Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Nafri
Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:07:00 -
[1]
August 2006 - Eve has evolved, 26k players in space, dozens of potent alliances in space. Capitals ships are used daily, capital ships are lost daily. We have our new server allowing us 100vs100 fleetfights.
Everything madly? No... There are some bad concepts in this game ruin the gaming experience of thousands of people. The source of all those evilness? The infamouse "Player Owned Station" also known as "POS"
What is a POS? A POS is a anchored structure placable at every unused moon in Eve. We have 3 different POSes in Eve: Large (the deathstar!) Medium (he, what, useless now) Small (Moon Mining). You need Large POSes to claim a system in Eve allowing you to take over the station and secure it for you. The party with most POSes can get the station?
Whats the wrong with a POS, thy sound like fun? Their whole idia is rotten. Putting up a POS can be done by a single person, and needs 1h of time, but basicly the work is done within 30mins, when you do it alone. With 50 people in local you can put 10-20 towers online within 2-3h easily. Their low cost of about 1 billion isk (yeah, thats kinda cheap) allows the mass usage of them in alliance warfare. POSes are increadible hard to destroy, you need about 20-30 Dreads to take down a well defended large POS within a reasonable time, then you need another 200 people to camp the system for you, you dont want to loose those dreads, do you? POSes create lag, increadible lag. Staying there for 1-2h will lag your client out intensivly. My poor PC is always close to death after sitting next to a POS for some tme. POSes lead to blobbing. Since you need to protect your dreads, you need a big blob to defend them. That creates lag again... POSes lead to less fights. Since your blobbing you mostly outblobb your enemy, he cant engange your fleet and that makes everything kinda dull and boring. Just read the alliance forum, you have seen any war decided by a few fleetbattles latly? No, you read about goonswarm vs d¦, POSes, lag and no fights. You read about RA vs Coalition, POSes, lag and no fights. Taking over space today? That is no fighting, that is boring outblobbing, campign, and shooting POSes for days.
POSes are ruining alliance warfare, they ruin 0.0 space, they lead to thing the server cant handle (the megablobb). Rework them now! Please CCP, your game is kinda dying in 0.0 space...
From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected]) |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:11:00 -
[2]
Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game?
Just thinking out loud here...
|
Nafri
Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game?
Just thinking out loud here...
I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations.
Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore
From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected]) |
Shadowsword
Gallente COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:17:00 -
[4]
/signed, the current situation means that any big alliance WILL blob to protect their capitals, to the point that a smaller alliance can't enter the system without taking catastrophic losses, and so can't really fight back.
------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy. |
Tao Han
Caldari Crucial Electronics
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:18:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tao Han on 07/08/2006 09:18:35
Quote: POSes are increadible hard to destroy, you need about 20-30 Dreads to take down a well defended large POS within a reasonable time, then you need another 200 people to camp the system for you, you dont want to loose those dreads, do you?
and thats for 1 POS, now imagine trying to conquer a systenm with 40 moons where more than 50% of them has POSes at them to prevent the enemy from counter-spamming.
Lets say 21 POSes, thats alot of ppl needed and the lag created is really horrible, now aslong as you dont lag out out totally, defending such a system is quite easy.
I feel that a change is needed. Now we have considered the problem, lets solve it.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:20:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Shadowsword /signed, the current situation means that any big alliance WILL blob to protect their capitals, to the point that a smaller alliance can't enter the system without taking catastrophic losses, and so can't really fight back.
I don't think any change to POSses will effectively change that. A blob will always be a blob.
What needs to change is that POSses are almost indestructible due to lag, while still being able to obliterate enemy fleets caught in said lag.
Reducing the strength of POSses might be the easiest solution, so that if a major fleet shows up, it takes more than just the advantage of having a POS at your side, which is unaffected by lag, to defeat a superior force.
|
Dethis
Caldari Eve University The Big Blue
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:25:00 -
[7]
/signed -------- Kill em all and let god sort em out
|
Tarri
FACTA NON VERBA Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:28:00 -
[8]
/agree 100% with topic starter
CCP don¦t let EVE become a cruel joke of what it should be. ----
|
Fred0
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:37:00 -
[9]
I agree, change the mechanics in some way. This is abit redicilous. :(
|
Fiery Maiden
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:42:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Fiery Maiden on 07/08/2006 09:43:08 delete pls
|
|
Pepperami
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:43:00 -
[11]
I agree fully with the OP.
IMO the sovereignity system and capital ships as a whole need a complete overhaul and role change.
|
Darkrydar
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:50:00 -
[12]
agree
changes are needed. Judging by past timeframes, it should only be another 9 months before they try the next idea.
|
Christopher Scott
Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:51:00 -
[13]
Put a resource cap on POS deployment.
A corporation or alliance can only anchor a certain number of POS for sovreign control. This number is determined by how much sovreign territory is under your control.
You need to decide how to spread out your POS deployment. If you have no sovreignity, then you need to start small. Start with uncontested systems, or systems with weak sovreignity. As you increase your territorial control, you will be allowed to deploy more POS for sovreignity, and will be able to capture more heavily contested areas.
While conquering territory will increase your POS resource limit, you will not have enough resources able to heavily fortify ALL your conquered systems. You will need to decide how to spread out your resources. If you provide the heaviest number of POS to your important systems, then you will only have enough resources left to spread light protection around the rest of your space.
If you are looking to conquer an enemy territory, you would start by conquering all his weakest sovreignity. This would increase your recource pool, allowing you to pool more resources and go after the larger, more contested areas, while at the same time diminishing the enemy's resource pool and their ability to fortify against your attack.
The enmy can choose to thwart your advances and reclaim his space from your sovreignity, or the enemy can choose to flank your advance by attacking your own home territory, and conquering your own weakened areas.
Anyways, if sovreignity and POS deployment is moved to a capped resource system, then it can be easily scaled. That means CCP can scale DOWN the number of POS involved in territorial control, while keeping the mechanics the same.
Just my 0.02 isk.
|
Novarei
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:52:00 -
[14]
Just remove POSs completely.
|
General Hansen
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:53:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game?
Just thinking out loud here...
I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations.
Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore
Best idea ever...
HIHI |
Dinique
Caldari Black Lance Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:59:00 -
[16]
If Large turrets (XL guns essentially) on a POS never shot at anything smaller than a capital if one is in range that would be a big step already.
Dusk till Dawn Twilight to Starlight
|
Xendie
Chosen Path Center for Disease Creation
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 09:59:00 -
[17]
i agree Nafri, POS has destroyed alot of eve fun.
it is not fun to sit and camp a gate for 6hours it is not fun to sit and shoot at a POS for hours.
Quote: Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
|
Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:01:00 -
[18]
Or rather, keep things largely as they are but just decouple sov from station ownership. That keeps the territorial markings, fuel bonuses etc but just prevents you having to POSwar to decide who owns the station, making sov claims just a fuel/epeen issue.
IMO there does need to be a way to secure your station, but I agree that the current situation with POS is not a particularly good way to do it.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:05:00 -
[19]
Originally by: General Hansen
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game?
Just thinking out loud here...
I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations.
Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore
Best idea ever...
Its all a matter of course of how big you want the 'speedbump' to be in conquering a hostile station/system. Matter of perspective I think, but we all seem to agree that the current implementation isn't working.
On the other hand, what you certainly don't want is returning to the game of 'station pingpong' as I saw it referred to in the past I think.
And I would like to see where its still possible to reinforce a system to make it harder to take I think. Some sort of 'capital' or 'fortress' idea.
How about this: - we keep POSses - Stations become attackable and can be put into reinforced, thenconquered after a few days when they come out of reinforced - We create a new POS module, called something like shield transfer module (idea stolen from Starwars, with a shield projection system from the moon protecting the building of the deathstar), this module increases shields on the station by X million.
This way, POSses still contribute to the defense of the station, but are no longer the untakeable hurdle to taking the station and fights will happen around the station if the attacker wants, or he can still try to take out POSses if he prefers.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:07:00 -
[20]
Why not just cut POS hitpoints by 5 times?
--Proud member of the [23]--
-WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II |
|
Darkrydar
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:07:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: General Hansen
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game?
Just thinking out loud here...
I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations.
Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore
Best idea ever...
Its all a matter of course of how big you want the 'speedbump' to be in conquering a hostile station/system. Matter of perspective I think, but we all seem to agree that the current implementation isn't working.
On the other hand, what you certainly don't want is returning to the game of 'station pingpong' as I saw it referred to in the past I think.
And I would like to see where its still possible to reinforce a system to make it harder to take I think. Some sort of 'capital' or 'fortress' idea.
How about this: - we keep POSses - Stations become attackable and can be put into reinforced, thenconquered after a few days when they come out of reinforced - We create a new POS module, called something like shield transfer module (idea stolen from Starwars, with a shield projection system from the moon protecting the building of the deathstar), this module increases shields on the station by X million.
This way, POSses still contribute to the defense of the station, but are no longer the untakeable hurdle to taking the station and fights will happen around the station if the attacker wants, or he can still try to take out POSses if he prefers.
mm
I like it.
|
Serenity Steele
Rearden Steele Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:14:00 -
[22]
With or without POS, there needs to be a method of claiming visiably identifiable ownership of systems and more generally, securing assets in space in a game that runs through all time-zones.
The solution of POS for station defence, is IMO, a good solution to ensure that there is a pre-determined time of day for resolving siege on fixed assets. The alternative would be to have external game messaging and level of defence possible through structure investment that would ensure the station survived until you could get back in the game to defend is aka. Mankind. From experience, receiving SMSs while at work / classes is not a level of involvement that you easily want in your gaming life.
POS for long term sovreignty is not as simple as the OP points out, and particularly where there is significant logistics complexity involved at acheiving any kind of significant scale. It represents true permannent colonisation.
That leaves the key issue to how POS is effecting BloB warfare and the quick-placement of POS for assault purposes both prior to, and during a seige or combat.
One possible way of addressing this is to reduce the effectiveness of POS at initial placement. This is already done for sovereignty, but could be expanded to effect assault POS as well.
If the main problem is creating an 'insta' fortress in the target systems, Penalties that would resolve this are: - When a POS is first onlined, it has 0% shields, which have to recharge at a normal rate, or be boosted through remote shield transfer - Limited shield range, the POS force-field expands from just covering the tower out to it's full range over time. This would mean initially any combat structures would be unprotected by the field. - Increase anchoring time of POS and structures (but NOT keep ratio of double time to unanchor - that is a right pain).
|
Zaldiri
Caldari Automated Industries
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:17:00 -
[23]
How about if once you have achieved sovereignty over a sytem you keep sovereignty over that system untill you have no pos left claiming? Would that and increasing the claim time on pos's help?
----------------------------------------------- Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.
|
Zenior
Minmatar Rage of Angels
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:18:00 -
[24]
I don't know much about POS's, but I know they are boring and to kill. Maybe CCP's definition of PvP, is Player versus POS
Sorry for not adding anything constructive, but I have always seen POS's as too much work, and I don't play a game just to get burdened with more work.
Have a nice day
|
spurious signal
Caldari Brainiacs
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:19:00 -
[25]
Question:
What kind of lag is it that POS's cause?
Is it server lag due to processiong something to do with POS's? Is it network lag due to some huge bandwidth usage by POS's? Is it client lag due to graphically intensive aspects of POS's? Is it just blob lag due to the huge fleets around them?
Does anyone really know? Unless we can understand what's causing the lag we can't come up with useful suggestions to fix the problem.
Thanks.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:25:00 -
[26]
Originally by: spurious signal Question:
What kind of lag is it that POS's cause?
Is it server lag due to processiong something to do with POS's? Is it network lag due to some huge bandwidth usage by POS's? Is it client lag due to graphically intensive aspects of POS's? Is it just blob lag due to the huge fleets around them?
Does anyone really know? Unless we can understand what's causing the lag we can't come up with useful suggestions to fix the problem.
Thanks.
There are a few aspects of lag at POSses.
1. Its a lot more than lag for fleet fights. Unsure about why, but the number of structures seems be of influence (but that would be clientside I think) and the calculations of a POS which goes into 'firing mode' on hostiles also seems to cause considerable lag. Not sure why.
Perhaps some of the problems stem from the POS having standings to check? Dunno.
2. The lag affects fleets warping in to the POS a lot more than those already present there. Can be countered with a bit of preparation, so not a huge issue.
3. The POS itself is unaffected by lag. This is the effective gamebreaker in many cases. This makes it beneficial for defenders to cause as much lag as possible, because even though the defending fleet lags out as much as the attacking fleet, the defenders will have the POS guns rip through the attacking fleet.
A lot of solutions are of course possible and would work. If, from a technical perspective, CCP can't reduce the lag, they could nerf the large POS to make up for the fact its not affected by lag (either by removing it, reducing hitpoints, reducing amount of guns/hardeners it can anchor or whatever).
Or the POS can be reduced in importance with regards to taking a station. Several options to do that also outlined above.
|
spurious signal
Caldari Brainiacs
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:32:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Malachon Draco There are a few aspects of lag at POSses.
1. Its a lot more than lag for fleet fights. Unsure about why, but the number of structures seems be of influence (but that would be clientside I think) and the calculations of a POS which goes into 'firing mode' on hostiles also seems to cause considerable lag. Not sure why.
Perhaps some of the problems stem from the POS having standings to check? Dunno.
2. The lag affects fleets warping in to the POS a lot more than those already present there. Can be countered with a bit of preparation, so not a huge issue.
3. The POS itself is unaffected by lag. This is the effective gamebreaker in many cases. This makes it beneficial for defenders to cause as much lag as possible, because even though the defending fleet lags out as much as the attacking fleet, the defenders will have the POS guns rip through the attacking fleet.
A lot of solutions are of course possible and would work. If, from a technical perspective, CCP can't reduce the lag, they could nerf the large POS to make up for the fact its not affected by lag (either by removing it, reducing hitpoints, reducing amount of guns/hardeners it can anchor or whatever).
Or the POS can be reduced in importance with regards to taking a station. Several options to do that also outlined above.
Thanks Malachon, I've not had much experience of fighting at POS's so I dunno how it works.
Have alternative tactics been tried? For instance, what happens if an attacking fleet warps in to a point outside the range of the POS's guns and then approaches it en masse? Does this reduce lag? If so it would point to a large effect of client-side lag maybe.
The standings thing is a good point, I can see how that would cause a shedload of server/database lag with large fleets.
It does sound like a really fuct up system though
|
Deadeye Dave
Amarr Lynx Frontier Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:42:00 -
[28]
I don't have much knowledge about POS but what I would like to see is to remove POS ability to claim Sov instead add a Sov structure that costs 2-3bn and you can anchor to your POS. Make it so there can only be one per system, this way the attackers only need to shoot one POS although it will probably be well defended. I think this structure should reduce the fuel needs for your POS but also reduce their hitpoints. I'm not really sure maybe its a bad idea but something needs to be changed.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 10:48:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
3. The POS itself is unaffected by lag. This is the effective gamebreaker in many cases. This makes it beneficial for defenders to cause as much lag as possible, because even though the defending fleet lags out as much as the attacking fleet, the defenders will have the POS guns rip through the attacking fleet.
This is by far the worst problem there is in regards to POSs.
--Proud member of the [23]--
-WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II |
Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2006.08.07 11:04:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Malachon Draco - We create a new POS module, called something like shield transfer module (idea stolen from Starwars, with a shield projection system from the moon protecting the building of the deathstar), this module increases shields on the station by X million.
This might work but given the number of moons in some station systems it may be too big a hurdle
Originally by: Dark Shikari Why not just cut POS hitpoints by 5 times?
This screws over non-sov POS
Originally by: Zaldiri How about if once you have achieved sovereignty over a sytem you keep sovereignty over that system untill you have no pos left claiming? Would that and increasing the claim time on pos's help?
And this just makes the current problem a) worse and b) tilted even further in favour of the defenders
The additional complication in this discussion is of course Kali, which may change everything anyway, and not necessarily in a good way...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |