| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Deja Thoris
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
   |
Posted - 2006.08.08 01:09:00 -
[121]
This is a really excellent thread.
I hope it gets the attention it deserves.
POS warfare is not fun. It's gruelling boring attrition on servers not really equipped for it.
Make EvE fun again dev's
* Disclaimer, I do not fly dreads. I'd rather put my privates in a meatgrinder than pay for 100days training so I can shoot a POS
|
Matrix Aran
Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 03:30:00 -
[122]
The funny thing is that alot of the older players in this thread who are voicing complaints were 2 years ago voicing complaints over how systems just couldn't be defended especialy as an enemy battleship fleet could just warp in, and in an hour have captured your station while you were offline. People in eve will never be satisfied, and even though current POS warfare is boring, it at least allows alliances to set up stable 0.0 bases. We're allready seeing trading hubs start to pop up in 0.0 and its only a matter of time before reall 0.0 empires will begin to for. And what have you been asking for in Kali? Player owned gate guns? This is only going to take the fortress aproach even further. If someone wants to put up billions of ISK worth of equipment to hold a 0.0 system, I say let them, there are still tons more systems out there. In the end this is the direction the devs have been aiming for, longer, drawn out fights with opportunities for someone to defend themselves. Kali will bring more of that. My only hope is that with Kali we lose some of this lag so we can enjoy said long battles of epic scale.
----
|
Nymos
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 04:29:00 -
[123]
 Originally by: Xendie
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.
the "not so fun part" already starts with pos fuel and related logistics. mining ice is boring, hauling it is boring, watching fuel status is... you got it. and then comes the rest mentioned above. 
--
|
Lorth
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 04:57:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Matrix Aran
The funny thing is that alot of the older players in this thread who are voicing complaints were 2 years ago voicing complaints over how systems just couldn't be defended especialy as an enemy battleship fleet could just warp in, and in an hour have captured your station while you were offline. People in eve will never be satisfied, and even though current POS warfare is boring, it at least allows alliances to set up stable 0.0 bases.
We're allready seeing trading hubs start to pop up in 0.0 and its only a matter of time before reall 0.0 empires will begin to for. And what have you been asking for in Kali? Player owned gate guns? This is only going to take the fortress aproach even further. If someone wants to put up billions of ISK worth of equipment to hold a 0.0 system, I say let them, there are still tons more systems out there.
In the end this is the direction the devs have been aiming for, longer, drawn out fights with opportunities for someone to defend themselves. Kali will bring more of that. My only hope is that with Kali we lose some of this lag so we can enjoy said long battles of epic scale.
Ok I agree with some of your points, and dissagree with some others.
The station ping pong was a bad thing. And I think we all now that, though at times in recent weeks I wish we had that system back again but...
So we're in agreement that we need mechanics which allow alliences to build a strong, stable infrastructer in 0.0. However the current situation has gone far far past that. Insteed of a stable region, alliences are able to create inpenatrable fortesses of DOOM.
Lets look at some of the problems right now.
1: It only takes one player, just one, to hold up an entire invading force for litteraly weeks. And at that this one defender doesn't have to interact with the invaders at all, he simply has to ancor ancor ancor.
2: Even in the EC-P8R situation we saw, no defenders, and perhaps the biggest invading force we have seen as of present. Now considering all that, with the current soverenity rules, it still took a week to finalize the deal. This is with 600:0 numbers advantage for the attackers.
3: Now given that the two sides are equal in numbers, we have a situation were both sides bring huge amounts of players in for the engagement. Now what do we get when there's lots of people in the same grid? Lag, lots of it, which is not fun for either side. However, POS guns are not effected by such lag, the poor attackers, even with a large numbers advantage still tend to get WTFPWN'd.
4: Reinforced timers. If your even half witted you shouldn't have a POS come out of reinforced mode when you don't want it. Players in games that rely on group activities, tend to group with players who are awake at the same times. Given that you ushally know to within the hour when your POS is going into reinforced, its easy to make it come out at a time thats good for you. Meaning even if undefended, POS's are ushally safe since the attackers will be asleep when the POS is attackable.
Which leads us to the current situation. Lots of PVS (structure) and very little PVP, in what should be an all out war. Regional conquest has turned into a game of logistics, and logistics only, there is no room, or need for PVP pilots.
And it will get worse. I said as much in the EC-P8R thread. People will begin to structure tank thier regions, and in turn attackers will try and bring larger and larger amounts of pilots to kill the POS's. And in turn this makes for more and more lag, and the system can't handle the way wars need to be fought in this day and age. Look at the alliences that have died in the last 6 mounths... They didn't listen to me when I said you would be stupid not to have 50 POS's in every single system, and look at the alliences who are still alive, they listened.
|
Lorth
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 04:58:00 -
[125]
placeholder for more ranting
|
Adlee
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 06:06:00 -
[126]
Here's a question: If POS war is boring, why are you participating in it?
Rather than taking someone elses station, why not just set up nearby and raid each other.
If you really enjoy pvp fights you don't try to remove the enemy... because once you remove them you won't have anyone to fight.
|
Lorth
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 06:10:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Adlee
Here's a question: If POS war is boring, why are you participating in it?
Rather than taking someone elses station, why not just set up nearby and raid each other.
If you really enjoy pvp fights you don't try to remove the enemy... because once you remove them you won't have anyone to fight.
You can never really remove them though. As I said it takes one person to hold up the invaders for mounths.
As to why we do it? Well the better question is why not. A large portion of this game, and especially so in 0.0 is based around player confrontation, and regional wars. Most of the people involved in actions like this are here because we want to be involved in something epic, and grand. We want to fight huge wars, gain regions, or loss them, and make our own home out of space that used to belong to someone else.
Take all that away, and you have little to no content in 0.0 that isn't based on PVE, and thats not what we are here for.
|
deadEd
M. Corp
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 06:12:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Adlee
Here's a question: If POS war is boring, why are you participating in it?
Rather than taking someone elses station, why not just set up nearby and raid each other.
If you really enjoy pvp fights you don't try to remove the enemy... because once you remove them you won't have anyone to fight.
The ideas behind POS warfare, that being conquering and holding 0.0 space, are far from boring. Hell, they're one of the things that makes the game great. It's just the mechanics behind it, and the lag caused by the current methods, that absolutely kill the idea. That's why so many people are so frustrated (and why all of the threads about sieges that turn bad because of lag always turn into such angry flamefests)...the potential for awesomeness is through the roof, but its just being kicked down by issues that can be corrected.
However, the answer is definitely not to just forget about it and play another way, it's to bring the issues up over and over again until something is done about them (either fixing the lag issues, unlikely as that may be, or changing the way soverignty is acquired/held/taken away). It's a tired cliche that I hate to bust out, but every player here is a paying customer. Telling someone to stop playing the game a certain way is a gigantic waste of time.
|
Maximillian Pele
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 06:23:00 -
[129]
For once I agree with Lorth.
POS warfare is looking more and more like World War I. The defenders have the twin advantages of both defence and the ability to exploit the reinforced timer + lag to make taking down POSes a nightmare.
Like WWI the attacker concentrates his forces, gathers his logistics, and makes his plans. But within seconds of launching the attack the whole thing becomes a lag-fest cluster F.
This I have heard from all the 0.0 people coming back to empire POed about wasting so much of their EvE time trying to take down POSes.
Add to this the fact that POSes serve so many functions - mining, refining, research, reacting, manufacture, sovereignty and defence.
I believe that all these functions should be split, so that you can have non-defensive POSes for mining, research and industry, and defensive POSes for sovereignty. This would give an attacker the ability to attack an enemies logistics base without needing to contest sovereignty, or would reduce the number of POS sieges required for any system to change hands.
I have stated before that increasingly 0.0 space is fossilising because unless an alliance suffers an internal collapse it instead requires a mind numbingly long number of laggy sieges to actually take systems by force.
So now diplomacy is > than PvP as the main alliance weapon.
|
Vincae
Caldari
Thundercats
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 08:09:00 -
[130]
Just throw a cap on the maximum number of structures in a system owned by a single alliance, say five per system.
The idea of limiting the number that contribute to sovereignty is interesting, but ultimately doesn't have merit, because spare POS within a system then contribute after the previous ones have been destroyed.
The same escalating POS warfare became a problem in SWG too. Unfortunately, nothing was done about it, ending up with planets with massive numbers of player-placed factional bases. Capping the total number is the easiest way to solve the problem without preventing legitimate usage of POS or developing a longer, more complicated system for determining sovereignty within a given system.
|
|
|
Helmut 314
Amarr
J.H.E.N.R
Pure.
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 08:34:00 -
[131]
Capping the numbers per alliance isnt a viable solution, what happens when three alliances each have the maximum number of "allowed" POS ? Any clever alliance will just have a couple alt alliances who each have the max anchored...
Why not just make refilling the stronthium harder, such as making it impossible to load stronthium for 12 hours after reinforced mode goes out, regardless of shield status ? Call it time for "repair" or something. Removing reinforced mode completely puts you back in the station ping pong mode and thats not very desirable.
________________________________
Trying is the first step of failure
- Homer J Simpson |
De Sargan
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 08:39:00 -
[132]
Most of the problem here comes from the time it takes for an attacking force to place the POS in a sovereign system.
A solution could be to increase the time a POS needs to anchor before it can start to act as a battle station. For example, a Small hostile POS takes 4 days to anchor and consumes full fuel to do so. (someone needs to feed it directly ) failing to do so results in resetting the timer.
Medium POS takes 3 days to anchor. Large POS take 2 days. This stops insta spamming of large quantities of POS and makes its difficult to take over a sovereign system. All fuel consumption once up is double normal as the POSES have to be in full battle mode!.
Once a POS is anchored it has no shields and cannot have any structured anchored for another 2 hours.
So this system limits the spamming and revives the role of fleets when attacking or defending systems.
|
Horatio Nately
Caldari
Battlefodder Inc
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 09:07:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Fubear
Edited by: Fubear on 07/08/2006 14:25:31
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 locking down the system and preventing anyone from refueling them. 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.
should make it so the fuel detonates when it enters a cyno field...
|
Virtuozzo
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 09:58:00 -
[134]
Tbh I think it is time to investigate Nafri's old military bases concept, and regardless of that completely sever the link between T2 production POS <-> Sovereignty POS.
Virtuozzo
RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" |
fuze
Gallente
Chosen Path
Center for Disease Creation
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 10:38:00 -
[135]
It doesn't make sense that a 1B (or 2 Bn) structure needs the special attention of about 8-30 dreads each 2Bn+ to come down in 2 stages.
Splitting roles as mentioned before might be interesting to look at.
Militairy base that claim sov might be an interesting solution.
Still it doesn't solve the lag issue.
As to the whinage I agree 100% with turnsoul. POS are ingame for a long time and with good reasons and only recently with many failed attempts of attacking POSses people start crying for outrage.
For now there is only one entity that has shown you can take down 20+ POS in a (long?) weekend. Taking them out now takes some dedication. Better get your sh*t together and try try again.
In ancient earth tales there were earthlings defending planetairy militair bases and most of them were conquered by starving them out. Took them months and even years but they were succesfull in the end.
Large projectile cannons made those large reinforced bases redundant though.
Pherhaps the engineers should work on some solution here. If they can get a way into focussing fire from a couple of dreads with special modules they could seriously dent POS shields harder and take them down faster.
And for reinforced mode they might develop some kind of ubernos that can make burn up reinforced fuel faster and you can have control when a POS comes out of reinf.
That would leave the dreads rather defenseless since they have to give up their high slots for that.
You even could think about developing capital EW ships to use EW on POS and/or capital shield ships which have the same kind of shield as a POS but then movable. And basicly create capital logistics ships.
Who knows what these guys come up with.
We ain't got balls, but plenty of nuts. |
Kriva Fajriika
DOLT KREW
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 10:58:00 -
[136]
A big problem with it is that POS are not affected at all by lag, while the players trying to defend themselves are. Fleet battles with lots of lag are somewhat balanced out so that no one group is at a massive disadvantage due to lag, as all players are expierencing the same thing. Pos will still fire whether anyone can see them firing or not. Now I wouldn't suggest making POS shoot less or something to deal with this, but as the several obviously cannot handle such a situation to make it unlaggy for the player, something needs to be done.
A direct increase in station hp from each POS owned sounds like a good idea to me, as it wouldn't make pos totally useless, but not force players into a laggy fight against something not expierencing the same lag.
|
Uther Doull
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 11:00:00 -
[137]
Originally by: fuze
As to the whinage I agree 100% with turnsoul. POS are ingame for a long time and with good reasons and only recently with many failed attempts of attacking POSses people start crying for outrage.
- when pos were new jumpdrives didn't excist so starving them for fuel was still an option
- the defenders are now way more proficient in exploiting (i mean using to the fullest, not cheating) the pos mechanics. i remember seeing press releases like "we took down both POS and captured the station".
- capital shield transfers now negate the 'can't refuel if shield <50%' clause.
Quote:
For now there is only one entity that has shown you can take down 20+ POS in a (long?) weekend. Taking them out now takes some dedication. Better get your sh*t together and try try again.
clearly those defenders were crap, infact from what i've heard there was no-one defending at all, and it still took that 'entity' the help of 3(?) more huge allainces and with 600 ppl in local all the time a loooooong time to do it
Quote:
[the rest]
those things could work, but atm it's clear and it looks like 95% of EvE agrees that poswarfare as it stands now is officially 'Teh Suck'.
|
Juan Andalusian
TAOSP
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 11:20:00 -
[138]
POS are about stamina... you either have it as an Alliance or you are just another wannabe.
Quote:
POSes create lag,
And fleet battles don't?
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?
Heh.. not quite.
Quote:
POSes lead to blobbing.
Everything alliance related leads to blobbing.
Quote:
POSes lead to less fights.
One word: JU-
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 11:30:00 -
[139]
Would it all be possible to get a response from a developer on this thread as to how they see the issue?
I'd like to ask CCP the following questions:
1. What is CCP's perception on the lag generated in POS warfare? Is it purely the fact that so many people participate? Is it also the POS generating lag?
2. What is CCP's opinion on the way POSses function under current battle conditions? How do they view the defenders advantage of an unlagged POS while both defenders and attackers fleet are lagged?
3. I assume POSses were balanced under presumption of the absence of lag. Seeing as many people, both attackers and defenders suffer massive lag near POSses during battle, does CCP think that balance is still there considering the POS doesn't lag?
4. Is it an option to remove POS as the total block to station takeover? (By not making sovereignty block attacking the station, but just letting POS increase station shields for example, but other options surely exist)
5. Is it an option to nerf large POS? Either remove them (leaving medium POS as the largest POS-type ingame) or otherwise reduce their effectiveness, by reducing grid/CPU/shields?
6. Are there technical possibilities (in terms of hardware or the coding of POSses etc) to significantly reduce the lag during POS battles, taking into consideration you will often see 300-400 in system during a POS fight?
|
eLLioTT wave
Art of War
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 11:47:00 -
[140]
Edited by: eLLioTT wave on 08/08/2006 11:53:27
Aggreed its a problem.
Obviously not a complete solution but what about if POS took much longer to put up, and was completely vulnerable during that time...
Anyone know how long the international space station took to build? is it even completed yet?
On more of a gaming note: Completely agree something needs to seperate pos and sov as it stands now. Perhaps a system of locking down gates in regions you control or some such would work to an extent, and you can only jump drive into the bordering systems, this forces choke points which forces WAR. |
|
|
Trak Cranker
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:13:00 -
[141]
This all comes down to how much CCP wants infrastrucure and stability to be attainable for groups in 0.0.
When you have static structures in a game where people have to arrange it around real life, you need for those structures to have some sort of autonomous life. And some ability for the owners to react on their own time.
Hence guns on POSs and reinforced mode.
Unless they come up with something radically different , these things just represent mechanics that has to exist for the at the top mentioned things to exist.
I would like system where you could and would have to continously earn the sovereignty by being active in an area. Some kind of points earning. Mining(moon and asteroid), ratting, and especially shooting registered competitors. A system where you can have several fronts on which to fight for the claim, where you can utilise your strengths, but perhaps rewarding a balanced approach?
But def. one that is not resolved over night because one group just got a large group together within a window of 6 hours.
But in any system I think you need to favour the ones creating infrastructure. The ones genuinely interested in creating a future in a given place, and not this weeks bored group of destructors. But how... :)
|
Joram McRory
Caldari
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:18:00 -
[142]
Assuming the whole de-coupling POS and SOV is a huge coding effort, so can't be implemented quickly there are two issues that could probably be dealt with more quickly that might make POS wars less of a grind:
POS Spammage
As has already been sugested make it so only one tower can be on-lined at a time, and extend the time taken to on-line. 3-4 hours maybe?
POS One sided lag
Given that there isn't much that can be done to reduce the lag players get, Balance it by making large POS guns take a long time to achieve lock - say 10-15 minutes. (perhaps 5 mins for small, 10 for med). That would give attacking ships time to load and engage b4 being wtfbbqed by the pos. And in the overall time taken to kill a POS 15 mins is nothing really, so the attacking fleet would still need to be able to tank them.
These would just be sticking plaster fixes while a sensible debate is had for the long term solution.
my 2p
Joram
|
Rynthran Thrandyr
Asgard Schiffswerften
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:23:00 -
[143]
Tbh i never understood, why POS come online with full shields and ready to anchor and online guns.
If I recall correctly, when a POS comes out of reinforced mode, its online (depending on fuel left) but you can't anchor/online stuff or put strontium in as long as the shield doesn't reach 50%. Now why not put the POS into exactly this mode after onlining it, just with 0 shields.
That would mean the group putting it up would have to boost the shields up to 50%, meanwhile having to defend the tower and the boosting guys. This way you would need about a similar amount of manpower to put a POS up as you need to take one down, which would kill the possibility to spam like 10 large towers per night with 2-3 people in haulers doing a nightshift.
|
|
Oveur
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:30:00 -
[144]
It's an interesting thread, infrastructure and warfare around it is something we want to address with Factional Warfare but I agree, some of the comments here seem more based on some individual recent events rather than gameplay in general with Starbases in the recent year.
Senior Producer
EVE Online
|
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:30:00 -
[145]
My suggestions about POSses don't come from a desire to directly attack RA or their tactic of POS spamming. Its within the mechanics, and really not the issue. And just making POSses longer to setup only makes it harder for the attacker in the end.
What I am most worried about is the invincible fortress system, whether it is offensive or defensive. And that is not related to POS spamming at all. Just like it shouldn't be acceptable to build a practically invincible system by POS spamming like RA does, it shouldn't be possible to build a practically invincible system by ASCN (AZN) or BoB (NOL) or any other alliance by just putting up a large deathstar POS at every moon.
Either lag needs to be reduced (particularly at POSses) or the strength of POSses needs to be reduced. Nerfing POS spam alone is not enough, and if the others are fixed, also not absolutely needed. (note I am not really against nerfing POS spam, but that is a different debate from making POS warfare possible).
|
Helmut 314
Amarr
J.H.E.N.R
Pure.
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:52:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Oveur
It's an interesting thread, infrastructure and warfare around it is something we want to address with Factional Warfare but I agree, some of the comments here seem more based on some individual recent events rather than gameplay in general with Starbases in the recent year.
Of course that has an impact, since people are learning to use the mechanics of POS in ways that Im sure wasnt really intended. The longer they are ingame the more ideas on how to use them to the max people get.
________________________________
Trying is the first step of failure
- Homer J Simpson |
Virtuozzo
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 12:57:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Oveur
It's an interesting thread, infrastructure and warfare around it is something we want to address with Factional Warfare but I agree, some of the comments here seem more based on some individual recent events rather than gameplay in general with Starbases in the recent year.
Erm .. no. Hardly recent events, and hardly personal (unless you count large player based organisations in EVE as individual entities).
Folks are running into a wall here. A wall built by a conflict in mechanisms, human nature and mathematics. The wall however has now taken on a life of its own and is spiraling out of control. It is a trend which has been signalled for the better part of a year now. Only recently have vaste numbers of people started to bump into it.
If the drive to 0.0 is still a priority, it would be wise to take on the matter and investigate the trend, preferably do something about it, or you will let a severe imbalance grow out of control, quite possibly one which can negate the whole drive to 0.0 or diminish it to the mere gank levels of before the age of outposts.
Virtuozzo
RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" |
Megan Ryder
VentureCorp
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 13:00:00 -
[148]
My ideas...
1. Increase the structures m3 massively, and make them deployable from freighters. It should take 2 freighters to put up a fully armed Deathstar.
This should remove the single hauler Deathstar spammage.
2. Add a sovereignty module required for claiming sovereignty in a system. This module should have a high cpu use such that it has to be on a large pos with retricted weaponary/defense. Limit the number anchored per Alliance per system to 1-5, but they remain active during POS reinforced mode.
This should mean attackers would have an easier time attacking critical poses, and defenders would require players to help defend sov poses.
3. Leave pos anchoring times as they are now, but add a startup phase where cpu/shield strength builds over time to their full values.
POSes should be quite vunerable during this phase, requiring player defense until they are up to full power. Not sure on timings, 2-6Hrs?
4. Add a separate storage space for reinforced mode fuel, with a cap on m3.
This should make the out of reinforced timing a bit more predictable. Again, not sure on timings, 1-2Days?
Megan
|
Virtuozzo
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 13:01:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Oveur
but I agree, some of the comments here seem more based on some individual recent events rather than gameplay in general with Starbases in the recent year.
Apologies for getting back on that bit, agree with who exactly? You're confusing me here for a sec. The verdict sofar in most posts is the signal of the matter being out of balance/control, mostly witnessed by last year's events and trends...
This isn't about things like AAA or RA or G or whoever. This is about a sharply rising trend, one which was signalled ages ago, but which only in recent times vastly larger number of pilots are running into. So I'm a bit confused who you're agreeing with of these posts.
Virtuozzo
RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!" |
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 13:14:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Oveur
It's an interesting thread, infrastructure and warfare around it is something we want to address with Factional Warfare but I agree, some of the comments here seem more based on some individual recent events rather than gameplay in general with Starbases in the recent year.
Oveur.
I think the comments about making POSses longer to setup could indeed be linked to recent events.
However.
The comments about insane lag at POSses and the impossibility to take out a large POS with the amount of lag that is present is not.
Recent events may have highlighted this issue, but the problem exists regardless of recent events, and is a fundamental flaw, where game mechanics are not supported by the capabilities of the hardware currently in use.
Please, either find a way to reduce the lag through software changes or hardware changes, or change the mechanics.
And this is not self-interest talking. As a member of ASCN, I think with the current system if we fortify a system with large POSses, the server would crash before anyone could put a POS in that system into reinforced.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |