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)
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:07:00 - [1] August 2006 - Eve has evolved, 26k players in space, dozens of potent alliances in space. Capitals ships are used daily, capital ships are lost daily. We have our new server allowing us 100vs100 fleetfights. Everything madly? No... There are some bad concepts in this game ruin the gaming experience of thousands of people. The source of all those evilness? The infamouse "Player Owned Station" also known as "POS" What is a POS? A POS is a anchored structure placable at every unused moon in Eve. We have 3 different POSes in Eve: Large (the deathstar!) Medium (he, what, useless now) Small (Moon Mining). You need Large POSes to claim a system in Eve allowing you to take over the station and secure it for you. The party with most POSes can get the station? Whats the wrong with a POS, thy sound like fun? Their whole idia is rotten. Putting up a POS can be done by a single person, and needs 1h of time, but basicly the work is done within 30mins, when you do it alone. With 50 people in local you can put 10-20 towers online within 2-3h easily. Their low cost of about 1 billion isk (yeah, thats kinda cheap) allows the mass usage of them in alliance warfare. 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? POSes create lag, increadible lag. Staying there for 1-2h will lag your client out intensivly. My poor PC is always close to death after sitting next to a POS for some tme. POSes lead to blobbing. Since you need to protect your dreads, you need a big blob to defend them. That creates lag again... POSes lead to less fights. Since your blobbing you mostly outblobb your enemy, he cant engange your fleet and that makes everything kinda dull and boring. Just read the alliance forum, you have seen any war decided by a few fleetbattles latly? No, you read about goonswarm vs d¦, POSes, lag and no fights. You read about RA vs Coalition, POSes, lag and no fights. Taking over space today? That is no fighting, that is boring outblobbing, campign, and shooting POSes for days. POSes are ruining alliance warfare, they ruin 0.0 space, they lead to thing the server cant handle (the megablobb). Rework them now! Please CCP, your game is kinda dying in 0.0 space... From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:11:00 - [2] Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game? Just thinking out loud here...
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:13:00 - [3] Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game? Just thinking out loud here... I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations. Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Shadowsword Gallente COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:17:00 - [4] /signed, the current situation means that any big alliance WILL blob to protect their capitals, to the point that a smaller alliance can't enter the system without taking catastrophic losses, and so can't really fight back. ------------------------------------------ Nuhwall: Why are some Amarr ships warping backward? Shadowsword: whatever happen, if they need to flee they can honestly say the faced the enemy.
Tao Han Caldari Crucial Electronics	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:18:00 - [5] Edited by: Tao Han on 07/08/2006 09:18:35 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? and thats for 1 POS, now imagine trying to conquer a systenm with 40 moons where more than 50% of them has POSes at them to prevent the enemy from counter-spamming. Lets say 21 POSes, thats alot of ppl needed and the lag created is really horrible, now aslong as you dont lag out out totally, defending such a system is quite easy. I feel that a change is needed. Now we have considered the problem, lets solve it.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:20:00 - [6] Originally by: Shadowsword /signed, the current situation means that any big alliance WILL blob to protect their capitals, to the point that a smaller alliance can't enter the system without taking catastrophic losses, and so can't really fight back. I don't think any change to POSses will effectively change that. A blob will always be a blob. What needs to change is that POSses are almost indestructible due to lag, while still being able to obliterate enemy fleets caught in said lag. Reducing the strength of POSses might be the easiest solution, so that if a major fleet shows up, it takes more than just the advantage of having a POS at your side, which is unaffected by lag, to defeat a superior force.
Dethis Caldari Eve University The Big Blue	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:25:00 - [7] /signed -------- Kill em all and let god sort em out
Tarri FACTA NON VERBA Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:28:00 - [8] /agree 100% with topic starter CCP don¦t let EVE become a cruel joke of what it should be. ----
Fred0 Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:37:00 - [9] I agree, change the mechanics in some way. This is abit redicilous. :(
Fiery Maiden	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:42:00 - [10] Edited by: Fiery Maiden on 07/08/2006 09:43:08 delete pls
Pepperami Art of War	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:43:00 - [11] I agree fully with the OP. IMO the sovereignity system and capital ships as a whole need a complete overhaul and role change.
Darkrydar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:50:00 - [12] agree changes are needed. Judging by past timeframes, it should only be another 9 months before they try the next idea.
Christopher Scott Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:51:00 - [13] Put a resource cap on POS deployment. A corporation or alliance can only anchor a certain number of POS for sovreign control. This number is determined by how much sovreign territory is under your control. You need to decide how to spread out your POS deployment. If you have no sovreignity, then you need to start small. Start with uncontested systems, or systems with weak sovreignity. As you increase your territorial control, you will be allowed to deploy more POS for sovreignity, and will be able to capture more heavily contested areas. While conquering territory will increase your POS resource limit, you will not have enough resources able to heavily fortify ALL your conquered systems. You will need to decide how to spread out your resources. If you provide the heaviest number of POS to your important systems, then you will only have enough resources left to spread light protection around the rest of your space. If you are looking to conquer an enemy territory, you would start by conquering all his weakest sovreignity. This would increase your recource pool, allowing you to pool more resources and go after the larger, more contested areas, while at the same time diminishing the enemy's resource pool and their ability to fortify against your attack. The enmy can choose to thwart your advances and reclaim his space from your sovreignity, or the enemy can choose to flank your advance by attacking your own home territory, and conquering your own weakened areas. Anyways, if sovreignity and POS deployment is moved to a capped resource system, then it can be easily scaled. That means CCP can scale DOWN the number of POS involved in territorial control, while keeping the mechanics the same. Just my 0.02 isk.
Novarei The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:52:00 - [14] Just remove POSs completely.
General Hansen Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:53:00 - [15] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game? Just thinking out loud here... I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations. Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore Best idea ever... HIHI
Dinique Caldari Black Lance Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:59:00 - [16] If Large turrets (XL guns essentially) on a POS never shot at anything smaller than a capital if one is in range that would be a big step already. Dusk till Dawn Twilight to Starlight
Xendie Chosen Path Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.08.07 09:59:00 - [17] 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. Quote: Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:01:00 - [18] Or rather, keep things largely as they are but just decouple sov from station ownership. That keeps the territorial markings, fuel bonuses etc but just prevents you having to POSwar to decide who owns the station, making sov claims just a fuel/epeen issue. IMO there does need to be a way to secure your station, but I agree that the current situation with POS is not a particularly good way to do it.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:05:00 - [19] Originally by: General Hansen Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game? Just thinking out loud here... I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations. Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore Best idea ever... Its all a matter of course of how big you want the 'speedbump' to be in conquering a hostile station/system. Matter of perspective I think, but we all seem to agree that the current implementation isn't working. On the other hand, what you certainly don't want is returning to the game of 'station pingpong' as I saw it referred to in the past I think. And I would like to see where its still possible to reinforce a system to make it harder to take I think. Some sort of 'capital' or 'fortress' idea. How about this: - we keep POSses - Stations become attackable and can be put into reinforced, thenconquered after a few days when they come out of reinforced - We create a new POS module, called something like shield transfer module (idea stolen from Starwars, with a shield projection system from the moon protecting the building of the deathstar), this module increases shields on the station by X million. This way, POSses still contribute to the defense of the station, but are no longer the untakeable hurdle to taking the station and fights will happen around the station if the attacker wants, or he can still try to take out POSses if he prefers.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:07:00 - [20] Why not just cut POS hitpoints by 5 times? --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II
Darkrydar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:07:00 - [21] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: General Hansen Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Malachon Draco Would it be a solution to just remove the Large POS from the game? Just thinking out loud here... I would prefer if they just dont have any impact on sov over a system. Just increase station HP and make the reinforced system available for stations. Dreads will still be needed to take out enemy production, but not to take over stations and they wouldnt stop fights anymore Best idea ever... Its all a matter of course of how big you want the 'speedbump' to be in conquering a hostile station/system. Matter of perspective I think, but we all seem to agree that the current implementation isn't working. On the other hand, what you certainly don't want is returning to the game of 'station pingpong' as I saw it referred to in the past I think. And I would like to see where its still possible to reinforce a system to make it harder to take I think. Some sort of 'capital' or 'fortress' idea. How about this: - we keep POSses - Stations become attackable and can be put into reinforced, thenconquered after a few days when they come out of reinforced - We create a new POS module, called something like shield transfer module (idea stolen from Starwars, with a shield projection system from the moon protecting the building of the deathstar), this module increases shields on the station by X million. This way, POSses still contribute to the defense of the station, but are no longer the untakeable hurdle to taking the station and fights will happen around the station if the attacker wants, or he can still try to take out POSses if he prefers. mm I like it.
Serenity Steele Rearden Steele Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:14:00 - [22] With or without POS, there needs to be a method of claiming visiably identifiable ownership of systems and more generally, securing assets in space in a game that runs through all time-zones. The solution of POS for station defence, is IMO, a good solution to ensure that there is a pre-determined time of day for resolving siege on fixed assets. The alternative would be to have external game messaging and level of defence possible through structure investment that would ensure the station survived until you could get back in the game to defend is aka. Mankind. From experience, receiving SMSs while at work / classes is not a level of involvement that you easily want in your gaming life. POS for long term sovreignty is not as simple as the OP points out, and particularly where there is significant logistics complexity involved at acheiving any kind of significant scale. It represents true permannent colonisation. That leaves the key issue to how POS is effecting BloB warfare and the quick-placement of POS for assault purposes both prior to, and during a seige or combat. One possible way of addressing this is to reduce the effectiveness of POS at initial placement. This is already done for sovereignty, but could be expanded to effect assault POS as well. If the main problem is creating an 'insta' fortress in the target systems, Penalties that would resolve this are: - When a POS is first onlined, it has 0% shields, which have to recharge at a normal rate, or be boosted through remote shield transfer - Limited shield range, the POS force-field expands from just covering the tower out to it's full range over time. This would mean initially any combat structures would be unprotected by the field. - Increase anchoring time of POS and structures (but NOT keep ratio of double time to unanchor - that is a right pain).
Zaldiri Caldari Automated Industries	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:17:00 - [23] How about if once you have achieved sovereignty over a sytem you keep sovereignty over that system untill you have no pos left claiming? Would that and increasing the claim time on pos's help? ----------------------------------------------- Admiral of King Frieza's Super Saiyan fleet.
Zenior Minmatar Rage of Angels	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:18:00 - [24] I don't know much about POS's, but I know they are boring and to kill. Maybe CCP's definition of PvP, is Player versus POS Sorry for not adding anything constructive, but I have always seen POS's as too much work, and I don't play a game just to get burdened with more work. Have a nice day
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:19:00 - [25] Question: What kind of lag is it that POS's cause? Is it server lag due to processiong something to do with POS's? Is it network lag due to some huge bandwidth usage by POS's? Is it client lag due to graphically intensive aspects of POS's? Is it just blob lag due to the huge fleets around them? Does anyone really know? Unless we can understand what's causing the lag we can't come up with useful suggestions to fix the problem. Thanks.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:25:00 - [26] Originally by: spurious signal Question: What kind of lag is it that POS's cause? Is it server lag due to processiong something to do with POS's? Is it network lag due to some huge bandwidth usage by POS's? Is it client lag due to graphically intensive aspects of POS's? Is it just blob lag due to the huge fleets around them? Does anyone really know? Unless we can understand what's causing the lag we can't come up with useful suggestions to fix the problem. Thanks. There are a few aspects of lag at POSses. 1. Its a lot more than lag for fleet fights. Unsure about why, but the number of structures seems be of influence (but that would be clientside I think) and the calculations of a POS which goes into 'firing mode' on hostiles also seems to cause considerable lag. Not sure why. Perhaps some of the problems stem from the POS having standings to check? Dunno. 2. The lag affects fleets warping in to the POS a lot more than those already present there. Can be countered with a bit of preparation, so not a huge issue. 3. The POS itself is unaffected by lag. This is the effective gamebreaker in many cases. This makes it beneficial for defenders to cause as much lag as possible, because even though the defending fleet lags out as much as the attacking fleet, the defenders will have the POS guns rip through the attacking fleet. A lot of solutions are of course possible and would work. If, from a technical perspective, CCP can't reduce the lag, they could nerf the large POS to make up for the fact its not affected by lag (either by removing it, reducing hitpoints, reducing amount of guns/hardeners it can anchor or whatever). Or the POS can be reduced in importance with regards to taking a station. Several options to do that also outlined above.
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:32:00 - [27] Originally by: Malachon Draco There are a few aspects of lag at POSses. 1. Its a lot more than lag for fleet fights. Unsure about why, but the number of structures seems be of influence (but that would be clientside I think) and the calculations of a POS which goes into 'firing mode' on hostiles also seems to cause considerable lag. Not sure why. Perhaps some of the problems stem from the POS having standings to check? Dunno. 2. The lag affects fleets warping in to the POS a lot more than those already present there. Can be countered with a bit of preparation, so not a huge issue. 3. The POS itself is unaffected by lag. This is the effective gamebreaker in many cases. This makes it beneficial for defenders to cause as much lag as possible, because even though the defending fleet lags out as much as the attacking fleet, the defenders will have the POS guns rip through the attacking fleet. A lot of solutions are of course possible and would work. If, from a technical perspective, CCP can't reduce the lag, they could nerf the large POS to make up for the fact its not affected by lag (either by removing it, reducing hitpoints, reducing amount of guns/hardeners it can anchor or whatever). Or the POS can be reduced in importance with regards to taking a station. Several options to do that also outlined above. Thanks Malachon, I've not had much experience of fighting at POS's so I dunno how it works. Have alternative tactics been tried? For instance, what happens if an attacking fleet warps in to a point outside the range of the POS's guns and then approaches it en masse? Does this reduce lag? If so it would point to a large effect of client-side lag maybe. The standings thing is a good point, I can see how that would cause a shedload of server/database lag with large fleets. It does sound like a really fuct up system though
Deadeye Dave Amarr Lynx Frontier Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:42:00 - [28] I don't have much knowledge about POS but what I would like to see is to remove POS ability to claim Sov instead add a Sov structure that costs 2-3bn and you can anchor to your POS. Make it so there can only be one per system, this way the attackers only need to shoot one POS although it will probably be well defended. I think this structure should reduce the fuel needs for your POS but also reduce their hitpoints. I'm not really sure maybe its a bad idea but something needs to be changed.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.07 10:48:00 - [29] Originally by: Malachon Draco 3. The POS itself is unaffected by lag. This is the effective gamebreaker in many cases. This makes it beneficial for defenders to cause as much lag as possible, because even though the defending fleet lags out as much as the attacking fleet, the defenders will have the POS guns rip through the attacking fleet. This is by far the worst problem there is in regards to POSs. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTS Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Malachon Draco - We create a new POS module, called something like shield transfer module (idea stolen from Starwars, with a shield projection system from the moon protecting the building of the deathstar), this module increases shields on the station by X million. This might work but given the number of moons in some station systems it may be too big a hurdle Originally by: Dark Shikari Why not just cut POS hitpoints by 5 times? This screws over non-sov POS Originally by: Zaldiri How about if once you have achieved sovereignty over a sytem you keep sovereignty over that system untill you have no pos left claiming? Would that and increasing the claim time on pos's help? And this just makes the current problem a) worse and b) tilted even further in favour of the defenders The additional complication in this discussion is of course Kali, which may change everything anyway, and not necessarily in a good way...
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:23:00 - [31] I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:36:00 - [32] Yeah, that probably makes sense, although I think "reinforced" should probably be handled subtly differently to how it is with POS.
Kaaii Caldari Equilibrium LLC United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:41:00 - [33] Require an OUTPOST for system sov. Leave pos to moon mining "..Id rather fall beside 10 lions, than stand with One thousand sheep.." Trading 101
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:43:00 - [34] i was actually going make a post about this soon. The fact that we play this game for FUN, yet POS killing is more of a chore. Theres no fun in it. WHy pay to do chores? CCP should be paying us for killing POS not us paying them to play a game to do it. CCP one of the worst ideas you ever bought to eve was POS, or more particularly sovereignty
DeadDuck Amarr DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:46:00 - [35] I agree with the topic starter. Something really needs to change in the POS subject.
Tarri FACTA NON VERBA Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:46:00 - [36] Edited by: Tarri on 07/08/2006 11:46:10 Originally by: Hellraiza666 i was actually going make a post about this soon. The fact that we play this game for FUN, yet POS killing is more of a chore. Theres no fun in it. WHy pay to do chores? CCP should be paying us for killing POS not us paying them to play a game to do it. CCP one of the worst ideas you ever bought to eve was POS, or more particularly sovereignty QFT, 20 Ç per player per hour for anyone involved in killing a POS. And that isn¦t even enough money.... ----
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 11:55:00 - [37] Meh. I think the only problem with Sov is that it locks out stations. Everything else about the implementation - fuel savings, map marker, shipyards etc - seems to make sense. Only other change you might make if you decouple like that is that station ownership overrides sov automatically.
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:07:00 - [38] Nice post idea, my feeling is the following: - First, POS protecting a station balance a bit the game between a building and a fighting entity (read entity as corp/aliance/coalition of alliances). It gives industial entity an oportunity to build something without being really annoyed by a smaller fighting entity. I think we still need a mechanisme of that sort. - Next, POS war mean that, after reinforce mode, you have to get people online. This is from my point of view the main drawback of POS war. It's make the game interfering with Real Life. I even heard some people planning 1 or 2 holiday days to be there. - On the other hand, reinforced mode ensure that you cannot conquer an area with just 1 night of big fight. A good solution would, from what i think: - Not force people being online at a random time. Average number on a long time (1 week ?) only should be taken in account. - Allow to counter some part of damage with a pure industrial force. For example, you could give 10% shield per day to a station, by hauling like 200K m3. (numbers to ajust). - Allow a bigger force, being there for like 1 or 2 week, to capture a station. - It should also force people doing PvP, but without the necessity of blobing. - It should force people to spend some time in near their system, in order to avoid big entity claiming whatever empty area. Some technical propositions: - In every system with station, a named NPC spawn about every 2 hour. The entity that kill the most on 2 complete week won station ownership. If less than 10% of those NPC are killed, station become unclaimed (and you need 1 week oof NPCing to take it again). - Same idea with spawning secure containers. You need archeology skill and 30min near the container to get 1 item. Entity that have the more of those items get sovereignty. - Variation: Place those NPC and items spread in the contellation. Thus you need to spread forces, which will force small engagements in every system. - Variation: You can buy 1 of those items, per day, in empire. You can only haul it in basic industrial ship, and it take 10k m3 (forcing hauler with expanders + some escort). For technical implementation, make that item as a fitted item, which only haulers have bonus to fitt it. - Variation: 50 NPC tag allow you to buy 1 item, 1 per day maximum. - Variation: While mining rare ore, at random time you can get 1 of those items free. Roleplay raw background: Station require some quantic technology approching jump gate requirements, which from time to time loss a part of the fuel in probabilistic jump. You need to gather again this fuel to keep station services runnning (and a service is claiming). - Variation for POS (why not) 1 or 2 moons in system give 1 item per day. Spreading 10 POS will be of no use, but kill the only 1 will not guaranty soverignty neither. It just gives an advantage. That's enough for today :) c u - > Order Falcon & Pilgrim > Colsup
Gradinger Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:10:00 - [39] although i cannot add many ideas atm, i too think something needs to be changed. IF we could fight at a POS with capitals etc, it could be some fun maybe, but apparently it's close to impossible to have major fights at POS¦s. on the other hand if numbers dont exceed the 100 player-mark it's very much fun to fight caps but players restricting their own numbers will definately NOT happen (not b4 everyone is soo **ed about the current sys that he joins a smaller group of ppl.. maybe ccp is just waiting for ppl to get **ed enough ) I know this topic is about the sov-system, but on a side-note i¦d like to mention that i¦d appreciate it if CCP would publish some sort of recommendations and stuff like: "you need a dual-core machine with blahblah graphics card for smooth gameplay and still you could suffer client lag.. whahah" "although you are free to try 200vs200 ppl blob-fights do not expect it to be lag-free or even working.. we recommend 100vs100 maximum..." instead of the current "Do everything you want, this is a free universe, there is no lag (server-side)" rant over. :) hope to get home soon to kill some stuff - in the (still) best game ever.
NereSky Gallente Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:10:00 - [40] a) get rid of 'Re-inforced mode' b) increase shield hit points c) 1 hour to anchor a tower 6 hrs to online or Get rid of POS's Hating pos's as there are in its current state 'burn them all'
Recluse Viramor Chosen Path Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:15:00 - [41] Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. BEST IDEA EVER POS warfare is ruining EVE and the servers are not designed for it.
Azuriel Talloth M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:22:00 - [42] Agreed with OP. CCP needs to find a balance between station ping-pong, and omgwtf deathstar POS requiring huge server-killing fleets just to get them into reinforced. At the moment it's too much on the defensive side. CCP Please rename "Warp Disrupt Probes" to "Interdiction Spheres", thanks!
really dummy	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:23:00 - [43] Edited by: really dummy on 07/08/2006 12:23:48 Edited by: really dummy on 07/08/2006 12:23:34 Posting with main is better.
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:25:00 - [44] If going for that solution, add some protection generator that must be taken at the same time in constellation, to spread fight on several systems (reducing blob and lag). Make station conquer a multiple synchronous small fight :) - > Order Falcon & Pilgrim > Colsup
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:32:00 - [45] Something for reinforced timer Taking down a station should need about 10 dreads firing on it for 2h straight. Then station goes into reinforced mode which will take about 1 week. Reinforced mode ends excactly after 1 week, and stations comes out of reinforced excatly on that time where it was put into reinforced. Now defenders have 12h in which they have to defend the station. Within this 12h the attackers can shoot down the station into "changing stage", its kind of a flag which is raised on the station. The party which has the flag raised on the station after 12h is the new owner. This stops station pingpong, stations can only switch owners once a week. It still leads to blobbing, but at least at the station, where both parties have this problem. Defenders and attackers have to cover both about 1.5 timezones, you cant just bubbel the system for 5h, you need to be able to repel an attack at any possible moment. Putting station in "changing" mode will take with 10 dreads another 30mins, so no last moment hits are possible. From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
The Enslaver Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:38:00 - [46] The entire sovereignty making stations invulnerable is fine imo... POS's are the problem. I would prefer to see POS's have an active role in this; here is my proposal: -Sovereignty is claimed with a sovereignty module that costs about 300-500m -Module can only be fitted to large POS's. -Module causes reinforced times to 'fluctuate' randomly by +/- 6-18 hours of the supposed amount. -When fitted to a POS, no weaponry/hardeners can be fitted to that POS. -The oldest sov module placed overrides any new modules placed: you have to kill the sov module(s) for yours to take effect. Simple, instantly solves the POS spamming issue, and means that the 'owners' actually have to defend their system properly. --------
Pepperami Art of War	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:44:00 - [47] Originally by: The Enslaver The entire sovereignty making stations invulnerable is fine imo... POS's are the problem. I would prefer to see POS's have an active role in this; here is my proposal: -Sovereignty is claimed with a sovereignty module that costs about 300-500m -Module can only be fitted to large POS's. -Module causes reinforced times to 'fluctuate' randomly by +/- 6-18 hours of the supposed amount. -When fitted to a POS, no weaponry/hardeners can be fitted to that POS. -The oldest sov module placed overrides any new modules placed: you have to kill the sov module(s) for yours to take effect. Simple, instantly solves the POS spamming issue, and means that the 'owners' actually have to defend their system properly. I like it, but the pos with the module should be able to mount some defence, perhaps make the module consume 50-75% of the CPU/Powergrid
The Enslaver Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:48:00 - [48] Edited by: The Enslaver on 07/08/2006 12:48:39 Originally by: Pepperami I like it, but the pos with the module should be able to mount some defence, perhaps make the module consume 50-75% of the CPU/Powergrid Thats the entire point though - this is designed to require people to defend. Artificial defences defending in this way goes against the entire point of EVE imo... Not to mention it being viable with the current server situation. --------
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:54:00 - [49] Originally by: Nafri POSes are ruining alliance warfare, they ruin 0.0 space, they lead to thing the server cant handle (the megablobb). Rework them now! Please CCP, your game is kinda dying in 0.0 space... The moon mining function is critical to T2 production... I'd rather replace them with colonies, but eh.
Pepperami Art of War	Posted - 2006.08.07 12:59:00 - [50] Originally by: The Enslaver Thats the entire point though - this is designed to require people to defend. Artificial defences defending in this way goes against the entire point of EVE imo... Not to mention it being viable with the current server situation. Yeah, I agree that the defense needs to fall to people. I just think limited light defences should be available to prevent small groups in off-peak hours reinforcing/destroying a pos. I don't think the defences should be a threat to any sizable fleet or capitals.
The Enslaver Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:02:00 - [51] Originally by: Pepperami Originally by: The Enslaver Thats the entire point though - this is designed to require people to defend. Artificial defences defending in this way goes against the entire point of EVE imo... Not to mention it being viable with the current server situation. Yeah, I agree that the defense needs to fall to people. I just think limited light defences should be available to prevent small groups in off-peak hours reinforcing/destroying a pos. I don't think the defences should be a threat to any sizable fleet or capitals. A couple of small guns and a scrambler then perhaps... Nothing more. --------
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:03:00 - [52] Originally by: quellious Nice post idea, my feeling is the following: Most major PvP alliances have huge logistics wings. Anything a non-combat alliance can do, a PvP alliance can do too only usually with more people and with overwhelming military support on hand too. I can see some merit in the ability to fight economically I guess (although as per preceding sentence that's not going to swing the balance away from large 0.0 alliances as they tend to be rich anyway), but I don't think relying on a horrible mechanic like belt ratting is a good idea. Originally by: Nafri Something for reinforced timer Sounds reasonable
Xthril Ranger hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:08:00 - [53] I got no problems with having to go through a coupple of pos before attacking a station. What I got a problem with is that you can put up a lot of towers so the amount of time to kill them all gets too long. (/me eyes tfc ) There is 1 quick fix , that is removing the bug that makes you not get mail when someone anchors a tower in a system you got sovereignty. If you get a mail you got 30 min to secure the area or 1 hour to destroy it. Not much , but at least it doesnt require any design changes. Then you could up the anchoring time. Or require that you sit at the pos while anchoring it. If you have t babysit the anchoring process while the hostile forces gets mail that you are there it will be thought to anchor a lot of pos. But what if the defender choose to pos spam? I dont know. maybe find a way to break the pos sovereignty claim that dont require the pos to go down. Or large towers could cost more. More in the line with the fleet required to take it down. you'll never jump alone
Xrak Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:20:00 - [54] I really hope CCP is/has read this thread. POSes really do suck big time and are ruining 0.0
gaz widdow	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:22:00 - [55] I like the idea of the more pos the more the station hp,s. But that said i mean x10 even 20 the hit points they are atm so it takes not 1 hour to take a station but days depending on pos numbers, This gives defenders a chance to react. pos are here to stay thats for sure, but atm they are killing the game IMO. This way theres no need to change anything at the pos and still could be used to assemble fleets for the on comming battle a simple change. Im no programmer but to impliment massive changes would take ccp months. This way im sure it would be a easy fix and done sooner rather than later.
Jago X	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:39:00 - [56] Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. agreed that the pos warfare we have atm needs to go .. and i like this idea. Obvioulsly the amount of hp and how the reinfoced mode works (presumably the defending side will still be able to dock and use station services while the station is in reinforced mode?) will be the crucial factors in wether an idea liek this would actually change anything. also remeber that if it takes 10 dreads only a couple of hours to put a station into reinforced mode then large alliance will jump in 30-40 dreads + a 200man fleet and do it in 10mins - imo playing station ping-pong will be just as dull as what we have now.
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:47:00 - [57] Edited by: spurious signal on 07/08/2006 13:46:53 Originally by: Pepperami Yeah, I agree that the defense needs to fall to people. I just think limited light defences should be available to prevent small groups in off-peak hours reinforcing/destroying a pos. I don't think the defences should be a threat to any sizable fleet or capitals. Problem with this is that EVE will then become a game of "Who can get the most people to set alarm clocks for 4am?". This is what happened in DaoC where midnight ninja raids when the opposing faction were all asleep in bed became the method of choice for keep captures. That's not fun, it's just abuse of game mechanics to avoid tough fights, and the same would happen here. There need to be positive incentives to taking POS's when they're defended but also positive incentives to defend the POS's. No, I don't know how to achieve this, but I'm starting to see what a poorly implemented idea POS's are
CB LoKi	Posted - 2006.08.07 13:57:00 - [58] I think it would be alot more funny if all the alliances stopped fighting for one month and use the ish they make to setup a outpost in every 0.0 system there is. That will naff the servers Please resize your signature, oh and I love you - Jacques ♥♥Give Zealot a Drone Bay♥♥
Cadman Weyland Millennium E.R.A	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:00:00 - [59] camn we get a statement from CCP as to why POS cause so much lag ? What ened is the lag coming from and why ? I was sat repairing one the other nite for hrs, my pc went all to hell by the end of it. Ive never liked the cluster of random free floating modules in space idea anyways and wonder if that plus the shield graphics are too blame. Even if pos are kept, od like to see the models swapped for some of those mini stations u get on Lvl 4s and Complexs. POS in their current form are ruining the game, too easy to spawn, too hard to kill. Im liking the idea of simply reducing pos to semi secure safe spots, factories and moon mining only, its the Outposts and Capturable stations that should have Sentries, reinforced modes and such. Director of Bubbles and Noobs
Wrayeth Inexorable Retribution	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:00:00 - [60] I agree 100% with the original post. POS warfare has really killed the fun in 0.0. This is one of the reasons I left -V-, because I was sick of dealing with RA's POS spam tactics that allowed an alliance consisting of maybe 200 active members to stand off several alliances with active memberships in the thousands. This is also the reason why my dread will be sitting in station in lowsec for the foreseeable future (CCP, can I have the ISK and skillpoints I spent on it back?). -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
bow locks UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:09:00 - [61] Edited by: bow locks on 07/08/2006 14:11:32 We want large, epic fleet battles. These should determine sovereignty; the ability to commit human resources to defend / attack space. POSs are usefull to even out sudden attack / timezone etc. Dreads are designed to kill POSs and take stations. But POSs are insta refuellable, come out of reinforced when convenient, and can focus fire to kill dreads one after the other. Keep POSs, reduce the damage they do and have massive targetting delay. Make it so that during POS management the shield goes down, but the guns still work. This makes focussed fireing and refuelling too dangerous unless you first clear friendly space. The shields come back automatically after a few mins, and no damage can be done to the structures, only ships. The shield comes back at previous level.
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:20:00 - [62] Increase the fuel cost exponentially for each one you have in the system ;P
Fubear	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:24:00 - [63] While the problem is that POS warfare has been reducted to spamming and blobbing, the source of that problem I think is with capitol ships and jump drives. The problem is that capitol ships, Carriers, Dreadnaughts, Motherships, and Titans break the logisic requirement of POS warfare. By logistic requirement, I am referring to the act of erecting POS's and keeping them up and running. Capital ships allow you to jump in POS equipment and fuel with absolutely no risk to the carrier or cargo at all. All you have to do is create Cyno fields within docking range of friendly stations or POS shields and your capitol ships can freighter fuel and components around 0.0 with zero risk. This destroys the concept of supply lines. Once a single POS is up in 'your' system, you cannot prevent them from spamming 20 more by intercepting and destroying them before they even get into the system. You canot 'starve them out' by hitting industrials and other ships trying to get fuel to the towers. Instead the cap-ships simply jump from within docking range of a station into the protection of the POS shields. You cannot win a POS war by hitting the supply lines, instead your options are limited to deploying and protecting as many POS's as possbile. I imagine that maintaining 20+ POS's in a hostile system without using cap-ships would make POS warfare a lot harder than it is today. The ability to jump large quantities of anything almost instantly through 0.0 without and risk is slowly destroying 0.0 warfare as both sides have to worry less about logistics and more about who has the bigger blob.
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:29:00 - [64] Originally by: Aeina Caeraen Increase the fuel cost exponentially for each one you have in the system ;P That just makes it a simple question of who has the most money, though.
Tindajii	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:39:00 - [65] Just some quick ideas for consideration: A solution to reduce lag - If you are outside the shields of a POS nothing inside the shields should be visible except to a scanner, and vice versa. I don't have any answers for how this could technically be achieved. My only suggestion would be to create some sort of "micro grid" inside the grid the POS sits in. Make attacking POS more interesting - Guns should only be anchorable outside of the shields and they should be destroyable. Then change the rules about refueling a POS to be proportional to the number of guns anchored. If you want to re-fuel your POS without guns the shields need to be at 100%. This would make seiges possible and would force the defenders to actually fight in the arena long enough to anchor guns for re-fueling.
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 14:46:00 - [66] POS stands for Piece Of **, which is exactly what they are infact they are so **ty, i'm not going to waste another single word on them now, who wants to talk about micromanaging stront, carriers with capital shield transfers, standings changes, jumping in fuel and instawarping from tower to tower?
Amerame Section XIII	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:14:00 - [67] Edited by: Amerame on 07/08/2006 15:14:27 I think there are 2 main problems : 1) lag 2) too many moons in many systems I don't like what has been suggested so far because the defender is in an harder position than the attacker, since the attacker will chose a time that suit him best and ready his troops several days in advance. If you reduce the number of moon to 7 to 11, any alliance should have a majority of moon in all his systems with station, so the attacker HAS to attack PoS in order to get sovereignty. But with that few moons the attacker just have to shoot a few PoS to win the war. Now the biggest problem is the lag, because I think that if you remove lag from the equation, if you have twice as many BS as your enemy you'll end up getting the upper hand fighting at a PoS, sure you'll lose some dreadnought each fight but attack is NOT supposed to be easy and costless, once the attacker has sacrified some dreads to take the moons, he has a strong hold on the system and it's hard to take it back. If you assume that lag will never go, then the solution would be to design mechanism that would make blobbing useless, and you should think about a reason for fleet commanders to split their fleets in group of 50-100 players.
Shamis Orzoz SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:23:00 - [68] They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved. Anything that prevents people from having to deploy lots of disposable pos's is a good thing. The other problem I see with pos's is that strontium and regular fuel need to have separate storage compartments. Strontium should be restricted to a total supply of about 2 days, whereas other fuel should be able to be stockpiled to about a 2 weeks supply. This would allow people to fuel their pos's less often, making them less 'work', while still preventing them from putting like 1 week of strontium inside.
Shuriken Ertai Gallente Fate. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:26:00 - [69] Maximun 5 Large POS per system.
Tindajii	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:31:00 - [70] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved. I agree with this.
Sirkill	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:35:00 - [71] You could just have a realy ex*****ive week to anchor soveriegnty module costing about 5 billion isk. That might help
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:40:00 - [72] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz They need to set a cap on the number of pos's in the system that can actively contribute to sovereignty at any given point in time. Systems with 60 moons cause an insane amount of pos spammage which isn't fun for anybody involved. And then what? Say, max 10 POS contribute to sovereignty. Hostile fleet comes in, blows up 10 POSses (if they manage even that). Controlling alliance makes 10 other POSses contribute to sovereignty. Quote: Anything that prevents people from having to deploy lots of disposable pos's is a good thing. There are 2 options: make a POS not an 'I win' button for the defender in 99% of the POS fights. How: either nerf the large POS or remove it. I bet if the biggest POS was a medium POS, it would still be a significant help for the defender, but no longer a practically guaranteed win. Or you make stations attackable without taking down the POSses, but only let the POS give a bonus to the survivability of the station. Could be the first phase in making Stations upgradeable like CCP wants to do. Quote: The other problem I see with pos's is that strontium and regular fuel need to have separate storage compartments. Strontium should be restricted to a total supply of about 2 days, whereas other fuel should be able to be stockpiled to about a 2 weeks supply. This would allow people to fuel their pos's less often, making them less 'work', while still preventing them from putting like 1 week of strontium inside. Agree 100%
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:41:00 - [73] Originally by: Shuriken Ertai Maximun 5 Large POS per system. So if the defender puts up 5 large POS, the attacker can't put up any?
DeadDuck Amarr DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 15:44:00 - [74] What we see here seems to be a very large consense regarding the POS issue. This "thing" is spoilling the game and it really needs fixing ASAP, the worst is how easy they are deployable, and lets face it a Station being assemble in 1 hour by one man ????? Something wrong in here ...
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:01:00 - [75] Originally by: Sirkill You could just have a realy ex*****ive week to anchor soveriegnty module costing about 5 billion isk. That might help Sorry, slightly off-topic, but you just gotta love the overly aggressive profanity filter here
Saria Mysdrial Amarr Research Associates	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:09:00 - [76] This may be a crazy idea, but.... Why not make POS/Stations have a fixed window of "weakness" every X number of hours. This window would be determined as the time the POS was initially anchored, maybe cycling every 48 hours? 72 hours? Not sure what would be reasonable. Outside of this window, the POS/Station is invulnerable. During this "window of opportunity", if the POS comes under attack, it does not switch back to invulnerability until not receiving damage for Y amount of time (where Y is a pretty big number). This would allow alliances to determine WHEN the stations are vulnerable, guaranteeing that they could protect the station when it IS vulnerable, and then not have to worry about it the rest of the time. This also eliminate the idea of midnight ninja raids. I suppose this would also mean that guns for the POS would have to be nerfed significantly, but would be less necessary b/c the vulnerability of the stations could be predicted. A module, perhaps mountable on covert ops ships, would allow foes to scan a POS, and determine the 'weakness window', so they know when to attack.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:23:00 - [77] T2 production & SOV should NEVER have been linked through POS' POS' for T2 production must stay as is, a new mechanic for SOV is what's needed. Like I said almost 1 year ago... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
TornSoul BIG Fountain Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:24:00 - [78] Originally by: DeadDuck What we see here seems to be a very large consense regarding the POS issue. No, what we see here is the standard forum behaviour of a vocal minority beeing dissatisfied with a given game aspect, and all piling in on the same thread Carefull how you interpret threads like this. --------- POS's solved a problem. The problem was that of station ping-pong (which usually was an effect of one side having the upper hand in a given TZ but not in another). Which lead to ppl having to retake their station(s) as the first thing each day they logged on. Now that was annoying (and also boring having to do it day after day) POS's solved this problem. And even introduced the whole t2 production logistics chain. But, as with almost everything else, POS's introduced their own subset of issues. The one main thing POS's have going for them (imo) (apart from the t2 thing) is the fact that an attacker cant do the "midnight attack" thing. It gives the defenders a chance to gather their fleet. This is excactly how it should be! And complaining about it beeing boring taking down a Large POS (due to the time it takes) - I'm sorry.... Bring a bigger fleet... (This is no different than the whining with taking stations before we had cap ships) Lag. Yes, this messses up things. But that doesnt mean that the concept of how POS's work is flawed!!! It's the same as saying large fleetbattles should be abolished as well (max X pilots in a system from each side - or some such nonsense). Large fleet battles would work if it wasnt for lag - Same with POS's. ----------- The BIGgest bane of EVE today is not POS's. The BIGgest bane is how easy it is for attackers to "get their way". The mobility in EVE has increased and increased since day one - And this ultimatly favors an attacker the most. He can skip across the universe in an hour - and strike at will wherever he wants. No wonder (most) people cant be assed to try and get a foothold in the outskirts (0.0). If anything, contrary to what most have said in this thread, defenders need more means of defending themself. The attackers already have it easy enough as it is. Oh, so you have to actually work for it for a few hours taking down a POS (or 20) Well - Buhuuu!!! Alot of people spend 10's if not 100's of times more than that, trying to build up some (permanent) infrastructure in 0.0 (and no im not refering to POS zerg'ing - This is a sideeffect, which I agree should be fixed if possible), which you then want to be able to kill/take over with as little effort as possible... --------- As it stands, EVE favors attackers. Regardless of POS's. All I see here is people wanting even more things favoring the attackers. I respectfully disagree. /me puts on the flameproof suit. BIG Lottery [u
Star Commander Minmatar Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:27:00 - [79] A simple solution would be the removal of POS structures from the game, can't see that happening though. Another would be, make them 20-30 times MORE expensive to put up and maintain with regards to fuel cost, even mid to large alliances would be hard pressed to put up 20 POS's in a system/s if they cost 20-30 BILLION a pop. It would make the POS an expensive luxury, and an expensive loss As it is now, they are just annoying laggy targets that take far too much effort to remove, for the attacker that is, which in turn equals zero fun for all involved
Krulla Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:28:00 - [80] Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. This idea = win.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:29:00 - [81] Originally by: Star Commander A simple solution would be the removal of POS structures from the game, can't see that happening though. Another would be, make them 20-30 times MORE expensive to put up and maintain with regards to fuel cost, even mid to large alliances would be hard pressed to put up 20 POS's in a system/s if they cost 20-30 BILLION a pop. It would make the POS an expensive luxury, and an expensive loss As it is now, they are just annoying laggy targets that take far too much effort to remove, for the attacker that is, which in turn equals zero fun for all involved So you want the cost of T2 items you currently use to go up 20-30 times? ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
slothe Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:31:00 - [82] erm yeah. the whole alliance thing sucks imho.
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:33:00 - [83] Tornsoul, you probably never experience a fullscale POS remove action, you just dont know what your talking about. Your alliance died before this time. Ever spent 10h shooting POSes with 30 dreads to eventually lag out and having 0 fun? I guess no... From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Tobias Sjodin Caldari Ore Mongers	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:39:00 - [84] What about some form of weapons-modulation? An attacking fleet uses a ship that tries different frequencies (that the shields of the POS uses), when that ship is able to locate the frequency, that data can be uploaded to the gang, and shields of a POS may now be circumvented. Depending on the skills of the person who put up the POS, the shield frequency changes between certain intervals. But during the "lapse" the attacking fleet will be able to focus their fire on eg. the turrets defending the POS, and if they take those out, the dismantling of the POS itself should be easier. Soloing or using small gangs to take out a POS will still be nearly impossible, as the turrets would make a piecemeal out of those warping to the POS, but in a bigger fleet, the ship with the specialized role (eg. an interdictor) should get enough time to get the shield frequency.
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:41:00 - [85] I'd like to enlarge a little bit the debate. I think that most things written here are based on the question: What skill or behavior should be rewarded by a station control ? I'd personnaly say that, in order to control a station, you need to: - Live nearby. You should not be able to control a station where you are not. - Spend a descent amount of your online time to protect that station. (You should not be forced to be online longer). - Play well. (This criteria is very hard to evaluate but, basically, you should own a station if you play correctly). On the other side, you may be able to conquer a station if: - You move your players in the station area for a long time. - You spend more amount of your online time than your oponent to conquer the station (you should not be forced to stay online longer to get it, just spend more % on your time on it). - Same apply for well playing, same problem to evaluate it. Moreover, it should be funny to either defend or attack a station :) Did i missed some criteria ? Do you think that any larger alliance should be able to take a station of a smaller one just because they are more (regardless of % of online time spent). - > Order Falcon & Pilgrim > Colsup
TornSoul BIG Fountain Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:01:00 - [86] Originally by: Nafri Tornsoul, you probably never experience a fullscale POS remove action, you just dont know what your talking about. Your alliance died before this time. Ever spent 10h shooting POSes with 30 dreads to eventually lag out and having 0 fun? I guess no... Apart from the lagging out in the end, I have no issues with the above scenario. It's as it should be imo. And this is where we just have to agree to disagree I think BIG Lottery [u
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:03:00 - [87] What is desired/needed is a system where it is within both the technical limitations of the hardware and the mechanics of the game to take out a large POS while it is being defended by a big fleet. If the current game mechanics don't change, I would be completely satisfied if the hardware allowed for a 400 vs 400 fleetbattle at a fully operational deathstar POS of current strength without significant lag. If that hardware was available, I for one would not be complaining about the POSses. Would still be boring probably to take them down, would still be hard, but it would be possible within normal gameplay to do so. However. Current hardware clearly has a limit that is far less than the situation I just described. It cannot support 100 v 100 at a POS without massive lag. Let alone 200 v 200 or 300 v 300. Therefore, until hardware/programming is such that these battles become possible, without excessive lag, the system needs to be changed.
Lunas Feelgood Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:07:00 - [88] Nafri 4TW.. POS is the most crappy thing that has ever happend to EVE.. To take ower a sys these days you got 2 options: Kill every you see and hope they leave if thats not the case you have to kill there POS and that is prop the most boring thing in EVE and its a complet joke becuase they can just put up another one in 30min.. Also the hole shooting the POS into reinforcemode is just a waste of time.. Then you have to come back at an excact time and do it all ower again.. Offcourse since EVE is not you RL job it can be very hard todo that... Basically CCP you need to find some other way becuase this crap is completly ruin the game.. POS warfare is for peeps who simply refuse to fight becuase: 1.. They are getting beaten in fleet battles. 2.. They are affraid to lose a ship.. So what options they got left? POS. CCP you provide game machanics where you dont have to have fleet battles to take ower a sys or hold it.. Becuase its much easy just to put up a POS at a time where one of the sides dont got any peeps online.. So CCP plz do something before you kill our corp
Azuriel Talloth M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:09:00 - [89] The lag situation has been here since the first POS overhaul (5 day delay to sovereignty and all that stuff). We had a hardware upgrade, but it didn't help. Surely if the server can't handle the game mechanic, then the mechanic should be altered until it can? Giant fleets are not an option against a deathstar pos with defending fleet, they're a requirement. CCP Please rename "Warp Disrupt Probes" to "Interdiction Spheres", thanks!
Nanobotter Mk2	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:13:00 - [90] Edited by: Nanobotter Mk2 on 07/08/2006 17:15:10 Well are talking about territory control or hopefully soon what ccp will implement as full territory control, when that occurs it really should be hard to take over someone elses system, you talka bout the cost of attacking a POS hey what about the cost of losing one? As far as blobbing part goes that is EVE isnt it? Open pvp has always degraded to getting as many people as possible since numbers tend to be greater than all. It is the nature of EVE regardless if it is a 100 person blob defending or attacking a POS or a 5-10 person blob killing lone travelers when they camp gates or go hunt people ratting. If your looking for challenging and tactical combat vs even numbers EVE just isnt the right game to play. I mean i am hoping in the end down the road people will be able to truly gain soverignty in an system, and be able to set sec ratings and decide if they want to have open peaceful empire type of system which they control with thier own concord type thing or not. right now territoy control is vertually pointless beyond having a place to dock and bank ships in 0.0
Gierling Gallente Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:16:00 - [91] Reduce the damage output of POS guns significantly, make them boardable and when piloted by a player capable of doing about as much damage as now. When they are boarded make them targeted, if knocked out they eject the pilot and go back to the lower level of power. While knowcked out the POS shield regenerates slower (So that if you knock out all of the turrets and ECM modules etc a large POS would have no shield regen at all).
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:28:00 - [92] I also though abour boardable POS guns. - Only DN skilled pilots would be able to board POS gun. - Pilot pod is killed when POS goes into reinforced mode. - Ejecting from a POS gun takes 1 hour (so a same pilot cannot protect several POS too easily). - Boarding a gun uses strontium already stored in tower. Boarding a gun thus reprensent a risk of having reinforced mode lowging really shorter, but will allow to kill some DN. - Reduce POS total shield hitpoint to let say 30% of current value. A descent DN fleet would kill it in like 15min, and attacker will lose like 1 or 2 DN IF defender have several DN pilots available. With pod kill when POS go in reinforce mode, some part of the attacking fleet must ensure that no pilot enter the system, or undock from station. Splitting forces should reduce lag :) - > Order Falcon & Pilgrim > Colsup
Lorth Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:28:00 - [93] Originally by: TornSoul Originally by: Nafri Tornsoul, you probably never experience a fullscale POS remove action, you just dont know what your talking about. Your alliance died before this time. Ever spent 10h shooting POSes with 30 dreads to eventually lag out and having 0 fun? I guess no... Apart from the lagging out in the end, I have no issues with the above scenario. It's as it should be imo. And this is where we just have to agree to disagree I think We're talking about 10 hours in which an attacking force is playng against a structure, with no intervention from the defenders at all. Bolloxs I say its absured to be forced to spend such a large ammount of time esentually attacking nothing. It shouldn't be this way at all. Defending a region should in large part be dependant on your ability to show up, not ancor structures. Empires should take time to build, and time to destroy. The current situation doesn't give us that at all.
Darmed Khan Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:30:00 - [94] Edited by: Darmed Khan on 07/08/2006 17:31:39 If the main problem is POS spamming, then what do you think about the idea of making it so that in each system you can only online one control tower at a time? That way instead of having 50 people put up 20 towers in 3 hours, you get 50 people putting up 20 towers in (IIRC) 20 hours. That and the idea of having POS shields start at (near to) 0% should allow you to counter any POS spam attempts before they get a serious foothold in your system. The reason I'm suggesting these is that they're simple changes to make codewise, and won't put the small alliances (cough) at a serious disadvantage. [edit - plus as you say a fully kitted POS will take a serious amount of boring time to kill, so some tweaks to that would be nice as well] ----------------------------
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:37:00 - [95] A lot of the suggestions being put forward are from PvP'ers only, and you have no clue how POS' work for T2 production. POS' are not the problem; the problem is POS' are the mechanism used to claim SOV. CCP needs to introduce a new structure that claims SOV. Like the military bases I suggested a while ago. Build 3 of those in a system and you get SOV... Something needs to change, but it's not POS' themselves. The profit margin for moon mining & advanced material corps is already too thin... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Lorth Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:38:00 - [96] Originally by: Bhaal A lot of the suggestions being put forward are from PvP'ers only, and you have no clue how POS' work for T2 production. POS' are not the problem; the problem is POS' are the mechanism used to claim SOV. CCP needs to introduce a new structure that claims SOV. Like the military bases I suggested a while ago. Build 3 of those in a system and you get SOV... Something needs to change, but it's not POS' themselves. The profit margin for moon mining & advanced material corps is already too thin... I think most of us know how POS's are used for tech 2 production. And I don't see anyone wanting to change that. Only the sov. issues.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:40:00 - [97] Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Bhaal A lot of the suggestions being put forward are from PvP'ers only, and you have no clue how POS' work for T2 production. POS' are not the problem; the problem is POS' are the mechanism used to claim SOV. CCP needs to introduce a new structure that claims SOV. Like the military bases I suggested a while ago. Build 3 of those in a system and you get SOV... Something needs to change, but it's not POS' themselves. The profit margin for moon mining & advanced material corps is already too thin... I think most of us know how POS's are used for tech 2 production. And I don't see anyone wanting to change that. Only the sov. issues. Many are suggesting making POS' much more expensive to operate... Or eliminating them completely... Those are the types of suggestions I'm reffering too... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Dendrin Koljn Minmatar Elite United Corp	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:55:00 - [98] As most people seem to think that a POS is too hard to kill, I'd say MAKE IT HARDER...but loose the reinforced mode. Have to admit only been a defender, but getting told that the corp's POS was attacked and it will come out of re-inforced mode at such a time and will need defending, seems a bit barmy. If I understand correctly it means you attack...bugger off...then come back to finish the POS off. Along the Lag issue, why are all the POS modules not fitted like ships are ?...woulda thought that would have been a more logical progression of game mechanics.
Auraurious Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.07 18:27:00 - [99] Personally I really liked the idea an earlier poster put out of having npc'ing effect sovernity. What if you gained sovernity over a whole constelation, and this was based on you having enough control over the constellation to actually have people rat there. Think about it: Shooting an inanimate object = boring Blob warfare = boring with rare bouts of extremely laggy fun Now granted, npcing isn't the most fun thing in eve, but it would give the nonmilitary folks of an alliance a chance to contribute, and would, imo, be far more fun than the current state of pos warfare. Plus it is a great measure of control. If said alliance can control x constellation enough to successfully rat in it and kill x rats, they get to keep sovernity in said system/constellation/region. Disrupting the npcing is also quite simple, send in a gank squad, but it is also counterable (counter gank squad, smart npcers, camps). Plus this would make eve more focused on the roving combat style rather than blob warfare. The one problem I see in this suggestion is that it would further encourage camps (sitting on a gate killing random shuttles coming through every 10 minutes really is another thing in eve that I generally consider not-fun). The other downside of camping as I see it is that camping also encourages blob warfare. Still it would definitly be an improvement over pos wars by a considerable amount. _____________________________________________
Manus Ghostface Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.08.07 18:50:00 - [100] Been thinking on this for a while, reading a lot of other threads about it (Seleenes thread about making POS cause more ship risk ect), and trying to think of ways to preserve the function of POS, without making it a chore. So here is what I came up with, along with some ideas based on the best things I've seen in this and other threads. 1st, POS hierarchy. Instead of being able to come into a system and drop a large tower, make it so that you must have x small to place a medium, and x medium to place a large. 2nd, POS specializing Currently somewhat there, but tune it. Make smalls your t2 component miner, able to have enough defenses to last against BS fleets or casual raiding efforts, but die or go dormant to good dreadnaught action. A small Dread and BS fleet should be able to quickly send one dormant, or a BB bases fleet over a longer period of time with some losses. Mediums should be focuses on combat, harder to takedown, able to deal out respectable damage. Weapons should have good enough AI to target proper ship classes. POS owner then can choose to have weapons that target dreads, or ones that go after frigs and smaller fry. Scouting of the weapons at a POS would then let a attacker juggle their attacking fleet mix. Good chance of capital losses, but again a speed bump. But if you take down enough medium and small, then take down the larges, the defender cant place replacement larges for sov until ration of x small to x med to x large restored. Large POS should be geared for heavy defense and sovereignity. Hard to take down, but not the omgwtf lag and slaughter monsters they currently are. Last long enough for the owners to rally fleets, but not the current deathstars they are. Modules on large would control and add to defenses of stations in system, as well as determine system defenses. Basically a command and control station for system orbital defenses. When knocked into dormancy, it no longer contribs to sov. # of large and modules fitted would determine how tough the station/outpost is, and who holds sov. X number of large would be needed before outpost could be build. Now one of the reasons people in the southern wars are going crazy with lag, is that some folks are packing shuttles and frigs with items and placing them in hngar arrays, and other nasty lag inducing tactics. Code and solutions to prevent/reduce this are paramount. Defenses around the outpost/station itself help in this, as their would be no arrays, items would be inside the station itself and thus off the database tables for that system ect. Fights at the outpost would have a good B5 feel to them. Perhaps outpost could be outfitted with ai controlled fighters, point defense, gun turrets ect. I will leave that to the designers, but focus should be on ship to ship. The idea of each large adding to the shields of outpost is a great one as well. Maybe limit how many defenses to x per large. I hope these ideas help, and I hope to contribute more as the discussion progresses. That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick. - Lycurgus
Lorth Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.07 19:13:00 - [101] Originally by: Bhaal Many are suggesting making POS' much more expensive to operate... Or eliminating them completely... Those are the types of suggestions I'm reffering too... Correct me if I'm wrong. But I always thought that a small or med POS is almost as efficenent as a large one when it comes to moon mining and reactions. I do aggree with TornSoul when she says that the station ping pong of yesterday sucked. However we have moved into a situation where defending a region, doesn't revolve around player combat, rather PVS(structure) Which sucks because shooting at structures is only slightly more fun then mining. And we've also created the situation where huge numbers are required to take controll of a region. To the point, where the battles become almost unplayable due to the huge numbers of pilots on each side. And its no ones fault for bringing those numbers, since they are in many instances almost required to do the job. Conquest in eve shouldn't be played like a FPS. Nor should it be played as a tactical simulator. Some where in between would be nice.
Synapse Archae Amarr Solarflare Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.08.07 19:56:00 - [102] What I believe tornsoul is missing is that the timezone madness you had under "station pingpong" is still here. Only now each side uses their good timezone to set up 20 large POSs that would take a week of fleet ops to put into reinforced, and they cant be destroyed, because strontium means they will always come out of reinforced during the defenders "good time" In short it means alliances that are similar in size just stalemate each other, because you need round the clock control of all your systems in order to be online both at the op to put the POS in reinforced, and again 12 hours later to take it down. Even if you DID have 24hr control to take down those POSes, you could put yout dread pilots on destroying POSes for 24 straight hours and still have the enemy put up twice as many the next day. Why would you spend a whole day with your group online for 7-8 hours at a stretch destroying large POSes when you know they will be back up the next day? One partial fix would be to make it impossible for carriers and dreads to refuel POSes. That way enemies refueling POSes could at least be forced to come in through the gates and be vulnerable to gate camps. Also perhaps a warning to the allaince who owns the most sovreign systems in a constellation when a POS starts going up, giving them an hour or so to respond. Perhaps the timer could be increased, allowing the attacking (but overall defending for the constellation) alliance 2-3 hours to respond. --------------------------------------------- http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=349194&page=1Redo Fleets[/ur
Shamis Orzoz SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.07 20:51:00 - [103] Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 07/08/2006 20:52:50 Earlier I mentioned having a cap on the number of POS's that can contribute to sov. Some people raised issues with that. And I wanted to clarify. If you cap the number of pos's that can actively contribute to sov, then the owners of the system have the OPTION of deploying more pos's which would take over when their original ones are destroyed, but if a hostile force comes in, they can't just deploy 50 pos's and wait for sov to switch, they would have to actually blow up enough of the enemy pos's so that they could deploy their own and take sov. I also think a point system should be used. rather than a bigger pos is > all system. Example: (Assume all pos's are of the same size, no need to complicate the example) Lets say the cap is set at 5 pos's. So alliance A has 7 pos's deployed. The first 5 will secure sov, and the extra 2 will be stored chronologically as the backups. So if a hostile alliance (B) comes and deploys 8 pos's they don't get sov. But if they deploy 8, and then blow up 5 out of the original 7, they could take sov. If alliance A then tries to deploy more pos's, they would have to first destroy 6 out of the 8 pos's deployed by alliance B, before their new pos's would be able to claim sov. This system would promote pos destruction, and limit the need for so much pos spammage. So the winner isn't the guy with the deepest pockets, but the guy who can defend his pos's the best. Shamis
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.07 20:55:00 - [104] Fair enough Shamis, but it still doesn't reduce the problem of large POSses being practically indestructible due to lag if there is a competent defender.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:04:00 - [105] I never quite understood why PoS get guns in the first place. Dreads can be focus-fired on anyway, and defenders shouldn't need much more of an advantage than deciding when the fight is going to happen and having a forcefield for invulnerability next to them. Pretty much everything involving PoS guns ever is just a gamebreaker / fun killer. Nerf those to hell as a bandaid fix to the current PoS system - at least things become takeable then, while not screwing current PoS owners out of their investments.
Shamis Orzoz SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:29:00 - [106] Originally by: Malachon Draco Fair enough Shamis, but it still doesn't reduce the problem of large POSses being practically indestructible due to lag if there is a competent defender. Lag is a completely different issue. It is ruining the game on many levels, not just pos takedown. But we need new content, so you'll just have to deal with the lag.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:29:00 - [107] Edited by: Bhaal on 07/08/2006 21:29:03 Originally by: Lorth Originally by: Bhaal Many are suggesting making POS' much more expensive to operate... Or eliminating them completely... Those are the types of suggestions I'm reffering too... Correct me if I'm wrong. But I always thought that a small or med POS is almost as efficenent as a large one when it comes to moon mining and reactions. I do aggree with TornSoul when she says that the station ping pong of yesterday sucked. However we have moved into a situation where defending a region, doesn't revolve around player combat, rather PVS(structure) Which sucks because shooting at structures is only slightly more fun then mining. And we've also created the situation where huge numbers are required to take controll of a region. To the point, where the battles become almost unplayable due to the huge numbers of pilots on each side. And its no ones fault for bringing those numbers, since they are in many instances almost required to do the job. Conquest in eve shouldn't be played like a FPS. Nor should it be played as a tactical simulator. Some where in between would be nice. From what I have learned from others (as I have never owned a T2 advanced reaction chain) is that it takes around 6-10 POS' to effectively produce an advanced reation. Most of those towers being MED and Large, and maybe some small. Problem is the SOV mechanic & fuel bonus. You need SOV to get the fuel bonus, and you need POS' to make T2 materials. We need to segregate Industrial & Military aspects of player owned structures. I say we need to have different types of SOV. The current mechanic stays in place, and gives POS oowners "mineral rights" to a system along with fuel bonus, but does not allow them to claim SOV of a system, so no conquerable stations and outposts. For that, we need a new Military station that claims SOV in a system... Therefore POS' cannot claim SOV, and Military bases cannot claim mineral rights. Reference This Thread for many ideas on the topic from last year. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:50:00 - [108] Originally by: Manus Ghostface Been thinking on this for a while, reading a lot of other threads about it (Seleenes thread about making POS cause more ship risk ect), and trying to think of ways to preserve the function of POS, without making it a chore. [...] I hope these ideas help, and I hope to contribute more as the discussion progresses. This is neat. I think it'd be better if the reqs were per constellation rather than per system (makes the placement of smalls/meds more flexible), but otherwise the "ratios needed for setup" thing sounds like a good change. It's probably not a complete fix, but it'd certainly be a rational "next step" change.
Dahin Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:01:00 - [109] yes please, I'm getting bored to tears over here.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari LoneStar Industries Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:08:00 - [110] WTB: EvE CCG - POS Wars. Seriously, POS wars need a new paradigm. ---------------- Cruelty is God's way of showing kindness.
Two step Amarr Chosen Path Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:35:00 - [111] I'd like to see the following: (which I think would address a lot of the issues, and be pretty easy to implement for the devs) 1) Anchoring POSes in systems where someone else has sov takes much longer. I'd say 8-12 hours for a large, somewhat less for a med/small 2) Anchoring a pos in one of those systems creates a cyno field beacon to the pos. If the eve mail system worked fine, that would be OK, but we know this system works... :-) 3) POSes that are anchoring should be easier to kill than they are now. (I'm not sure this is actually needed though) I think these changes would make invasions exiciting. We would get all the fleet battle action people are looking for, it would be near the posses, and it would not have the pos killing lagged out people issues.
Kitty O'Shay Tharsis Security	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:44:00 - [112] I like the idea of doing away with reinforced mode. Make it so once the shield are gone, the Stront is used as a shield booster. IOW an "emergency damage control" where x units of stront are burned per minute giving a y boost to the shield. So you'd have to keep shooting while it was boosting, but you could kill the POS in one engagement. And I think it's the damn bubble graphic that causes lag, like the f'ing deadspace clouds that kill your FPS. -- [THARS] is recruiting 1 ebil pirate. Be the one!
Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:47:00 - [113] simply put, sintead of makina complete new system, ccp could/should do everything they could to solve the 3 issues that makes the pos warfare so flawed imo. 1.)its lag, that kind of lag that makes dreads uncontrollable, and impossible for supportfleets to defend dreads. 2.) its that ppl can control when poses come out of reeinforcement time, means as example a german corporation can let their pos come out of reinforcment time when they have the most men at hand (and women..), and the enemies the less. 3.) too many poses - some systems have like 40-60moons. that in a heated war can result in a pos spammage instead of the so beloved pvp, means u have thousands of bored players who watch the few ppl growing tens of poses in now time, and all u can do is sit at a safespot and wait. without those issues the pos warfare could actually b fun. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
Altai Saker Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.08.07 22:58:00 - [114] If I could put something at the top of my list of necessary changes, this would be #1... #2 would be ecm
Infinity Ziona Space Elves of Ragnoroth	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:19:00 - [115] A nice change would be the requirement to board a POS gun and manually select targets. If nobody is there to defend then they dont shoot. Player vs Player. The way it should be. 'The alliance should not be a solo contentmobile' - Albert Einstein
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:40:00 - [116] i agree with bhaal. It isnt POS for t2 production etc that is so wrong. Its the fact that to take over a system, you have to spend hours shooting at a POS. Its mindboring. Its like watching paint dry. It sucks. And to ever in CCP came up with the whole POS sov thing needs to be shot Keep POS for t2 production. But like nafri said. Increase shield hitpoints so that you jsut have to shoot the station. Instead of having to shoot POS. Who wants to come home from work/college/school to do hours of boring boring boring work in something thats suppose to be a FUN game.
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:43:00 - [117] Make large POSs cost 1 bill + suddenly. No speculation, no warning, nothing. It'll be quite the bit harder to POS fight. And they'll be worth closer to what it takes to take one down. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:48:00 - [118] Edited by: Hellraiza666 on 07/08/2006 23:48:15 Originally by: Haniblecter Teg Make large POSs cost 1 bill + suddenly. No speculation, no warning, nothing. It'll be quite the bit harder to POS fight. And they'll be worth closer to what it takes to take one down. That still doesnt stop having to sit for hours shooting a POS. Its boring. Increasing the price isnt going to make it any more fun!!! Just scrap the POS sov bull**** and implement something similiar to nafris idea. I wish a dev would comment on this or a forum mod would show this to the devs.
MUDDAWG Black Lance Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.08 00:04:00 - [119] This definetly needs a overhaul. This system as it stands, is flawed. I see a couple major problems with alliance warfare. 1. Size of the attacker and defender. In eve the blob usually has a larger advantage then the smaller force, and usually is garunteed victory. So it is only logical to poor as many people as you can into a system as you can, and thus creating lag. 2. Pos warfare was implemented to solve the timezone problem, pos's were added to give safety to ones assets while you were away, this is completely valid, I dont think random pirates/ solo's should be able to take pos's down. The problem is that large pos's can be, with little risk, setup in masses to defend a system and claim soverienty. Again only logical to put up the Most in a System. So we have our system today, CCP has setup, where the MOST wins, in ALL aspects of warfare. The root of all this comes from this simple principle that MORE is better. Possibly a cure for both problems. 1. Again blobing has been a problem eve has suffered from since day one. And really as EVE grows it will only get worse, CCP cannot design a system that will be able to handle more people because we are already pushing the boundries of the hardware and software. An option would be to take a tangent from the MORE is better philosophy and maybe introduce a tier system in fighting. Make it possible for a group of smaller "better" trained group to take on blobs and win. This could mean a ranking system or award system that would increase attributes, sounds like XP , for doing things, making it possible to war on multiple fronts with smaller better trained groups trained for PVP warfare. Though at some point it would have to, like stacking, not worth while to have more fighters in the battlefield. This is though a straying from the point. Still a large contributer to the problem. 2. POS spam and this is what we have turned too. Since "soveriegnty", pos spam, dictates your "territory", and not say " amount of general populous in the region/sector", alliance are forced to put POS's up. Mind you I have no problem with POS's for production/INDY stuff. Now I dont understand why they introduced a new class of ships -Dreadnaughts- that are meant to take down pos's with ease, and allow a POS counter the "deathstar". I mean lets be logical if CCP keeps this "counter" mentallity, the game is stuck. At some point there has to be a peak, WMD! Dread vs Dread fights basiclly wtfbbq all over the place. Are Dreadnaughts supposed to be able to eat POS's alive, or are "Deathstars" the counter to dreads. I think a quick fix would be un nerf dreads in seige mode. Let them eat pos's Fast, forcing a retaliation from the defending/attacking force if they want to actually keep this territory. Oh but you say this brings us back to the whole timezone issue. Well folks that in itself is a WHOLE other can of worms itself, face it eve is a MULTI timezone game, it's no longer safe to field a UK based only alliance, and I guess that is another rock to throw into the mix. Also, I am fine with allowing carriers a logistics role with fueling pos's they are logistics in most respects anyways. So really if an alliances space is invaded or they are invading, and they have a mass of dreads then they should be able to clean the system out quickly. The problem is the SLOW process of cleaning POS'S out vs's the FAST process of claiming with POS's. Does CCP want alliances to field 50+ dreads to take or defend a system spammed with 50+ POS's, again right back to the same problem. Woohoo More is better aye? So, where I stand, CCP needs to fix Blobbing in some shape or form, and the time it takes to put up and claim with POS's vs's the time it takes to take down POS's. Fix the MORE is better, in all situation, mentallity I think and you will make warfare more fun in EVE. YARR.
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 00:22:00 - [120] Originally by: Nafri POSes create lag, increadible lag. Staying there for 1-2h will lag your client out intensivly. My poor PC is always close to death after sitting next to a POS for some tme. At the end of a POS siege or spam day everone has this. If you have not thrown out your pc first for being completely in contrast with what you're actually paying for: fun. Originally by: Nafri POSes lead to blobbing. Since you need to protect your dreads, you need a big blob to defend them. That creates lag again... POSes lead to less fights. Since your blobbing you mostly outblobb your enemy, he cant engange your fleet and that makes everything kinda dull and boring. Indeed. The blob is evil. CCP want to move away from the blob to more specialised, balanced and longer lasting combat. Well, POS wars are probably the longest lasting form of combat they have ever invented, if you can call it combat that is. Originally by: Nafri Just read the alliance forum, you have seen any war decided by a few fleetbattles latly? No, you read about goonswarm vs d¦, POSes, lag and no fights. I vaguely remember something about fleet engagements, wasn't that a feature which was taken out of the game at some point? :P Originally by: Nafri You read about RA vs Coalition, POSes, lag and no fights. Taking over space today? That is no fighting, that is boring outblobbing, campign, and shooting POSes for days. Indeed, plus it is quickly turning into the most calculated aspects of the game which further negates any room for fun in either conquest or defence. Originally by: Nafri POSes are ruining alliance warfare, they ruin 0.0 space, they lead to thing the server cant handle (the megablobb). Rework them now! Please CCP, your game is kinda dying in 0.0 space... Couldn't be more true indeed. The trouble is CCP won't have any of it. You're touching a holy grail here in a number of aspects; from trying to balance larger factions with smaller ones. from the whole moon mining complexity crap, from a whole myriad of aspects including the oh so vain goal of moving combat from gates and stations and belts to moons. Yeah right. On top of that, the topic is brought forward after the tournament, and in the summer time. I agree, completely. But I just can't see CCP rethinking a failed aspect of the game merely because we experience it killing the more complex and higher level aspects of life in deep space. CCP are always after complex teamwork, when push comes to shove this aspect of the game is turning into an aspect where advanced teamwork is negated by the limits of the game (server and client side, both of which should be a factor, and no: too many people can not currently place their trust as usual in a comment like "oh but we're going to fix that with a new graphics engine like we would have in the past"), and by the failure of math in the teamwork model - I see too many good people leave this side of the game because for playing this side of the game they are being forced to treating the game as a job far too often. The quest to deep space, the conquest of lawless space, it has become a calculating joke. Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
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 sht 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.
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.
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:33:00 - [181] The increased fuel costs just make things even less about ships and even more about economics, increased turret damage means it's easier to instapop BS (not fun) and there's already a ship storage module (ship maintenance bay), it's just that it uses grid and CPU that could be powering more weapons.
Adlee	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:38:00 - [182] Lag and blobbing are the two biggest issues. How about a POS "banishment" module that is pre-set to a certian number, and allows only a fixed number of defenders and an equal number of attackers (perhaps +/- 20%) within the grid. The defenders would set the number based on a typical defese force they might have available (with some upper limit). Add to that the inability to anchor any more POS in system once a seige has started. For instance Defender has 7 POS, attacker starts to anchor 1. From this point forward until all POS belong to the same power, no more POS may be anchored in system. Also remove ability for jump capable ships to refuel POS and you have a winner.
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.08 17:55:00 - [183] Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 08/08/2006 17:59:28 Originally by: Joerd Toastius The increased fuel costs just make things even less about ships and even more about economics, increased turret damage means it's easier to instapop BS (not fun) and there's already a ship storage module (ship maintenance bay), it's just that it uses grid and CPU that could be powering more weapons. That's why I suggested a possibility of increasing Firing Rate instead, and simply have it do target turnover more often. Although against a deathstar POS, you'll be lucky to load the POS before you die to it. Also, my fuel suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the expense of doing POS spamming. Anyone that can afford to put the LPOSs up can easily pay for the fuel. I'm suggesting, mainly, that, as more LPOSs are anchored, the fuel cost would mean far more frequent refuelling, and that 40 of your LPOSs in a system would mean they would all run out of fuel per hour, every hour. POSs with no fuel aren't very hard to kill, so we'd start to see a shift more towards defending a few LPOSs actively, rather than simply spamming 60 and having an entire corp of a few hundred keeping the things online. Finally, my suggestion with the "Hangar Array" and "No Jetcans" was not to replace the Ship Maintenance Array, which allows you to store one Ship, and refit it. It was to simply get every last random ship that may be floating around inside the ForceField into a single structure, so that they do not have to be loaded when entering the POS grid. For all I care, make it take 0CPU/0GRID with an infinite ship storage capacity, with like .1 ISK cost.
Virida Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:02:00 - [184] Edited by: Virida on 08/08/2006 18:02:58 The thing i belive is problems with POS wars: 1. system performance hits the usability of dreads. if a fleet is big enough to defend a POS against a dread fleet, and dread brings defenders to help it attack, dreds do harakiri on the POS. not bringing anything would be idiotic, from both part, so the one who dont lag to death, wins. The only problem with this, is performance of the game in that situation, its designed ok. 2. The buildability of dreads. How is NEW corporations, or non allied corporations going to get a supply of dreads? without the ability to make good numbers of them in highsec, the single option is to get a space by spamming POSes. it should have been a 2. option. my sugestion: Make a battleship(a tech 2 or tech3 one) who is a advanced really rebuildt version of a basic one, and able to use one single(or two, with less defense) dread weapon in high slot, and rest plain weapons. as example: a amarr ship. 8 highslots, 2 turret slots, and 4 missile slots. a heavy bonus tobe able to use extra large lasers. (this method is simpler to make than mixing small and large lasers, and seems more reasonable than a capital missile amarr ship). ok tank. caldari. based on scorpion,3 high slots, 1 missile slot with bonus for capital missiles(to even get it on), and 2 turret slots. Great tank. both ships is what i imagine could be usable to attack POSes, but not too overpowering, since they is just super specialized battleships, and maybe with common BS defense, pluss a small bonus to defense, but not too much. Buildable in empire, and simple to kill.
c0rn1 Seraphin Technologies Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:23:00 - [185] another idea would be if there's a station to put the strontium into the station. you can choose a certain length of the reinforced mode and have to put in the requested amount of strontium. the trick is that the strontium covers only a certain amount of towers. let's say 10% of the max available moons (POS) in that system (percentage, because otherwise station systems with only 5 moons would have a too huge advantage) but at least 1 POS. Once the first tower is in reinforced, the time as the amount of strontium is FIXED until all towers in reinforced come out of it. As example we take a system with 20 moons. 2 POS are covered with reinforced mode (which is alot of work for the attackers already) but after they shot 2 in reinforced they can attack the rest of the towers and bring them down without any reinforced mode. The time of reinforced mode makes sure that the defending party keeps sovereignity for that time (a max reinforced time should be 3 days). So the party is open for 3 days if the defenders can place more towers to cover sov. bring a fleet to defend sov or the attacker has the upper hand with 3 towers (if they removed all others) and win sovereignity after 3 days. and if you switch anchor time with unanchoring time (2h to anchor, 30 mins to unanchor), this should be fun =) plus if only 1 tower is being able to be anchored per alliance in that system to prevent POS spamming I think nice skirmishes or wars will start around the towers. regards x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -V- Diplomat -V- High Council Member Life's a waste of time ...
Dhischord	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:27:00 - [186] Ok, 2 suggestions: 1. Don't allow things to be taken out of or put into the CT itself when it's under attack. That should prevent combat refuels and stront level manipulation, restoring the randomness to the reinforced mode timer. 2. Don't allow cyno fields at a moon if a POS is anchored there. Part of the reason POSes were more balanced before capital ships were introduced was because you could interdict the fuel supply and eventually starve it out. Cap ships changed that equation, since you can basically jump resuplies right into the tower - no way to interdict. This way, they have to pop the cyno elsewhere, which allows a vigilant defender the chance to react in some way.
Jak'ai	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:45:00 - [187] I think before anything get's much better with fleets, sov, and logistical warfare there will have to be something done about blobbing. There's no real downside to blobbing from a gameplay perspective. It's increased security, increased firepower, increased deterence factor. From a player standpoint though, it's laggy, boring, hard to manage from a command perspective. If there was a gameplay disincentive to counter blobbing it would go a long way to balance things out. Gangs could make a risk/reward judgement rather than just get every warm body out with a weapon. Frankly, I thought titan superweapons would be the answer to this - blob up on a gate and you're vulnerable to someone dropping an area weapon on you - but titans are too expensive and rare to fulfil that role (basically indirect artillery). Maybe POS could have two modes? One "superweapon" like and the normal shooting one we have now. That wouldn't give the defender a downside to blobbing though - unless maybe the tower took longer to shoot the more friendlies are in the area. Or perhaps dreads could get an indirect feature. Where they can go into siege mode and lob area-effect weapons within system at targets painted by recon ships? If they're in siege they'd be stationary long enough to find with scanning. Still need a solution to Empire blobs though. Since starbases are now allowed up to 0.7, shouldn't Dreads be allowed as well - with the caveat that they're too big to go through deadspace gates and mission gates? Something like that anyway.
Xelios Minmatar Rampage Eternal	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:46:00 - [188] Edited by: Xelios on 08/08/2006 18:49:42 Personally I still feel the POS sovereignty system is pushing toward the wrong type of gameplay. Team work is good, it's what EVE is all about, but the fact is team work only works up to 200 people in a system (even that's iffy). What happens if you bring 100 plus 20 dreads and the enemy brings 150? You could field an extra 50 people but the numbers only snowball from there. Do you go home or engage in a spectacular lagorama in which the attackers almost always suffer huge casualties (due to POS guns mostly)? The system right now is geared toward blobbing, and I feel that's where the problem lies. It works well in engagements between smaller alliances, but when two alliances can each field 200+ pilots they will field 200+ pilots, and it will result in a bad time. The problem is you need to do this to have even a chance of taking out those POS's and gaining sovereignty. I'm glad the fuel reinforced fuel issue is being looked at though, that's certainly one of the major downfalls right now. Like I said before I'd be much in favour of infrastructure only POS. You could have modules for equipment manufacturing that are 30% more efficient than normal stations, refining and storage modules that allow freighters to access them, even various intel modules that might some day replace local chat in 0.0. There can be plenty of reasons to use POS without attaching sovereignty to them. The new BFG.
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:57:00 - [189] and POSes also dicourage to fight when you have to fight near a POS, you already lost. The art of POSwarfare is to lower the chances of a fight. The less fights, the better for your dreads. Kinda stupid, isnt it? From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:11:00 - [190] Oveur, you said that POS had been working fine until recent events. One of the reasons its got worse is carriers. Whereas before you could stop people refueling POS by blowing the haulers up. Now they just cyno in a carrier or two. Stock up the fuel for POS and cyno out. Also, the servers arent capable of handling the numbers required to kill a POS.
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:17:00 - [191] Originally by: Oveur 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. then don't bloody have station systems with 70 moons FFS! i'll show you the big picture, we have ppl from different alliances from all over the map in this thread, the only thing they have in common with each other is that they hold territory and they attack territory. And now all these alliances agree on 1 thing (wich should be ringing big ***** alarm bells in CCP HQ, because we hardly ever agree on anything): POSWARFARE IS MAKING PPL TO NOT WANT TO PLAY EVE ANYMORE! (ok that is maybe an over statement, but everybody agrees it is no fun at all, and way out of wack) this thread is full of the reasons why this is so, and some really good (and bad) ideas to remedy this now, if you say you don't want to change pos because they are not solely used for sov, then here is your solution (wich by the way is already mentioned like 3 times): split POSes into sov Pos and production/other stuff Pos seriously, saying you don't want to balance pos on the fact of sov alone really **es me of, it's a mechanic that negatively affects (a guesstimate) 50k alliance members because the efforts of a 400 ppl gang can be negated by 3 determined pilots... i say the sov mechanic is the single most important part of POS, and if you don't want the production pos changed then split those two up into different entities
Dilsnik Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:27:00 - [192] Possible solution would be a timer. For example , when a pos grid has dreads/fleet jump to within 100k, an automatic freeze takes place, where the server disables the pos guns and mods , and all mods on all the ships within that grid. That means nothing goes on, no one moves, no one fires, or jams or anything til a certain time has elapsed, allowing everyone to load. In my experience 15 minutes would be enough time in all but the node death situations. Those situations I have no solution to.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:34:00 - [193] 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. This isn't a fluke event though. Over the last month or two, completely unrelated alliances in totally different regions have been experiencing the same exact problem with PoS mechanics. This isn't exclusively an issue of massive lag - sure, you remove the lag and offense becomes remotely possible again, but still incredibly tedious and favoring the defender extremely. Theres a slew of reasons it's taken a while to get to this point, but now that we're here it's going to get much, much worse rapidly before it gets better. Likely to the point that whoever holds a station in 3 months from now will do so until the mechanics change or they disband/get bored. It's bad, fix it quickly.
Tonkin Singularity.	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:39:00 - [194] to be honest i only think they should make pos's more expensive, seeing that a dread costs 2bill to fit it perfectly looking at 3-4 bill. but make pos's able to focus fire on targets or actually have players able to pilot them. lol not in a way where you can warp a pos out of trouble, but have a player control the guns and that. be more fun and more challenging. player per a gun seeing that the turret points have docking points on them. will kill anythin for the right price
Tonkin Singularity.	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:40:00 - [195] Originally by: Tonkin to be honest i only think they should make pos's more expensive, seeing that a dread costs 2bill to fit it perfectly looking at 3-4 bill. but make pos's able to focus fire on targets or actually have players able to pilot them. lol not in a way where you can warp a pos out of trouble, but have a player control the guns and that. be more fun and more challenging. player per a gun seeing that the turret points have docking points on them. and to add you need skills to do this. plus your skills you have will effect how much the damage and fire speed per a turret. plus being able to change ammo. will kill anythin for the right price
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.08 20:41:00 - [196] Originally by: Oveur some of the comments here seem more based on some individual recent events rather than gameplay in general with Starbases in the recent year. 5 vs RA anyone?
Acwron Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:05:00 - [197] Edited by: Acwron on 08/08/2006 21:13:15 Originally by: Tonkin to be honest i only think they should make pos's more expensive, seeing that a dread costs 2bill to fit it perfectly looking at 3-4 bill. [...] Pricing isn't the solution. It will only delay the problem a bit and make T¦ component production more expensive. Increased costs will not solve anything. First a lot of directly before downtime spammed small POSes were the problem. The were "only" tenacious to remove (hardly any dreads) but it wasn't very difficult. The way soverignity worked was changed so that only large towers were able to claim it (later their price was tripled). This only delayed the issue sometime until more effective POS fittings and defense strategies were developed. At the same time the buying power of alliances and eve in general (with some of the greatest one time investments: Capital BPOs being covered) increased allowing them to buy large towers in quantities earlier it was only possible with the at that time cheaper small POS. This shows that any ajustments on the cost site will not solve the issues raised here. In his early blogs about POS warfare Oveur and the other devs stated that sieging a POS could not only be done by force but aswell by preventing it from being fueled. While already flawed at that stage (timezones) it was possible but with jumpdrive ships (carriers, dreads, etc.) this isn't an option anymore at all. Any comments here? A couple of other very nasty tactics are possible if you by chance or on purpose deploy the POS in specific locations inside the grid. I'm not going to give people ideas here but I guess some will be able to come up with quite a few tricks here aswell. One thing I wondered about is if the Grids sometimes change at downtime (perhaps automatically). Perhaps Oveur can answer this.
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:22:00 - [198] Originally by: Uther Doull i'll show you the big picture, we have ppl from different alliances from all over the map in this thread, the only thing they have in common with each other is that they hold territory and they attack territory. And now all these alliances agree on 1 thing (wich should be ringing big ***** alarm bells in CCP HQ, because we hardly ever agree on anything): POSWARFARE IS MAKING PPL TO NOT WANT TO PLAY EVE ANYMORE! (ok that is maybe an over statement, but everybody agrees it is no fun at all, and way out of wack) It is not an overstatement. It either drives people AWAY from the things which unfortunately go hand in hand with 0.0 empire building, to the point where the nature of this trend litterally pushes people out of the game. I can't hear any alarms ringing at CCP though. I can hear them ringing from Feythabolis to Detorid and Insmother, from Deklein to Venal, from Catch to Geminate, the consensus of the subscribers is pretty obvious: the system as it it, is going ** up - so to speak. Partly due to changes in game environments, partly due to evolution in player faction relations, but most importantly due to simple in game mechanism interaction. If what is wanted is the conquest of lawless space, and empire building and conflict in 0.0 with elongated combat ... well then the currently observed trend fits the ball perfectly ^^ Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
Miss Overlord	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:34:00 - [199] not sure where this fits in but .... require each module to consume a fuel type - add fuel for guns as well. Perhaps have crystals degrade over a month period or so (this will help the XL ammo makers as well) the market there is a bit lack. Moving onto sov rights. Cyno fields not near moons (within 1000km perhaps) perhaps POS could exert some sort of influence. An anti cyno field but we are finding now that small corps wanting low sec and 0.0 POS are going to have to consolidate their power (no more 6 man corps running 0.0 POS) u guys are going to have to join larger corps. CCP are removing the solo element of the game
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:36:00 - [200] There are a couple items I'd really like to see addressed: 1. You should not be able to manipulate the time at which a POS comes out of reinforced mode after it has been attacked. 2. There should be limitations to the ability to refuel from a Carrier. Stopping stuff from jumping in system through gates is completely reasonable. Currently, there is no good way to stop the carrier. Perhaps we need some form of anti-cyno technology to obstruct an incoming capital ship that hasn't had a covering force move in ahead of it. 3. Address server load issues for large engagements. As EVE's population grows and remains on one cluster we will have more and more people in space in one place. Key engagements are (as desired) (EVE) world-impacting, and a large number of the online users will be trying to participate. All the people who give the empty "don't blob up" answer are taking the wrong approach. In a game where numbers lends strength, then people will naturally cluster to utilize this. When the natural behavior is hindered by technical inadequacies, users will (rightfully) feel dissatisfied. This occurs quite regularly for large fleet/pos battles now. Player behavior molds itself to the effective paths presented by the game. If the game doesn't want players to group up, then it needs to provide effective incentives for them to choose other behaviors. If it does want them to group, then it needs to be able to accomodate this grouping. Either way, this isn't happening right now.
Dirtball PinK TacO Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:45:00 - [201] I've been preaching this topic for well over a year I came to the only conclusion which is to smack on blobbers and try to get their decent pvprs to leave and play eve the way it should be ship vs ship and fleet vs fleet. People not residing or defending their own space outside of a full on dread attack has taken away from the the true glory of what eve can become and has totally robbed 0.0 of most of its targets and fun.
Joram McRory Caldari eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:48:00 - [202] Edited by: Joram McRory on 08/08/2006 21:50:39 Edited by: Joram McRory on 08/08/2006 21:49:22 Originally by: Oveur 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. The vast majority of people posting here are those involved in deep space alliances. We live in a reality of having to protect our expensive assets in large systems with anything up to 90 odd moons. this thread is about the actuall real issues that we have in fighting for or protecting deep space. We really don't care about the small corp 1 or 2 pos operations on the outskirts of our controlled space, or the insignificant goings on in Empire space. We have the isk, we have the industry and by god we have the determination to throw everything into our goals. That often means that 60 large towers and 20+ capital fleets are a common sight. We are not talking about an exception here, this is what it's really like!! By ignoring us and considering your "real" problems you are burying your head in the sand. The 0.0 alliances, our wars, our petty politics and our power struggles - that is Eve! For example, look at these number of online Starbases, divided into type and race, it's quite interesting. [snip] 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. Vaguely interesting numbers, but just the tip of the iceberg in reality. We may be industrial powerhouses out here, but we are not stupid and we are not wasteful. Large towers take a hell of a lot of effort to keep fueled and running. Just looking in my corp hangers shows that for every one deployed large deathstar there are many others waiting to be deployed in the event of an attack. As mentioned by one of my corp mates above: in bringing this to your attention we are exposing our space to risk. As it currently stands a fight for just one of the 14 ASCN outpost systems would be so hard to manage (we have learnt from RA!) that it would financially cripple any other Alliance. Look at AZN - 94 moons if I remember correctly so 47 needed to claim sov.... if it didn't cripple the attacker finacially they would have lost half the alliance to pos camp suicide as they all ran off to play WOW. We are not raising these issues to make things easier for ourselves (the exact opposite in the case of ASCN). We are telling you that pos warfare as it currently stands is a game breaker! It is the single most important issue to the exact same people who are trying their damndest to make EvE what you at CCP intended. 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. Nearly, but not quite. Fun is well and good, but unless you can take some of the suggestions in this thread on board I fail to see how you can make losing 1 billion isk in ships and mods every time you warp to a pos "fun". The real issues are: Too easy to spam poses (sugested remedies: make them only deployable from frieghters, make them only able to deploy one in a system at a time, make them take an age to online, make them come online with shields down) POS guns don't lag (suggested remedies: cycle targets more frequently, make guns take 15 minutes to lock, reduce pos gun damage, make large pos guns only target capitals) Too easy to manipulate reinforced times (sugested remedies: I'll admit to my eyes glazing over at these :-() Please address these quickly, sort this out and we will wait patiently for the factional warfare, contellation sov, etc. leave them and we will just get more frustrated. regards, Joram
Uther Doull Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.08 21:55:00 - [203] Originally by: Joram McRory Too easy to manipulate reinforced times (sugested remedies: I'll admit to my eyes glazing over at these :-() give POS 2 separate holds. one for normal fuel, and make it big enough to hold like 1 or 2 weeks worth of fuel, and the 2 for stront, big enough for like max 2 days
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:12:00 - [204] Holy crap Joram, that is one heck of a post. If that doesn't make CCP stare at the alarm bells I don't know what will. Could not have said it better. Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
Dinique Caldari Black Lance Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:13:00 - [205] I am very curious to know what POS warfare would have been like if there was no lag :/ Dusk till Dawn Twilight to Starlight
Auron Shadowbane	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:20:00 - [206] I have to admit, that i didnt read all the pages but I have some simple idea to improve the pos/sov/station issue: remove pos' ability to give sov and make them, what the should be: places to hide, moonmine research, refine and build. Add a new item/structure to the game: a solar emitting matrix (replace with proper name). it is built at the sun (so only one per sys). it is built like an outpost, so you need an egg, **loats m¦ of materials and *load of time. it should cost some 5-10bil ish (depending on balance). once built it takes 3-7 days (balance thing again) and then the owner gets sov and automatically ownership for all stations/outposts in sys. it has no weapons and a 100km pos shield (so only capship-siege weapons and long range bs can attack it) it should have about 250 000 shield hp with enough regeneration to not care about small non-cap fleets. it should NOT have any form of reinforced modus! BUT: It should start "boosting" it's shield by consuming fuel (stront?) when it falls bellow 50%. this boosting shall be so fast, that you basically can't break it's tank until it runs out of fuel. it should have enough capacity for fuel to holt enough fuel to withstand the enemy for about 12-24hours (this might vary depending on fleet sice since it basically lasts as long as: m¦ of fuel boosting multiplier / fleet dps). another idea would be to give it infinite capacity but make fuel very inefficient (something along 1 stront for 10-100 shield hp) so that it is an economical and logistical question how much fuel you give into an entity. while beeing in "combat mode" (aka boosting shieldsand burning fuel) the pos shield shall denie access to enemy AND FRIENDS, so you can not simply insta-in with a hauler to refill it. while not beeing boosting it should NOT consume any fuel. am evemail should be sent to the owner of the thing whenever it enters and/or leaves combat mode. most problems are solved: no station hopping due to 2-7 day time before it takes sov & station no pos-spamming since there is only ONE entity for sov. no more lag working in favour of defender (no guns on this one) no emitter griefing since it has enough defensive capabilities to let you form a fleet or even wait for your guys to log on, if you feeded it enough.
Altai Saker Omniscient Order Verisum Family	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:23:00 - [207] Hey guys, just thought I would stop in and point out that the devs were on sisi today vigorously testing POS. They need your help in testing these things though, at most we got a gang of maybe 30 people shooting the pos, so download the new client and help the devs out if you want pos fixed.
Joram McRory Caldari eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:28:00 - [208] Originally by: Altai Saker Hey guys, just thought I would stop in and point out that the devs were on sisi today vigorously testing POS. They need your help in testing these things though, at most we got a gang of maybe 30 people shooting the pos, so download the new client and help the devs out if you want pos fixed. I am not personally able to speak for my alliance, but I am pretty sure CYVOK would allow a GM to be in gang next time we hit a pos, or even be able to arrange a demonstration in one of our systems? Might be worth a senior GM contacting him. Joram
Virida Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:36:00 - [209] Originally by: Uther Doull Originally by: Oveur 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. then don't bloody have station systems with 70 moons FFS! i'll show you the big picture, we have ppl from different alliances from all over the map in this thread, the only thing they have in common with each other is that they hold territory and they attack territory. And now all these alliances agree on 1 thing (wich should be ringing big ***** alarm bells in CCP HQ, because we hardly ever agree on anything): POSWARFARE IS MAKING PPL TO NOT WANT TO PLAY EVE ANYMORE! (ok that is maybe an over statement, but everybody agrees it is no fun at all, and way out of wack) this thread is full of the reasons why this is so, and some really good (and bad) ideas to remedy this now, if you say you don't want to change pos because they are not solely used for sov, then here is your solution (wich by the way is already mentioned like 3 times): split POSes into sov Pos and production/other stuff Pos seriously, saying you don't want to balance pos on the fact of sov alone really **es me of, it's a mechanic that negatively affects (a guesstimate) 50k alliance members because the efforts of a 400 ppl gang can be negated by 3 determined pilots... i say the sov mechanic is the single most important part of POS, and if you don't want the production pos changed then split those two up into different entities Well, sovereginity is QUITE important, if not, you dont have any POSes at all there. I dont got the amazing experience as some, in LV, bob, V, RA, or whoever got with POSes. But i know ive never seen a POS fight, or heard of one involving any hostile, or friendly alliance, who were not lag, lag, crash, and crowbaring of methods. One time war targets ,one year ago warped into a active pos, and shot down helpless ppl incide, who couldnt do anything. i dont complain at ALL on mechanics, but i agree with this poster: spam wars with deploying pos'es is not particularly fun when all parts cannot counter it, since fuel is carried only in capital ships, and all logistics for a waiting game is done in 20minute trips by hostiles. This also reminds me of the old tower wars in Anarchy Online, since it seems kind of flawed as it is.
Lacero Callrisian Minmatar Solar Storm Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:37:00 - [210] Edited by: Lacero Callrisian on 08/08/2006 22:38:46 Originally by: Ariovist 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.) I think this is an excellent point, although RTS games and eve have many important differences imagine what it would be like if refineries that you currently put at a pos could be anchored anywhere. And when they get destroyed they don't actually blow up, they just get damaged and can be repaired (a kind of ship wreckage?). So, fantastic! You go mining in your mining barges, dump a load of refineries around the belt (with fuel) and keep them burning as you mine. A pirate gang attacks your mining op and suddenly instead of just docking in the nearby factory station (like a boring girl) you have to defend your refineries otherwise the pirates will damage them to the point they drop their contents. Fun? I think so. Problems? well yes you wouldn't want it to be worth while popping the refineries yourself to keep the mins safe. But essentially it's better than putting them in a POS because the enemy doesn't have to bring 20B+ ships to steal your 30M of mins. I realise this kind of thing is a code rewrite and probably can't happen, but POS warfare is just bad. Really really really really really bad. I wanted to add my voice to the chorus. I'm encouraged that CCP seem to agree that there should be more variation in the size of property battles, at the moment we have popping secure cans and killing POS and nothing in between. I'm less encouraged that they seem to think it's good enough for now. Contesting sovreignty would have more depth and fun if there was a big pot and both sides threw ice into it once a day, whoever has the most wins sovreignty in 5 days time. There scope for strategy and misdirection in that, what we have now is just wasting everyone's time. THUS IS THE SHAME OF CCP
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:44:00 - [211] Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 08/08/2006 22:44:45 Originally by: Aeina Caeraen Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 08/08/2006 17:59:28 Originally by: Joerd Toastius The increased fuel costs just make things even less about ships and even more about economics, increased turret damage means it's easier to instapop BS (not fun) and there's already a ship storage module (ship maintenance bay), it's just that it uses grid and CPU that could be powering more weapons. That's why I suggested a possibility of increasing Firing Rate instead, and simply have it do target turnover more often. Although against a deathstar POS, you'll be lucky to load the POS before you die to it. Also, my fuel suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the expense of doing POS spamming. Anyone that can afford to put the LPOSs up can easily pay for the fuel. I'm suggesting, mainly, that, as more LPOSs are anchored, the fuel cost would mean far more frequent refuelling, and that 40 of your LPOSs in a system would mean they would all run out of fuel per hour, every hour. POSs with no fuel aren't very hard to kill, so we'd start to see a shift more towards defending a few LPOSs actively, rather than simply spamming 60 and having an entire corp of a few hundred keeping the things online. Finally, my suggestion with the "Hangar Array" and "No Jetcans" was not to replace the Ship Maintenance Array, which allows you to store one Ship, and refit it. It was to simply get every last random ship that may be floating around inside the ForceField into a single structure, so that they do not have to be loaded when entering the POS grid. For all I care, make it take 0CPU/0GRID with an infinite ship storage capacity, with like .1 ISK cost. ROF point taken. Fuel does still boil down to economics/cost - with carriers there is no risk refuelling stuff, it's just a question of having people online at the right time to top up, and paying for the fuel. The alliance which can pay for the most wins, in that situation, and it's a horrible mechanic to boot because it means that there always has to be somebody watching and refuelling. Finally, the ship maint array does not store one ship, it stores, well, lots. A single array can hold 20 million m3 of assembled ships, which is an awful lot of frigs and shuttles. {edit} @Joram the manipulation thing is fairly easy to hack - just put limits on adding/removing stront while POS assaults are under way, job done.
Virtuozzo eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:54:00 - [212] Originally by: Dinique I am very curious to know what POS warfare would have been like if there was no lag :/ It would still be insanely boring and dull and going against anything remotely fun. It would be just like it is now, just as long, just as boring, just as mindnumbing, with only a few less deaths as difference. Virtuozzo RECRUITMENT TEASERS. Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.08 23:37:00 - [213] My anti blob concept and a small corps point of view Re-calculate based on average players in space from given alliance. I like this for the following reasons: 1) This could further reduce the "large teritory/small population" problem by either directly shrinking claimed space, or providing incentives for alliances to include a tax paying industrial base (made up of the numerous small empire corps). 2) An invading force may find it benificial to break up into smaller squadrons and spread accross enemy space to cancel opposing soveignty claims, harming bonuses and so enemy effectiveness. This promotes non blob warfare by providing a reason to be everywhere at once. Any kind of population varible should be over a peroid of days rather than hours. Maybe a combination of POS's and population could go into the calculation, anyway im just laying this idea down for the sake of discussion
Nedia	Posted - 2006.08.08 23:41:00 - [214] i really just hate wait for hours for some action, its really booooooooooooooooooooooooring very booooooooooooooooooring. Pos wars are very very very booring
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.08 23:59:00 - [215] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 09/08/2006 00:02:44 I have a specific comment, on reinforced mode. You set a time for your POS. At this time the next day, the POS exist reinforced mode, and a limited window of say 6 hours exists before it can go back in. There is a 1 hour timer from the last attack, so an attack which ended within an hour of the time set would end the NEXT day...and you cannot change the time in from the start of the attack into period either. This makes reinforced mode what it is TRULY supposed to be - a way of timeshifting the POS vulnrability window to your peak time - and nothing else. BUT, it WILL end the next day. There is no long window, no break which allows you you regroup with lots of stront...
Auraurious Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:06:00 - [216] Frankly I really don't see why we can't (and shouldn't) do away with the boring laggy npc called a pos for all but industrial reasons and replace it with a different mechanism (see page 4 for my alternative suggestion). _____________________________________________
Joram McRory Caldari eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:07:00 - [217] Originally by: Hermia 1) This could further reduce the "large teritory/small population" problem by either directly shrinking claimed space, or providing incentives for alliances to include a tax paying industrial base (made up of the numerous small empire corps). Your initial premis is incorrect, there is no "large teritory/small population" problem". Of course i can only speak for the bit of 0.0 that i live in. But in feythabolis for instance there are about 15 useful systems, the rest are just time sinks to travel through. And believe me those systems are packed. Try finding a reasonable belt to mine in 5p- or RIT! My top tip: don't waste money on a hulk - you will rarely get to use more that a couple of cycles on a roid. The ratting is more evenly distributed, but away from the outpost systems it is hard to make a living just from npcs. It's off topic for this thread, so i won't go on a rant, but to fill those empty systems CCP need to add a few more high end belts, or more complexes, or something else.... Then we can spread out a bit, and 0.0 will not appear so empty. Joram
The Enslaver Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:29:00 - [218] Revising an earlier post of mine: -Sovereignty is claimed with a sovereignty module that costs about 300-500m -Module can only be fitted to large POS's. -Module causes reinforced times to 'fluctuate' randomly by +/- 6-18 hours of the supposed amount. -When fitted to a POS, no weaponry/hardeners can be fitted to that POS. -The oldest sov module placed overrides any new modules placed: you have to kill the sov module(s) for yours to take effect. This resolves the following issues: No extensive control over reinforced periods. Controlling systems rely on actual people to defend that system. POS spam warfare. Can effectively control a system with a single POS, just need the people to keep it safe. An assault on a system by 200+ people can no longer be prevented by a single guy in a hauler. Lag is no longer the issue - you won't be at a POS that has weapons. And at the same time, it means that: Normal, non-sov claiming POS's are unaffected - retaining the same defences as now, so the small guys have a chance to defend still POS networks unaffected, apart from a potential rise in fuel costs. --------
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:32:00 - [219] Nafri hit the nail on the head with this IMO. One thing that bothers me more than just the imbalance and LAG hole that is POS, is that everything involving POS and big fleet battles is just horribly B-O-R-I-N-G. OK now back on topic, the imbalance: 1 billion ISK is risked to make the enemy risk 90 billion ISK. POS should be the weapon of industrial alliances, but it should cost them just as much it costs military alliaces to take them down. If one side is cheaper and on top of that putting the other side in a much more risky situation it really ****s up the game balance in 0.0.
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:35:00 - [220] Originally by: Joram McRory It's off topic for this thread, so i won't go on a rant, but to fill those empty systems CCP need to add a few more high end belts, or more complexes, or something else.... Then we can spread out a bit, and 0.0 will not appear so empty. Ill second that! there needs to be more viable space for people to move out of empire, but in existing regions not just fix it with brand new ones. About your other points Joram, Im not supprised about the lack of viable systems in your area, you really seem to fill your ranks in ascn . irrigardless tho, thats actually my seperate agenda , i have flown through large sections of usefull space un-used but nonetheless claimed. My other point is perhaps more usefull for one of the questions in this thread, "how to de-blob the community with game mechanics". Its reported all the time how alliances pool together and move like a recking ball, taking out pos's. This technque would certainly be inefficient if soverignty required player presence per system over a given time. If soverignty is what your after.
Serenity Steele Rearden Steele Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:50:00 - [221] One key factor is 'balancing' reward vs effort for assaulting POS, including 'game-effort/play-time' comparison between attacker and defender. In a fleet battle, everyone with an effect has to spend the same amount of game-time to win. In POS, a single pos runner takes say 4 hrs to setup a medium assault POS (ie. guns and all), plus 1hr a week to fuel it. So say, total 5hrs x 1 player. To take down that same POS, you're looking at say, 10 x dread pilot x 1 hr = 10hrs player time. So .. based on that, I'd some perhaps relatively codeable solutions would be: Make blockading possible - Cynofield not within X range of a POS (aka same moon) - Enables blockading/attacking the refuelers, just like with indies/transports 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. - It would also mean that more effort was required for initial deployment, with greated risk of getting into the system to do the deployment. Give more loot to attackers - Structures are unanchorable (by attackers) or automatically unanchored on tower destruction. - Increase in reward for assaulting POS, makes the effort more worth it, and hence reward for more effort in destruction than creation.
Arkanor Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.08.09 01:04:00 - [222] Sovereignty, Jump Drives, and the POS, how to fix wars. Right now we have a problem, The only way to claim sovereignty in a system is to basically spam POSes, which, even in the popular "Deathstar" configuration, are nothing more than oversized speed bumps easily passable to a well-trained, equipped and determined force. What is wrong with this? While a number of things, I'll start 1. POSes can be set up in roughly an hour, by a single person, making them easy to spam around. Any alliance determined to claim sov can afford this. 2. POSes are ineffective as defense platforms, making them into no more of a speed bump. 3. POS warfare is BORING, causes lots of LAG and games should never be something you don't want to play because "We have to pound all of those POSes out over the weekend, this is gonna suck." 4. To boost POSes as defense platforms would be removing player-content, allowing players to basically spawn "Giant NPCs" to kill their enemies. 5. To boost POSes in cost would destroy a lot of their industrial use, which is bad for the non-deathstar POSes. 6. POSes make emplacement too easy, and make it very time consuming to displace an enemy force. Who cares if you kill the entire system worth of POSes over the weekend? The enemy can put up another network before Monday morning. To solve this issue, I propose a new structure. POSes should remain in an industrial role and be less time consuming to take down accordingly. POS hitpoints need rather large reductions, the industrial arm should be weaker than the military arm.Well how to solve Sovereignty then? The new structure I am proposing is the Colony. Colonies would be relatively undefended structures (a couple of lighter sentries to discourage random raids) but a relative pushover to larger forces. I'm thinking along the lines of perhaps 10,000,000 Shield HP, with a limited "reinforced" mode to discourage attacks while the enemy is fast asleep. No need to abuse timezones (24 hour MAXIMUM on reinforced.) Colonies would need no supplies to exist, as grow/etc everything they need to live on their own. However, colonies would be comparatively fragile to the now-deathstar POSes and would be only lightly defended. Of course, as a soveriegnty structure they would need to be rather expensive, perhaps 5-10BN, which, when you think about it, isn't all that much considering the massive POS spam that would be required to hold someone off for a while. Here are some key points I have for the Colonies * Around 10m HP + Max 24hr reinforce. * Light defenses. * Limit one per system. * ~3-6 hours anchoring time, with 24 hours to online. * Claim sovereignty in a system after 5 days of presence. POSSIBLY for a fuel cost, of course be able to jump a fleet directly to that colony for defense. However, this limits logistical management. POSSIBLY a limited docking function, with a maximum hangar size (aka cannot hold a whole battle fleet) and only fitting/repair is available. DISCLAIMER - I have not been involved in POS warfare, this is merely my suggestion based on what I am hearing Now, onto the matter of Jump drives. These wonderful things allow people to completely bypass what should be the border zones of an empire to strike right at its heart. Honestly, what kind of sense does this make, IRL or in gameplay, take your pick.I propose another new structure to preserve the borders in 0.0 warfare, while not enabling empires to spread far beyond their ability to control because they "only need the borders." Introducing, the Gravity Well Generator/Cynosural Field Disruptor This structure would either: A: Block the creation of a cynosural field in the system with a CFD. Originally by: Ghosthowl WoW = hardcore paladins smashin dat face. Originally by: HippoKing I just cried, you know that?
Arkanor Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2006.08.09 01:05:00 - [223] B: Redirect all ships jumping to a cynofield in a system with an active GWG to an adjacent system WITHOUT an active GWG. Jump drive capable ships make a straight jump, therefore they can go to systems that would require a Stargate-Actuator ship to travel through systems with GWG. Example: Path of normal ship, A to C, assuming B has a Gravwell Generator (B) / \ Normal ship is unaffected, because A C stargates stabilize the jump path. (B) Jump-Drive ships are unaffected, because the gravity well is out of range. A---C To keep things sane, even if B were directly in the path of A and C, it should not affect the jump path. The structure would have to be able to preserve combat at the borders, but still allow raids, and it also needs disadvantages to get it to work. The thing would need to be set in space, with possibly a 2-5hr anchoring time, but a small onlining time, perhaps 15-20 minutes to allow intra-empire travel with jumpdrive capable ships. This would be similar to opening the gates of an empire when not at war, for trading/etc purposes, but it would allow the empire to go into lockdown. The empire would have to strategically decide then if it wants to risk enemy capitals being in its HQ for the sake of having its own there.The generators themselves, would need fuel to run, and would need to be activated. The generators would be very easy to detect when activated due to their unique and large signature. Suggested figures: 10-20m HP, after all, this is a combat structure. NO reinforce, allowing raiders to blast through IF they break the lines. Requires fuel to operate Large and rather easy to find signature when active, harder to find when not. Medium defense, enough to WTF PWN a small squad/gang to deter random raiders, and should pose some threat in the manner of ship losses against motivated attackers, but it's not like it's going to come close to defeating a force by itself. Price point, 2-6BN. Limit One per system. 15-25 minute activation timer. State of activation can NOT be seen from outside of system, defend your gates! My goal was to remove a lot of the boredom from taking over systems, but at the same time try to discourage lightning-quick "hit-em while they sleep/work/eat/etc" strikes, while allowing determined raiders to still have a shot. The emphasis is on using fleets to counter fleets, and quite honestly, if the enemy knocks out all your grav-wells, they earned the right to your HQ. The defenders DO have some advantage, but they still need to muster a fleet to counter a fleet. Not to mention, they can be caught with their pants down if their gravwells are deactivated. DISCLAIMER 2, figures stated are just brainstorming, obviously they are not finalized. What do you guys think? Originally by: Ghosthowl WoW = hardcore paladins smashin dat face. Originally by: HippoKing I just cried, you know that?
Rasitiln Minmatar SniggWaffe	Posted - 2006.08.09 01:16:00 - [224] pfft why do all these long winded stuff, remove poses remove sov increase HP on stations and make it so they have a reenforced mode. Less pos spamage and still a use for dreads. Win Win Want to be a pirate? Join Sniggwaffe
James 315 Tactical Enterprise Group LTD The Imperial Order	Posted - 2006.08.09 01:20:00 - [225] The Enslaver has some interesting ideas. I felt like putting in my own two cents on this POS issue, since it will need to be resolved sooner or later. Problem #1. Having lots of ships at a POS causes massive lag, making the game unplayable and resulting in the loss of tons of ships, especially attackers. Problem #2. Without some kind of reinforced mode, time zone issues make it possible to attack a POS with no player defenders. Problem #3. Due to time zone issues and carriers, it is impossible to starve a POS of fuel. Problem #4. It is too easy/cheap/quick to put up a POS compared to destroying one. We all know that the lag issue cannot be solved. If you have a certain number of ships at a POS, lag will ensue. No dev can fix this. Nor can a dev really fix Problem #3; even if you somehow placed limits on capital ships fueling a POS, there's always the time zone factor. Likewise, no dev can solve Problem #2. Without reinforced mode, attackers can overwhelm a POS in their prime time. With reinforced mode, defenders can be supreme in their prime time. I suppose you could make reinforced mode last a random amount of time, but if you think POS warfare is boring now, just wait until you have to sit around to find out when the fuel randomly wears off. I really don't believe all of these problems can be solved, so it's a matter of trading off which problems are the most important to solve, and which results in the gameplay that involves the most strategy and, preferably, fun. Here's my proposal: First, remove reinforced mode. Yes, people will be able to attack while you sleep. Of course, you'll be able to attack their POS's while they sleep. Second, allow unlimited amounts of guns to large POS's. Whatever they're willing to buy, let them attach. The defense now becomes primarily automated. This limits the advantage of night attackers. Also, by having POS warfare primarily player versus structure, it solves the lag issue. If people are going to attack in off-hours, you may as well use it to your advantage and limit its effectiveness. The defender has the choice of committing lots of resources to his POS, but he must keep in mind that he needs to keep a majority of POS's in the system. So if he defends one POS too well, he may leave others vulnerable. He has to decide how much money to spend per POS. Third, allow a few hours for POS's to come fully online and activate weapons/shields. This forces defenders (and attackers making their own POS's) to defend them as they come online. Of course, they can do it in their own primetime. Fourth, accept that there will always be time zone issues. POS warfare now becomes primarily offensive. You destroy their POS, they destroy yours. To combat time zone issues, try to recruit people from varying time zones! But if there's a major difference, you will need to rely on putting lots of guns on your POS's. How much are you willing to spend on them? How much is your enemy willing to spend? How many POS's can you afford to put up, knowing they may be destroyed? How many is your enemy willing to? That's where the strategy / logistics come in, and that seems to me a far preferable setup than the way POS wars are now.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.09 02:04:00 - [226] James 315, a classic example of narrow thinking. Any true industrial concern rather than a PvP battlestar is going to be VERY easy to remove. Most smaller concerns could be very quickly swept from 0.0 entirely, and you bet that some alliances would do just that to ensure that they had nothing which challenge them in a vast area of space. Your idea is fine for massive alliance v alliance wars, but...
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 02:15:00 - [227] Originally by: The Enslaver Revising an earlier post of mine: -Sovereignty is claimed with a sovereignty module that costs about 300-500m -Module can only be fitted to large POS's. -Module causes reinforced times to 'fluctuate' randomly by +/- 6-18 hours of the supposed amount. -When fitted to a POS, no weaponry/hardeners can be fitted to that POS. -The oldest sov module placed overrides any new modules placed: you have to kill the sov module(s) for yours to take effect. This resolves the following issues: No extensive control over reinforced periods. Controlling systems rely on actual people to defend that system. POS spam warfare. Can effectively control a system with a single POS, just need the people to keep it safe. An assault on a system by 200+ people can no longer be prevented by a single guy in a hauler. Lag is no longer the issue - you won't be at a POS that has weapons. And at the same time, it means that: Normal, non-sov claiming POS's are unaffected - retaining the same defences as now, so the small guys have a chance to defend still POS networks unaffected, apart from a potential rise in fuel costs. T2 production chain operators MUST retain the fuel bonus IMO. We need to give the alliances & corps ability to claim mineral rights as well as SOV. I say we turn the current SOV system into a mineral rights claiming system. This can be overridden by your SOV module idea, which is a military option. Both get the fuel bonus. This way an alliance with military SOV can give non-alliance corps and even other alliances mineral rights, and tax them for these rights. Sov & T2 production chain fuel bonus have to be seperated, but neither eliminated... SOV is for system control, outpost construction, etc. Mineral rights are for T2 production chains, etc... And can be taxed by the owner of SOV... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Drilla Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 02:24:00 - [228] Make POS offensive modules manually controlled only. So if you have a POS with guns/launchers/scramblers - you need to be at the POS to use it. If system/grid/server is lagged, so are the offensive capabilities of the POS. On top of that Enslaver has the perfect change for fixing sov. issues. Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost!
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.09 02:30:00 - [229] Edited by: Bhaal on 09/08/2006 02:35:11 Originally by: Drilla Make POS offensive modules manually controlled only. So if you have a POS with guns/launchers/scramblers - you need to be at the POS to use it. If system/grid/server is lagged, so are the offensive capabilities of the POS. On top of that Enslaver has the perfect change for fixing sov. issues. I disagree; this would make the POS' out there for T2 production way too vulnerable. Like I said, we need to separate the military & industrial aspects. POS' should only be attacked if someone wants that moon for its minerals... We need another system for SOV... I say a POS with a mod like Ens has stated, but then take it a step further. The alliance now has to build 3 military outposts in the system to get SOV in order to build an outpost. These 3 military outposts can be fitted with sensor arrays so you don't need to scan with probes in your own system to find enemies, etc... (along with defenses, etc) Pilots can refit at these like hangar arrays, but actually dock, etc... Give some true advantages to SOV, other than just the current outposts, etc... For an enemy alliance to gain SOV, they would have to kill all 3 military outposts, the original POS with module, all the while the SOV alliance players do not need scan probes to find enemies, as long as the alliance sensor array is online. ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.09 02:52:00 - [230] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 09/08/2006 02:52:38 Originally by: Drilla Edited by: Drilla on 09/08/2006 02:27:59 Make POS offensive modules manually controlled only. So if you have a POS with guns/launchers/scramblers - you need to be at the POS to use them. If system/grid/server is lagged, so are the offensive capabilities of the POS. On top of that Enslaver (in post 218 atm.) has the perfect change for fixing sov. issues. The problem with manual control is you'll focus fire and swat dreads. Further, that's NOT a "perfect change". It's "swat the ones which claim sov they can't even be defended". You can ignore the other POS, they're quite irrellevant. Or, rather, there is basically no incentive to claim them. You can strike straight for their outpost system, remove a few unarmed POS and take it. Moreover, it means there is ONE strategy to win, now and forever. As I said, I want colonies not POS. Throwing the entire POS system out. Yes, probably radical. What we have dosn't work properly and I'm not sure any fix can make it so.
Ituralde Fate.	Posted - 2006.08.09 06:21:00 - [231] Screw POS for claiming Sov. What is really important if you want to own a system? The planets. Just bring us planetary interaction and make that determine system control - who controls the colonies. The big problem with the POS battle is that ONLY dreads can take them down, a fleet of BS will be torn a second anus by the guns on it. Have the station in a system count for a certain amount along with each planet and moon colonized based on size, each cappable like stations are now. Want protected sov? Colonize more in your system. With constellation soverignty coming, gate guns and perhaps station guns will be deployable anyhow, so use those to secure your territory as opposed to an unfortunately long reinforced mode. That encourages active battle, since a station or planet could swap to either side in an engagement. Maybe set a reinforced mode for the stations but allow them some guns perhaps, or require colony domination including the celestial that the station is orbiting for the station to be captured. Also, planets are big places so they are large targets with tons of tactical possiblilites - that will likely take some work such that the entire surround of a planet or moon would be warpable if this sort of interaction is to be possible. My 2 cents... Fear is the mind-killer.
Simon Illian Caldari Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.09 07:40:00 - [232] The Ship mainteance array need some work : => Put a personnel / corporate / alliance space => Allow to give Role for corporate/alliance => Allow more than 1 ppl to change fit around here, not viable for 1 alliance => Allow to remove, but not change fitting for PSO in reinforced. doing this will, i think, clear the pos of the majority of the ship, cause you can store & use them really more easly. Having a fight at a pos with 200 ship in the shield pos add a lot of lag, for nothing.
Kuolematon Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.08.09 07:56:00 - [233] Edited by: Kuolematon on 09/08/2006 07:57:54 Originally by: Nedia i really just hate wait for hours for some action, its really booooooooooooooooooooooooring very booooooooooooooooooring. Pos wars are very very very booring But but .. PvP in EVE is soo cool and nber!! How dare you break that mantra!! Another funny mantra on EVE is that anything to do with costs, will make sure that those greedy fat-tard T2 makers get excuse to raise prices from 150mil to 400mil per HAC. Just like real life: "This raise is temporary, until new raise comes which will then be next temporary raise on price". Unnerf Amarr! "Just because you can utterly ruin another player's game doesn't mean that you must."
Trak Cranker	Posted - 2006.08.09 08:28:00 - [234] Originally by: Maya Rkell James 315, a classic example of narrow thinking. And then some...
sorilin Amarr Catalyst Reaction Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.09 08:51:00 - [235] i think poses are just fine.. an dyes i have taken down L poses too.all it take is 4/5 dreads.. and a few houres.. Borring as hell but needed.. and sometime some try to defend, mostly not.. what i think is a shame is that u cant take em in your posesion. there should be a way to shoot it down and claim it, just like oputposts.. maybe not the modules and such, but the tower for sure. as aside note.. i would like to see more strucktures on the market for poses.. say a cynoseoul beacon wich NEED to be anchored in the same system as the pos but NOT at the pos. and it could easily be killed.. as it cant have protection and is shown on owerview. :) FUN FUN! just imagine the posibilities of enemies camping the beacon as u jump in and u actually get ganked in your cap ship.. OR pawn em all as u jump in 30 cap ships.. ROFL:_::: I would LOVE to have a spy as a carier i eve, i meen a real skill where i can duplicate a person i see in local for an amount of time.. this would ofc require a skill etc.. but imagine the FUN it would give.. ah well all this isent belonging here i spose. I am the borg!
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.09 09:07:00 - [236] Edited by: Hermia on 09/08/2006 09:08:07 The idea about planet colonys claiming sov could be a great move. For an RP perspective that could work nicely and with good sov mechanics significantly change the way alliances fight each other. I dont really like the talk about changing statistics all over the place with POS's, they must remain hard to take down for industrial needs! I would really like to see alliances have a reason to spread out in enemy space and not make blobs. I dont really care how this is achieved but the planet colony thing is interesting, you can do lots with it. Every planet could have a moral bar that can be influenced by the players (through a range of methods), so much could be done with this. edit: plugging some gramma errors
Christopher Scott Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen	Posted - 2006.08.09 09:34:00 - [237] Originally by: Garramon A gigantic game of Risk anyone? When you think about territorial control, what other game has proven its flawless mechanics? The game of Risk. It has been around for decades, and it works.
Boonaki Caldari Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.08.09 09:34:00 - [238] How about the addition of extra large POS's. Able to man guns, only POS able to mount that system sov device, costs 10-20 times more then a large. Lots of options Fear the Ibis of doom!
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.09 09:35:00 - [239] I'd like to see POS construction to be a more modular affair, with the required components having different anchoring times and requirements, with some modules depending on the placement of others. There shouldn't be different size POS, all should be able to be made from the same building blocks, but certain choices should lead down more and more specialised paths. I would like to see these POS areas grow and expand, rather than being centered around a single tower. They should evolve as the grow, becomming something more akin to the type of areas you find in missions and complexes. Destroying a more complicated area should become more interesting, requiring the targeting of specific constructs spread over a larger area, each possibly shielded or protected by automated defences, depending on what has been placed. Then again, that all sounds more like a pipe dream. It would be cool, but probably horribly complicated to actually code. Maybe just increasing the amount of time it takes to online a POS to balance it with the amount of effort required to kill it would be better .. less spiffeh though :/ The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Christopher Scott Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen	Posted - 2006.08.09 09:40:00 - [240] 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.
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!"
DeadDuck Amarr DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.10 11:28:00 - [271] Originally by: Uther Doull Originally by: Redundancy stuff... \o/ yay for dev responses! Indeed We are in the midle of a POS bashing operation ... we are making that for a week now, and we still have a dam large number of pos to knock ... this must have been the most boring days of playing EVE, sat on a gate 5/6 hours/day doing nothing just waiting for a eventual hostile attack while the Dread Fleets knock the POS into reinforced mode. After that, return 20m or 2 days after (nobody knows) to finish it ... While you're there you have plenty of time to ask your self, "what the hell I'm doing here ?" "This is a game and this is supposed to be funny, am I having fun playing this ???"
Veest Caldari Crisis Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:15:00 - [272] Edited by: Veest on 10/08/2006 12:17:03 Edited by: Veest on 10/08/2006 12:15:30 One tactic that we do witness though, is the juggling of fuel by a defending alliance, to allow them to try and manipulate the time that a POS will come out of re-inforced mode. Simple solution that CCP could implement here is to make that impossible once a POS is undeer attack and it's shields have dropped below say 90%. This would allow the offensive alliance time to halt their assault on a specific POS, move to another and so on, until they feel that the Strontium stored in a POS is not going to run out just before downtime for instance, when the defenders know that the offensive alliance will be unable to finish off the job in hand. Guaranteed, this doesn't eliminate the lagf issues we are all experiencing, bur I see it as a tactic that would allow attackers a slightly better chance of trying to shift sovereignty a little bit easier. Originally by: Redundancy 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). 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./ Quote:**
Vortex Freeman Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:23:00 - [273] Just make the POS reinforced mode fuel-independant, make it a fixed time or randomly chance based within a time frame. Large pos say 36-48 hrs, medium POS 18-24 hrs and small POS 9-12 hrs. ~ Preparatus Supervivet ~
Hellraiza666 Regeneration Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:36:00 - [274] yay a dev response. However i think this POS stuff needs sorting asap, its just as important, if not more important than new content.
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 12:45:00 - [275] Yes, owning a majority of planets in a system to own SOV is the ultimate, but there is no way that can happen just yet. There is no reason the DEV's can't implement SOV up to that point in steps. The first Step was POS' claiming SOV, I think we have reached a point where this needs to change. I say we should be required to build 3 military outposts to claim SOV, and this will override any number of POS' claiming SOV. Then we can move on to planetary flight, owning planets to claim SOV, etc... If the DEV's were to release these military outposts that can be built at planets today, it would change the POS wars immediately... It's doubtful that any alliance could spam 10's or hundreds of these things if they cost 1/3 the price of an outpost... When the time comes where alliances can, you'd hope planetary ownership would be in the game, and we'd have the ultimate SOV solution... ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 14:14:00 - [276] Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. Sorry but most of you going "best idea ever" haven't really thought this through and/or have expereince in planning and operating with Capital Fleets. This will not alievate the situation at all, in fact it will make it worse. You will simply bring in more Dreads - say 40-50 and therefore more forces to protect that investment. Futhermore, the worst part about this is you will go back to the bad old days of Station ping pong. Rather than being able to claim soverignty and therefore not being able to target a Station/Outpost, you will have entire systems camped for weeks on end with Dread, Carrier and BS fleets a.k.a. Blob wars. This in turn leads to boredome and will end up killing Eve because people will simply stop logging in. Now I agree that the lag is bad but with careful planning it's not intollerable. There's a lot of mass hysteria floating around. CCP have said that the new Dragon Code that's coming in a week or two will enable better load balancing. Couple this with sensible planning a.k.a NOT blobbing and you'll alievate a lot of problems. Finally, CCP need to wake up. BM copying/spaming to artificially increase lag is bad mkay? Make it a bannable offence once and for all. When I attack a POS I don't want to wait 10 minutes for the grid to load up because my opponent is ejecting shuttles with hundreds of BMs in their cargo hold. You need to make anyone artificially increasing lag subject to a warning and then possible sanctions/banning from Eve. Make a Difference
iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 15:04:00 - [277] Originally by: Nafri 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. Which is a problem that the dev's have already stated they aren't comfortable with, so no doubt the mechanics will change in the near future. And the fact is, the assault was halted right after the POS was put into reinforced, so perhaps we'll never really know whether it could have been taken down? BTW, I was there, in person, in a BS, shooting at the RA fleet while they attacked LV's dreads, so I have pretty good insight into what happened there. The fact is, Dread's should be killable. A Dread assault on a POS in which the defender defends with a fleet, should result in Dread losses. Some people apparently think that Dread's should never be lost in a POS takedown, and that's the mindset I'm trying to reason against here. Take any other ship into a fleet battle, and if it is targeted it has a very good chance of dying. Why should Dread's be any different? And to the guy that responds to this with cries of lag - yes, the lag in those battles is serious. But it's not the whole mechanic that's necessarily flawed - if the lag hadn't been there on the Sunday assault in C-J, it would have been a textbook POS battle, imho. Frankly though, for all those arguing that 'lag' killed the Dread's - I wonder..... Only a few Dread's were lost to a large RA BS fleet - how many of them weren't able to target and fire in a timely manner? How many Coalition Dread's might have died had there not been any lag? We'll never know, but it's something to think about......
Shayleigh Snowflower DarkStar 1 Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 15:20:00 - [278] My carrier loss was fair and square. They locked me down and swarmed me. I have no problem with that. Another carrier, was sitting with a desynced client, showing everyone at long long range, unable to activate mods because he can't do that while warping etc etc. That is an action that happens due to lag, and that is damn anoying. Looseing a dread because there comes in 30 BS and wtfpwn you after they drain your cap etc, are fair and square. Looseing a dread because it is stuck in siege mode, and won't come out of it (or into it) due to lag, are not OK. But thats just my opinion. (ohh, btw, make carriers loose control of fighters if carriers goes inside POS shields, and normal ships loose control of drones if inside a POS shield, might not be to dumb an idea either.)
RUNYOUFOOLS Caldari Konkord is'the'best Corp	Posted - 2006.08.10 16:13:00 - [279] Joram you sexy beast, everything you have written is right and you should be given a free Moros for your services to the eve community Ps: use the luny move! Well do you love eggs?
Nafri Caldari Cataclysm Enterprises	Posted - 2006.08.10 17:06:00 - [280] Originally by: John McCreedy Originally by: Nafri I still prefer the combination of my idea and the other idea Give Stations reinforced mode, make POS modules which increase station HP, and take away the need to kill the POSes first. POSes should not be the only target in a war, as it is now. Sorry but most of you going "best idea ever" haven't really thought this through and/or have expereince in planning and operating with Capital Fleets. This will not alievate the situation at all, in fact it will make it worse. You will simply bring in more Dreads - say 40-50 and therefore more forces to protect that investment. Futhermore, the worst part about this is you will go back to the bad old days of Station ping pong. Rather than being able to claim soverignty and therefore not being able to target a Station/Outpost, you will have entire systems camped for weeks on end with Dread, Carrier and BS fleets a.k.a. Blob wars. This in turn leads to boredome and will end up killing Eve because people will simply stop logging in. Now I agree that the lag is bad but with careful planning it's not intollerable. There's a lot of mass hysteria floating around. CCP have said that the new Dragon Code that's coming in a week or two will enable better load balancing. Couple this with sensible planning a.k.a NOT blobbing and you'll alievate a lot of problems. Finally, CCP need to wake up. BM copying/spaming to artificially increase lag is bad mkay? Make it a bannable offence once and for all. When I attack a POS I don't want to wait 10 minutes for the grid to load up because my opponent is ejecting shuttles with hundreds of BMs in their cargo hold. You need to make anyone artificially increasing lag subject to a warning and then possible sanctions/banning from Eve. There wont be any pingpong when the station has a reinforced mode, it will come out of it like a POS, just the difference is that you will have a real battle for the station, and not another POS attack From Dusk till Dawn Sig removed, e-mail us if you'd like to know why. -ReverendM ([email protected])
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 18:07:00 - [281] Originally by: Nafri There wont be any pingpong when the station has a reinforced mode, it will come out of it like a POS, just the difference is that you will have a real battle for the station, and not another POS attack Of course it will, unless I'm totally not understanding what you mean? So what if it goes into reinforced mode? It comes out, it's lost. Defender goes in, puts it into reinforced mode, it comes out, it's retaken. Rinse and repeat. Like I've said, I've been involved in both the planning and the taking of POS and Outposts (as a Military Commander, FC of Support Fleet and a Dread/Carrier Pilot) and the lag, with well thoughtout tatics isn't as bad as it can be. The biggest problem we've had has come from stretching the limits of what's not exploitable (and I'm not making judgement on this, simply stating fact). If CCP make it clear that artificially generating lag is not tollerated, then you'll be in a position to assualt a POS without fear of loosing your entire Capital ship fleet. As for the idea of limiting what ships can enter a POS shield, that won't help because you'll just have 150 shuttles outside the shield ranther than in. What would be better is to have all unpiloted ships inside (or outside) the POS shield start to "decay" and self destruct. Cure the damn problem of people leaving shuttles outside the station due to lazyness as well and this will have a positive effect on reducing the lag. Soverignty isn't the problem, it's the way Soverignty is abused that is. Solve that abuse and Soverignty will act as it was originally intended. Make a Difference
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.10 18:10:00 - [282] Edited by: John McCreedy on 10/08/2006 18:15:30 Double post due to laggy forums. Obviously someone's attacking POS on here Make a Difference
Plutoinum German Cyberdome Corp Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.08.10 18:34:00 - [283] Edited by: Plutoinum on 10/08/2006 18:36:53 Originally by: John McCreedy When I attack a POS I don't want to wait 10 minutes for the grid to load up because my opponent is ejecting shuttles with hundreds of BMs in their cargo hold. I'd like to see a dev clarification one day, if this can even create lag, as long as noone accesses the container, hangar, cargo hold with bms in it. I mean, the BMs are just database entries that don't need to be accessed as long as noone opens the container to get a list of its content. If I warp into a grid with a can full of BMs, the server has to tell my client that there is a can at position x,y,z with the infos name, corp and ally. The content doesn't matter, as long as I don't open it. So how is it creating lag just by floating in space ? Is it a myth or is the content of the container cached somewhere that it creates lag ? P.S.: Sorry for being a bit off topic, but I wonder about the bm jetcan story since I've heard of it for the first time several months ago and still can't believe that a lonely floating unaccessed (!) jetcan can create more lag than any other jetcan floating in space, just because it has a specific content. edit: spelling
Lygos ISS Navy Task Force	Posted - 2006.08.10 22:31:00 - [284] There is no easy solution to blobbing. POS-mediate warfare is fine. It is a new step towards plutocracy. They put limits to mobility and they create a reason for groups not to log off. Maybe you forgot about the mass fleet logoffs and how boring it was for only 1% of the population to bother with fighting. Now we are approaching the age of the mass man in pvp and glimmers of republics are emerging. The main problem I see with POS or deployable structures is that they 1)were developed after blobbing and 2)that their logistical management can be done in bursts which translates to some form of extended mining labor down the road. In the case of #1: Empires, and by extension POS, need Distributed Risk. Empires need to have their garrisons flung to the far corners of their empire so you have smaller groups coming at them. The other problem are the corps and alliance that have no territory that can blob up and swamp these scattered garrisons. We need to restrict their mobility. Being able to cross the galaxy is unrealistic. 0.6AU/s is the most anyone really needs, you get great scans in at this speed too. EVE still needs it's merc corps and pirate corps, but they need to be superbly provisioned for excursions through outer rim colonies. Joy riding is a bigger problem than pos strength or weakness to balance groups in terms of logistics. Really really big groups should move slowest of all (istead of fastest) due to having to wait for industrials with fuel to catch up to the fleet. Combatants need to win battles, and more importantly territory and resources, before the battles themselves. Really aggressive groups need to have exposure rather than the ability to log off or dock their dreads at npc stations. Blobbing up needs to become a huge invitation for smaller squads to move in a wreak havoc on a empire with hugely distributed risk. There needs to be constant incentive for empires to waver between medium sized fleets, and really spread out forces. The more they spread out, the faster resources should be replenished and grow. Pilots and ships need constant overhead to worry about to add incentive to make financially intelligent decisions as often as tactically intelligent decisions. Logging off or safespotting should be the most expensive decisions anyone makes if they intend to play the game at the same level as other serious minded players. So long as you want Easy Street, installations will be absurd. Absurdity contributes to the willingness of ordinary human beings to endure tedium, which is evidenced by all the carebears out there. Lazy pvpers are responsible for mechanics which create boring aspects of carebeardom. #2 Installations, let's say POS, need to be reliant on other POS. Deathstars need to be a the centre of player empires. Their borders are where the exploitable resources and all the risk should be centered. It should be defacto impossible to take down central assets without first eliminating periphery assets. Periphery assets, which can be modified by soveriegnty, should always be weaker. The game can be hardcoded to where the resources that sovereign installations require can only be obtained in non-sovereign systems. Thus we have a natural state of replacable, yet indispensable "feeder pos" that demands active player-based defense. Most POS or installation components should only be constructable at POS factories, but we need the bpos.
Mr Bondy Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.10 23:39:00 - [285] I dont have time for a in-depth reply so... POS = boring Fix POS > new content
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.11 02:08:00 - [286] Originally by: Lygos In the case of #1: Empires, and by extension POS, need Distributed Risk so agree! I believe the more fundamental problem lies with the one-dimensional strategy eve is struggling with (the blob), starbases just accentuate the dilemma rather than cause the central issue. More than being lag generators blobs disable quite a bit of varibility in the way fights are handled since focus fire mutes alot of interesting content, which we want to employ but cant because of its consideration. Unfortunately the blob will always be with us but Anything to lessen the strategic reliance on blobing should be where things need to go. Increasing the perks of soverenty and changing how its gained is a real opportunity to break this headlock and encourage squad level battlegroups. Using new "soverenty claiming structures" as some have suggested will not (on there own) bring us into a drastically new situation, it should be combined with something thats not destructable but impressionable instead. Example would be influencing npc-planetry-colonies, or NPC's for short . A game design where small mobile teams can bring down or switch soverenty faster than a single blob is what this could lead to, im sure everyone would agree that small-medium groupings are a lot more fun. We're probably not going to see anything on these lines soon , i agree with most people here that in respect to POS's perhaps something a little less developed needs to happen now and not in 6 months, however the planetry factor is probably the holy grail. The devs did blog about planets becoming more important a while back, i only hope that soverenty is part of the planet deal.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.11 12:54:00 - [287] Blob warfare has tatical advantages in certain situations. We where promised that Eve's new hardware would be more than capable of acomodating large scale fleet battles. Funny how Eve's laggier than ever since its implementation. Small, mobile gangs can currently change Soverignty which in itself is an entirely different discussion. The issue here is not Blob warfare. I've been in battles of 200 vs. 200 at a gate where the lag was no where near as severe as 40 vs. 40 at a POS. It's POS as an item that's the issue. POS cause lag. To blame the lag on blobbing is a falacy. Make a Difference
Vortex Freeman Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.11 12:58:00 - [288] Edited by: Vortex Freeman on 11/08/2006 13:00:47 Originally by: Hermia Increasing the perks of soverenty and changing how its gained is a real opportunity to break this headlock and encourage squad level battlegroups. Using new "soverenty claiming structures" as some have suggested will not (on there own) bring us into a drastically new situation, it should be combined with something thats not destructable but impressionable instead. Example would be influencing npc-planetry-colonies, or NPC's for short . A game design where small mobile teams can bring down or switch soverenty faster than a single blob is what this could lead to, im sure everyone would agree that small-medium groupings are a lot more fun. How about having NPC colonies tied to the faction owning the space. Naturally not every planet would be colonized but so much more to do for explorers, find a populated NPC colony and what they are in need of and you have a good trading opportunity. Trading with them would raise your standing to that faction. In addition to trade you could have the option to take over the colony by force, which would of course lower your standing with the faction but give you control if you succeed. Ownership of the colony would give you options to improve it, at a cost of resources and manpower. Improvements such as defenses, factories, crop farms etc would be possible given the right conditions. Colonies might even come in different types, we've already seen mining colonies on asteroids ingame, but they're only eye-candy so far. Controlling the majority of planetary colonies in a system would give you sovereignty. Asteroid colonies could give you additional income and then there could be purely military based semi-outposts to be used as staging points. Automatic trade routes could be set between colonies to exchange goods and balance the supply/need of resources for maintaining them and making them grow. These trade routes could be represented by NPC ships which pirates, or enemies, then could destroy as pure sabotage or to plunder the convoys. Hmm, playerbase think-tank at work... I hope CCP are picking up on some of these ideas we're spitting out. ~ Preparatus Supervivet ~
Trishtan DeMore	Posted - 2006.08.12 11:02:00 - [289] excellent thread so far! :D
Rynthran Thrandyr Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.12 23:15:00 - [290] Edited by: Rynthran Thrandyr on 12/08/2006 23:18:29 I really like the idea of colonies/population. Why not go a totally different way for gaining sov in a system. Every system has a population. Having sov in a system means having the support of the majority of the population. Gaining and loosing this support could be done by various different actions/events, like: gaining popularity/support: - killing Ships and Assets(POS) of another Alliance in the system (and maybe neighboring systems) - killing NPC Pirates - mining, producing things / building up an industry - anchoring and maintaining POS - showing presence in large numbers over longer timeperiods (also showing military presence at the gates or station while the other Alliance is sitting at their POS) - colonizing planets in the system with billions of brainwashed fanboys of your alliance loosing support - loosing Ships and Assets to NPCs or Players of other Alliances - showing no presence All this would mean, that there would be many ways of gaining and maintaining sov in a System and would also generally help to encourage non blob warfare with smaller roaming gangs for example to keep the upperhand in a number of neighboring systems. Also it would make it difficult for an alliance to claim huge amounts of space without actually being there. And it would mean that continuously loosing large fleetbattles or not showing up to fight over a longer period of time would loose you sov eventually.
Selfe Caldari UK Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.12 23:37:00 - [291] Tripple POS Prices? ----------------------- Join The UK Corperation. Foundin Partners in Lokta Volterra
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.13 00:44:00 - [292] Originally by: Rynthran Thrandyr Edited by: Rynthran Thrandyr on 12/08/2006 23:18:29 I really like the idea of colonies/population. Why not go a totally different way for gaining sov in a system. Every system has a population. Having sov in a system means having the support of the majority of the population. Gaining and loosing this support could be done by various different actions/events, like: gaining popularity/support: - killing Ships and Assets(POS) of another Alliance in the system (and maybe neighboring systems) - killing NPC Pirates - mining, producing things / building up an industry - anchoring and maintaining POS - showing presence in large numbers over longer timeperiods (also showing military presence at the gates or station while the other Alliance is sitting at their POS) - colonizing planets in the system with billions of brainwashed fanboys of your alliance loosing support - loosing Ships and Assets to NPCs or Players of other Alliances - showing no presence All this would mean, that there would be many ways of gaining and maintaining sov in a System and would also generally help to encourage non blob warfare with smaller roaming gangs for example to keep the upperhand in a number of neighboring systems. Also it would make it difficult for an alliance to claim huge amounts of space without actually being there. And it would mean that continuously loosing large fleetbattles or not showing up to fight over a longer period of time would loose you sov eventually. This is a really great idea and makes 0.0 more interesting but not for claiming Soverignty. Prehaps something for Advanced Soverignty, assuming CCP haven't scrapped it all together. But at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, killing POS is still ridiculously difficult due to the tatics employed in so-called "Lag Stars" where you have 100 shuttles/frigs behind the POS sheild to maximise lag. Until such time as it's declared an exploit or game mechanics are changed so you cannot do that, no amount of changes to soverignty will work so long as POS are involved. Remove POS from the Soverignty equation and you negate any point in Dreadnaughts. People will simply take over a system and starve a POS offline because it's easier. People are getting off track with ways to "fix" Soverignty when Soveriegnty works fine. It's POS that are the problem and the associated lag that comes with them due to the aforementioned tatics employed by certain Alliances. Address the underlying cause of the problems involved in POS assualts, i.e. lag, and you fix Soverignty issues over night. Make a Difference
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.13 02:13:00 - [293] Originally by: Rynthran Thrandyr gaining popularity/support: - killing Ships and Assets(POS) of another Alliance in the system (and maybe neighboring systems) - killing NPC Pirates - mining, producing things / building up an industry - anchoring and maintaining POS - showing presence in large numbers over longer timeperiods (also showing military presence at the gates or station while the other Alliance is sitting at their POS) - colonizing planets in the system with billions of brainwashed fanboys of your alliance loosing support - loosing Ships and Assets to NPCs or Players of other Alliances - showing no presence All this would mean, that there would be many ways of gaining and maintaining sov in a System and would also generally help to encourage non blob warfare with smaller roaming gangs for example to keep the upperhand in a number of neighboring systems. Also it would make it difficult for an alliance to claim huge amounts of space without actually being there. And it would mean that continuously loosing large fleetbattles or not showing up to fight over a longer period of time would loose you sov eventually. Yep, once you tread down this road it doesnt take much imagination to see what a standings based sovereignty template brings, thats exactly what im talking about Rynthran, thx . Your list of events that cause NPC colonies to gain/loose allignment points to different factions (player alliances) is the crutial bit really. If implemented correctly this could really break up fleets, exactly how eve players allign planetry populations is not important to me, just the concept and its related repercussions. Originally by: John People are getting off track with ways to "fix" Soverignty when Soveriegnty works fine. It's POS that are the problem and the associated lag that comes with them due to the aforementioned tatics employed by certain Alliances. Address the underlying cause of the problems involved in POS assualts, i.e. lag, and you fix Soverignty issues over night. quick note: the following is more to the community, than one person. Seems our desire is the same john, albeit from a different perspective. Dont get me wrong, i do recognise the POS issue however defeating the problem at ground level can transcend passed the revision of one gamming aspect to confront the bigger picture. POS's are indeed very time consuming to take down, but with just a little clever game design the power of constelation soverignty becomes interesting: What if POS's as they stand now with huge shielding and invulnerable modes were affected by NPC population standings of the relavent constelation it resides. Suddently the emphasis is placed on attacking this infrastructure to severely weeken POS function and/or defence. I let everyone else consider what this meens for themselves. J McCreedy, you said earlier that this belongs in a different thread, yeah i agree, this line of discussion is hanging on for dear life to the OP's topic . Sorry about that. Maybe ill compile all the points people are making (in regards to population allignment) and post it later in a full frontal rant. We havent even scratched the surface.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.13 13:40:00 - [294] Hermia, I keep saying this. When lag is not artificially increased, POS assualts are a viable option. Yes things are laggy but laggy within acceptable tollerance levels. The problems arise when you have 100 shuttles behind the POS shield and your client is trying to render all of that on the screen. It can take 10-15 minutes for the grid to load then you have module lag on top of that. System Soverignty works perfectly fine as it is. It's the lack of will to do something about these tatics that's the problem. Make a Difference
The Ratfink Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.13 13:59:00 - [295] Isn't it also great that drones were reduced for all ships as a design issue but now we have fighters that sit in their pos safely who assign them to frigates who join fights at pos and makes lag even more unbearable. Removing the risk factor completely for them at the expense of them loosing a single frigate.
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.13 15:50:00 - [296] yeah fair enough, i can meet you on that point john. the lag generating method used by some groups i recognise and yeah it should be sorted out. To me it sounds worthy of exploit and hence eligible for petition (unless it is already ofcourse). If thats not desirable, im not sure how you could write mechanics against such an activity without making things too restrictive. But you can design against anything so its probably doable. The last time i was in major alliance warfare was about 1.2 years ago, i hated fighting in blobs, i hated the focus-fire lottery and lack of varibility in fights. Lag is not my only motivation for putting up a response.
Nepereta DarkStar 1 Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:21:00 - [297] My 2 pennies on this. I work on search engine with various search partners (services) our stratregy has always been render as much as many services with in a certain time frame. If a search doesn't return in time it simply isn't rendered. perhaps a client timeout should be rigged so the return packet of information only consists of objects ( starting from the most significant) that can be rendered within a certain timeframe. eg a grid has 5 carriers,40 bs, 60 frigates and 100 shuttles. The renderer only has say 500ms time to render as much as it can and it renders: 5 carriers, 40 bs and 55 frigates. 5 frigates and 100 shuttles aren't rendered due to the client timeing out. These are chosen not to render by virtue of being of greater insignificance than the carriers, bs and other frigates. By only rendering the most significant objects prior to timing out you can avoid lag of the 'redundant' junk in the system. Which is the main issue of deliberate lag generation. You end up in situation where lag is guaranteed not to ruin your experience however you end up where certain objects are simply not rendered. Which in turn can be a problem. This can end up with bad problems too however, for example a large bs fleet could be mobbed by invisible frigates for example. I would suggest having some sort of dynamic personal significance based on the actions of other ships on the server eg: 1) ship is firing/using module upon you 2) ship is hostile/friendly 3) ships proximity to you. 4) is object inert/occupied. Of course I fear this means a plethora of additional calculations the server has to make and may be totally unfeasible Another hot fix is to only allow bookmarks in station hangars. If its impossible to transport them into space then the problems of using them as a lag generator go away. In two swipes you get rid of the pos loaded with shuttles each carrying 1000 bookmarks syndrome that certain forces may or may not use. Originally by: CC 3 Cybok and lacky's REVENGE WILL BE SWEAT ILL BE BACK
Havelcek Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:04:00 - [298] CCP just doesn't get it. They are going to spend all kinds of developer cycles thinking and strategizing on this topic when all they need to do to alleviate a significant portion of the problem is start enforcing their own exploit rules about lag generation. Perhaps the devs need to attend some of these POS battles on Tranquility to see first-hand.
Emeline Cabernet Amarr KVA Noble Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:42:00 - [299] how many ra people have replied in here btw?
Bhaal Minmatar M. Corp Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:45:00 - [300] Edited by: Bhaal on 14/08/2006 15:46:38 Originally by: Emeline Cabernet how many ra people have replied in here btw? They don't want it changed... They didn't want it changed last time when the "SOV points" were redistributed for certain size towers and the longer SOV claiming wait time was added... It's a good thing we all whined last time, we got results. Now we just need to keep up the whine until CCP actually fixes the damn problem instead of putting more Band-Aids all over the gaping sore that is starting to smell like cheese... (Or is that Almonds?) ------------------------------------------------ Current Hobby other than EVE My Hero
Hermia HIVE	Posted - 2006.08.15 16:23:00 - [301] 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) We need this blog! its a bit important Your dieing servers Our gaming enjoyment The future of eve spare us the agony
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.15 19:06:00 - [302] 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) Well Oveur, it's time for you (CCP) to put aside a lot of things and get back to talking to your customers. Eve used to be so much better when we all talked to each other Make a Difference
Zenst Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.15 19:53:00 - [303] POS's as they stand at the moment lack the realtime interaction beyond onlining/offlining. What is needed is a level of interative control, thereby if you have somebody with skills, they can interact with the POS. Possisble area's are: POS gunenry control - can have targeting, skills to improve dmg and range (hard skills but still there). POS Defence sheilding, improve recharge rate and also the resists POS Smartbomb - reduces sheilds of POS by 50% and converts sheilds into emmision - same as smartbomb. Effect == to sheild value as % so on full sheild 50% would be full effect half sheild lose 50% of that get lesser smartbomb effect....basicly more sheilds==better effect. Sure peopel can thing of other area's like moon mine bonus when peep activly in tower. Have the interaction in that they have to constantly interact so as to prevent people say - going afk in the control tower :). Basicly have gang skills for POS's in a way - chance for more skills to use social :>. Have the skills heavy level so not abused and make them something people would have to work for. Also I dont believe I have seen ECM used to any effect in POS's. i'd rather see a auto repair turret that locks onto friendlies and repairs them when there in range. So much scope and so much potentual with POS's - just needs to be done slowly and carefully, as there are many and we are few.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.15 21:57:00 - [304] Originally by: Zenst POS's as they stand at the moment lack the realtime interaction beyond onlining/offlining. What is needed is a level of interative control, thereby if you have somebody with skills, they can interact with the POS. Possisble area's are: POS gunenry control - can have targeting, skills to improve dmg and range (hard skills but still there). Just makes LagStar owner's job easier. Warp your Dreads in, wait 10 minutes for Grid to load, wake up in Medical Facility and 90 bn ISK is down the drain. Make a Difference
PulloverJonny	Posted - 2006.08.19 08:47:00 - [305] /agree 100% with topic starter
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest	Posted - 2006.08.19 12:30:00 - [306] Originally by: Bhaal Originally by: The Enslaver Revising an earlier post of mine: -Sovereignty is claimed with a sovereignty module that costs about 300-500m -Module can only be fitted to large POS's. -Module causes reinforced times to 'fluctuate' randomly by +/- 6-18 hours of the supposed amount. -When fitted to a POS, no weaponry/hardeners can be fitted to that POS. -The oldest sov module placed overrides any new modules placed: you have to kill the sov module(s) for yours to take effect. This resolves the following issues: No extensive control over reinforced periods. Controlling systems rely on actual people to defend that system. POS spam warfare. Can effectively control a system with a single POS, just need the people to keep it safe. An assault on a system by 200+ people can no longer be prevented by a single guy in a hauler. Lag is no longer the issue - you won't be at a POS that has weapons. And at the same time, it means that: Normal, non-sov claiming POS's are unaffected - retaining the same defences as now, so the small guys have a chance to defend still POS networks unaffected, apart from a potential rise in fuel costs. T2 production chain operators MUST retain the fuel bonus IMO. We need to give the alliances & corps ability to claim mineral rights as well as SOV. I say we turn the current SOV system into a mineral rights claiming system. This can be overridden by your SOV module idea, which is a military option. Both get the fuel bonus. This way an alliance with military SOV can give non-alliance corps and even other alliances mineral rights, and tax them for these rights. Sov & T2 production chain fuel bonus have to be seperated, but neither eliminated... SOV is for system control, outpost construction, etc. Mineral rights are for T2 production chains, etc... And can be taxed by the owner of SOV... On Quote : You system subscribes to the notion that you actually own a region from what I can understand your post. LV for instance claims Omist and Tenerifis but you do not actually own it. How would you give me a mineral rights? ( Mind you it is not a bad idea at all and would be easily grantable in the upcoming contracts(tm) system ) Off quote : There is a lot of alliance jabber here in this thread which I find quite amusing. There are some really good ideas but there is a lot of old school thinking about who owns what and why. The old system ( you have numbers to lock down an area you effectively own it ) works for many including Celtic Anarchy and the guys out in Stain who live out of NPC stations. The POS networking system allows people to own space but as we know they go above and beyond that and use a mix of both with NBSI tactics. So to Oveur or Redundancy : Why on gods planet would I want to go to a part of space that is tapped out or eye balled by an alliance in a region of space that they claim but hold no ownership on if all they have to do is come remove my pos? I understand and applaud you guys not moving swiftly because you have to look out of us little guys but I believe the eXeed guy was right... you need to introduce more resources out in 0.0. Increase the respawn factor slightly and rework more precious ore in systems that have basics crap in them. I can see an ASCN or LV space being chewed away at by their own people ( and this is why Omist is a trash can ) so where does that leave others who don't have the ability to setup a POS network who just want a refinery, ammo assembly and a ship hangar with a few Large guns? Space doesn't seem so big anymore. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats

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