EVE Search - The crux of Eve - to POSspam or not to spam

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The crux of Eve - to POSspam or not to spam

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
bow locks UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:09:00 - [61] Edited by: bow locks on 07/08/2006 14:11:32 We want large, epic fleet battles. These should determine sovereignty; the ability to commit human resources to defend / attack space. POSs are usefull to even out sudden attack / timezone etc. Dreads are designed to kill POSs and take stations. But POSs are insta refuellable, come out of reinforced when convenient, and can focus fire to kill dreads one after the other. Keep POSs, reduce the damage they do and have massive targetting delay. Make it so that during POS management the shield goes down, but the guns still work. This makes focussed fireing and refuelling too dangerous unless you first clear friendly space. The shields come back automatically after a few mins, and no damage can be done to the structures, only ships. The shield comes back at previous level.
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:20:00 - [62] Increase the fuel cost exponentially for each one you have in the system ;P
Fubear	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:24:00 - [63] While the problem is that POS warfare has been reducted to spamming and blobbing, the source of that problem I think is with capitol ships and jump drives. The problem is that capitol ships, Carriers, Dreadnaughts, Motherships, and Titans break the logisic requirement of POS warfare. By logistic requirement, I am referring to the act of erecting POS's and keeping them up and running. Capital ships allow you to jump in POS equipment and fuel with absolutely no risk to the carrier or cargo at all. All you have to do is create Cyno fields within docking range of friendly stations or POS shields and your capitol ships can freighter fuel and components around 0.0 with zero risk. This destroys the concept of supply lines. Once a single POS is up in 'your' system, you cannot prevent them from spamming 20 more by intercepting and destroying them before they even get into the system. You canot 'starve them out' by hitting industrials and other ships trying to get fuel to the towers. Instead the cap-ships simply jump from within docking range of a station into the protection of the POS shields. You cannot win a POS war by hitting the supply lines, instead your options are limited to deploying and protecting as many POS's as possbile. I imagine that maintaining 20+ POS's in a hostile system without using cap-ships would make POS warfare a lot harder than it is today. The ability to jump large quantities of anything almost instantly through 0.0 without and risk is slowly destroying 0.0 warfare as both sides have to worry less about logistics and more about who has the bigger blob.
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:29:00 - [64] Originally by: Aeina Caeraen Increase the fuel cost exponentially for each one you have in the system ;P That just makes it a simple question of who has the most money, though.
Tindajii	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:39:00 - [65] Just some quick ideas for consideration: A solution to reduce lag - If you are outside the shields of a POS nothing inside the shields should be visible except to a scanner, and vice versa. I don't have any answers for how this could technically be achieved. My only suggestion would be to create some sort of "micro grid" inside the grid the POS sits in. Make attacking POS more interesting - Guns should only be anchorable outside of the shields and they should be destroyable. Then change the rules about refueling a POS to be proportional to the number of guns anchored. If you want to re-fuel your POS without guns the shields need to be at 100%. This would make seiges possible and would force the defenders to actually fight in the arena long enough to anchor guns for re-fueling.
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:46:00 - [66] POS stands for Piece Of **, which is exactly what they are infact they are so **ty, i'm not going to waste another single word on them now, who wants to talk about micromanaging stront, carriers with capital shield transfers, standings changes, jumping in fuel and instawarping from tower to tower?
Amerame Section XIII	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:14:00 - [67] Edited by: Amerame on 07/08/2006 15:14:27 I think there are 2 main problems : 1) lag 2) too many moons in many systems I don't like what has been suggested so far because the defender is in an harder position than the attacker, since the attacker will chose a time that suit him best and ready his troops several days in advance. If you reduce the number of moon to 7 to 11, any alliance should have a majority of moon in all his systems with station, so the attacker HAS to attack PoS in order to get sovereignty. But with that few moons the attacker just have to shoot a few PoS to win the war. Now the biggest problem is the lag, because I think that if you remove lag from the equation, if you have twice as many BS as your enemy you'll end up getting the upper hand fighting at a PoS, sure you'll lose some dreadnought each fight but attack is NOT supposed to be easy and costless, once the attacker has sacrified some dreads to take the moons, he has a strong hold on the system and it's hard to take it back. If you assume that lag will never go, then the solution would be to design mechanism that would make blobbing useless, and you should think about a reason for fleet commanders to split their fleets in group of 50-100 players.
Shamis Orzoz SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:23:00 - [68] They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved. Anything that prevents people from having to deploy lots of disposable pos's is a good thing. The other problem I see with pos's is that strontium and regular fuel need to have separate storage compartments. Strontium should be restricted to a total supply of about 2 days, whereas other fuel should be able to be stockpiled to about a 2 weeks supply. This would allow people to fuel their pos's less often, making them less 'work', while still preventing them from putting like 1 week of strontium inside.
Shuriken Ertai Gallente Fate. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:26:00 - [69] Maximun 5 Large POS per system.
Tindajii	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:31:00 - [70] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved. I agree with this.

Sirkill	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:35:00 - [71] You could just have a realy ex*****ive week to anchor soveriegnty module costing about 5 billion isk. That might help
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:40:00 - [72] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved. And then what? Say, max 10 POS contribute to sovereignty. Hostile fleet comes in, blows up 10 POSses (if they manage even that). Controlling alliance makes 10 other POSses contribute to sovereignty. Quote: Anything that prevents people from having to deploy lots of disposable pos's is a good thing. There are 2 options: make a POS not an 'I win' button for the defender in 99% of the POS fights. How: either nerf the large POS or remove it. I bet if the biggest POS was a medium POS, it would still be a significant help for the defender, but no longer a practically guaranteed win. Or you make stations attackable without taking down the POSses, but only let the POS give a bonus to the survivability of the station. Could be the first phase in making Stations upgradeable like CCP wants to do. Quote: The other problem I see with pos's is that strontium and regular fuel need to have separate storage compartments. Strontium should be restricted to a total supply of about 2 days, whereas other fuel should be able to be stockpiled to about a 2 weeks supply. This would allow people to fuel their pos's less often, making them less 'work', while still preventing them from putting like 1 week of strontium inside. Agree 100%
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:41:00 - [73] Originally by: Shuriken Ertai Maximun 5 Large POS per system. So if the defender puts up 5 large POS, the attacker can't put up any?
DeadDuck Amarr DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:44:00 - [74] What we see here seems to be a very large consense regarding the POS issue. This "thing" is spoilling the game and it really needs fixing ASAP, the worst is how easy they are deployable, and lets face it a Station being assemble in 1 hour by one man ????? Something wrong in here ...
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:01:00 - [75] Originally by: Sirkill You could just have a realy ex*****ive week to anchor soveriegnty module costing about 5 billion isk. That might help Sorry, slightly off-topic, but you just gotta love the overly aggressive profanity filter here
Saria Mysdrial Amarr Research Associates	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:09:00 - [76] This may be a crazy idea, but.... Why not make POS/Stations have a fixed window of "weakness" every X number of hours. This window would be determined as the time the POS was initially anchored, maybe cycling every 48 hours? 72 hours? Not sure what would be reasonable. Outside of this window, the POS/Station is invulnerable. During this "window of opportunity", if the POS comes under attack, it does not switch back to invulnerability until not receiving damage for Y amount of time (where Y is a pretty big number). This would allow alliances to determine WHEN the stations are vulnerable, guaranteeing that they could protect the station when it IS vulnerable, and then not have to worry about it the rest of the time. This also eliminate the idea of midnight ninja raids. I suppose this would also mean that guns for the POS would have to be nerfed significantly, but would be less necessary b/c the vulnerability of the stations could be predicted. A module, perhaps mountable on covert ops ships, would allow foes to scan a POS, and determine the 'weakness window', so they know when to attack.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:23:00 - [77] T2 production & SOV should NEVER have been linked through POS' POS' for T2 production must stay as is, a new mechanic for SOV is what's needed. Like I said almost 1 year ago... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
TornSoul BIG Fountain Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:24:00 - [78] Originally by: DeadDuck What we see here seems to be a very large consense regarding the POS issue. No, what we see here is the standard forum behaviour of a vocal minority beeing dissatisfied with a given game aspect, and all piling in on the same thread Carefull how you interpret threads like this. --------- POS's solved a problem. The problem was that of station ping-pong (which usually was an effect of one side having the upper hand in a given TZ but not in another). Which lead to ppl having to retake their station(s) as the first thing each day they logged on. Now that was annoying (and also boring having to do it day after day) POS's solved this problem. And even introduced the whole t2 production logistics chain. But, as with almost everything else, POS's introduced their own subset of issues. The one main thing POS's have going for them (imo) (apart from the t2 thing) is the fact that an attacker cant do the "midnight attack" thing. It gives the defenders a chance to gather their fleet. This is excactly how it should be! And complaining about it beeing boring taking down a Large POS (due to the time it takes) - I'm sorry.... Bring a bigger fleet... (This is no different than the whining with taking stations before we had cap ships) Lag. Yes, this messses up things. But that doesnt mean that the concept of how POS's work is flawed!!! It's the same as saying large fleetbattles should be abolished as well (max X pilots in a system from each side - or some such nonsense). Large fleet battles would work if it wasnt for lag - Same with POS's. ----------- The BIGgest bane of EVE today is not POS's. The BIGgest bane is how easy it is for attackers to "get their way". The mobility in EVE has increased and increased since day one - And this ultimatly favors an attacker the most. He can skip across the universe in an hour - and strike at will wherever he wants. No wonder (most) people cant be assed to try and get a foothold in the outskirts (0.0). If anything, contrary to what most have said in this thread, defenders need more means of defending themself. The attackers already have it easy enough as it is. Oh, so you have to actually work for it for a few hours taking down a POS (or 20) Well - Buhuuu!!! Alot of people spend 10's if not 100's of times more than that, trying to build up some (permanent) infrastructure in 0.0 (and no im not refering to POS zerg'ing - This is a sideeffect, which I agree should be fixed if possible), which you then want to be able to kill/take over with as little effort as possible... --------- As it stands, EVE favors attackers. Regardless of POS's. All I see here is people wanting even more things favoring the attackers. I respectfully disagree. /me puts on the flameproof suit. BIG Lottery [u
Star Commander Minmatar Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:27:00 - [79] A simple solution would be the removal of POS structures from the game, can't see that happening though. Another would be, make them 20-30 times MORE expensive to put up and maintain with regards to fuel cost, even mid to large alliances would be hard pressed to put up 20 POS's in a system/s if they cost 20-30 BILLION a pop. It would make the POS an expensive luxury, and an expensive loss As it is now, they are just annoying laggy targets that take far too much effort to remove, for the attacker that is, which in turn equals zero fun for all involved
Krulla Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:28:00 - [80] Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. This idea = win.

Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:29:00 - [81] Originally by: Star Commander A simple solution would be the removal of POS structures from the game, can't see that happening though. Another would be, make them 20-30 times MORE expensive to put up and maintain with regards to fuel cost, even mid to large alliances would be hard pressed to put up 20 POS's in a system/s if they cost 20-30 BILLION a pop. It would make the POS an expensive luxury, and an expensive loss As it is now, they are just annoying laggy targets that take far too much effort to remove, for the attacker that is, which in turn equals zero fun for all involved So you want the cost of T2 items you currently use to go up 20-30 times? ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
slothe Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:31:00 - [82] erm yeah. the whole alliance thing sucks imho.
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:33:00 - [83] Tornsoul, you probably never experience a fullscale POS remove action, you just dont know what your talking about. Your alliance died before this time. Ever spent 10h shooting POSes with 30 dreads to eventually lag out and having 0 fun? I guess no... From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Tobias Sjodin Caldari Ore Mongers	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:39:00 - [84] What about some form of weapons-modulation? An attacking fleet uses a ship that tries different frequencies (that the shields of the POS uses), when that ship is able to locate the frequency, that data can be uploaded to the gang, and shields of a POS may now be circumvented. Depending on the skills of the person who put up the POS, the shield frequency changes between certain intervals. But during the "lapse" the attacking fleet will be able to focus their fire on eg. the turrets defending the POS, and if they take those out, the dismantling of the POS itself should be easier. Soloing or using small gangs to take out a POS will still be nearly impossible, as the turrets would make a piecemeal out of those warping to the POS, but in a bigger fleet, the ship with the specialized role (eg. an interdictor) should get enough time to get the shield frequency.
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:41:00 - [85] I'd like to enlarge a little bit the debate. I think that most things written here are based on the question: What skill or behavior should be rewarded by a station control ? I'd personnaly say that, in order to control a station, you need to: - Live nearby. You should not be able to control a station where you are not. - Spend a descent amount of your online time to protect that station. (You should not be forced to be online longer). - Play well. (This criteria is very hard to evaluate but, basically, you should own a station if you play correctly). On the other side, you may be able to conquer a station if: - You move your players in the station area for a long time. - You spend more amount of your online time than your oponent to conquer the station (you should not be forced to stay online longer to get it, just spend more % on your time on it). - Same apply for well playing, same problem to evaluate it. Moreover, it should be funny to either defend or attack a station :) Did i missed some criteria ? Do you think that any larger alliance should be able to take a station of a smaller one just because they are more (regardless of % of online time spent). - > Order Falcon & Pilgrim > Colsup
TornSoul BIG Fountain Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:01:00 - [86] Originally by: Nafri Tornsoul, you probably never experience a fullscale POS remove action, you just dont know what your talking about. Your alliance died before this time. Ever spent 10h shooting POSes with 30 dreads to eventually lag out and having 0 fun? I guess no... Apart from the lagging out in the end, I have no issues with the above scenario. It's as it should be imo. And this is where we just have to agree to disagree I think BIG Lottery [u
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:03:00 - [87] What is desired/needed is a system where it is within both the technical limitations of the hardware and the mechanics of the game to take out a large POS while it is being defended by a big fleet. If the current game mechanics don't change, I would be completely satisfied if the hardware allowed for a 400 vs 400 fleetbattle at a fully operational deathstar POS of current strength without significant lag. If that hardware was available, I for one would not be complaining about the POSses. Would still be boring probably to take them down, would still be hard, but it would be possible within normal gameplay to do so. However. Current hardware clearly has a limit that is far less than the situation I just described. It cannot support 100 v 100 at a POS without massive lag. Let alone 200 v 200 or 300 v 300. Therefore, until hardware/programming is such that these battles become possible, without excessive lag, the system needs to be changed.
Lunas Feelgood Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:07:00 - [88] Nafri 4TW.. POS is the most crappy thing that has ever happend to EVE.. To take ower a sys these days you got 2 options: Kill every you see and hope they leave if thats not the case you have to kill there POS and that is prop the most boring thing in EVE and its a complet joke becuase they can just put up another one in 30min.. Also the hole shooting the POS into reinforcemode is just a waste of time.. Then you have to come back at an excact time and do it all ower again.. Offcourse since EVE is not you RL job it can be very hard todo that... Basically CCP you need to find some other way becuase this crap is completly ruin the game.. POS warfare is for peeps who simply refuse to fight becuase: 1.. They are getting beaten in fleet battles. 2.. They are affraid to lose a ship.. So what options they got left? POS. CCP you provide game machanics where you dont have to have fleet battles to take ower a sys or hold it.. Becuase its much easy just to put up a POS at a time where one of the sides dont got any peeps online.. So CCP plz do something before you kill our corp
Azuriel Talloth M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:09:00 - [89] The lag situation has been here since the first POS overhaul (5 day delay to sovereignty and all that stuff). We had a hardware upgrade, but it didn't help. Surely if the server can't handle the game mechanic, then the mechanic should be altered until it can? Giant fleets are not an option against a deathstar pos with defending fleet, they're a requirement. CCP Please rename "Warp Disrupt Probes" to "Interdiction Spheres", thanks!
Nanobotter Mk2	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:13:00 - [90] Edited by: Nanobotter Mk2 on 07/08/2006 17:15:10 Well are talking about territory control or hopefully soon what ccp will implement as full territory control, when that occurs it really should be hard to take over someone elses system, you talka bout the cost of attacking a POS hey what about the cost of losing one? As far as blobbing part goes that is EVE isnt it? Open pvp has always degraded to getting as many people as possible since numbers tend to be greater than all. It is the nature of EVE regardless if it is a 100 person blob defending or attacking a POS or a 5-10 person blob killing lone travelers when they camp gates or go hunt people ratting. If your looking for challenging and tactical combat vs even numbers EVE just isnt the right game to play. I mean i am hoping in the end down the road people will be able to truly gain soverignty in an system, and be able to set sec ratings and decide if they want to have open peaceful empire type of system which they control with thier own concord type thing or not. right now territoy control is vertually pointless beyond having a place to dock and bank ships in 0.0



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: 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.