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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.02 18:19:00 - [1] Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 02/09/2006 18:20:46 Under current mechanism POS Warfare is BORING because you are forced to grind POS's. To change that I am proposing the following systems. a) Different kinds of POS Make 3 'specific' kinds of POS. Each with their own meaning, just like we have Industrials, Capitals and Battleships. Industrial POS Used for industrial stuff like Moon Harvesting and Capital building. Battle POS Used as a Base of Operation for Military activities. This POS should give bonuses to defense/offense. Also add new POS modules to fitt the new Battle POS; 1) Deep Space Scanner. Scans the system for logged off players, showing each and every pilot that is logged off. This gives tactical intel to the system holder. This should only work if you have sovereignity in system. 2) Deep Space 'Intercom' Scanner. (IF local is removed ONLY) Scans the system to show active pilots in system. Logistic POS, or Outpost POS This POS is used as a defense mechanism, just like the moon of Endor in Star Wars. Each Logistic POS adds 1 day to the Outposts 'reinforcement mode'. b) How to get an Outpost under my system is like this. 1) You simply attack the Outpost. Once the Outpost has its shields down to 25%, the Outpost goes into 'reinforcement mode'. 1a) Tho it is adviced to take down all hostile Logistic POS to lower the waiting time. 2) Once the Outpost is in 'reinforcement mode' you have to wait 1 day per Logistic POS that is still fully operational. Meaning if a system has 20 Logistic POS, you will have to wait 20 days before you can finish the last 25% of the shields to get the Outpost. c) How to defend your Outpost from invaders. 1) The more Logistic POS you have, the more time you have to fight back the enemy. 2) To remove 'reinforcement mode' from your Outpost you will have to recharge its shields back to 100% and stop the enemy from taking it down back to 25% percent. You will have to keep the Outpost over 25% percent for 24 hours to remove the 'reinforcement mode'. When this is done the enemy has to do b) 1) all over again. This is just a simple and short draft of the idea I had in mind. There might be some problems that I have not forseen yet, but generally I think this system would be a good one. The idea is of course open for tweaks and discussion to make it better. Please post constructive comments under.
Manus Ghostface Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.09.02 23:14:00 - [2] I like the direction your're taking, of divorcing production from sovereignity, but I think it needs to be even more extreme. Give me your opinion of this admirial. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=388240&page=1 That city is well fortified which has a wall of men instead of brick. - Lycurgus
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 09:14:00 - [3] Originally by: Manus Ghostface I like the direction your're taking, of divorcing production from sovereignity, but I think it needs to be even more extreme. Give me your opinion of this admirial. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=388240&page=1 Posted my opinion. ;)
Audrea Widowmakers Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2006.09.03 12:49:00 - [4] The idea is very good, I love it! Although the thing with holding it charged for 24 hours wont work.. it will make defenders too strong, as the attacker will need to control the system for 20 days 23/7, which is impossible to to timezones. Something else needs to be done. Perhaps the defenders need to take it out of reinforced for at least half the days (not neccesarily in raw?) ------------------ Tired of fleet combat lag? -Post HERE All posts are my personal opinions.
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 12:55:00 - [5] Quote: Although the thing with holding it charged for 24 hours wont work.. it will make defenders too strong, as the attacker will need to control the system for 20 days 23/7, which is impossible to to timezones. Well you as the attacker has to keep the system under siege for 20 days to get the Outpost OR you could start shooting down Logistic POS to decrease the waiting time. But I get your point that it will be easier to defend as all you need to do is keep the system for 24 hours. But the timezone issue will be an issue for both sides. So when the invading force logs on again they will have to destroy the defending force before the 24 hour count-time ends.
Kehmor Caldari New Roots Narcotics	Posted - 2006.09.03 13:01:00 - [6] I fully support Admiral Iceblock with his: Idea/policy/opinion
Evelgrivion	Posted - 2006.09.03 18:54:00 - [7] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 03/09/2006 18:56:14 I like this idea, but I think I see a serious issue, in that the industrial POS is going to be, by default, highly vulnerable to attackers; if one has some serious investment going there, like a carrier or dreadnought under construction, it would make it extremely difficult to keep it defended from enemy attack, and make it exceptionally easy to break the industrial might of any alliance. Unless I missed something this would be disasterous for the smaller alliances or the corporations within them who are dependant on their industrial output; it would hurt the big guys too. So... except as a final cleanup step, what point would there be in attacking a battle POS?
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.03 19:16:00 - [8] Say that Battle POS gave 4, Logistics 2 and Industrial 1 points. You as the invading alliance must have sovereignity else your Logistic POS wont work. That is why one would have to take a Battle POS. But I see your point about Industrial POS being vulnerable, but the Industrial POS can still fitt weapons, just that it gets bonuses to Industrial stuff instead of Battle. In terms of HP a Battle POS would be 100% like a Large POS today, a Industrial POS would be 75% of a Large POS and Logistic POS would be 50% of a Large POS. This setting may also be applied to price? Normal rules will still apply to POS tho, they can also be put down into 'reinforcement mode', and time is dependent on stronthium. I'm just throwing out ideas here, it might not fitt 'perfectly' into EVE but what does anyway and besides, it is a good alternative to current mechanism nevertheless.
Clorthos Gallente Tau Ceti Global Production	Posted - 2006.09.04 08:25:00 - [9] they need to make pos skills to lower the ammount of time needed to offline and online structures and anchoring .. jeez that alone would save hours of game play a week.
Nicole KholdStare Gallente Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.04 15:41:00 - [10] Sounds good to me...although if I don't say I like it Ice will whip me again But yeah good idea there.
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.08 10:16:00 - [11] More comments?
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.15 15:09:00 - [12] Remove the length of sovereignity, currently it takes 5 days for the system to register a new POS into the equation. A POS should take 24 hours to get into the system. When you online a POS, 24 hours for it to be registered. If there are no other POS you get sovreignity. If there is hostiles POS and you got more you have to wait another 24 hours to switch sovereignity. In these 24 hours the system will be "Contested". When you kill a POS it should take 24 hours from the POS kill for the POS points to be removed.
Tyleritus adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.15 18:04:00 - [13] The way things have gone with POS spammage atm i think your idea is great and no doubt the sout coalition agree with this. Adeptus Gattacus Recruitment Thread
VCBee 756	Posted - 2006.09.17 01:52:00 - [14] Edited by: VCBee 756 on 17/09/2006 01:52:31 Your idea intrigues me. The one thing I'd like to suggest is not reducing the time needed for switching sov. to 24 hours, but maybe 48 or 72 hours. I mean, it would suck pretty badly if some corp came two hours before downtime, onlined a bunch of towers and took sov without the other corp being able to respond at all. 48-72 hours gives the defending corp enough time to deal with the hostile POS's, as well as reinforce their own. Another thing that really bugs me about POS's is the fact that only the corp who anchors the POS can use any of the POS modules. This means any corp that is a part of a particular alliance can't use ship maintenance arrays if it wasn't launched by their particular corp. This should be changed so that the executor corporation of an alliance (or the corp that anchored the POS) can pick and choose which modules can be used by what corps (for instance, allowing an ally to use the Ship Maintenance Array, but not access a Capital Shipyard Array for security reasons).
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.17 04:18:00 - [15] 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
Shaikar Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2006.09.17 04:42:00 - [16] 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..
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.17 05:12:00 - [17] 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
Admiral IceBlock Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.17 11:21:00 - [18] 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 Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.18 02:59:00 - [19] 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
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.18 04:00:00 - [20] 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 -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade.
Pedo Fortis	Posted - 2006.09.18 12:49:00 - [21] I like the Idea of T2 pos as described above. If you also included the modular POS idea (very cool) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=391410 and the trade goods POS farm idea http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=323516 that would be a great basis for a T2 Pos setup Pedo Fortis
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.19 18:20:00 - [22] 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
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.19 19:23:00 - [23] Sorry for the long reply but read on and look at what we have and what we need in 0.0 to make our POS'es work like they should. Originally by: Agent Kenshin 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. To hard cap the number of POS's that controll sov of the system is not the way to go imo. One should consider the real assets in a system and let the POS'es interact and in a way controll the sov this way. Candidates for assets are: Jumpgates, asterod-/ice-belts, complexes, planets/moons, stations/outposts and eventually gas clouds and comets. But the most important assets are stations and complexes. If a POS is to interact and/or control these it should be explained by some logic and one should encourage the players to protect the assets by putting up POS'es and thus improving their "Empire". As far as i see it EVE's corporations and alliances is going to build their own "empires" more or less. So the POS'es should have form and function, they do to some extent atm but not enough imo. So if one are to overhaul the POS system one needs to look at the reason for it and do it properly and logicaly. Radical Example: It dont help me to put up ten Norwegian flags in Alabama USA and claim it for Norway. I need to controll the land and it's resources to be able to claim Alabama for Norway, I need to be able to protect my assets and population. I need to be able to build a fortress to keep my stuff safe. Look at the means to take my stuff away. USA would roll over my little flags (POS's) with tanks and bomb me to pieces if they had botherd to move them there and spend the money. So in EVE the Dreads are litteraly tanks. They cost to operate, and so they should. I would say that todays fortreses (POS'es) are not strong enough, and not usefull enough to make your Empire last. In Short: Custom module based POS'es and more uses for the POS'es is in order. Tech 2 POS'es next in line after Kali. So the threads about POS haulover and POSs: Flogging the Dead Horse should contain most of the means to make all of the above happend. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 03:33:00 - [24] 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
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.20 11:23:00 - [25] Originally by: Agent Kenshin ... 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. 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. As for the computing calculation-requirements you could do well to take the static calculations like fuel consumption, production and all none-action/combat based calculations out of the main computers and run them on a diffrent computer with less priority. It's only the guns/shields and combat based things that need CPU priority (close to realtime) on the POS'es. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.20 16:47:00 - [26] 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 - [27] 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
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.20 17:46:00 - [28] 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. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.21 00:12:00 - [29] 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
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.21 01:20:00 - [30] Edited by: Toriatrix on 21/09/2006 01:21:41 Plz read the rest of the thread (yeah the current system needs adjustment to the new system, tought that was explained earlyer), if the POS where there to do MORE than function as a map holder, mining/production/reserach-base, like for instance: Station security.. or even remove the stations all together.. and make the new large T2 pos'es act as stations. Then the map would be a trivial thing.. I have ideas on how to change all of the 0.0 empires and POS stuff and make it locical but i'm not sure it's all in one post here atm.. POS'es would be the key to everything. All the resourses, all the production and mining and combat, and they would even function as stations do today.. if they are built large enough in my little fantasy future of EVE.. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.21 03:48:00 - [31] 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
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.21 09:26:00 - [32] POSses should be stronger when its quiet, and weaker when there is an attack. I think cap/cpu use of POS-guns should be increased to make Deathstar POSses a bit less deadly when laggy. In effect, forcing the defender to do more himself and rely less on the POS in a fleetfight. Second change I would make is make it impossible to change the level of fuel in a POS once its below 99% shields. This way defenders can't really fiddle with the reinforcement times to an extent they can now. Thus it would still be possible to set strontium levels before the attack, for example by putting enough strontium in for 12 or 36 hours, but once the attack starts, no more changes. Last change I would make is make POSses consume less fuel over time. If a POS is anchored for a week, its fuel consumption should drop by 1%. Each week thereafter, consumption should continue to drop by 1% to a minimum of 10% of current cost. Basically this means that as a corp/alliance holds a POS longer, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate, enabling the POS owners to spend less time and money on fuel, thus enabling them to put up more POSses. I think this would be balanced since in actual combat POSses would be less strong, and it would enable a longterm occupant of a system to defend it properly against POS spamming without insurmountable costs, but he would need to be stronger to defend it in an actual siege, since the individual POS are less strong. It also reduces tedium for defenders from the game, which is one of the main problems for playing the game as a 'defender' atm I think.
Ellaine TashMurkon MetaForge Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.21 09:52:00 - [33] Defenders shuld be able to set a prefered hour for coming out of reinforced. For example - defenders are most active from 17:00 eve time (cause they are Europeans). They set out-of-reinforced time to 17:00. If there is more stront then needed till 17, some is not used and POS comes out at 17 precisely, not depending on when it was hit. This way the primary reason for reinforced mode is realised and only legitimate reason for stront micromanagement after attack is absolete. With this function, CCP culd remove ability to micromanage fuel below 99% shield and noone shuld whine. Naturally, editing time settings below 99% shield shuld be denied too.
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.21 17:51:00 - [34] What if the POS is attacked at 1600..? -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Ellaine TashMurkon MetaForge Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.21 18:35:00 - [35] Attackers have to wait w hours till it comes out of reinforced :)
Dutarro Kydance Radiant Industries Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.21 19:30:00 - [36] Edited by: Dutarro on 21/09/2006 19:32:32 The OP's proposal of new POS categories is interesting. However, it should be changed a bit so that existing investment in POSs does not become obsolete. How about this? Existing POS types would be interpreted as the Industrial POS category. The Battle POS and Logistics POS categories are rolled into one, completely new type of control tower: Citadel Control Tower Base Price: 1.5 billion ISK Fuel Consumption: (same as 2 large control towers) Power/CPU: (50% higher than large control tower) Shields: (100% higher than large control tower) Bonus: 75% reduction in power cost of Logistics Array (see below) Use: with only 50% more CPU and twice the fuel requirements of a large POS, citadel POS are not a good choice for industry. They are only likely to be used for military purposes. Anchoring: only one citadel POS may be anchored at a time in each planetary system, i.e. of all the POS on moons of a planet, only one of those may be a citadel POS. Sovereignty: citadel POSs outrank large POS for purposes of sovereignty. This makes POS spamming less workable, since you can only put one citadel POS per planet in the system, rather than one large POS per moon as we have today. Sovereignty is still required to build an outpost, and to make an outpost conquerable. Logistics Arrays: a logistics array is an enormous, anchored shield transporter located at a POS. The array's range is about 10 million km, enough to reach other starbases or outposts near the same planet, but not enough to cover the entire system. The logistics array's target is selected from a menu before it is onlined, much like the mineral for a moon harvester is selected. So to conquer an outpost the attacking force must: 1) acquire more citadel POS in the system than the defender, by building them and destroying defending citadels 2) hold a majority of citadel POS in system for 5 days to gain sovereignty. 3) destroy any defending citadel POS around the outpost planet, so that it can't boost the outpost shields 4) take down the outpost shields and conquer the outpost
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.21 20:37:00 - [37] 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? Malachon, 99%? I can think of several ways to use 2-3 BS to prevent you from ever being able to recharge a POS's shields with that. "Basically this means that as a corp/alliance holds a POS longer, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate" Yes, of course you would. looks at the alliance ticker. Completely disagree - the incumbent allready has all the advantages. Allowing you to work up massively greater POS holdings and get an even greater one is negative-sum for the long term viability of thr smaller alliances. And they, collectively, outnumber the big ones. Ellaine's right. Except I'd set time per corp/alliance, NOT individually. And moveable only with a vote. You can START by moving the guns out the shield and making them only fire on the same "size" as they are. //Maya
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.21 20:45:00 - [38] 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? Malachon, 99%? I can think of several ways to use 2-3 BS to prevent you from ever being able to recharge a POS's shields with that. "Basically this means that as a corp/alliance holds a POS longer, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate" Yes, of course you would. looks at the alliance ticker. Completely disagree - the incumbent allready has all the advantages. Allowing you to work up massively greater POS holdings and get an even greater one is negative-sum for the long term viability of thr smaller alliances. And they, collectively, outnumber the big ones. Ellaine's right. Except I'd set time per corp/alliance, NOT individually. And moveable only with a vote. You can START by moving the guns out the shield and making them only fire on the same "size" as they are. A proper deathstar POS will currently vaporize a BS in a shot or two. You said yourself in earlier discussions POS guns were ridiculously overpowered. Secondly, defenders are NOT at an advantage against POS spamming. A defender can put up 20 POS for a year, and all an attacker has to do is put up 21 POS for 6 days to take the station without ever firing a shot. The current system puts the burden on the defender. With POSses that are a bit weaker in defense, but cheaper to maintain, the defender can actually DEFEND a system, rather than be forced to ATTACK the enemy POS spam to keep his station. And note that POSses are not cheap. A deathstar POS costs a billion+. You may think Alliances are invincible monstrosities with our own isk printing presses, but really, we're not.
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.21 20:49:00 - [39] Then pick a system with 39 - or less - moons. Simple, neh? You just elevated POS spamming, cost and complexity another level, you did not address a single fundermental issue. And the industrial side will be cheaper yes. Which is the point of the suggestion of course. And I know all about ASCN's POS network and bills, thanks. Probly more than most ASCN members do (yes, a spy again. What fun!) //Maya
Dutarro Kydance Radiant Industries Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.21 23:06:00 - [40] 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.
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.22 03:45:00 - [41] 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
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.22 05:27:00 - [42] Originally by: Maya Rkell Then pick a system with 39 - or less - moons. Simple, neh? You just elevated POS spamming, cost and complexity another level, you did not address a single fundermental issue. And the industrial side will be cheaper yes. Which is the point of the suggestion of course. And I know all about ASCN's POS network and bills, thanks. Probly more than most ASCN members do (yes, a spy again. What fun!) Whatever, you're pathetic and delusional with your constant whining about alliances. And you didn't address the first point. How can a couple of battleships keep a POS shields below 99% if you complain in other threads that POS guns are extremely overpowered and vaporize BS in seconds.
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.22 13:09:00 - [43] Dutarro, Ah, so only every other POS at the planet then. PS, what range do you mean by "planetary system?" Because in some systems, planets are closer to each other than moons are from their primary in others. This WON'T be clean and neat, and some systems will have near-invincible POS clusters. "The logistics arrays would, however, make siege of smaller POSs difficult." yes, it makes it pointless to bother fighting POSwars unless you're a HUGE alliance. How is this progress? "an attacker must first destroy its citadel POS" Eh? you destroy the other, easier-to-kill POS first. You need to get rid of their remote shield boosters. "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." Incorrect. You need other POS's with shield boosters for protection, ON TOP of the industrial POS network. You're fiddling with an allready broken system, which need sa fundermental review. You're drasticaly increasing the time and boredom factor of taking POS. How is this even remotely desireable? Malevolent Draco, No, I'm dead on. Your "dismissal" clearly shows your agenda in this thread, for the PURE benefit of ASCN. "How can a couple of battleships keep a POS shields below 99% if you complain in other threads that POS guns are extremely overpowered and vaporize BS in seconds." Because you can do a LITTLE damage without taking return fire. It's tricky, and you'd NEVER beat the shield recharge rate below ~95%. But 99% is entirely possible. This is not an exploit - it's been asked - because it simply dosn't do enough damage to have a worthwhile effect. Today. You'd make it significant. //Maya
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.22 13:58:00 - [44] Originally by: Maya Rkell Malevolent Draco, No, I'm dead on. Your "dismissal" clearly shows your agenda in this thread, for the PURE benefit of ASCN. "How can a couple of battleships keep a POS shields below 99% if you complain in other threads that POS guns are extremely overpowered and vaporize BS in seconds." Because you can do a LITTLE damage without taking return fire. It's tricky, and you'd NEVER beat the shield recharge rate below ~95%. But 99% is entirely possible. This is not an exploit - it's been asked - because it simply dosn't do enough damage to have a worthwhile effect. Today. You'd make it significant. Your agenda is simply that of crippling large alliances until they cannot exist anymore, all the while wallowing in self pity and paranoia. And if 99% is a problem, make it 95% then, not a fundamental change from the concept I was proposing. Furthermore, I have fought at a number of POSses in the last months. The amount of POSses in a system is not relevant, its their strength combined with lag. Reduce the strength, make it possible for the defender to deploy more of these weaker POSses over time and you will end both the POS spam attack and make it better possible for a real attacker to take down a system. If you don't think POS spam attack is a problem think again. It completely turns around the concept of attacker and defender. A defender has to hold a station 23/7, and under the current system a quick POS spam attack at off-hours makes systems far more vulnerable than they should be. And get it out of your thick skull that this has anything to do with large alliances vs small corps. Small corps that can pull off a succesful POS spam against one of the big alliances do not exist. Its a maneuver requiring tens of billions of isk, and is only within the realm of big alliances, or medium alliances who are willing to exploit complexes to the point where they can afford to spam POSses at will. Guess thats your real point here, not only protect complex-exploiters from banning, but also trying to make sure they can continue the proceeds of their exploitation to fund their POSspamming elsewhere.
Agent Kenshin Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.22 17:07:00 - [45] 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
Ellaine TashMurkon MetaForge Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.22 17:25:00 - [46] Then I'll promote my concept with POS warfare by playing dots; http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=381757
Evelgrivion	Posted - 2006.09.22 17:27:00 - [47] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 22/09/2006 17:31:20 Ok, so lets review everyone's current complaints of POSs. 1. Deathstar POSs, while expensive, are indestructable to all but the most extended and ludicrously ISK and time and manpower intensive forces 2. POSs are spammed out the wazoo on places with moons and stations to prevent people from getting that one extra critical amount needed to seize a station 3. The warfare is incredibly lag intensive 4. All current situations and solutions only help the rich 5. No effective combat mechanism exists for anything but Dreadnought wielders for taking down another alliance's system sovereignty. Help me adjust this list for ALL SIDES grievances and we can go from there.
Dutarro Kydance Radiant Industries Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.22 17:46:00 - [48] Maya, there is a key element of the citadel POS idea that I failed to emphasize. The logistics array should require so much power that it is not feasible to deploy anywhere except at a citadel POS. A planet will not then have a cluster of POSs that can all boost each others' shields, only the citadel POS would be capable of boosting the smaller POSs, not the other way around. Also, planetary systems are perfectly well defined. All starbases are located at planet X moon Y, and all outposts located at planet X. Both are part of planetary system X, there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.22 23:06:00 - [49] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 22/09/2006 17:31:20 Ok, so lets review everyone's current complaints of POSs. 1. Deathstar POSs, while expensive, are indestructable to all but the most extended and ludicrously ISK and time and manpower intensive forces 2. POSs are spammed out the wazoo on places with moons and stations to prevent people from getting that one extra critical amount needed to seize a station 3. The warfare is incredibly lag intensive 4. All current situations and solutions only help the rich 5. No effective combat mechanism exists for anything but Dreadnought wielders for taking down another alliance's system sovereignty. Help me adjust this list for ALL SIDES grievances and we can go from there. 1. The Large POS'es are easy to take down, all you need is a few good dreads and pilots. They beat any POS setting today. 1 Large POS no matter what fitting can only stand alone against 2- possibly 3 dreads without asistance. Solution (IMO) is to re-do the POS'es (or make T2 POS'es) and make them module based with no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be. Or maybe a skill based limmit, say POS Design lvl 1-5 and Advanced POS Design 1-5 for really large super POS'es. 2. POS spamming is silly. There is no natural logic that says "IF i have 2 POS'es you cant kill my station, you need 3 to do it". IT MAKES NO SENSE IN THE WORLD PHYSICS. Solution: There should be a system that linkes 1 or more POS'es to the station if you want to keep the Station invincable. If you consider this a game instead of a space sim we probably want to have the stations invincable untill a few "buffers" like POS'es are dealt with. 3. Lag is a difficult thing to counter when you have lots of objects and ships, no matter if it's POS war or just Fleet combat. Solution: Better game engine is on the drawingboard. 4. The rich are able to spam out POS'es and build lots of dreads with good weapons, it's life. It's logical. Solution: No solution, the rich will allways have the avantage. 5. Dreads are huge they are the means to take down huge POS'es. Solution: No solution, it would be silly to let a hacker or lots of small ships to take down or incapacitate a POS. There should be realism and balance to what goes and what not. Limmits is something that i don't like. If you want limmits you should really limmit how rich alliances are allowed to get. If some alliance is to become super rich and buy all the T2 BPO's in the game, it would make the game unbalanced. That alliance can mount 100 or even 500 Dreads and take down ALL the POS'es in EVE. Because no other alliance can counter that many dreads and no POS'es can stand against it. But it's not a limmit there, so why should there be limmits to how big a POS can be? If you have a SUPER huge POS thats able to stand alone against 100 dreads. It would be nice, costly but realistic in the end. -It may be radiacal but it's how i see it. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.22 23:31:00 - [50] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/09/2006 23:31:41 Malachon Draco, point to one suggested nerf for alliances I've made recently? Here's a hint: there are none. Your counter falls flat on its face and your desperate resorting to it shows your agenda for the cynical manipulation that it is. Opposing the abusive expansion of capacity is NOT the same as nerfing. The self-pity and paranoia you refer to is yours alone. "And if 99% is a problem, make it 95% then, not a fundamental change from the concept I was proposing." Your figure was wrong, and you argued in a confrontational way. Regardless, 90% would be safer. A serious attack is going to hit 90% pretty quickly (do remember shield recharge works on a curve.. 90% is still well off the optimal slope) "deploy more of these weaker POSses" "end the POS spam attack" Make your mind up! "A defender has to hold a station 23/7" Yes, and whats the problem there? "a quick POS spam attack at off-hours makes systems far more vulnerable than they should be" So in a STATION system, you're holding the minority of the moon with a POS? Well, I don't think much of your defence then. "this has anything to do with large alliances vs small corps" Of course not, it's large alliances vs small alliance. And industrial POS networks. Dutarro, then it is utterly useless. Because if it requires that much fitting and the citadel has no more than 50% more fitting than a large, you'll not be able to fit a citadel with enough firepower, less than a large battlestar today even. "not only protect complex-exploiters from banning" You will either retract this accusation or I will report your post for harrassment and ask CCP to ban you for said harrassment. I am FULLY confident that a full invesigation will discover no links - as they do not exist - between myself and any claimed breach of the EULA. You cannot even protect your so-called idea without resorting to harrassment. THAT is a crushing inditement of your so-called posts. Why should I not further report your inappropriate activity to your alliance leadership? Dutarro, so the magic faeries of range can send a repair beam to a moon a long way out in one system, but not to a closer (in km) planet's moons in another system. Sorry, makes NO sense whatsoever. "The logistics array should require so much power that it is not feasible to deploy anywhere except at a citadel POS." Then it's utterly useless. Because the citadel only has 50% more fitting than a large POS. A citadel with one of these logistics arrays has LESS fitting avaliable than a large deathstar if it works as you say (can't be used feasibly by a large POS). Toriatrix, making invulnrable POS which insta-pop dreads is NOT a soloution. It dosn't matter HOW many you bring, if it can pop them unassisted. "Better game engine is on the drawingboard." For the Vista client only. //Maya
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.23 01:52:00 - [51] Edited by: Toriatrix on 23/09/2006 01:52:46 Originally by: Maya Rkell Toriatrix, making invulnrable POS which insta-pop dreads is NOT a soloution. It dosn't matter HOW many you bring, if it can pop them unassisted. "Better game engine is on the drawingboard." For the Vista client only. I'm not suggesting an invoulnerable POS.. (read the post), i'm saying that the stations today are infact invulnrable, and it makes no sense unless you have a reason like a POS next to it giving it shields or something clever. I'm sure i read notes/devblogs/EON-mag that a new game engine is planned. And i'm sure it will come eventually. They have come as far as they want with this one, and a new engine could help Lag. Even with better graphics. As one have nothing to do with the other. And btw Maya, lighten up.. I'm sure the reason ppl are bad-mouthing you are just because they are feed-up with your negative attitude. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Evelgrivion	Posted - 2006.09.23 02:50:00 - [52] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 23/09/2006 02:51:21 Reading through these posts BOTH of you need to get a grip and drop your stupid agenda. Theres nothing against complex camping in the EULA. Arguing about them is not what we're trying to address. Both of you are harassing each other, and should just shut up and get on topic. We're trying to figure out solutions to POS mechanics, not argue about why it wont work to support either of your agendas. Both of you, next time you "contribute" to one of these threads I expect it to be on topic. Keep your *stupid* alliance squabbles where they belong - out of features and ideas.
Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.09.23 03:02:00 - [53] Toriatrix, yes you are. To quote you in this thread; "no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be" "a new game engine is planned" Yes, for Vista. Then whatever they can will be backported into the old client. (And no, I won't stop pointing out the flaws until they fix em. Their attitude is their problem) Evelgrivion, I'm not in an alliance, and I'M not pushing anything. //Maya
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.23 07:28:00 - [54] Originally by: Maya Rkell"not only protect complex-exploiters from banning" You will either retract this accusation or I will report your post for harrassment and ask CCP to ban you for said harrassment. I am FULLY confident that a full invesigation will discover no links - as they do not exist - between myself and any claimed breach of the EULA. You cannot even protect your so-called idea without resorting to harrassment. THAT is a crushing inditement of your so-called posts. Why should I not further report your inappropriate activity to your alliance leadership? [/quote I retract nothing. Look at your posts in the main forum. You go DIRECTLY against a DECISION from the developers and keep argueing and whining that exploiters shouldnt be banned because they are so ignorant and the ignorant must be protected. You are trying to protect exploiters, pure and simple.

Tirg Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2006.09.23 10:56:00 - [55] Thread cleaned. Keep it civil, m'kay? You may attack an idea- even forcefully; You may not attack the person. If you have any questions, please email us at [email protected]. Now your sig is mine MUAHAHAHAHAHA - Xorus

Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.23 11:53:00 - [56] Inherently, POS mechanics are not bad. Problem is lag, the ease of POS spamming by attackers and the high grind cost of keeping POSses online for defenders. Solution is easy: - to mitigate the lag problem, reduce the strength of large POSses. - To reduce POS spamming, make defensive POSses cheaper by reducing fuel cost over time, enabling defenders to entrench themselves. This also reduces the grind associated with keeping large numbers of POSses online and thus benefitting industrial minded corps and alliances.
Dutarro Kydance Radiant Industries Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.23 14:12:00 - [57] Originally by: Maya Rkell ... "The logistics array should require so much power that it is not feasible to deploy anywhere except at a citadel POS." Then it's utterly useless. Because the citadel only has 50% more fitting than a large POS. A citadel with one of these logistics arrays has LESS fitting avaliable than a large deathstar if it works as you say (can't be used feasibly by a large POS)... The proposal includes a 75% power cost reduction for logistics arrays, on a citadel control tower only. Therefore it should be capable of a full 'deathstar' setup in addition to one or two logistics arrays.
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.23 23:44:00 - [58] Originally by: Maya Rkell Toriatrix, yes you are. To quote you in this thread; "no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be" "a new game engine is planned" Yes, for Vista. Then whatever they can will be backported into the old client. (And no, I won't stop pointing out the flaws until they fix em. Their attitude is their problem) Evelgrivion, I'm not in an alliance, and I'M not pushing anything. It's not invoulnerable... Compare a large starbase to a large fleet of Dreads, motherships, and carriers. There is no limmit to how many you can put together in a system for an attack. Ofcourse thats theory... So what one should realize is that if you are actually putting up a super-huge-deathstar-pos it will cost you in terms of skill, isk and maintenance. So it can only become so-so big as to weather or not you make it bigger is just going to cost you more than it would benefit you. But in theory.. there should not be any limits to ho many power generators or computers you can link together with one starbase structure.. same as with guns.. (as long as you have power and CPU, AND fuel to run it all). See the Shield resistnace.. no matter how many shield hardners you slap on your ship, it's not 100% ... same as a super-huge-POS.. it will never be invincable. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.24 06:08:00 - [59] Originally by: Toriatrix Originally by: Maya Rkell Toriatrix, yes you are. To quote you in this thread; "no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be" "a new game engine is planned" Yes, for Vista. Then whatever they can will be backported into the old client. (And no, I won't stop pointing out the flaws until they fix em. Their attitude is their problem) Evelgrivion, I'm not in an alliance, and I'M not pushing anything. It's not invoulnerable... Compare a large starbase to a large fleet of Dreads, motherships, and carriers. There is no limmit to how many you can put together in a system for an attack. Ofcourse thats theory... So what one should realize is that if you are actually putting up a super-huge-deathstar-pos it will cost you in terms of skill, isk and maintenance. So it can only become so-so big as to weather or not you make it bigger is just going to cost you more than it would benefit you. But in theory.. there should not be any limits to ho many power generators or computers you can link together with one starbase structure.. same as with guns.. (as long as you have power and CPU, AND fuel to run it all). See the Shield resistnace.. no matter how many shield hardners you slap on your ship, it's not 100% ... same as a super-huge-POS.. it will never be invincable. Unfortunately, you are not taking lag into account here. With lag, a deathstar POS is a very tough nut to *****. Put a defender fleet of 60-80 ships there, and its invincible for all intents and purposes.
Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade	Posted - 2006.09.24 17:14:00 - [60] Edited by: Toriatrix on 24/09/2006 17:14:55 Lag should be sorted out by new game engine or POS coding. Fear of lag should not be used as an argument to prevent making the game better. That is maybe an oxymoron to some of you, but i believe that the POS system will be re-done in some fasion to reduce lag (think i read a dev blog about it somewhere). So when you re-do some of the POS related code, you might aswell make some changes to how POS warfare and system sovereignity is at the moment. -Toriatrix The Blackwater Brigade. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
Je'hira Osiris Minmatar Knights of Chaos	Posted - 2006.10.19 14:57:00 - [61] I like well errr the idea of having differnt types of poses.. though tbh to can just equip the pos with differnt mods.. ie hardeners and more guns would make it a battle pos. As for the whole "Logistical" pos affecting the reinforced mod i think is a really bad idea. I have done alot of poses assults and they can be hard enuf if ppl set them up correctly. it should be on the stront it makes you have to wait X amount of time and then reform and give the defenders time to regroup. if you have 24 hours stront then you have 24 hours to make get a froce / cap ships in to defend. making it so you can wait more that 2 days is silly it just leaves nothing to the attackers. if you dont want to loose a small pos then but up a medium or a large .. most ppl think twice before attacking a large pos. to have a pos up means you need to be able to defend it as well and this is easy enuf if you are organised and have the cap ships.. if you dont try not to **** off ppl with them :-) Respect can be found for your enemy.... its jus a case of how hard you wanna look...
Alekzander Caldari Scorn.	Posted - 2006.10.31 00:49:00 - [62] Just in case it isn't mentioned in this thread--but in several other places--I suggest a Tatical Command modual. What this modual does is basically act like the UI of a ship, allowing you to work the POS in a similar manner, as in target and selectively use the aplicable moduals that are avalible to the pos. As in, guns, webbers, warp scrams, etc... so that you can actually give your POS fleet a chance against mass swarms of capital ships.
Mallick Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.08 16:41:00 - [63] Edited by: Mallick on 08/11/2006 16:42:07 Originally by: Je'hira Osiris I like well errr the idea of having differnt types of poses.. though tbh to can just equip the pos with differnt mods.. ie hardeners and more guns would make it a battle pos. As for the whole "Logistical" pos affecting the reinforced mod i think is a really bad idea. I have done alot of poses assults and they can be hard enuf if ppl set them up correctly. it should be on the stront it makes you have to wait X amount of time and then reform and give the defenders time to regroup. if you have 24 hours stront then you have 24 hours to make get a froce / cap ships in to defend. making it so you can wait more that 2 days is silly it just leaves nothing to the attackers. if you dont want to loose a small pos then but up a medium or a large .. most ppl think twice before attacking a large pos. to have a pos up means you need to be able to defend it as well and this is easy enuf if you are organised and have the cap ships.. if you dont try not to **** off ppl with them :-) You should read it again. Logistic POS only adds time it takes to take the Outpost. So if there is 10 Logistic POS in system, and you decide to avoid taking them down, you can attack the Outpost and wait 10 days before you can fully take it, or you can take down the Logistic POS and take the Outpost and take it at once. Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!
IHaveTenFingers Caldari ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2006.11.17 01:40:00 - [64] They sorta have different kinds of poses. Minmatar: Defense (Uber Bonuses) Amarr: Industry (Huge PG, multiple capital assy. arrays, 100%? silo bonus) Caldari: Research (Huge CPU) Gallente: A Mixmash of different things. bonuses suck so it useless IMHO, can be a refinery if you needed it. ------------------------------------ My Opinions in no way reflect those of other members of ADVANCED Combat and Engineering.
General Mar ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.17 09:13:00 - [65] Edited by: General Mar on 17/11/2006 09:14:17 the war should be focus on attacking the station instead of spammed POS, that mean if you take station's shield below 50% and hold it for 24 hours, you win !!! so how do it work ? Station's shild need to become stronger so it will take hour to take down the shield, it also have insane shield recharge rate so need lots damage to take down the shield Between 75%-100% shield, the station is'offence mode', - station's gun will do extra damage because it supply most of energy to weapon system, - the attacker will have to find out their damage output and work out a strategy to tank the damage, - everytime the sentry gun got destory, the station will quickly send out another to replace(every 30 seconds ?), the number of gun equal the number of player dock inside station, (if possible, the sentry can "drive" by player so they have something fun to do instead of sit on station) - the attacker may lost lots of ship if they can't handle sentry gun, or there are too many sentry gun between 50%-75% shield, station is "defensive mode". - it will do less damage but have insane shield recharge rate, so attacker need to focus all their damage on station . - the damage output from station gun is weaker and sentry gun take some time to replace - it is time for defender to undock their ship to interupt attacker's damage so they can't focus all damage on station to let it recharge above 75% between 25%-50% the station is 'reinforcement mode' - station is nearly run out energy and all gun is stop, recharge rate is slower when closer to 25% - if you can hold the station in 'reinforcement mode' for 24 hours, you will win - if attacker keep it at 25% then it don't need lots of damage hold it, eg 5 battleships can hold it at 25%, or 10 for 35% etc - if there are defender inside station, it will help station recharge quicker to take over station : - after 24 hours of 'reinforcement mode' the station will lost. - to defence you either need bring lots of people to dock in to help station recharge over 50%, - once station recharge back to 50%, the 24 hours timer reset so attacker need to start over again if they still manage to get station down to 'reinforcement mode' so if the fight is focus on station. what is role of POS ? 1, POS will do nothing to sovereignity, it is all about who own the station, attacker can't spam POS because it won't help them gain sovereignity 2, each POS will help station do more damage, have more shield and recharge faster. eg each station add 10% damage, 10% recharge rate, and 100% shield !!! - so if you have 10 POS online, the station will do 2x damage, recharge 2x faster and 10x time more shield - it is nearly impossible to take down station if it have lots of POS to backup, or it require really strong force to do so 3, each POS will spawn 1 sentry gun at each gate for this system, the sentry gun is control by station's owner so can provide minimum protect from pirate/traveller think about it in real life of fiction, if a system is full of POS in every moon, it should nearly impossible to attack it, and take way too much time to destory them one by one. attacker can keep them in aggressive mode untill they run out fuel, but what happen if defender have stock up months of fuel ? well it will require really strong industry to support it
Omeega Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.11.24 12:53:00 - [66] These are my thoughts. Might not be clear but i'll do a powerpoint or pps and try to re-write it as soon as i'll get at home! --------------------------------------- Removing The Sov system would be a great solution. Put the old stations back - Lock and destroy. But to Avoid pingponging like it would be in a AAA vs AXE (Euro - USA) make the station shields half-downable by 20 dreads and 10 carriers in ~3hours (should check for corresponding damage output and put the corresponding shield hitpoints) When station hits half shields (50%), make it in what I'll call "mid-efficient-mode" -> For the attacker it doesn't change anything keep pounding the station. -> For the defender his station becomes "bugged" and less efficient (refining 50% effiency / cloning 50% more expensive / Fitting don't change - goal is to force the defender to get out and fight / agents giving 50% of the LP they normaly should / all prices in the station becoming 50% more expensive / ...) What would be interesting is when you get the station to 40% shields you reread what I put up and change 50% by 40%. But that would be to hard developping I guess, but would have a good effect -> fight back fast! If you wait it will be harder. At this point the goal is, for the defender to boost shields up to get their services back fully operational. At this point the shields are at 50% (after 3hours). Three more hours of station pounding will get the station into reinforced. (only fitting avaliable - maybe cloning too - prices at the station are doubled (the 100% of the 200% price goes back to NPC faction or is just lost) (Price changes will also help creating better prices in regions for your own alliance mates) When the station hits the armor it will be in reinforced mode. It's unlockable by the defender AND the attacker. For 12 other Hours NO ONE can target the station, defenders can dock doh and fit new ships. The 12 hours timing will be to prove that the attacking alliance or defending REALY can afford a 0.0 place (-covering whole timezone) Once those 12hours have passed station is lockable by both parties. It's armor will be at 50% not 100% to avoid one defender cruiser to boost station for one shield point and force the attackers to go through the 12hours cooldown time again. ->defenders : repair armor to get it into shield. ->attackers : kill the 50% remaining armor Emptying the half armor left should take 3 more hours (test). Once the station enters structure she will get her shields back to 50% and the attacker tag. The attacker becomes defender and defender becomes attacker. Okay Omeega, great. But what are POS made for then? Meh, moon harvesting and having a foot into your enemy's campground to be able to have a force present in it's background to run what I'd finaly call, a real SIEGE. --------------------- so 6hours of station pounding 12hours of "cooldown time" 3hours of pounding station is yours ----- 100shield - 000shield : 6hours of killing : station lockable 000shield - 050armor : 12hours automatic : station unlockable 050armor - 000armor : 3hours of killing : station lockable ------------------------------ Originally by: jeNK The only solution required to station ping-pong was to have the shields instantly recharge to 100% after capture.. We didn't need POS's, we didn't need Sov, we didn't need Capital ships. bring 30capitals at one primetime and in 30mins smash a station other alliance brings 30 capitals at it's own primetime and rapes back the same station. BIG SCALE PING PONG -> useless ------------------- <We didn't need POS's,> Yes we did. It's good to have a safe place (but still killable) to have a siege base and make far-from-home operations (D2 vs ASCN p.ex) <we didn't need Sov,> It was the only thing CCP found to avoid ping-ponging. <we didn't need Capital ships.> Yes, to kill the POS and the station much faster. ----------------------- Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
Omeega Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.11.24 12:53:00 - [67] Couldn't that be solved by implementing something like uhh... you know... strontium? Call me crazy or something, but avoiding just that seems to be the purpose of reinforced mode in POSes. Shouldn't it work for outposts as well, so long as you keep the functionality intact until it comes out of reinforced? I've also always thought it was weird that you don't need to actually invade and conquer an outpost to get control over it (put those marines to good use!). Oh well, I'll go dream on. with stroncium one unique person is able to save a whole alliance. that's not the point i think - it's just too easy. Station out of reinforced? -put stroncium -logoff Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
Mistique One	Posted - 2006.12.13 13:24:00 - [68] / counter-signed
James Duar Merch Industrial	Posted - 2006.12.13 14:01:00 - [69] /not signed. Any overhaul of POS's can't break what we already have. The graphical proposal would just change all the modules and click them together. This proposal needs to mean that systems with POSs in them remain operational right now. You work with what you have.
Lady Winter	Posted - 2006.12.13 14:16:00 - [70] Changing pos dynamics as drastic as recommended in inital post is a very bad idea as then people will just blob around dreadnaughts attacking specific pos types too remove certain strategic abilities from there enemy - the one grand configurable pos scheme now works well - it just needs to have more controllable configurations added too the pos for offensive and defensive abilities - the graphics modified so there not as "wtf lag" intensive as you warp in on them and perhaps some new creative structures - and maybe a few reductions too time based situations with pos's such as structure unanchoring/anchoring times [not the tower times] and the speed of the refinery processing/onlining. pos' work well as-is as there inline with the concepts that make eve successful - variable fittings of hundreds, if not thousands of possible setups. taking it too role based pos's would seriously hinder and make more narrow the whole concept of pos's and how they are effective. o' also with role based pos's your then opening up the argument that you will need to be able to anchor multiple towers on a single moon to adequatly compliment/defend the role based pos's.
Lunarra Paradox v2.0 Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2006.12.13 14:23:00 - [71] not too sure about the idea, but indeed it would be good if the POS could "interact" between one and an other in the same system.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2006.12.13 18:57:00 - [72] Please for the love of god let the different modules come together to something that remotely resembles a station! Ourselves Alone
Fanghorn Dewberry Caldari The Flaming Sideburn's	Posted - 2006.12.16 11:18:00 - [73] Maybe a Battle POS could have a module which slowly destroys other POS's in the system like torpedos which can go thru warp but which have to be on a fixed target. A counter defender module could be installed on a POS.
Voltaire Leriel Minmatar BIG	Posted - 2007.01.19 04:57:00 - [74] Originally by: Admiral IceBlock Logistic POS, or Outpost POS This POS is used as a defense mechanism, just like the moon of Endor in Star Wars. Each Logistic POS adds 1 day to the Outposts 'reinforcement mode'. Can the the logistic POS be taken out by Ewoks? Nerf Ewoks! _________________________________________________________ BIG Corporation Website

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.