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)
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2006.08.09 10:11:00 - [241] Originally by: Christopher Scott I remember when CCP first revealed the concepts behind starbases. According to their drawings, most of the additional modules were outside the main starbase shields, and instead were protected by smaller pockets of shield batteries. it would be nice if certain starbase structures had to be a minimum 30km away from the starbase itself, and any shield protection would have to rely on smaller shield batteries. The smaller batteries would still have enormous hitpoints, but nothing on scale with the starbase itself. exactly ... the AI for your defense needs to be improved by 10000000% yes it sucks you should be able to configure your turrets and launchers: "a to shoot first list" eg. you set your small turrets primary target to frigates then cruisers then BS ... aso and every turret or launcher set for the same ship class needs to target the very same ship of that class and not spread fire for like 5 mins after that all turrets set for the same ship class switch to a new target aso. if that happend ... remove the ghey pos shield, YES no more hiding in it and now the most important part make it all like a COMPLEX with acceleration gates and again no more ghey pos shields you guys can think up the rest Greetings Grim
Jherek Cornelian Millennium E.R.A	Posted - 2006.08.09 11:09:00 - [242] Originally by: Bazman 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 Same for a lot of our older players mate. I hardly log in, slothe left Millennium because he is bored.. tinrib 45 million sp player is leaving next week cos he is bored. And this has all stemmed from POSes, a lot of us play Eve because we watched Star Wars and Star Trek as kids we want to have battles in pretend space ships, not sat looking at space for 6 hours at a stretch while lagging out. I don't remember Han Solo or Kirk spamming posses tbh - mindya I don't remember them saying 'stfu noob' either
The Pacman SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2006.08.09 11:25:00 - [243] At first i've to say thank you Nafri - you summarized the current situation in 0.0 warfare really well and hit the nail on it's top. The overall discussion here shows that this are not only some subjective impressions from single players. This are real concerns from players all over the existing 0.0 eve regions which normally shot each other than discussing something like that. So Oveur and Redundancy i hope you take this discussion really seriuos. Unfortunatly the recent post's derail the topic a bit and there are also some utopic suggestions that would take ages to implement. But we don't have the time to wait till this completely new systems are implemented. We need a change in the impact of POS's to 0.0 alliance warfare as soon as possible imho or you will see the PVP'ers leaving 0.0 in mass or even quitting the game. And only this impact of POS's to 0.0 warfare is the topic of this thread. Not the POS's itself. IMO enslayer has proposed the best solution that also could be implemented in the Timeframe (max. 6 months from now) available. It gives the PVP aspect back to region control and sovereignity. You want maintain souvereignity? Defend it by defending your POS when it comes out of reinforced mode. With no guns online at a tower with a sovereignity module it's real player vs player and we can do what we want to do - massive fleetbattles. On top of that - make this sovereignity module large enough in size (m¦) that it cannot be jumped in with carrier or mothership. A freighter should be used and the module should be jettisoned from a freighter. This way you are able to blockade systems in active warfare and keep them unclaimed if you whish so. To achieve a bit more security for the claiming/defending alliance i would propose to give this sovereignity module a ressource hangar able to be filled with a second stack of stronthium additionally to the stronthium already in the tower. At maximum you should be able to have a reinforced mode of 3 or 4 days. Not more. If your PVP'ers are elsewhere in action and you get surprised 3 days should be enough to get everyone in place to defend. If not you dont deserve the sovereignity in the system obviously. Regarding the sovereignity advantage for pos fuel and the use of it for T2 production lines - a simple sentence to you guys - Risk vs Reward. Use a Pos and that Sovereignity Module to get sovereignity and you will also get the pos fuel advantage. Loose it if you are not able to defend the system and the sovereignity claiming POS properly. Maybe the pos fuel advantage can be boosted a bit. This way you can get the costs for this "additional" large Pos back through a slightly higher boost. Anyway i hope CCP will do something about this but as far as i read the 2 dev posts i personally have some doubts ;) --- The Pacman - SteelVipers -
Drilla Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 11:48:00 - [244] If done right a POS cant be taken down - period. RA has this gamemechanic down and nobody in EVE can beat a POS that's defended by a fleet too - just not possible without insane (100+ bills) losses. There need to be a balance of some sort as it stands now a POS is unbeatable. Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost!
Ravenscarr United Space Republic Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.09 12:03:00 - [245] Alot of you are saying remove large pos's, well thats kinda silly. Alot of large pos used by people like myself are used to moon mine and react materials, so the cant simply be removed. I think a nerf is in order, or maybe limit the amount of hardeners you can put on, or limit the amount of pos's depending on the size of you alliance. There are lots of other good nerf's, but dont forget about little people like me who use large pos's to react and sell complex materials to the t2 market :)
The Major Caldari StateCorp Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.09 12:07:00 - [246] Lag issues are not a fundamental flaw in the concept of the POS but a software and hardware issue that needs to be addressed. We're no closer to removing blob warfare now than we were 3 years ago and to be honest it will probably never go away. Even if you make the effectivenes sof a blob Vs a single ship worse the blob will still exist. The actual military facilities of a POS are crap. The industrial facilities are far better developed while the capabilities of a tower to defend itself have barely changed since they were added initially. This needs addressing first. The ideas of jump portal twinned structures for example makes the rapid deployment to the defense of a POS viable. It also makes the concept of a beach-head open to the attackers. Worth investigating sooner rather than later. We need more tactically useful structures like listening posts. The ability to ping a system and get a report back on the number of large contacts in the system would be incredibly valuable. Inteligent weapon targetting combined with a reduction in tower weapon damage. The random cycling of tower guns means that after a certain critical mass of targets arrives the static defenses are virtually useless. This actually encourages the attackers to spam a tower with disposable ships to create more targets to spread the fire out a little. Defenders should be able to program the guns to prioritize targets based on a few factors, Sig Radius, Range and Hitpoints left. Combined with a reduction in the damage output of the guns this could make smaller fleets attacking a POS viable as you can no longer insta-pop a Dread with a Large tower. Siege mode becomes more useful. Other changes need to be more fundamental and would ultimately change the nature of Eve combat. I'll throw out one idea (which I don't personally like but it is my idea and just an example of where things could go). Based on the Planetside Lattice Network concept (so yes I have basically stolen the idea): Maintaining sovriegnty in two joining systems allows you to control in some way the stargate between them. This might be in terms of standing based access, or usage fees. It might even be as basic as allowing you to anchor POS guns around it. If you allow it to affect who can use the gate then the hacking skills should come into play to allow enemies to hack the controls to a gate to jump through. We don't want to eliminate roaming ganksquads altogether, espechilly since I enjoy them so much. That is the very basic concept. If you think for a few moments you can immediately see how it can be exploited. However it's just a base. Somewhere to start from. How about we take the idea and we develop it so that to control a stargate requires a structure twinned to two gates or to one gate and a station. One of the gates it is twinned to must already be under your alliances control or be a station your alliance currently controls. So now we have a network setup. The heart of this network is a station or Outpost. Destroy a key link in this network and you potentially could blow a hole in your enemies network wide enough for you to move a fleet through. Critically though it is providing defense for your alliances industrial infrastructure. This would have to come in with changes to make starbases more fragile in some way. There is no way this kind of frontline warfare can exist given how long it can take to organise an assault on a system right now. To go off on a tangent I just thought about the hacking a gate thing. If combined with the control chain to a station a talented hacker in a cov ops could sneak into the enemies space and disbale key gates so that it opens up a hole to move a fleet through. Anyway think about it. This would admittedly make roaming ganksquad combat harder (Which is a shame as that's what I enjoy most) but it would promote war in Eve to actual war with tangible lines of combat.
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.09 12:34:00 - [247] No more CCP responses? Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
Pegas NEXT LEVEL	Posted - 2006.08.09 12:50:00 - [248] Edited by: Pegas on 09/08/2006 12:50:23 POS`es turned EVE into a turn bassed strategy and for sure killed some of the game`s dynamic. They should still be in-game but a 1 bil isk POS and 1 hauler guy shouldn`t be able to stop 50b isk dread fleet and more than 300 players. For me POS wars made me look for something else in this game. They certanly need to be balanced and number of the moons in system needs to be decreased or what Enslaver suggested. I don`t agree with players to stay at the POS guns in order to fire the guns. Trial accounts or 1 month old alts can easily do that. Also give medium toweres a more active role.
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.09 13:13:00 - [249] Originally by: Virtuozzo No more CCP responses? Obviously this issue isnt ringing bells in the office
Just Smith Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 13:17:00 - [250] I would not change the reinforced mode timer as it would be to annoying as people will just pop pos when the other side have no people on (it be like log on and get new towers every day) Making the fuel bill go up more pos that go down in a system is a nice idea but you would have to set it so it did not effect empire people or else that would badly hurt the t2 market. the only thing i would change on the pos system is the fuel bill if you have more pos then you have to pay for more fuel, And also having Everything on the pos go offline when it enters reinfored mode and can't be onlined again till after shields get 50% so you can have a fight at the pos for half the time but still give the dreads a job to do. Problem with that is the lag and hopfully ccp will one day ccp will fix that. What i am hoping for is a module/ship that can deploy a shield (the ship can't move when it does it) which protects people inside the shield (make them take less dmg) as that might allow fleet battles to last longer, Or having the module/ship deploy a field that makes things miss half the time. though i guess you would have to make the ship thats doing it been able to tank like mad cus everyone would shot it frist.
Serapis Aote TBC Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2006.08.09 13:33:00 - [251] I was bored so I read this whole thread, very good read and apparently probably more fun then POS warfare. From it I saw some great ideas. Splitting the function of sovereignty and industry that is currently combined in the POS. Balancing the industry and warfare elements of the POS might be a large part of the problem. So I like the idea of keeping the POS the way it is but creating another structure entirely for the purpose of sovereignty. I like the idea of calling this a fortress. For my idea each system can only contain 1 fortress at a time. This fortress will have no weapons but will have insane amounts of shield and armor hp. Mainly it should take several hours for several dreads to take one down, but be nearly impossible for say 40 battleships (shields recharge). Ships can not be inside the shield of the fortress, it is not a pos. The fortress can not have its shield or armor repaired by players, but both do recharge themselves pretty quickly, so the attacker better keep firing or it will repair. The reason for doing away with weapons is purely to hopefully to reduce lag, and primarily to reduce the problems associated with lag faced by attacking forces, which is that while they are lagged and cant use their modules, the defenders have the bonus of having the POS still firing. The next part of my plan calls for eliminating system sovereignty and moving entirely to constellation sovereignty. In order to claim any space you must claim a the majority of systems in the constellation. Hopefully this will help spread out fights among several systems and reduce lag. Also I think reinforced mode should not be used. Instead I think a system where the fortress was only attackable on weekends for about 8 hours on Friday and 16 on Saturday and Sunday would hopefully solve some more problems. This solution is a completely artificial means to hopefully avoid some to the problems with POS warfare affecting RL. Most players have more free time on weekends, and most players have some overlapping playtime then to. This prevents alliances from having to worry about their stuff while most of them are at work. Fortresses also can only be put up during these times and can only be put up using a freighter or titan. Preventing people from putting them up while most people are asleep. As a bonus to defenders I think that an alliance who has a sovereignty through fortresses should be able to prevent others from throwing up POSes in their sovereign territory, thus giving them a logistical advantage. This means that to take a station an attacking force would have to take down all fortresses and put all of theirs up all in an entire weekend and in multiple systems. Hopefully this could lead to some dynamic and long lasting fights in multiple systems.
Tao Han Caldari Crucial Electronics	Posted - 2006.08.09 13:40:00 - [252] Originally by: Hellraiza666 Originally by: Virtuozzo No more CCP responses? Obviously this issue isnt ringing bells in the office Just because they arent responding here doesnt mean they dont discuss it at their office. Oveur has responded and thus know how we feel about it, an issue of this size cant go unnoticed so stop crying "CCP dont love us" and instead discuss possible solutions.
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.09 13:51:00 - [253] Originally by: Tao Han Originally by: Hellraiza666 Originally by: Virtuozzo No more CCP responses? Obviously this issue isnt ringing bells in the office Just because they arent responding here doesnt mean they dont discuss it at their office. Oveur has responded and thus know how we feel about it, an issue of this size cant go unnoticed so stop crying "CCP dont love us" and instead discuss possible solutions. But ofcourse, it would however be reassuring to see them join the debate actively. Maybe I've bumped into too many "hickups" the last year, but I cannot deny that I will welcome any visible action from CCP which gives me - and which gives others in environments like mine - confidence again. When I look at all the external forums, and see the message therabouts of pilots concerning the topic in this thread, I would almost dare to say that we're almost hitting a very much related crux in trends. We still love Eve dearly, but it is getting painful at a lot of times (and no, I have overcome the incorrect models of the Chimera and Wyvern :P so it's not about such little things). But I can see where we misunderstood each other, allow me to rephrase: CCP, come think with us here, right here in this thread and together we'll overcome anything thrown at us by math. Something like that. Skipping lunch is bad for my brain it seems. Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2006.08.09 14:04:00 - [254] There are a bunch of good suggestions in this thread. i think we could look at a combined system. 1 - Mineral rights -> claimed by current POS. Mineral rights provides fuel bonuses for POS towers. 2 - System rights (Sovereignty) -> claimed by A solar harvestor (or other name decided by devs). Solar harvestor is a large structure anchored at the sun. The structure will have limited Powergrid and CPU so that is can mount some defense but not much more than that of a medium control tower currently has. This structure requires no fuel and does not go into reinforced mode. It should have lots of shield hitpoints and a decent recharge rate. The recharge rate should make it that it requires a decent force to kill the structure but not so much that it is impossible. Suffice it to say, a fleet of 15 to 20 BS should not be able to kill it, but a small number of dreads (4 to 6) should be able to overcome the natural recharge of the shields. This should also have a POS style force shield that only allows the opposing fleet to target the harvestor itself. When the shields are gone that force field should go away as well and all anchored modules go offline (as the harvestor should be offline once shields are down). The attacking fleet could then go to take the outpost/conquerable in system, or they could continue to destroy the solar harvestor. With this module in place, the controling alliance can deploy an outpost and colonies. The solar harvestor (or whatever it is named) is also what makes the outpost immune to attack like POS do now. You want to take the outpost, you have to kill the solar harvestor and thats it. Nothing else. You want to hurt your opponent financially, you kill the POS and the colonies. Outposts would be the same thing we have now. Colonies are a a smaller structure that you cant dock at but provides other bonuses. They should be expensive to build but not as much as an outpost (maybe 25% of the cost or less). You must have an outpost before you can place colonies. These colonies would make limited trade goods available at the Outposts. Maybe at first it would start with things like the goods needed for POS but it should produce them at a rate similar to the POS fuel needs. For instance, one colony may provide robotics but it would not provide any more than say 100 units a day (enough for 4 large control towers). Each system should provide no more than 2 or 3 of the trade goods needed for POS. This would allow for the partial colonization of the 0.0 regions. This would allow alliances to live out in 0.0 with out the need to go to empire. If each 0.0 region is missing one or two of the 5 trade goods required for POS fuel, that could open trade between the different alliances to fill the gaps of the trade goods they cant aquire (though they can also still go to empire to get those goods as well. These should also have minimal defenses and no reinforced mode. Similar to the Solar harvestor except that is has fewer hitpoints and slower shield recharge. A fleet of 30 or more BS should be able to cause damage to or eventually destroy this structure. Maybe the good made by the colonies available on a system by system basis as well. One solar system produces robotics while a different one produces oxygen and yet a different one produces enriched uranium. This way it would take some effort to actually live in 0.0 full time but it could be done, and then each planet with a colony would make 4 times the a large tower consuption per hour (or some multiplier to be balanced by the devs). then you can support a limited number of POS with the colonies but not so many that you have tons excess. See next post for possible stats to start from on the colonies and solar harvestor.
Cker Heel ISS Logistics Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.09 14:06:00 - [255] Originally by: Serenity Steele Make Spamming assault POS difficult - Structure size increase to bigger than expanded dread size - say 60,000m3 for a small up to 240,000m3 for a large (no bigger thanks). - This would mean all towers have to be abandoned, as there is no way to recover the towers after an assault. This is an excellent idea. I would suggest only applying it to large towers. Small towers do not count for sovereignty if larges are in system, and the new POS runner should not be required to use a freighter to move small tower.
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2006.08.09 14:16:00 - [256] Solar Harvestor: shields - 80,000,000 recharge - 9,500 seconds Peak recharge - 20200 DPS Should have same shield resists as the racial POS Powergrid - same as racial medium control tower CPU - same as racial small control tower Armor - 25,000,000 (same resists as racial control tower) Volume - 75,000+ m3 (must be deployed by freighter) Anchor time - 2 to 4 hours Online time - 4+ hours Force Shield Radius - 15km Colonies: shields - 40,000,000 recharge - 9,500 seconds Peak recharge - 10100 DPS Should have same shield resists as the racial POS Powergrid - same as racial medium control tower CPU - same as racial small control tower Armor - 15,000,000 (same resists as racial control tower) Volume - 75,000+ m3 (must be deployed by freighter) Anchor time - 2 to 4 hours Online time - 4+ hours These are not supposed to be easy to take down, but not supposed to be impossible as well.
iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.09 14:51:00 - [257] Originally by: Drilla If done right a POS cant be taken down - period. RA has this gamemechanic down and nobody in EVE can beat a POS that's defended by a fleet too - just not possible without insane (100+ bills) losses. There need to be a balance of some sort as it stands now a POS is unbeatable. Overall I do agree that the current system with POS's needs some love, especially with the way lag affects POS battles. But every time I hear someone justify nerfing POS's because they can't kill them while they're defended by a fleet..... If you couldn't kill a POS while it's undefended, I could understand. But a defending fleet, especially one on the scale that RA fielded over this past weekend, should certainly be able to defend a POS. I want you to switch sides for a moment, and tell me that if the POS were yours, you would be ok with still losing a POS to an enemy even when you were defending it with a nice sized BS fleet? In the end, LV was able to put an RA POS into reinforced, even while RA was defending with a fleet. Yes there were Dread casualties in doing it - but anyone who takes a ship into battle should fully expect that it could be destroyed. The day CCP releases a ship that cannot be taken down by an armed POS and a defending fleet, will be the day most players quit.
rig0r 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.08.09 16:35:00 - [258] Signed. POS warfare is boring as hell. Eve on Linux
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.09 16:37:00 - [259] Originally by: iqplayer Originally by: Drilla If done right a POS cant be taken down - period. RA has this gamemechanic down and nobody in EVE can beat a POS that's defended by a fleet too - just not possible without insane (100+ bills) losses. There need to be a balance of some sort as it stands now a POS is unbeatable. Overall I do agree that the current system with POS's needs some love, especially with the way lag affects POS battles. But every time I hear someone justify nerfing POS's because they can't kill them while they're defended by a fleet..... If you couldn't kill a POS while it's undefended, I could understand. But a defending fleet, especially one on the scale that RA fielded over this past weekend, should certainly be able to defend a POS. I want you to switch sides for a moment, and tell me that if the POS were yours, you would be ok with still losing a POS to an enemy even when you were defending it with a nice sized BS fleet? In the end, LV was able to put an RA POS into reinforced, even while RA was defending with a fleet. Yes there were Dread casualties in doing it - but anyone who takes a ship into battle should fully expect that it could be destroyed. The day CCP releases a ship that cannot be taken down by an armed POS and a defending fleet, will be the day most players quit. question is, reinforced is not killed, were LV able to kill the large control tower? I guess not, cause the control tower will come out when the enemy has to work. From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.09 19:17:00 - [260] as lag plays a very big role in pos warfare too, oveur can u give us a time scale when changes will b made to reduce lag? would b pretty awesome. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Anara Serraph UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 21:30:00 - [261] Quite a few good ideas in this thread i like the idea of seperating out mineral rights and soveriegnty into 2 seperate systems. but i think the main problem of POS being extremely tough to break and discouraging fleet combat could be solved easily. allow the besieging of the POS themselves instead of just the system. as it stands now you just have to log in your cyno alt, inst to the pos, put up a field, in jumps the carrier fleet, POS is refueled. make it so that people who log out without an aggresion timer are warp to the a random point near the closest planet (not a easy gank spot but also not a good safespot). make it so that cyno fields cant be created inside the POS also make all warp travel to the POS end 5km outside the shield. make it so that nobody can enter the pos when the shield is being shot at and also when its being reinforced. this will mean that the defenders must fight the attackers in order to get to the pos at least forcing the dreads to warp away and the support fleet focus of the deffenders before someone could get to the POS. I also think that targeting restrictions should be put in place on the guns/launchers large batteries should only fire on Capital ships, mediums on battleships and smalls on cruisers/battlecruisers. this would cause fitting problems for the deffenders as they will have to decide were to put there resources instead of just placing guns that with shoot anthing also it would allo frigates to move around the pos looking to tackle any ships moving in to resuply the POS and lets face it a few frigates are not a threat to a POS anyway.
nahtoh Caldari Bull Industries	Posted - 2006.08.09 21:40:00 - [262] Heres a idea that I don't think has been touched on purely or the POS spam issue... Only a certain type/number of moons count towards sov like capture points for the system. Say theres 40 moons in system but only 5 of them count towards Sov. Helps cut down the POS spam for sov wars it also gives a in system anchor point for the battles. How the moons are Identiyedcouldbe roled out with the new system scanning... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Ishana Minmatar Millennium E.R.A	Posted - 2006.08.10 07:39:00 - [263] I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread, but I read some good stuff. IMHO: -The number of moons should be reduced drasticly. (40 moons is just way to much to defend. If you want to be save you need at least 21 large posses up and running. This cost WAY to much.) -Posses should be a defencive structure. NOT OFFENCIVE. (they way it works now, the ATTACKER spams posses which is really easy to do. I would much rather see a system were all the defending posses need to be removed before the attacker can anchor their own. This brings a problem though, that the defender will just put up more posses as soon as 1 is destroyed. So something needs to prevent posses being anchored when a system is under siege.) -Therefor systems should have an "under siege" status. As long as this is in effect NOBODY can anchor any posses. Certain critiria should be met to reach this status. (posses are below 75% shield or in reinforced mode or some such thing.) -Posses should be easier to kill. (putting a well defended pos in reinforced mode is hard as hell and when you do get it there, it will just be recharged outside your timezone by a few afk osprey alts, and you can start all over again.) - Carriers should not be able to carry pos fuel or structures. (jumping in a carrier with pos fuel is just insane and I can;t believe that it ever made it into the game. (WHAT ARE YOU THINKING DEVS!!). It eliminated the whole point of locking down a system to keep people from bringing fuel in. You should be able to cut of the supply route. currently that is not possible.) _________________________________________________________
Wild Rho Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.08.10 07:53:00 - [264] Personally I think there needs to be a different way to handle the reinforcement mode, either some sort of limit to the number of times it can be knocked into it or a fixed time before it can be in reinforcd again (kinda like a capacitor charge that needs to be built up). WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
Joram McRory Caldari eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 08:40:00 - [265] Edited by: Joram McRory on 10/08/2006 08:40:44 Originally by: Ishana -Posses should be a defencive structure. NOT OFFENCIVE. (they way it works now, the ATTACKER spams posses which is really easy to do. I would much rather see a system were all the defending posses need to be removed before the attacker can anchor their own. This brings a problem though, that the defender will just put up more posses as soon as 1 is destroyed. So something needs to prevent posses being anchored when a system is under siege.) This is absolutely right! The above post reminded me of some ancient gaming history. Any one remember the Age of Empires game? The "I Win" button for that game was spamming castles - you could not bother with expensive armys, just have a huge mob of peasants run in to the enemy area and throw up a castle, once up you just filled it with those peasants and it would kill off any attacker. This is what EvE pos warfare is like - you don't need a fleet (well not much of one) you just zerg rush a system with carriers deploying a **** load of poses. Then the defender wastes his "army" throwing themselves into the lag pit.... It is this offensive use of POS that breaks the game. Joram
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 09:53:00 - [266] Originally by: Virtuozzo No more CCP responses? virt get your ass back on irc, i'm bored :P

Redundancy	Posted - 2006.08.10 10:10:00 - [267] Originally by: Virtuozzo Originally by: Tao Han Originally by: Hellraiza666 Originally by: Virtuozzo No more CCP responses? Obviously this issue isnt ringing bells in the office Just because they arent responding here doesnt mean they dont discuss it at their office. Oveur has responded and thus know how we feel about it, an issue of this size cant go unnoticed so stop crying "CCP dont love us" and instead discuss possible solutions. But ofcourse, it would however be reassuring to see them join the debate actively. ... We have lots of stuff to do, and debating stuff on the forums is extremely time consuming. We're still reading, and we're still discussing it here, on and off, and we're also looking at the designs we have with this in mind. Certainly, we've had our beefs with the tedium of sitting bashing your head against a brick wall until it goes into reinforced mode for a long time, and as Oveur hinted, there's already a glimer of the wish to do something about that and other issues, but I don't think we want to go into detail or put too definate a timeframe on anything yet. There's certainly some ideas in this thread that I'm going to lobby for (and others that I wont :P).

Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 10:18:00 - [268] Quote: We have lots of stuff to do, and debating stuff on the forums is extremely time consuming. We're still reading, and we're still discussing it here, on and off, and we're also looking at the designs we have with this in mind. Certainly, we've had our beefs with the tedium of sitting bashing your head against a brick wall until it goes into reinforced mode for a long time, and as Oveur hinted, there's already a glimer of the wish to do something about that and other issues, but I don't think we want to go into detail or put too definate a timeframe on anything yet. There's certainly some ideas in this thread that I'm going to lobby for (and others that I wont :P). We all know you guys are busy, just hope you're getting the "gist" of this thread is all... I hope something happens soon... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Paull90 FACTA NON VERBA Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.10 11:07:00 - [269] I totally agree that atm POS's are ruining 0.0 allaince pvp combat. Here are my suggestions for changes to POS's 1. Limit the number of ships able to dock with the POS (hide behind the shield). This has two benefits the first being reducing lag due to less ships in one area and the second being if a capital ship jumps in to refuel a POS under attack if all the docking ports are full it would appear outside the shield and be able to be attacked. 2. Remove re-inforced mode. Nothing else in eve has anything like this. The POS should have Shields, Armor and Structure just like anything else. Once gone the pos explodes. 3. Apply more limits to the number of modules that can be fitted similar to the low, medium and hi-slots on ships. This will make people that more about what they want to do with the pos (damage, tank, production etc) 4. Introduce a stacking penalty for POS's within a system affecting anchoring time, fuel requirements, Sheilds and armor and CPU/PG. This means if you pos spam a system all of your pos's will be weaker and easier to remove. This won't reduce the blobs wars for locking down systems but it will make it more realistic to take down pos's and could maybe make a defending force more likely to try to run the gate camp to help with the system defence. At least then we would have some action and some fun. Anyway thats my two pence worth. Its better to burn out than to fade away!!!!
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 11:20:00 - [270] Originally by: Redundancy Certainly, we've had our beefs with the tedium of sitting bashing your head against a brick wall until it goes into reinforced mode for a long time Can't blame you, people try that a lot :P But as with the general issue each time someone does succeed I micromanage the amount of strontium in such a way that I wake up when everyone else is asleep, after which I use another character to fuel me up again with food and another one to revitalise me by feeding me shields ... Apology accepted :P Originally by: Joram McRory Originally by: Redundancy We have lots of stuff to do, and debating stuff on the forums is extremely time consuming. We're still reading, and we're still discussing it here, on and off, and we're also looking at the designs we have with this in mind. Certainly, we've had our beefs with the tedium of sitting bashing your head against a brick wall until it goes into reinforced mode for a long time, and as Oveur hinted, there's already a glimer of the wish to do something about that and other issues, but I don't think we want to go into detail or put too definate a timeframe on anything yet. There's certainly some ideas in this thread that I'm going to lobby for (and others that I wont :P). While I fully understand your wish not to speculate on the forums. We all realise that if you mention something here as a possibility evryone will assume it is fact. But..... If you could list the possibilities from this thread you think have merit and those that don't, then we could concentrate our discussions here to expanding/fine tuning the possibilities and not waste our time on the no-gos. Exactly. That is the crux here. Use us a paying think-tank. But give it a direction, your time is valuable, so is ours, and we all care about EVE. As a product, a game, a close circle of friends, as a precious steam valve. 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.