EVE Search - POS Overhaul.

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

POS Overhaul.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.17 04:18:00 - [1] Idea sounds like something that would work. The major problem with completely changing the POS system is what would happen to the current towers??? If the current towers were to be deleted/erased there would be billions of isk just dissapearing.(Not to mention the entire loss of sovereignty everywhere but empire. And the destruction of the entire T2 component production market in the process.) And then comes the problem of reimbursing every player who currently has a current tower with the isk and or other towers. Unfortunately i dont see CCP completely redoing the current POS system, but instead ammending the current system with something else. (Sorry if i totally missed the point and this is an addon to the current system.) ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.17 05:12:00 - [2] Originally by: Shaikar Well they could use the brute force approach. Say they took this idea and used it as it is, CCP could just make all towers invulnerable and disable the anchoring of new towers for say a week when the change happened (making sure to give plenty of notice before hand). Then allow the owners of existing towers to choose what they what their tower to be - battle, industrial or logistic, and have some sort of funky temporary interface for setting u the details on your new POS. Aftr the week (or chosen time period) is up, any unchanged, presumably abandoned starbases can be removed. (They fell prey to the local pirate gangs, sanshsa, gurista, whatever.) The they pretend in game that the new pos system was the way pos-es have aways worked and everyone walks off whistling. doesn't mean it is likely to happen of course, just an option.. Thats one of the solutions i had thought up as well. Then i thought about how much work it would be for CCP. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.18 02:59:00 - [3] Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 18/09/2006 03:00:10 Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Could just make Medium POS industrial, Large POS battle and Small POS logistic. OR Make just one size POS and make POS module x not work with POS module y. I have been thinking a lot about it but can't really get an easy answer for it. :P I know the feeling there isnt going to be an easy solution to the problem but probably the better way to do things is to add new POS modules to the game. Allowing special added bonus like those 3 you listed except allowing that special module to reduce the PG and CPU requirements of the offenses for battle, the PG + CPU for the construction arrays and moon mining equipement for industrial, and giving the other logistics module a reduction in fitting for the sheild hardeners or reduceing fuel requirements for those fitted with it and only allowing that module to account for sovereignty. Thinking more along those lines ill come up with somenames and some more concrete examples after i finish up some stuff tomorrow. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.19 18:20:00 - [4] Originally by: Toriatrix Call the current POS's for Tech 1 POS's and introduce Tech 2 POS'es.. That said i'll explain my views. I commented on Manus Ghostface's Thread regarding other nice ideas that would imporove the game here. Now T2 POS's.. ?? Lets say that today's POS's fulfill a multipurpose (like they do today). They are safe havens, thay are industrial and they are DeathStars. :) Lets also say they give you sovereignity points for their size. 1point for small, 2 for medium and 3 for a large one. So in order to get rid of those lets say that the Tech 2 POS'es give you more points and there are 3 diffrent (or more) types and with a difference in cost. Admiral IceBlock have a GREAT idea here. Lets devide the use for POS'es: -Industrial POS give you 1 sovereignity point, it can mine, build, research ect. and it can take a real beating for instance 2 times the hitpoints the large T1 POS got today. But it can only deal with lone BS's and other small ships on it's own, and maybe make it conquerable after the system sovereignity is lost. So: It's poorly armed with heavy shields and it's a asset to be taked not destroyed in most cases. -Logistics POS give you 2 sovereignity points, it can store ships and TONS of loot and equipment and you can repair stuff and refitt. (Conquerable or not? dunno.) :D It's moderaly armed and moderatly shilded. -Battle POS give you 5 (or whatever CCP thinks is fair) sovereignity points, it can dish out damage and take hell of a beating, and it should cost you lots to maintain, and buy. No other function, no refitting and no industrial, it's a pure System Holder (Not conquerable). It's got heavy guns and heavy shields + a few other combat bonuses maybe for friendly gangs?). Lets make the Dread/Carrier Fleets really fight for this one. So there you have it. A new use for POS'es without deleting the old. /me prepares to be spammed with the flaws i can't see atm Love the idea of T2 POS. Alliances can buy the BPOs for these towers and then the specific parts to convert them over from the NPCs and then take them down to their outposts and build the new towers without having to waste isk buying new towers. Would take a little while to convert the current towers over but it would save a decent amount of isk. However each race of towers would have its own bpos so you can covert each tower to like a T2 minmatar industrial POS with some added industrial bonus. This way you could convert even the small towers. However the biggest draw back atm even with this idea is the current sovereignty system. Its not so much the towers that need the reworking its the fact that people put so many towers up to make sure that they cant be POS spammed and lose sovereignty. So in reality if you set a maximum number of towers to claim soveriegnty you wouldnt need to slap up 40 towers in your 79 moon system just to ensure that the station would be protected from a POS spam. Because we all know that a lot of the towers are just put up for this reason. Its not like someones only gonna put up 7 when theres 50 some odd moons. Because they know 7 isnt going to secure the sovereignty of their station. What needs to be done is to hard cap the number of POS that claim sovereignty at a set number with the current sovereignty rules. Even though there may be 150 moons in a system only 10 POS can count for sovereignty. However the enemy cant out POS spam you by placing up 11 because only 10 of those 11 would count. So it would fall to a stalemate and you would be forced to put up a fight if you really wanted the station. And the defender would also beforced to put up a fight to defend his home. OF course the current rules would still apply if you have a system with less than 19 moons and you put up the majority of POS over the moons and have them all claim sovereignty then you would still be safe. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:33:00 - [5] Tori like the ideas a lot. However i have to argue the points where you say that the POS are not strong enough. A well setup POS with a defender who knows a little about what he needs to do is dangerous to any dread fleet trying to break the POS. However its getting that defending fleet together or lack there of that kills POS. With enough dreads however you could accomplish your goal. But i think the POS are decently strong now if you set them up properly. But they could use a little pick me up in terms of actual defense of a system along with interacting with each other. However my biggest fear is the more done to the POS the greater the lag around the POS becomes. There just like the old manufacturing system. Taking up supplies after the current run is done which is every houer. However add on to the fact that it needs to calculate how much fuel based upon each online module and then the guns have to be caculated out as to how much ammo they have left in them and then take all of that and work it into whats going on when the POS is being seiged. Now combine that with however many other POS are in the same system then tack on whatever other systems with POS on the same node and now your started to see a very large chunk of cpu going to calculating this out. And thats before you even take into account whatever activities are going on in the system. Thats one of the current things i see wrong with the POS. The more of them you put into a system the laggier that system becomes especially with 200+ people in local trying to seige a POS. And more than once ive seen this happen. Its just one of the many problems because the current mechanics state the more POS the better but the servers go the less POS the better. Whether or not its completely accurate depends on how well the POS were coded but the more POS the more things the server has to caculate. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 16:47:00 - [6] Originally by: Toriatrix So if the new POS systems are made scaleable and more versatile you would infact need less POS'es.. Depending on what solution you go for. The inital idea was to have diffrent POS types but as far as i see it should be enough to give players the option to choose diffrent modules. And make "Battle-POS'es" along with "Industrial-POS'es".. afterall it's a starbase and there should not be a "rule" to what modules go well together. Logic would be to have you decide what modules (guns/miners/powercores/CPU's/scanners/logistics) you want on your POS. Really there should be no limmit to how large you could make them. Reason for that: there are no limmit to how large a fleet can be. So why limmit one and not the other? IMO POS'es should be more skill heavy (when larger) than today (as with Dreads, and motherships). Today it's alot easyer to train for a large POS than a mothership. The POS'es my be strong enough, but they are not nearly filling their role imo. Many other areas of the game have evolved but i think the POS'es have been left behind. Well if they were to do specific things but all could still claim sovereignty the same way that you do now. If you were to setup 3-5 nasty deathstar new battle POS for defense of your outpost but had 30 moons and didnt put anything else up and the current system still was in place whats going to stop a attacker from spamming up 7 POS just to out sovereignty you. The problem is with the current system if there are enough moons and enough isk the attacker never needs to fire a shot at a POS if they just spam up more. While the defender has to shoot down the new POS the attacker is putting up and to top that off it now makes the defender the attacker while the attacker becomes the defender of his POS. Thats where the current system falls apart. The whole sovereignty system is based around total number of large towers. That was a quick fix to the original system which was desperately needed. The problem now is that POS are easy to come by and it doesnt matter if you have spent a billion per deathstar and have 5/10/20/30 if the attacker can put up more towers your going to lose soveriegnty. Thats why POS are flawed. Unfortunately the POS will never fullfil their role if the aggressor never has to attack them. Thats why placing some sort of restriction on POS in the system and changing the current system to something like the attackers POS can not gain sovereignty until ALL of the defenders POS have been destroyed. Not just put into reinforced mode but completely destroyed. The POS themselves are ok. However the current sovereignty system taht goes with them just uses them as pawns like a simple true/false equation. Who ever has more whether they are deathstars or just towers will always prevail. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 16:52:00 - [7] Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 20/09/2006 16:55:22 Or even to add on to my idea of having the attacker to destroy all the POS before they can claim sovereignty if it was based on a points system. For each week the POS remain operation added sovereignty points would be added to their claim. That would most definately be advantageous to the defender especially if theyve held the system for months. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.21 00:12:00 - [8] Originally by: Toriatrix The current sovereignity system is a load of bull.. It dont make sense that who ever has sovereignity get reduced fuel consumption. Thats a fact. So instead make the sovereignity a trivial thing that only affects the Map, to see who has the major pressence. And if thats the only advantage of sovereignity the current system works. While the real benefit of strategical POS'es should not be how many you have, but where you have them and what they actually do or protect. So as I have said, remake the POS'es to "DO" more interesting stuff, make them modular and totally customized with no limmit to how large they can be (only skill limmits the POS size and modules). Screw sovereignity, it's only a trivial map issue imo. Except that trivial map issue is the basis for everything that allows an alliance to build their own home. You have to have it to anchor the outpost egg. You have to have it to anchor a capital ship assembly array. You have to have it to anchor a capital ship maintenance array. You have to have it to keep your station invunerable. You will have to have it over all the systems in your constellation to gain constellational sovereignty to allow you to add the new content that will be eventually make its way in. It is the basis for what is going to happen in the future. In reality if there was no sovereignty the only thing the POS would be used for is mining and production. Hell there would be no combat at POS because the only reason it occurs now is because of sovereignty. If you can shoot the station why shoot the POS??? It came about to end the station ping pong which was, show up in system with numbers shoot the station gain control and then your done till the original owners get numbers shoot the station and regain and it continues like this for several days. There may not be anything wrong with that but more stuff is coming that is going to be based off of that map issue. Its what says this space is owned by XXXX aliance. Nothing wrong with making POS more functional but the current system needs to be adjusted to work with a new system. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.21 03:48:00 - [9] I doubt very much CCP are going to completely redo the entire system. They may change the sovereignty rules and how the POS act but beyond that i doubt very much they are going to change everything. Im sure there will be T2 towers and other new POS things but for the most part CCP probably wont redo the entire POS system. As for getting rid of stations having been in the game for quite a long time now and getting the ability to control outpost is still a great thing. I cant wait till the time comes to turn those outposts into the full fledged stations like empire. As much as i would love to see the POS changed completely the most we can hope for is modifactions on the current system. There are just far to many of them to have them completely redone. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.22 03:45:00 - [10] Originally by: Dutarro Originally by: Maya Rkell No, you just elevate the spamming to a whole new catagory, Duraro, with an even MORE broken POS. And given a reasonable defensive fleet, whichever one you attack will have n-1 (where n is the number of planets) boosting it. So basically, 23 hour sieges to not scatch shields, anyone? Incorrect, each citadel POS will have exactly zero other citadels boosting it. Boost range is within the same planetary system, only one citadel POS is allowed per planetary system, and the citadel cannot boost itself. The logistics arrays would, however, make siege of smaller POSs difficult. To break into a planetary system, an attacker must first destroy its citadel POS, then he can take out the smaller, industrial POSs nearby more easily. For that matter, the attacker can just anchor his own citadel POS in place of the one destroyed, and ignore the industrial POSs, since they are trumped by citadels for sovereignty count. So I must disagree with your statement that the citadel POS makes spamming worse. Lets say I have a system with 7 planets and 70+ moons like, oh, TDE4-H just as a random example. Under the current rules, the defender must anchor 36 large POSs to make the system unspammable. Under my proposal, the defender only needs to anchor 4 citadel POSs to counter spamming, since the system can hold at most 7 citadels (one per planet). That's 9 times fewer POSs to deal with. I hear by submit to a greater thought. That is by far the best solution i have seen yet to the current system. Although since we wanna keep some of the laws of physics the same, we should give them a boost to sheild recharge. I dont konw there are a variety of bonus that could be given to the POS. Who knows. I actually like this idea more. However there is always just one flaw in your idea. Not every planet in the system has a moon. Not that its a probem or anything. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.22 17:07:00 - [11] Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 22/09/2006 17:07:58 Taking POS and forcing someone to fight them is a better option than having them outspammed. Even with this option the smaller POS would be insignifcant compared to the citadel POS. So instead of having to shoot 15-60 towers you only need to take out the citadels and to this day i have never seen a system that has more than 12-13 planets. So thats a much better solution than currently having to: A) Out spam your enemys POS to gain territory OR B) Take on the process of grinding more than 10 POS. Personally the idea of having a much larger POS that would only allow one of these POS to be achored around each planet would be an great idea. This would also be a great idea to allow alliances to claim constellational sovereignty. Placing 3 of these citadels in each system of the constellation would secure the constellation until an enemy decided to come in and remove those citadels. Also the new modules that require constellational sovereignty could be anchored at these POS instead of the current POS. It doesnt mean the old POS would be out of date they would still be useful for smaller entities and moon mining but yes, these larger POS would favor the alliances, who have the isk to secure and defend their own homes. And besides having fewer POS to fall back on for sovereignty would force the defender to fight a little more. ----- Station Invunerablity POS Module

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.