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

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)
Gierling Gallente Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:16:00 - [91] Reduce the damage output of POS guns significantly, make them boardable and when piloted by a player capable of doing about as much damage as now. When they are boarded make them targeted, if knocked out they eject the pilot and go back to the lower level of power. While knowcked out the POS shield regenerates slower (So that if you knock out all of the turrets and ECM modules etc a large POS would have no shield regen at all).
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:28:00 - [92] I also though abour boardable POS guns. - Only DN skilled pilots would be able to board POS gun. - Pilot pod is killed when POS goes into reinforced mode. - Ejecting from a POS gun takes 1 hour (so a same pilot cannot protect several POS too easily). - Boarding a gun uses strontium already stored in tower. Boarding a gun thus reprensent a risk of having reinforced mode lowging really shorter, but will allow to kill some DN. - Reduce POS total shield hitpoint to let say 30% of current value. A descent DN fleet would kill it in like 15min, and attacker will lose like 1 or 2 DN IF defender have several DN pilots available. With pod kill when POS go in reinforce mode, some part of the attacking fleet must ensure that no pilot enter the system, or undock from station. Splitting forces should reduce lag :) - > Order Falcon & Pilgrim > Colsup
Lorth Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:28:00 - [93] Originally by: TornSoul 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 We're talking about 10 hours in which an attacking force is playng against a structure, with no intervention from the defenders at all. Bolloxs I say its absured to be forced to spend such a large ammount of time esentually attacking nothing. It shouldn't be this way at all. Defending a region should in large part be dependant on your ability to show up, not ancor structures. Empires should take time to build, and time to destroy. The current situation doesn't give us that at all.
Darmed Khan Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:30:00 - [94] Edited by: Darmed Khan on 07/08/2006 17:31:39 If the main problem is POS spamming, then what do you think about the idea of making it so that in each system you can only online one control tower at a time? That way instead of having 50 people put up 20 towers in 3 hours, you get 50 people putting up 20 towers in (IIRC) 20 hours. That and the idea of having POS shields start at (near to) 0% should allow you to counter any POS spam attempts before they get a serious foothold in your system. The reason I'm suggesting these is that they're simple changes to make codewise, and won't put the small alliances (cough) at a serious disadvantage. [edit - plus as you say a fully kitted POS will take a serious amount of boring time to kill, so some tweaks to that would be nice as well] ----------------------------
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:37:00 - [95] A lot of the suggestions being put forward are from PvP'ers only, and you have no clue how POS' work for T2 production. POS' are not the problem; the problem is POS' are the mechanism used to claim SOV. CCP needs to introduce a new structure that claims SOV. Like the military bases I suggested a while ago. Build 3 of those in a system and you get SOV... Something needs to change, but it's not POS' themselves. The profit margin for moon mining & advanced material corps is already too thin... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Lorth Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:38:00 - [96] Originally by: Bhaal A lot of the suggestions being put forward are from PvP'ers only, and you have no clue how POS' work for T2 production. POS' are not the problem; the problem is POS' are the mechanism used to claim SOV. CCP needs to introduce a new structure that claims SOV. Like the military bases I suggested a while ago. Build 3 of those in a system and you get SOV... Something needs to change, but it's not POS' themselves. The profit margin for moon mining & advanced material corps is already too thin... I think most of us know how POS's are used for tech 2 production. And I don't see anyone wanting to change that. Only the sov. issues.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:40:00 - [97] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Bhaal A lot of the suggestions being put forward are from PvP'ers only, and you have no clue how POS' work for T2 production. POS' are not the problem; the problem is POS' are the mechanism used to claim SOV. CCP needs to introduce a new structure that claims SOV. Like the military bases I suggested a while ago. Build 3 of those in a system and you get SOV... Something needs to change, but it's not POS' themselves. The profit margin for moon mining & advanced material corps is already too thin... I think most of us know how POS's are used for tech 2 production. And I don't see anyone wanting to change that. Only the sov. issues. Many are suggesting making POS' much more expensive to operate... Or eliminating them completely... Those are the types of suggestions I'm reffering too... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Dendrin Koljn Minmatar Elite United Corp	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:55:00 - [98] As most people seem to think that a POS is too hard to kill, I'd say MAKE IT HARDER...but loose the reinforced mode. Have to admit only been a defender, but getting told that the corp's POS was attacked and it will come out of re-inforced mode at such a time and will need defending, seems a bit barmy. If I understand correctly it means you attack...bugger off...then come back to finish the POS off. Along the Lag issue, why are all the POS modules not fitted like ships are ?...woulda thought that would have been a more logical progression of game mechanics.
Auraurious Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.07 18:27:00 - [99] Personally I really liked the idea an earlier poster put out of having npc'ing effect sovernity. What if you gained sovernity over a whole constelation, and this was based on you having enough control over the constellation to actually have people rat there. Think about it: Shooting an inanimate object = boring Blob warfare = boring with rare bouts of extremely laggy fun Now granted, npcing isn't the most fun thing in eve, but it would give the nonmilitary folks of an alliance a chance to contribute, and would, imo, be far more fun than the current state of pos warfare. Plus it is a great measure of control. If said alliance can control x constellation enough to successfully rat in it and kill x rats, they get to keep sovernity in said system/constellation/region. Disrupting the npcing is also quite simple, send in a gank squad, but it is also counterable (counter gank squad, smart npcers, camps). Plus this would make eve more focused on the roving combat style rather than blob warfare. The one problem I see in this suggestion is that it would further encourage camps (sitting on a gate killing random shuttles coming through every 10 minutes really is another thing in eve that I generally consider not-fun). The other downside of camping as I see it is that camping also encourages blob warfare. Still it would definitly be an improvement over pos wars by a considerable amount. _____________________________________________
Manus Ghostface Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.08.07 18:50:00 - [100] Been thinking on this for a while, reading a lot of other threads about it (Seleenes thread about making POS cause more ship risk ect), and trying to think of ways to preserve the function of POS, without making it a chore. So here is what I came up with, along with some ideas based on the best things I've seen in this and other threads. 1st, POS hierarchy. Instead of being able to come into a system and drop a large tower, make it so that you must have x small to place a medium, and x medium to place a large. 2nd, POS specializing Currently somewhat there, but tune it. Make smalls your t2 component miner, able to have enough defenses to last against BS fleets or casual raiding efforts, but die or go dormant to good dreadnaught action. A small Dread and BS fleet should be able to quickly send one dormant, or a BB bases fleet over a longer period of time with some losses. Mediums should be focuses on combat, harder to takedown, able to deal out respectable damage. Weapons should have good enough AI to target proper ship classes. POS owner then can choose to have weapons that target dreads, or ones that go after frigs and smaller fry. Scouting of the weapons at a POS would then let a attacker juggle their attacking fleet mix. Good chance of capital losses, but again a speed bump. But if you take down enough medium and small, then take down the larges, the defender cant place replacement larges for sov until ration of x small to x med to x large restored. Large POS should be geared for heavy defense and sovereignity. Hard to take down, but not the omgwtf lag and slaughter monsters they currently are. Last long enough for the owners to rally fleets, but not the current deathstars they are. Modules on large would control and add to defenses of stations in system, as well as determine system defenses. Basically a command and control station for system orbital defenses. When knocked into dormancy, it no longer contribs to sov. # of large and modules fitted would determine how tough the station/outpost is, and who holds sov. X number of large would be needed before outpost could be build. Now one of the reasons people in the southern wars are going crazy with lag, is that some folks are packing shuttles and frigs with items and placing them in hngar arrays, and other nasty lag inducing tactics. Code and solutions to prevent/reduce this are paramount. Defenses around the outpost/station itself help in this, as their would be no arrays, items would be inside the station itself and thus off the database tables for that system ect. Fights at the outpost would have a good B5 feel to them. Perhaps outpost could be outfitted with ai controlled fighters, point defense, gun turrets ect. I will leave that to the designers, but focus should be on ship to ship. The idea of each large adding to the shields of outpost is a great one as well. Maybe limit how many defenses to x per large. I hope these ideas help, and I hope to contribute more as the discussion progresses. That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick. - Lycurgus
Lorth Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.07 19:13:00 - [101] Originally by: Bhaal Many are suggesting making POS' much more expensive to operate... Or eliminating them completely... Those are the types of suggestions I'm reffering too... Correct me if I'm wrong. But I always thought that a small or med POS is almost as efficenent as a large one when it comes to moon mining and reactions. I do aggree with TornSoul when she says that the station ping pong of yesterday sucked. However we have moved into a situation where defending a region, doesn't revolve around player combat, rather PVS(structure) Which sucks because shooting at structures is only slightly more fun then mining. And we've also created the situation where huge numbers are required to take controll of a region. To the point, where the battles become almost unplayable due to the huge numbers of pilots on each side. And its no ones fault for bringing those numbers, since they are in many instances almost required to do the job. Conquest in eve shouldn't be played like a FPS. Nor should it be played as a tactical simulator. Some where in between would be nice.
Synapse Archae Amarr Solarflare Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.08.07 19:56:00 - [102] What I believe tornsoul is missing is that the timezone madness you had under "station pingpong" is still here. Only now each side uses their good timezone to set up 20 large POSs that would take a week of fleet ops to put into reinforced, and they cant be destroyed, because strontium means they will always come out of reinforced during the defenders "good time" In short it means alliances that are similar in size just stalemate each other, because you need round the clock control of all your systems in order to be online both at the op to put the POS in reinforced, and again 12 hours later to take it down. Even if you DID have 24hr control to take down those POSes, you could put yout dread pilots on destroying POSes for 24 straight hours and still have the enemy put up twice as many the next day. Why would you spend a whole day with your group online for 7-8 hours at a stretch destroying large POSes when you know they will be back up the next day? One partial fix would be to make it impossible for carriers and dreads to refuel POSes. That way enemies refueling POSes could at least be forced to come in through the gates and be vulnerable to gate camps. Also perhaps a warning to the allaince who owns the most sovreign systems in a constellation when a POS starts going up, giving them an hour or so to respond. Perhaps the timer could be increased, allowing the attacking (but overall defending for the constellation) alliance 2-3 hours to respond. --------------------------------------------- http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=349194&page=1Redo Fleets[/ur
Shamis Orzoz SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.07 20:51:00 - [103] Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 07/08/2006 20:52:50 Earlier I mentioned having a cap on the number of POS's that can contribute to sov. Some people raised issues with that. And I wanted to clarify. If you cap the number of pos's that can actively contribute to sov, then the owners of the system have the OPTION of deploying more pos's which would take over when their original ones are destroyed, but if a hostile force comes in, they can't just deploy 50 pos's and wait for sov to switch, they would have to actually blow up enough of the enemy pos's so that they could deploy their own and take sov. I also think a point system should be used. rather than a bigger pos is > all system. Example: (Assume all pos's are of the same size, no need to complicate the example) Lets say the cap is set at 5 pos's. So alliance A has 7 pos's deployed. The first 5 will secure sov, and the extra 2 will be stored chronologically as the backups. So if a hostile alliance (B) comes and deploys 8 pos's they don't get sov. But if they deploy 8, and then blow up 5 out of the original 7, they could take sov. If alliance A then tries to deploy more pos's, they would have to first destroy 6 out of the 8 pos's deployed by alliance B, before their new pos's would be able to claim sov. This system would promote pos destruction, and limit the need for so much pos spammage. So the winner isn't the guy with the deepest pockets, but the guy who can defend his pos's the best. Shamis
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 20:55:00 - [104] Fair enough Shamis, but it still doesn't reduce the problem of large POSses being practically indestructible due to lag if there is a competent defender.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:04:00 - [105] I never quite understood why PoS get guns in the first place. Dreads can be focus-fired on anyway, and defenders shouldn't need much more of an advantage than deciding when the fight is going to happen and having a forcefield for invulnerability next to them. Pretty much everything involving PoS guns ever is just a gamebreaker / fun killer. Nerf those to hell as a bandaid fix to the current PoS system - at least things become takeable then, while not screwing current PoS owners out of their investments.
Shamis Orzoz SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:29:00 - [106] Originally by: Malachon Draco Fair enough Shamis, but it still doesn't reduce the problem of large POSses being practically indestructible due to lag if there is a competent defender. Lag is a completely different issue. It is ruining the game on many levels, not just pos takedown. But we need new content, so you'll just have to deal with the lag.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:29:00 - [107] Edited by: Bhaal on 07/08/2006 21:29:03 Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Bhaal Many are suggesting making POS' much more expensive to operate... Or eliminating them completely... Those are the types of suggestions I'm reffering too... Correct me if I'm wrong. But I always thought that a small or med POS is almost as efficenent as a large one when it comes to moon mining and reactions. I do aggree with TornSoul when she says that the station ping pong of yesterday sucked. However we have moved into a situation where defending a region, doesn't revolve around player combat, rather PVS(structure) Which sucks because shooting at structures is only slightly more fun then mining. And we've also created the situation where huge numbers are required to take controll of a region. To the point, where the battles become almost unplayable due to the huge numbers of pilots on each side. And its no ones fault for bringing those numbers, since they are in many instances almost required to do the job. Conquest in eve shouldn't be played like a FPS. Nor should it be played as a tactical simulator. Some where in between would be nice. From what I have learned from others (as I have never owned a T2 advanced reaction chain) is that it takes around 6-10 POS' to effectively produce an advanced reation. Most of those towers being MED and Large, and maybe some small. Problem is the SOV mechanic & fuel bonus. You need SOV to get the fuel bonus, and you need POS' to make T2 materials. We need to segregate Industrial & Military aspects of player owned structures. I say we need to have different types of SOV. The current mechanic stays in place, and gives POS oowners "mineral rights" to a system along with fuel bonus, but does not allow them to claim SOV of a system, so no conquerable stations and outposts. For that, we need a new Military station that claims SOV in a system... Therefore POS' cannot claim SOV, and Military bases cannot claim mineral rights. Reference This Thread for many ideas on the topic from last year. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:50:00 - [108] Originally by: Manus Ghostface Been thinking on this for a while, reading a lot of other threads about it (Seleenes thread about making POS cause more ship risk ect), and trying to think of ways to preserve the function of POS, without making it a chore. [...] I hope these ideas help, and I hope to contribute more as the discussion progresses. This is neat. I think it'd be better if the reqs were per constellation rather than per system (makes the placement of smalls/meds more flexible), but otherwise the "ratios needed for setup" thing sounds like a good change. It's probably not a complete fix, but it'd certainly be a rational "next step" change.
Dahin Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:01:00 - [109] yes please, I'm getting bored to tears over here.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:08:00 - [110] WTB: EvE CCG - POS Wars. Seriously, POS wars need a new paradigm. ---------------- Cruelty is God's way of showing kindness.
Two step Amarr Chosen Path Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:35:00 - [111] I'd like to see the following: (which I think would address a lot of the issues, and be pretty easy to implement for the devs) 1) Anchoring POSes in systems where someone else has sov takes much longer. I'd say 8-12 hours for a large, somewhat less for a med/small 2) Anchoring a pos in one of those systems creates a cyno field beacon to the pos. If the eve mail system worked fine, that would be OK, but we know this system works... :-) 3) POSes that are anchoring should be easier to kill than they are now. (I'm not sure this is actually needed though) I think these changes would make invasions exiciting. We would get all the fleet battle action people are looking for, it would be near the posses, and it would not have the pos killing lagged out people issues.
Kitty O'Shay Tharsis Security	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:44:00 - [112] I like the idea of doing away with reinforced mode. Make it so once the shield are gone, the Stront is used as a shield booster. IOW an "emergency damage control" where x units of stront are burned per minute giving a y boost to the shield. So you'd have to keep shooting while it was boosting, but you could kill the POS in one engagement. And I think it's the damn bubble graphic that causes lag, like the f'ing deadspace clouds that kill your FPS. -- [THARS] is recruiting 1 ebil pirate. Be the one!
Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:47:00 - [113] simply put, sintead of makina complete new system, ccp could/should do everything they could to solve the 3 issues that makes the pos warfare so flawed imo. 1.)its lag, that kind of lag that makes dreads uncontrollable, and impossible for supportfleets to defend dreads. 2.) its that ppl can control when poses come out of reeinforcement time, means as example a german corporation can let their pos come out of reinforcment time when they have the most men at hand (and women..), and the enemies the less. 3.) too many poses - some systems have like 40-60moons. that in a heated war can result in a pos spammage instead of the so beloved pvp, means u have thousands of bored players who watch the few ppl growing tens of poses in now time, and all u can do is sit at a safespot and wait. without those issues the pos warfare could actually b fun. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Altai Saker Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:58:00 - [114] If I could put something at the top of my list of necessary changes, this would be #1... #2 would be ecm
Infinity Ziona Space Elves of Ragnoroth	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:19:00 - [115] A nice change would be the requirement to board a POS gun and manually select targets. If nobody is there to defend then they dont shoot. Player vs Player. The way it should be. 'The alliance should not be a solo contentmobile' - Albert Einstein
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:40:00 - [116] i agree with bhaal. It isnt POS for t2 production etc that is so wrong. Its the fact that to take over a system, you have to spend hours shooting at a POS. Its mindboring. Its like watching paint dry. It sucks. And to ever in CCP came up with the whole POS sov thing needs to be shot Keep POS for t2 production. But like nafri said. Increase shield hitpoints so that you jsut have to shoot the station. Instead of having to shoot POS. Who wants to come home from work/college/school to do hours of boring boring boring work in something thats suppose to be a FUN game.
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:43:00 - [117] Make large POSs cost 1 bill + suddenly. No speculation, no warning, nothing. It'll be quite the bit harder to POS fight. And they'll be worth closer to what it takes to take one down. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:48:00 - [118] Edited by: Hellraiza666 on 07/08/2006 23:48:15 Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Make large POSs cost 1 bill + suddenly. No speculation, no warning, nothing. It'll be quite the bit harder to POS fight. And they'll be worth closer to what it takes to take one down. That still doesnt stop having to sit for hours shooting a POS. Its boring. Increasing the price isnt going to make it any more fun!!! Just scrap the POS sov bull**** and implement something similiar to nafris idea. I wish a dev would comment on this or a forum mod would show this to the devs.
MUDDAWG Black Lance Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.08 00:04:00 - [119] This definetly needs a overhaul. This system as it stands, is flawed. I see a couple major problems with alliance warfare. 1. Size of the attacker and defender. In eve the blob usually has a larger advantage then the smaller force, and usually is garunteed victory. So it is only logical to poor as many people as you can into a system as you can, and thus creating lag. 2. Pos warfare was implemented to solve the timezone problem, pos's were added to give safety to ones assets while you were away, this is completely valid, I dont think random pirates/ solo's should be able to take pos's down. The problem is that large pos's can be, with little risk, setup in masses to defend a system and claim soverienty. Again only logical to put up the Most in a System. So we have our system today, CCP has setup, where the MOST wins, in ALL aspects of warfare. The root of all this comes from this simple principle that MORE is better. Possibly a cure for both problems. 1. Again blobing has been a problem eve has suffered from since day one. And really as EVE grows it will only get worse, CCP cannot design a system that will be able to handle more people because we are already pushing the boundries of the hardware and software. An option would be to take a tangent from the MORE is better philosophy and maybe introduce a tier system in fighting. Make it possible for a group of smaller "better" trained group to take on blobs and win. This could mean a ranking system or award system that would increase attributes, sounds like XP , for doing things, making it possible to war on multiple fronts with smaller better trained groups trained for PVP warfare. Though at some point it would have to, like stacking, not worth while to have more fighters in the battlefield. This is though a straying from the point. Still a large contributer to the problem. 2. POS spam and this is what we have turned too. Since "soveriegnty", pos spam, dictates your "territory", and not say " amount of general populous in the region/sector", alliance are forced to put POS's up. Mind you I have no problem with POS's for production/INDY stuff. Now I dont understand why they introduced a new class of ships -Dreadnaughts- that are meant to take down pos's with ease, and allow a POS counter the "deathstar". I mean lets be logical if CCP keeps this "counter" mentallity, the game is stuck. At some point there has to be a peak, WMD! Dread vs Dread fights basiclly wtfbbq all over the place. Are Dreadnaughts supposed to be able to eat POS's alive, or are "Deathstars" the counter to dreads. I think a quick fix would be un nerf dreads in seige mode. Let them eat pos's Fast, forcing a retaliation from the defending/attacking force if they want to actually keep this territory. Oh but you say this brings us back to the whole timezone issue. Well folks that in itself is a WHOLE other can of worms itself, face it eve is a MULTI timezone game, it's no longer safe to field a UK based only alliance, and I guess that is another rock to throw into the mix. Also, I am fine with allowing carriers a logistics role with fueling pos's they are logistics in most respects anyways. So really if an alliances space is invaded or they are invading, and they have a mass of dreads then they should be able to clean the system out quickly. The problem is the SLOW process of cleaning POS'S out vs's the FAST process of claiming with POS's. Does CCP want alliances to field 50+ dreads to take or defend a system spammed with 50+ POS's, again right back to the same problem. Woohoo More is better aye? So, where I stand, CCP needs to fix Blobbing in some shape or form, and the time it takes to put up and claim with POS's vs's the time it takes to take down POS's. Fix the MORE is better, in all situation, mentallity I think and you will make warfare more fun in EVE. YARR.
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 00:22:00 - [120] Originally by: Nafri 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. At the end of a POS siege or spam day everone has this. If you have not thrown out your pc first for being completely in contrast with what you're actually paying for: fun. Originally by: Nafri 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. Indeed. The blob is evil. CCP want to move away from the blob to more specialised, balanced and longer lasting combat. Well, POS wars are probably the longest lasting form of combat they have ever invented, if you can call it combat that is. Originally by: Nafri 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. I vaguely remember something about fleet engagements, wasn't that a feature which was taken out of the game at some point? :P Originally by: Nafri 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. Indeed, plus it is quickly turning into the most calculated aspects of the game which further negates any room for fun in either conquest or defence. Originally by: Nafri 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... Couldn't be more true indeed. The trouble is CCP won't have any of it. You're touching a holy grail here in a number of aspects; from trying to balance larger factions with smaller ones. from the whole moon mining complexity crap, from a whole myriad of aspects including the oh so vain goal of moving combat from gates and stations and belts to moons. Yeah right. On top of that, the topic is brought forward after the tournament, and in the summer time. I agree, completely. But I just can't see CCP rethinking a failed aspect of the game merely because we experience it killing the more complex and higher level aspects of life in deep space. CCP are always after complex teamwork, when push comes to shove this aspect of the game is turning into an aspect where advanced teamwork is negated by the limits of the game (server and client side, both of which should be a factor, and no: too many people can not currently place their trust as usual in a comment like "oh but we're going to fix that with a new graphics engine like we would have in the past"), and by the failure of math in the teamwork model - I see too many good people leave this side of the game because for playing this side of the game they are being forced to treating the game as a job far too often. The quest to deep space, the conquest of lawless space, it has become a calculating joke. Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"

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.