. Last time i put 5 poses up i put them all at once and left them alone. So that would not resolve the time period. MÆkay how about if you required a CT launching module similar to scan probes, and you made it a requirement to keep the module active during the anchoring process. Stop the module, reset the anchoring clock. This would make you stay put. I still like the large anchoring time commitment, you shouldnÆt be able to steal sovereignty for an entire STAR system by throwing out ten POS in an hour or two. But if you put in the time, and truly control the space long anchoring times would be no big deal. What about a limitation on how many POSÆs the can be set up by an individual. Maybe an extra implant slots that cyberneticly link to the player.
industrialist prime	Posted - 2005.10.21 12:42:00 - [4] Edited by: industrialist prime on 21/10/2005 12:42:51 i think they fine the way they are, if you cant mass a force good enough to take them out then u need to either get more ppl or get better at the game.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.10.21 14:35:00 - [5] Originally by: industrialist prime Edited by: industrialist prime on 21/10/2005 12:42:51 I think they fine the way they are, if you cant mass a force good enough to take them out then u need to either get more ppl or get better at the game. Well there are about 7 to 10 thousand people waging war in empire who differ with you. If your alt name is any indication, you may end up profiting from the carnage. I am not sure I explained this POS mushrooming well enough. A single guy in a hauler throws up 5 to 10 POS's a few hours before down time. Your corp has to shoot most, or all, of them down an all day proposition for dozens of guys. These spammed POS's must be eliminated in 24 h or sovereignty is lost. Mean while Mr. Hauler is off dumping POSÆs in another system the next night, and the process repeats. A single player can cheaply and easily monopolize 50 to 100 players. Either way it doesnÆt matter, we have decided not to play that game. Instead we are playing the ôserver melt downö game and the ôcomplain to CCPö game and the ôOMFG I just started this game and I keep getting blow to dustö game. All of which will result in cancelled subscriptions. So CCP has a choice. They can cater to the ô23/7ö isk mining businesses, that surely must exist in the hundreds of impoverished ghettos throughout the world. And the result will be watching the paying customers vandalize the marketing plan. Or they can fix a very silly exploit. The opinions expressed here are mine. I do not make policy for my corp or aliance.
Fire Hawk	Posted - 2005.10.21 15:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Fire Hawk on 21/10/2005 15:28:34 I agree with musashi that it's a very important problem atm in 0.0 and CCP absolutly needs to do something about that. POS war is about to kill fun in 0.0 Anchoring 20 small poses can be made by 1 pilot and to close from a DT and it will gain sovereignity (not sure about spelling). I dont have a good idea atm I must admin, but it's not better than before, now u replace the ping-pong, by ping only... The pong is just boring as a RL job :( I'm sure CCP will change and nerf it. Cause the current gameplay in conquerable is just, what... a bit ridiculous. Again one idea that looked good in theory but brings hell in practice. Edit : beside that, CCP, keep the good work going.
Rufus Roughneck	Posted - 2005.10.21 21:46:00 - [7] Oveur already commented on this about a week ago. He said he's considering multiple means of dealing with it in due time. Boosting dreads, making ct's more expensive and most importantly, a gradation of control tower importancy when it comes to their worth for sovereignty claiming. Hopefully they'll sort it out soon and end the small tower scourge.
Caliith	Posted - 2005.10.24 20:15:00 - [8] Edited by: Caliith on 24/10/2005 20:17:49 i think only large towers should count toward sovereignty if ya dont have the resources to keep em up ya dont deserve the territory
Hafthor	Posted - 2005.10.25 00:13:00 - [9] This was brought up by one of the Five members at the fanfest and the response was that it was being looked into and would be adressed ASAP.
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.10.25 03:42:00 - [10] they can put em up but they still need to fuel em (my idea is that soverignty might take a couple of days to achieve and at the same time might not occour until a 2nd or 3rd fueling cycle) Ie set up and then be able to keep em secure and then u get soveringhty Boosting dreads is another option. Or needing to remove all enemy POS before u get soveringhty. Until then guys if u feel u need to have a massive empire war thats not such a bad thing. Take out a few innocent bystanders in the process and with empire war the newbies might actually head to where its quieter in 0.0 Could be the best exodus tactic that CCP hasnt been able to achieve
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.10.25 22:03:00 - [11] Originally by: sonofollo They can put æem up but they still need to fuel æem (my idea is that sovereignty might take a couple of days to achieve and at the same time might not occur until a 2nd or 3rd fueling cycle) Fueling is no big deal now with freighters. One freighter load could haul fuel for dozens of POSÆs. As far as the costs, remember POS spamming is done by the isk mining folks. These are the guys that have numerous slaves cutting high ends and complex running 23/7. It is a shameful reality of MMOGÆs. People from wealthy nations buy the ôtime-basedö services of impoverished people from desperate circumstances around the world. Call it the ôon-line sweat shopö. By many indications CCP attempts to minimize this type of activity, but supply and demand are always present. This sovereignty issue has just benefited the professionals much more than the paying customers. WouldnÆt it be nice if CCP would actually tell us what they plan to do to fix this issue?
Hyperforce99	Posted - 2005.10.26 13:03:00 - [12] Edited by: Hyperforce99 on 26/10/2005 13:05:36 I think this is all overreaction, indeed the market on reactions is a bit overpowerd but setting up a good pos project that LASTS won't work if you don't got the exp. or the time, and someone who spams towers in a system before dt is just stupid. Btw you can't live on towers alone, you need miners silo's and before you got a good self sustaining pos you will have spend more than a billion. making pos towers 1 billion each would be indeed very stupid because t2 items and ships arn't on the agent lists anymore and can only be created by reactions which posses create. Besides the defences of a pos are strong enough to sustain 9 hours of fire from a dreadnought unless offcourse there are more than 1. (this is for a large pos) 1 pos can only create a maximum of 2 reactions ATST or one complex reaction. So you will need to buy a lot of reacion's/moonminerals ext to actually get it all working. multiple posses in a system cause less moon minerals that have to be found on the market or bought at suppliers. It also causes you to need more silo's. Small posses are great to mine moon minerals where it would be a waste of money to deploy a large pos and the fuel won't kill you if you do that. getting fuel to a pos isn't hard, but the prizes are high! and unless you own a substantial morgage you won't be able to afford a filled up freighter. besides why would you bring a fully filled freither to a pos while they thing can only hold so much fuel at the same time and the only thing you can do with the fuel then is drop it into a hangar for later use. unless your a professional pos user ext. Posses are also needed for outposts and claiming space, they can be used as mining/safespots or hunting posts at 0.0 I personally have worked on a pos for over 4 months and I know a lot about them, I've used them for mining, rat fighting, hiding for the occasional pirates strike forces and as a source of income. if you think posses can be managed just as easy as anchoring a container in 0.7 zones than you sir have not done your homework.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.10.26 16:20:00 - [13] Edited by: musashi myomoto on 26/10/2005 16:21:24 Yep IÆve worked on a cutting POS operation for the better part of a year also. I understand the benefits of the POS for moon mining, T2 component production, and cutting. POS wars have nothing to do with the original design intentions. Right now in 0.0 there are hundreds of on-line POSÆs that are completely idle. They do nothing more than take up an available anchoring slot around a moon. The people that are doing this are attempting to insulate their isk mining operations through the purchase of vast tracks of space. Having PvPers flying through their space has interfered with their real life livelihood. These isk miners are making cold hard cash: EuroÆs, Dollars and Rubbles (soon Yuan) through the game. POS war has nothing to do with the legitimate game play you have described. It has more to do with real life corruption and coercion of the economically disadvantaged.
HonorHarrington	Posted - 2005.10.26 18:13:00 - [14] The idea that you can sneak into the enemies space and build a depot without him knowing is a little silly.... Use something like the dreads jump feature..... When you setup a POS you become a object on the map that anyone came warp to for xx hours. In addition the POS will be visible with a filter on the main map for xx time period. Simple and gives the defender a chance to do this job.. In addition..let a alliance have x number of sensors it can place in systems that gives a report of every hostile ship that goes by.
Emiug	Posted - 2005.10.29 09:25:00 - [15] Increase the Control towers sig radius so torps can hit it :(
Gell Cloudling	Posted - 2005.10.30 02:37:00 - [16] I dont understand a couple of things: How does claiming sovereignity benefit anything, let alone isk making? Isk mining in ghettos around the world? What??
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2005.10.30 02:55:00 - [17] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 30/10/2005 02:55:23 Originally by: Gell Cloudling I dont understand a couple of things: How does claiming sovereignity benefit anything, let alone isk making? Isk mining in ghettos around the world? What?? They get the stations in the system when they have sovereignty. - Proud member of the [23]. Don't get the reference in my sig? Click it.
Gell Cloudling	Posted - 2005.10.30 15:52:00 - [18] That doesnt explain to me how any isk is made, or what this has to do with supposed isk farming sweatshops around the world, or any exploit of anything. I guess I dont get what the big deal is.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.10.31 17:57:00 - [19] Originally by: Gell Cloudling That doesnÆt explain to me how any isk is made, or what this has to do with supposed isk farming sweatshops around the world, or any exploit of anything. I guess I donÆt get what the big deal is. MÆkay I will explain the isk mining in a little more detail. Gell there are lots of poor people in the Real World. People that live in truly desperate conditions. For $15 dollars a month and a PC an entrepreneur in one of these places, can set up a business. He pays a few dozen employees, a few dollars a day. And the employees engage in the mindless task of cutting highends. The isk produced from these operations are then converted into hard currency on websites like E-Bay. There are conquerable stations out in 0.0. The only way you can conquer them is to have sovereignty. Once you own them you can use the refineries for your ore. Eliminating the need to haul fuel and run the POS refinery. So it is most efficient to use a conquered station for mining. Now to maximize the entrepreneursÆ sales volume and profit the business wants to control the largest area of space possible. A large territory reduces the numbers of competitors supplying minerals. The large territory also insulates operations, keeping hostile forces dozens of jumps away and preventing any station access for refitting. RA has a variation on this approach. They have a super tough character, Evil Thug, he routinely runs a 10/10 complex over and over, netting billions in loot and bounty. It is just another way they use to turn time into money. The only thing is most people give their time freely and willingly. While isk mining businesses are really just exploiting people unfortunate enough to be in desperate circumstances. It is almost as coercive as slavery.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.01 12:58:00 - [20] Might I suggest that if you have evidence of such people operating in-game you take it to the GM's who are employed to investigate and deal with such things. If you have no evidence then I suggest you keep baseless slander off of the forum and attempt to make arguments for changes to the game based on actual gameplay concepts and effects in a constructive manner. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.03 23:01:00 - [21] Conceptually slander is directed at another person. I confront an entire group of slavers û the isk miners. The isk black market is a convoluted situation. One set of characters produces the isk. Multiple levels of characters wash the isk. A shill character/player transfers it. Players do not have the capacity to PROVE anything. Perhaps even CCP lacks the resources and capability to research this type of human rights abuse. And yet isk is still on sale all over the web.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.04 09:17:00 - [22] 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. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
VIXIT CORP	Posted - 2005.11.04 13:37:00 - [23] The things musashi is refering too are happening, in the netherlands there was an interview on a gems site with a few of those people who do have "poor" people sitting behind a PC to do gold farming in WOW. they are making $16K per month by selling this "online gold" The other thing i would like to say is (and yes i'm a carebear) Is that the big alliances can get rid of those pesky pos droppers if they are willing to control less space so the really can control their space (soor had to say it). The space most alliance claim are to big to clean or to keep clean of those POS droppers! sorry for rambling greetings VIXIT CORP alias... al o lot others
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.04 13:58:00 - [24] Originally by: VIXIT CORP The things musashi is refering too are happening, in the netherlands there was an interview on a gems site with a few of those people who do have "poor" people sitting behind a PC to do gold farming in WOW. they are making $16K per month by selling this "online gold" The other thing i would like to say is (and yes i'm a carebear) Is that the big alliances can get rid of those pesky pos droppers if they are willing to control less space so the really can control their space (soor had to say it). The space most alliance claim are to big to clean or to keep clean of those POS droppers! sorry for rambling greetings VIXIT CORP alias... al o lot others I don't dispute there are people out there making money off of games, however acknowledging that fact and accusing a group of people of it are two very different things and neither neccessarily has any bearing whatsoever on the game mechanics in question. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
musashi myomoto	Posted - 2005.11.04 19:33:00 - [25] Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm I don't dispute there are people out there making money off of games, however acknowledging that fact and accusing a group of people of it are two very different things and neither necessarily has any bearing whatsoever on the game mechanics in question. I agree I have, and continue, to castigate the slavers who exploit the impoverished people of the world for their own personal enrichment. Sweatshop entrepreneurship should be confronted and discouraged at every possible opportunity. ISK miners are little more than slave drivers. They deserve no quarter. They are entitled to no consideration in the ôpolitically correctö real world. In this instance game mechanics have created a greater opportunity for these exploiters of the human sole. Likewise the game mechanics have drastically constrained players with a conscience from attacking the virtual operations of these half brutes. It amazes me that, a group a developers from very progressive and compassionate societies can turn away from the impact they are having on poor people throughout the world. How would you feel about your neighbor, if you learned she was profiting from the destruction of endangered animals? Would you create new and innovative ways for her to propagate her evil? No! Any one with a conscience can see that this would be so very wrong. How are POS wars different than this analogy? Perhaps with a different perspective, the Devs might ask the questionà Will this improvement expand or contract the ability of real life slavers? The developers have created an awesomely complex product. You would think that some small portion of their efforts, should center upon mechanisms to enforce the spirit of the user agreement. Otherwise it is truly just an empty gesture.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.11.04 22:01:00 - [26] Originally by: musashi myomoto Originally by: Zyrla Bladestorm I don't dispute there are people out there making money off of games, however acknowledging that fact and accusing a group of people of it are two very different things and neither necessarily has any bearing whatsoever on the game mechanics in question. I agree I have, and continue, to castigate the slavers who exploit the impoverished people of the world for their own personal enrichment. Sweatshop entrepreneurship should be confronted and discouraged at every possible opportunity. ISK miners are little more than slave drivers. They deserve no quarter. They are entitled to no consideration in the ôpolitically correctö real world. In this instance game mechanics have created a greater opportunity for these exploiters of the human sole. Likewise the game mechanics have drastically constrained players with a conscience from attacking the virtual operations of these half brutes. It amazes me that, a group a developers from very progressive and compassionate societies can turn away from the impact they are having on poor people throughout the world. How would you feel about your neighbor, if you learned she was profiting from the destruction of endangered animals? Would you create new and innovative ways for her to propagate her evil? No! Any one with a conscience can see that this would be so very wrong. How are POS wars different than this analogy? Perhaps with a different perspective, the Devs might ask the questionà Will this improvement expand or contract the ability of real life slavers? The developers have created an awesomely complex product. You would think that some small portion of their efforts, should center upon mechanisms to enforce the spirit of the user agreement. Otherwise it is truly just an empty gesture. I can't decide wether 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 untill the dirty feeling goes away from being "Agreed" with by said person. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
High Sierra	Posted - 2005.11.05 09:03:00 - [27] not interested in the current argument going on aboutracism and slave labour etc. going back to what i think the thread was originally intended to be about, CCP need to get onto the exploit of spamming small pos into a system to gain sovereignty. 5 suffered from it, its happening to PA as well. all you need to do is stick in a small pos with enough strontium to keep it there for at least a day. Because dreads are not effective enough yet there is NO realistic response to this tactic. which to my mind comes firmly under the heading of exploit. this is nothing to do with isk miners or screwing up the T2 industry. This is about stopping a stupid tactic which i firmly believe is ruining the game for alot of people. please also note that I'm not too happy having to agree with a member of 5 either, but thats life.
Nomen Nescio	Posted - 2005.11.05 09:30:00 - [28] From the recent BKG takover... I'm no expert, but I heard that There are 65 moons In the system and both sides just put the stupid poses at all of them trying to get advantage in count. I mean due all respect, I maybe know nothing about production and components, but from the war prospective... ITS NUTS. Sixty five. No value, no tactical advantage, no storage, no production, just a forest of towers no1 needs, but to flip the sov. to take the station over. Can we just put secure cans for the same result? Or something like a beacons. to "scan the system and control the traffic" If you want we can put the fuel in it, and they should use a bit less, but have little cargo, so you have to refuel them.? PS Ability of enemy to get into the pos shield and bump ships out....
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.11.05 11:01:00 - [29] i think once titans - carriers etc come in it will eb a lot easier to take down POSes. that said its a good thing to have the maxiumum amount of POSes for system soverignty. But perhaps not having it kick in until u have a say a 5 to 1 numerical advantage (ie destroying the POSes of youe enemy down to a number where u have 5 times as many) Dunno waht CCP intend to do about this but .... all alliances are having the same issues anyway. And if alliances choose to run amom through empire then its a change in the game and good on em
Nyphur	Posted - 2005.11.05 16:06:00 - [30] They did mention about possibly raising the price of control towers. However, this would be handing money to those who have them.
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]

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.

There are 65 moons