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)
Christopher Scott Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:14:00 - [151] Resource cap is the best way. Each alliance has a limit of 5 resource points that can be spent on sovereignity. Each starbase deployed for sovreignity costs one point. Once a resource point is spent on a certain system, it cannot be respent on a different system until it has been cancelled and 24 hours have passed. +1.2 resource points for each conquered system. This equals to an additional +1 point every five systems. +1 resource point for each entire constellation conquered, plus an additional 0.2 points for each system within that constellation. +1 resource point for every Outpost controlled. Let's start an example with two alliances, Red Team and Blue Team, that both want to conquer eachother. The Red Team alliance has 10 conquered systerms, including a constellation of 5 systems and an Outpost. By doing the math, this equals to: +2 Multiplier Bonus(10 systems conquered). +1 Base bonus(entire constellation). +1 Multiplier bonus(5x constellation systems, no remainder). +1 Outpost bonus(One outpost controlled) = 5 additional resources available. Now, Red Team can choose to spread out their starbases in a number of ways. They can choose to leave each system with one starbase, fortify their home systems with two more, and have three starbases to spare for claiming enemy territory. There are many different ways to spread out these resources, which are still "limited." The enemy alliance, known as Blue Team, has twice the amount of territory and assets. They control 17 systems, including two full constellations, one with 7 systems and one with 5 systems, plus two outposts. By doing the math, this equals to: +3 Multiplier bonus(15 systems conquered, 0.4 remainder). +2 Base bonus(Two entire constellations). +2 Multiplier bonus(10x constellation systems, 0.4 remainder). +2 Outpost bonus(Two Outposts controlled). = 9 additional resources available(0.8 remainder). The Blue Team uses 3 of their starbases to fortify their home systems, giving them 6 starbases to attack Red Team. That is double the resources that Red Team has available, granted they own half as much territory. If Blue Team launches an invasion, Red Team can choose to fortify the sieged systems and help defend, counterattack against Blue Team directly, or flank their advance by invading Blue Team's territory. I would suggest flanking. Since Red Team has exactly 10 systems conquered, a lost system means losing a +1 multiplier bonus. If that system is within their constellation, that would include losing their +1 base bonus and their +1 multiplier bonus for that constellation! That's losing up to +3 points! Red Team needs to conquer a few more systems to protect against losing their bonuses, while pressuring Blue Team to seize their advance into their territory. This is just an example on how a resource system can work. Note that all the numbers can easily be modified and scaled up or down. Just my 0.02 isk.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:24:00 - [152] One more thing, about the POS spamming. Currently it is indeed a problem, but only because of the heavy lag during large fleetfights at a large POS. If removing POSses was a 'doable' thing, then POS spam wouldn't be half as bad when it happens. And that would mean that there would be less POS spamming, because it would be less effective as a means to take a system. So what needs to be fixed IMO is just the problem with POSses. Either the lag during major fleet operations at a POS needs to be removed/very significantly reduced (here's to praying the Dragon code will do that?) or Large POSses need to be reduced in effectiveness, so that its not suicide for a fleet to fight there under heavy lag.
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:25:00 - [153] Originally by: Christopher Scott ...stuffs... A gigantic game of Risk anyone? ------------------------------------------------
Garramon Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:30:00 - [154] Originally by: Malachon Draco ... So what needs to be fixed IMO is just the problem with POSses. Either the lag during major fleet operations at a POS needs to be removed/very significantly reduced (here's to praying the Dragon code will do that?) or Large POSses need to be reduced in effectiveness, so that its not suicide for a fleet to fight there under heavy lag. Exactly. I think if people could maneuver to actually attempt a seige on one of these large POSes without their computer exploding, then they would not find it too much of a problem. I would definitely look into how it (how long it?) checks standings. I doubt it has to do with the graphical display of the POS. If the standings are the problem (for detecting whether it is a hostile entity in proximity, not shield entrance), perhaps they should be done away with and replaced with something along the lines, if you shoot the POS your gang gets shot. /shrug (I always thought a character should be able to "board" the POS to manually fire the weapon systems) ------------------------------------------------
fuze Gallente Chosen Path Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:32:00 - [155] Edited by: fuze on 08/08/2006 13:35:44 Edited by: fuze on 08/08/2006 13:33:37 Originally by: Uther Doull - when pos were new jumpdrives didn't excist so starving them for fuel was still an option - capital shield transfers now negate the 'can't refuel if shield <50%' clause. I agree with these points. Reinforced mode bites. So using capital NOS to influence that could be an interesting nerf. Introducing the militairy base for sov porposes and cutting down on all POS shield/armor/struct HP. As to the lag. I won't go away. Unless we'd all go back to using ASCII based text interfaces. (Brings back the good ol times) Or CCP investing in hardware like 50 million USD or more and we all upgrade to 10mbit internet or more. (Or simply wait for Eve2) We ain't got balls, but plenty of nuts.
Ariovist	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:35:00 - [156] CCP should only look around at some RTS and turn based strategy games. Normaly you have military structures (radar tower, fighter hangers etc., stationary defence systems (defence tower etc.) and civilian structures (mines, factories etc.) Now we have all in one and this is the problem. In my opinion this structures need to split up. You should have some mining structure with small defence systems to collect resources, should be able to anchor some defence structures at gates to fight of the small ôhobby gankerö squads and than have one major star base with good defence. Players should also be able to hire, build some NPC haulers to transfers goods/resources from the mining structure to your major base etc. like in ôX Beyond the frontierö. Attackers can e.g. siege your main base and destroy our civilian infrastructure. Players should have the option to really build up the whole solar system with different structures that spread over the whole solar system. Like building your base in a RTS or strategy game. The ôall in oneö solution makes feel the solar system rather empty. I would like to see A ôdead space complexö like POS. Where you donÆt have one big force field. So you would install your HQ. Then install some sentries. If you install only anti û BS sentries you become vulnerable to frigate strikes and vice versa. To install more structures you would need some energy harvesters etc. So you base would grow. As defence structures would have different stats, the placement (to get good fire arcs etc.) would matter. Reconnaissance and a attack plan would be needed. Where are the defences systems, where is gape, where should we strike etc. I know in theory it sounds good and an implementation would be hard but to some degree it is possible. (Other wise I donÆt know how factional warfare should function?) Now POS is only shouting hours at one big target, nothing more.
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:41:00 - [157] 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. Go shoot a POS for ******* hours and see if you think its fun? Im sorry but POS sov is boring. A chore. A Job. Hard work. Why should we pay to do that?
Neurotica Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:45:00 - [158] Originally by: Hellraiza666 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. Go shoot a POS for ******* hours and see if you think its fun? Im sorry but POS sov is boring. A chore. A Job. Hard work. Why should we pay to do that? Don't then.
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:46:00 - [159] Originally by: Neurotica Originally by: Hellraiza666 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. Go shoot a POS for ******* hours and see if you think its fun? Im sorry but POS sov is boring. A chore. A Job. Hard work. Why should we pay to do that? Don't then. im talking about POS in particular. Other aspects of the game are spot on. Except for POS sov >< and maybe ecm
Adsterine Phantom Squad	Posted - 2006.08.08 13:53:00 - [160] omg pos sov is teh bad
Matrix Aran Legio Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:10:00 - [161] I don't buy the ideas of capping POS numbers in a system. That would penalize the alliances who have the industrial power to actualy spam the system. In my opinion I think the Large POS should be more expensive to set up and maintain and there should be an extended setup time, say 6 hours that puts it more in line with outpost construction. It is a big investment and should be supremely vulnerable while being set up. Thats just one way off the top of my head to make it harder for one person to set them up. But I think it should only extend to the larger ones. The Mediums and smalls should be left for the small corps who want their own POS in 0.4 as in my opinion they aren't suited to becoming deathstars of doom, and are nowhere as stable as the larger ones. But I don't think anything drastic should be done. Personaly, even after participating in POS wars and having my fair share of frustrations with them, >I like the way things are going. Wars are changing up a few notches nowadays. Soon with player owned gate defences People will have empires and capitals and we will get long drawn out wars, hopefully involving more and more capital ships as people finaly build up the skills and the nerve to puit them into ever more dangerous situations. Thats what I hope for. But the number one thing comes down to reducing lag which we can only hope Dragon does. ----
Jacob Majestic ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:12:00 - [162] 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. The one thing that has happened in the recent year is that on an alliance level 20b isk has gone from being a princely sum to being just one month's revenue from a single refinery outpost. Slapping down 20 large towers in one system was once inconceviable. It's now common practice.
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:47:00 - [163] Originally by: Jacob Majestic 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. The one thing that has happened in the recent year is that on an alliance level 20b isk has gone from being a princely sum to being just one month's revenue from a single refinery outpost. Slapping down 20 large towers in one system was once inconceviable. It's now common practice. Signed. Eve has changed a lot latly, one year ago a single deathstar was something special, now we talk about 20-50 deathstars per system. That is what you encounter when fighting a decent enememy. Mechanics dont allow you to take down those deathstars at all, you will suffer rediculus looses and lag will kill you. Oveur, I didnt only posted this cause I just had 7h POS shooting behind me. I posted this cause lots of people left cause of this. People have to use holidays for it, otherwise your alliance cant compete anymore. As said above, 20 billion isk is nothing anymore, spamming 20 deathstars is easily done. Killing 20 deathstars? It takes about 400 people working 1.5 weeks straight. From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Trishtan DeMore	Posted - 2006.08.08 14:57:00 - [164] Excellent thread and some nice suggestions to prevent senseless POS spamming. Some Suggestions from my side: - switch the reinforced time from dynamic to a static time (6h/12h/18h/24h) whatever you like but something fixed you can calculate with - make the tower resources accessible when the shield is recharged more than 95% - when a POS is in reinforced, remove the force field so weapons and everything else is attackable, so you can prevent hostiles from recharging the shield easily with a fleet of BS OR let all weapons go offline til at least 50% recharge. - the POS can only go into reinforcement mode once a week. Please think about this because this is just plain IMBALANCED. regards
Bazman Caldari The Establishment	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:26:00 - [165] POS warfare has ruined eve. I know loads of people who have actually quit the game because of how POS' effect the game. Hell, I even left my old corp I had been in for almost 2 years because constant POS warfare was destroying the game for me, the effort required to deal with these things is litterally superhuman, I can't help but feel sorry for anyone that is currently involved in anti POS actions. You poor son's of *****es. oh look, more deathstars. zzzzzzzzzzzz ----- Sig removed, maximum allowed image dimensions are 400x120 and maximum allowed size is 24,000 bytes. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -wystler Hi TUXFORD! Blasterboat for tier 3 Gallente battleship please! Make it look cool too. Thanks. I am a
Bavarian Punk Minmatar The X-Trading Company Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:45:00 - [166] Edited by: Bavarian Punk on 08/08/2006 15:46:09 Edited by: Bavarian Punk on 08/08/2006 15:45:26 Originally by: Nafri As said above, 20 billion isk is nothing anymore, spamming 20 deathstars is easily done. Killing 20 deathstars? It takes about 400 people working 1.5 weeks straight. That's the crucial point. Some people in this thread said that the current situation favors the attackers or the defenders. I don't think either side is favored. Both sides suffer from the current mechanics equally and both sides can use them to their advantage. Both sides can use the mobility of carriers, both sides can resort to spamming instead of destroying POS. Given enough moons, it's easier today to win a system by spamming POS than to use dreads. It should somehow make more sense for an aggressor to destroy enemy POS than to build some themselves. I find it somehow bizarre that you can get control over a system relatively easy without using a single dread. By the way, since a large number of towers can be planted in a matter of hours, the whole reinforced timer idea to even out timezone issues is sort of ridiculed. You wake up in the morning and find your beloved home system spammed with hostile towers and there is very little you can do about it than to wait five days to see it gone. Yeah, extreme example, I am trying to make a point here [;)] I don't know exactly how, but it should be more rewarding and feasible to attack militarily than economically, which POS conflicts pretty much boil down to at the moment. Since industrial POS should remain largely unaffected of changes, a SOV module is one of my favourite ideas. Such a module should be very heavy m¦ wise and ISK wise and would take a considerable amount of time to anchor (in the range of hours to maybe even a few days). --- Go buy your stuff at T R U S T Shop
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:53:00 - [167] Oveur I have to disagree, I think these problems have always been the bane of the POS system, it's just that recent events have brought them to light better than before. A quick example: Alliance A sets up 4 "Death Star" large towers with full defense, Alliance B wants sovereignty. Instead of POS spamming they choose to destroy A's towers with a fleet of capital ships, say 20. Alliance A is quite active and move to defend their towers (as the system intends), so Alliance B has to bring a support fleet in to keep their expensive cap ships safe. At this point it's not at all uncommon to have 300+ people in the system, all fighting in the same grid at a single POS. EVERYONE is lagged to hell by this point, nobody can warp or do anything without a 5 minute delay, yet the POS guns are still blasting away. Alliance B now has to choose, do we want to lose our capital ships or do we want to lose 70 battleships trying to defend those capital ships? Most often they lose the 70 battleships AND a handful of capital ships, purely because of the lag. Nevertheless this is how the system was intended to work. Capital ships with a support fleet ravage a POS while defenders try to repel the attack. Sounds great on paper, but the servers can't handle it. It goes from a great idea to a horrific disappointment somewhere in the middle of the 5 minute module lag before you find yourself sitting in a station, having had no chance to do anything except warp into the fight. Now do that 3 more times to the other Death Stars, then 4 more times as they come out of reinforced. God help us when we run into a system with 12 or more large towers. I've seen it. The new BFG.
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.08 15:59:00 - [168] Originally by: Xelios God help us when we run into a system with 12 or more large towers. I've seen it. Twelve? XZH had around sixty at peak... But yeah, there are fundamental issues with the way the system is set up atm. I don't even think it's just lag - I think a large part of the problem is that, basically, fighting over POS is pretty boring :(
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:20:00 - [169] 60 is just ridiculous... where do you start? We really don't need sovereignty at all. The system we had before, where space was simply claimed then controlled, worked just fine. Everyone knew who controlled what regions thanks to player created things like the 0.0 map and people still faught over space like they do today. Except they were fighting fleets, not boring towers. Honestly just keep POS's for production/storage/bases of operations. Keep them infrastructure related instead of making them a requirement. Conquerable stations can be changed so we don't get the old station ping pong effect and I'm sure we could figure out an alternative for controlling Outposts. The new BFG.
Gerome Doutrande 4S Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:22:00 - [170] 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. "Some" is a bit of an understatement here - nowadays it seems as if almost every conflict that in some form involves sovereignity has a pos spamming phase involved. I can only think of two conflicts where that was not the case in the last 6 months.

Redundancy	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:39:00 - [171] I think it's important to note that reinforced mode is designed to be sucky for the attacker - it's there so that neither the attacker nor the defender has complete control over the time that the POS will come out of reinforced mode (attacker controls when it goes in, defender controls how long it stays in), and so that you don't get huge gank squads roaming around blowing up everything in sight and destroying hundreds of millions of isk worth of stuff just because you were asleep when they came. The original balancing of the fuels has changed a few times since they were released to make the resupply a little easier and the reinforced mode a bit longer. I think it's arguable that where the orginal intention was that resupply was going to be a bit of a ***** (and we didn't know how many people would really bother), we're now in a quite different situation. As people have noted, sovereignty was implemented to reduce the ping-pong games that plagued the introduction of conquerable stations (despite, at the time, having what was thought to be an obscene number of hitpoints, when 40 to 120 battleships sitting pounding on one was a bit of a crazy idea). Among other things, the point is that in order to allow people to invest and build things, you need them to have a certain amount of stability, which means favouring the defender against the randomly malicious and bored - outposts are still a relatively large investment, and if we want people to develop an industrial base in outposts and if we have plans to allow them to build up a greater infrastructure, we need to provide them with methods of defense that provide some stability. Even individual corps that are using a POS "properly" to do something useful deserve some protection of their investment and work, and can be caused fairly significant hardship by having their POS put into reinforced mode. Any suggestions that don't involve saying "Take out POS" and take into account that there's things that the POS and Outposts were introduced for other than than being shot and providing a tick on the map, and other than just being owned by large alliances, are more likely to be taken seriously than others. That's just my take on it though.


Oveur	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:40:00 - [172] Originally by: Gerome Doutrande 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. "Some" is a bit of an understatement here - nowadays it seems as if almost every conflict that in some form involves sovereignity has a pos spamming phase involved. I can only think of two conflicts where that was not the case in the last 6 months. I guess I'll just translate me for you all instead of answering each and every one that misunderstood what I said: Originally by: Oveur It's an interesting thread, infrastructure and warfare around it is something we want to address with Factional Warfare. I agree with what's being said here, the thread is interesting and we're adressing it at the same time we're doing Factional Warfare, because that should evolve all warfare. 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. I do not think that taking a solar system with 60 Starbases and basing all designs on that is a good idea, nor if it has 30 Starbases or if 10 dreads were lost there. Look at the big picture, look at the real problems. For example, look at these number of online Starbases, divided into type and race, it's quite interesting. typeNameonline Caldari Control Tower712 Minmatar Control Tower Small298 Minmatar Control Tower504 Caldari Control Tower Small341 Amarr Control Tower Small321 Gallente Control Tower256 Gallente Control Tower Small228 Caldari Control Tower Medium210 Amarr Control Tower182 Gallente Control Tower Medium136 Minmatar Control Tower Medium129 Amarr Control Tower Medium91 You can deduct some information from this, but nothing really relevant, mainly that Caldari is most used and Mediums suck, but it does tell you one thing, there are 3408 of them, and changing the rules around them isn't something you just throw in there. What's going to be far more interesting is to see how many Starbases there is pr. system, how many of them are claiming sovereignty of that same alliance vs. other factions in same system, average starbase composition etc. to see how they are really used. But yet again, this is just statistics. What's really wrong is the siege itself, the lack of intermediate goals in the siege, the lack of fun in sieging a Starbase. I just came back from vacation but we have a lot of Infrastructure documents internally that I wanted to blog about, but it also need to address Instas. Oh, and system scanning. And upgradeable Outposts. And meaningfull Constellation Sovereignty. Let's not forget hitpoints of ships (especially capital ships) Senior Producer EVE Online

Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:47:00 - [173] Originally by: Oveur I just came back from vacation but we have a lot of Infrastructure documents internally that I wanted to blog about, but it also need to address Instas. Oh, and system scanning. And upgradeable Outposts. And meaningfull Constellation Sovereignty. Let's not forget hitpoints of ships (especially capital ships) hurry up then j/k. anyways, I agree with what is mostly discussed here. POS sieging is not fun and very laggy. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.

Oveur	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:47:00 - [174] Originally by: Redundancy Lots of text. I was here before you whoring! Go away!! Senior Producer EVE Online

Azuriel Talloth M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:54:00 - [175] Originally by: Oveur I'M ON IT Glad to hear it CCP Please rename "Warp Disrupt Probes" to "Interdiction Spheres", thanks!
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.08 16:58:00 - [176] Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 08/08/2006 16:59:24 Originally by: Redundancy it's there so that neither the attacker nor the defender has complete control over the time that the POS will come out of reinforced mode (attacker controls when it goes in, defender controls how long it stays in) The problem with that line of thought is that the defender can tweak the amount of stront to pick the exact time it will come out of reinforced, making it very hard to finish POS off if there are timezone differences. The obvious solution there is just some kind of limit on when you can alter the amount of fuel in a tower - say, you can't access the fuel storage while the tower's being locked/shot at or when any tower in the system meets the same conditions or for some specified time period after the conditions are met, or whatever. Currently, what normally happens is you get a dread assault during that alliance's prime time, and there's a guy from the other alliance sitting in the pos with a hauler full of stront and a calculator working out exactly when it's going to come out of reinforced down to the minute. If there was some way of locking people out from this kind of manipulation one small issue would probably go away. Originally by: Oveur But yet again, this is just statistics. What's really wrong is the siege itself, the lack of intermediate goals in the siege, the lack of fun in sieging a Starbase. I think that's what most people wanted to hear you say :) {edit} I would suggest though that the POS count in XZH probably wasn't an anomaly, but rather may be indicative of the future of large-scale POS warfare. Granted D2 are a major industrial power too, but there are several others who can make that claim and it seems that simply out-towering your opponents may be the simplest way to resolve such conflicts in the future, particularly with the addition of carriers for logistics purposes.

Redundancy	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:07:00 - [177] Originally by: Joerd Toastius The problem with that line of thought is that the defender can tweak the amount of stront to pick the exact time it will come out of reinforced, making it very hard to finish POS off if there are timezone differences. The obvious solution there is just some kind of limit on when you can alter the amount of fuel in a tower - say, you can't access the fuel storage while the tower's being locked/shot at or when any tower in the system meets the same conditions or for some specified time period after the conditions are met, or whatever. Currently, what normally happens is you get a dread assault during that alliance's prime time, and there's a guy from the other alliance sitting in the pos with a hauler full of stront and a calculator working out exactly when it's going to come out of reinforced down to the minute. If there was some way of locking people out from this kind of manipulation one small issue would probably go away. Correct, that's unintended, and probably shifts the balance too far one way. PS. Phoey @ Oveurwhora

Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:20:00 - [178] Sweet, thanks :) I look forward to the next changelog... ;)
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:24:00 - [179] Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 08/08/2006 17:25:49 I still like my idea :/ Something along the lines of: 3 L Towers = Similar fuel usage as now 5 L Towers = Elevated fuel usage (2x?) 10+ L Towers = Towers run out of fuel every hour from full, or something similarly insane :P Coupled with a few modifications to POSs, such as: -Removing Hardener Arrays, Increasing POS HP, Decreasing POS CPU/Grid -Increasing POS Turret Damage or DPS, Increasing POS Turret CPU/Grid (Same DPS, fewer turrets) -Removing additional arrays that really don't do much? (EW arrays have no effect on dreadnoughts, anyway?) -Create a sort of "Docking Array" where you can store ships (lots of them) in the POS (Array does nothing except ship storage, and anyone can access any ship in the array). Completely disallow ejecting from a ship at a POS except through the usage of this Docking Array. Make it cheap. -Disallow cargo jettison within POS FF. Otherwise, great to know you guys are working on it. Keep it up!
Hakera Minmatar Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:33:00 - [180] how to make pos fun, a toughie on the same level as how do you make ganking fun for both sides and generally the problem of defence during different timezones. I think personally you need a target priority AI which is interfacable. This could be as follows: - assign target priority -> list of ship classes which you can assign and move up or down in priority. - alternatively -> current avilible targets list and a central interface from the pos controls. - manual overide -> allow someone eg pos weapons offcier role to be able to control the pos defences (prob too big a project for here requiring its own interface which could treat the pos like a boarded ship maybe. - new pos modules -> system scanning array - will pinpoint any hostile ships in space to within a certain accuracy and perhaps even cloaked ships. micro pos jump gate -> connects one pos to another as a player jump gate with a certain range, takes a lot of resources and fuel to keep online with access controls required. (Will allow defenders to jump in and create shortcuts) as a few examples, pos battles however will always be limited by lag and numbers in one grid. I dont think there will ever be an easy solution to that.

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.