EVE Search - POS Wars

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

POS Wars

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Drusus Rensus Gallente Klima Galactic	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:04:00 - [1] Edited by: Drusus Rensus on 06/11/2006 21:08:03 You know, I read these forums a lot (trying to catch up, since you bastids have a 3 year head start on me), and I'm starting to see an increasing amount of gripeing about how POS warfare is ruining the fun in the game, cause it takes away the freewheeling shooty-shooty PvP type combat that everyone likes. It makes me think that there's something about the game mechanics that I don't understand. Maybe those who know more would like to comment. Shouldn't the POSes be the last thing you attack? More specifically, shouldn't you attack the POSes after you're pretty sure that you've deprived your enemy of the means and/or will to put up any more? I would think that an alliance war would start with weeks of each side trying to destroy anything capable of carrying cargo or fitting a strip mining module, with attacks especially concentrated on ice fields to deprive the enemy of fuel for both POSes and capital ships. The enemy is going to have to either duck these raids, or try to defend against them. Either way, they're probably not going to be able to mine and re-supply effectively, and more importantly, there's going to be lots of shooty-shooty for all. The POSes should be the end-game, shouldn't they? In other words, territory should start changing hands when the other side literally can't field a defense anymore, or those suckers start running out of fuel because supply lines and production ops have come grinding to a halt. If you start going after POSes while your enemy's ability to put up more is still pretty much intact, you'll just end up in a long tit-for-tat siege war. Seige warfare sucks. Especially in a game where the object is supposed to be fun. Just about any modern army would conduct a war as I'm describing. Hell, even Sun Tzu advised against beseiging walled cities at all costs. Is there something about Eve mechanics that makes it necessary, and if so, does it need to be fixed for the good of the game?
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:08:00 - [2] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/11/2006 21:08:10 Originally by: Drusus Rensus Shouldn't the POSes be the last thing you attack? More specifically, shouldn't you attack the POSes after you're pretty sure that you've deprived your enemy of the means and/or will to put up any more? I would think that an alliance war would start with weeks of each side trying to destroy anything capable of carrying cargo or fitting a strip mining module, with attacks especially concentrated on ice fields to deprive the enemy of fuel for both POSes and capital ships. The enemy is going to have to either duck these raids, or try to defend against them. Either way, they're probably not going to be able to mine effectively, and more importantly, there's going to be lots of shooty-shooty for all. But the instant you enter the system where an ice mining op or the like is going on, guess where they all warp? The POS -[23] Member- Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON!
Omeega Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:08:00 - [3] I'm sorry. I didn't even read your post. I'm sure it was good but... Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
Drusus Rensus Gallente Klima Galactic	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:11:00 - [4] But the instant you enter the system where an ice mining op or the like is going on, guess where they all warp? The POS Which means they have stopped mining, right? It probably also means that some defenders are on their way (whoopee, shooty shooty). The idea isn't really to get them to stop mining, just slow them enough that they can't hold their space anymore.
Old Geeza The Retirement Home	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:25:00 - [5] Originally by: Drusus Rensus But the instant you enter the system where an ice mining op or the like is going on, guess where they all warp? The POS Which means they have stopped mining, right? It probably also means that some defenders are on their way (whoopee, shooty shooty). The idea isn't really to get them to stop mining, just slow them enough that they can't hold their space anymore. And the moment you leave the system, they resume mining. _______________________________________ Sign the petition against jump queues!
Beyond Horizon UA Industry Red Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:26:00 - [6] Originally by: Omeega I'm sorry. I didn't even read your post. I'm sure it was good but... LOL QFT <3 Omeega - BH
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:28:00 - [7] What you describe is attrition. Your tactic would be to kill the enemy as much as you can and in the mean while (while doing so) also prevent them from replacing what they lose. The problem with that is that in Eve, you can make insane amounts of isk without running much of a risk at any point in doing so. Secondly, the large alliances have so much stockpiled that to make them hurt so bad they sell their stockpiles of pos's is quite hard and takes a load of time. Thirdly, it is pretty hard to kill a lot of the enemy when that enemy is doing it's best to not get killed at all. Put those three together and attrition doesn't cut it in Eve anymore. Besides that, taking away access to some key stations might also be very usefull in other ways then being a goal in itself ? Old blog
Plutoinum German Cyberdome Corp Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:33:00 - [8] Edited by: Plutoinum on 06/11/2006 21:36:21 Not easy to drain an alliance out of money, if they really try to keep their risk low and want to hold their space at all costs. That's what RA did over months. They made a lot of isk and avoided losses. As long as noone attacks pos and you have enough stubborness, you can stay where you are, even if your region is full of hostiles. Like in npc-space, but with the advantage that only you have docking rights. So if someone avoid open fights and even the carebears keep losses low, which isn't difficult, then the only way to make progress is killing pos imho.
Swirler	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:47:00 - [9] Uh, no. POSs are how an alliance keeps sovereignty over a system. How do you stop another alliance from mining ice and fuel for free anywhere in empire, and jumping it in a carrier straight to the POS? You can't. The only thing you can try to do is have a constant hostile presence in a system that the enemy wants to use for mining or npcing. That amounts to camping a system 24/7 to keep them from effectively using it. It works, so the enemy sneaks a POS into your system or does it by brute force of numbers. Then they camp your system. Jump supplies in and out via carrier, and continue to harrass you and deny you the system....until you take out that POS. We try to move a fleet in to secure the system and jump in some dreads and knock out the POS. RA/Goons/TCF move 300 pilots into a system and crash the node when ever we try to take a POS or move a fleet. The Dreads get left at the enemy POS while the node restarts. We come back, dreads are dead, pilots are dead, etc. Get the picture CCP? Until you fix this node crash on purpose stuff as a viable tactic for war, the game is broken. One guy said it best, all the running around, pvping in your little ships is meaningless. Holding and controlling space is all dependent on who controls the POSs, and who can jump in the biggest fleet and crash the node. Game is getting lame folks.
Shamis Orzoz Sniggerdly	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:52:00 - [10] POS's aren't the last thing you attack because you can't really hope to wear any alliance down to the point that they can't refuel pos's. Any alliance will easily be able to purchase the supplies they need in empire and jump the supplies directly into their pos with a carrier or a dread, with zero risk of losing anything. You can camp the system all day for weeks and they will still keep supplying their pos.
Sebo Darrens Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.06 21:57:00 - [11] Sun Tzu didn't have people farming and building cannons in south america and then magically making them appear in his enemy's castle.. real life comparisons dont work, this is a game, and POS are important to take out
Drusus Rensus Gallente Klima Galactic	Posted - 2006.11.06 22:26:00 - [12] Thank you for the replies. To sum up: 1) Because you can jump supplies in a capital ship (using dreads and carriers as if they were freighters) supply lines aren't vulnerable to attack. 2) You can't degrade an enemy's economy enough through attacks on their logistics and production to make it difficult for them to maintain their POS infrastructure because it's possible to make lots of money without exposing yourself to enemy attack as long as you have POSes up. 3) Because of existing hardware limitations its extremely difficult to take down existing POSes as long as your enemy is willing and able to show up to defend in sufficient numbers to cause a node death. It's much easier to take (or re-take) a system by spamming more POSes than your enemy. Based on the above it looks to me like any alliance big enough to field node-crashing numbers and with enough collective resources to place POSes at will would be just about impossible to defeat and remove from their space until some changes in game mechanics are made. Has there ever been an alliance over 1500 members or so forcibly removed from their space (as opposed to disintigrating due to internal politics and breaking up)?
Synapse Archae Amarr Solarflare Heavy Industries	Posted - 2006.11.06 22:45:00 - [13] If the node death (and related capital ship losses on node death) issue were solved, I think the rest of the mechanics would solve themselves. --------------------------------------------- http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=349194&page=1Redo Fleets[/ur
CamMan Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.06 23:18:00 - [14] Let me sum it up for you in sections ALLIANCE WAR In a war you have to gradually move back the enemies frontlines, you do that by taking down POS's so they have no where to hide in that system. Eventually when you have moved there frontlines back far enough their income suffers dramatically. Internal arguements and disgruntled soldiers will eventually leave the alliance when they dont get replacement ships and the game isnt fun for them anymore. This is how alliances break up. KILLING POS's POS's are easy enough to take down with superior tactics, it is just alliances that dont have superior tactics revert to POS spamming a system as it is "easier". A fully fitted POS is on the range of 2 bill isk, so if you arent willing to defend your POS's then the alliance can lose isk very quickly. Easy way to take down POS's are to kill most enemy that are currently in the system, then blockade the gate to stop reinforcements from arriving. Meaning they have to engage in PvP and win in order to stop their POS's being taken down. BLOBBING Any alliance that fields a 1000 players in one system wont lose a POS, and it isnt because of node crashes, it is because they would insta pop any dread trying to take down one of their POS's. POS SPAMMING POS spamming wars arent fun, pew-pew fleet battles are much more fun, but taking down enemy POS's is a quick way to hurt their wallet (no insurance on POS's), and generally forces them to engage you. personally i think the game mechanics work just fine, small improvements could be to increase the cost of POS's by say a factor of 10 to prevent POS spamming, and encourage the use of capital ships to kill enemy POS's. This would also encourage alliance to defend their POS's when they are under attack, forcing more engagements to occur. Originally by: Bender Interesting, no the other one ... tedious
Drusus Rensus Gallente Klima Galactic	Posted - 2006.11.06 23:55:00 - [15] Originally by: CamMan Let me sum it up for you in sections ALLIANCE WAR In a war you have to gradually move back the enemies frontlines, you do that by taking down POS's so they have no where to hide in that system. Eventually when you have moved there frontlines back far enough their income suffers dramatically. Internal arguements and disgruntled soldiers will eventually leave the alliance when they dont get replacement ships and the game isnt fun for them anymore. This is how alliances break up. KILLING POS's POS's are easy enough to take down with superior tactics, it is just alliances that dont have superior tactics revert to POS spamming a system as it is "easier". A fully fitted POS is on the range of 2 bill isk, so if you arent willing to defend your POS's then the alliance can lose isk very quickly. Easy way to take down POS's are to kill most enemy that are currently in the system, then blockade the gate to stop reinforcements from arriving. Meaning they have to engage in PvP and win in order to stop their POS's being taken down. BLOBBING Any alliance that fields a 1000 players in one system wont lose a POS, and it isnt because of node crashes, it is because they would insta pop any dread trying to take down one of their POS's. POS SPAMMING POS spamming wars arent fun, pew-pew fleet battles are much more fun, but taking down enemy POS's is a quick way to hurt their wallet (no insurance on POS's), and generally forces them to engage you. personally i think the game mechanics work just fine, small improvements could be to increase the cost of POS's by say a factor of 10 to prevent POS spamming, and encourage the use of capital ships to kill enemy POS's. This would also encourage alliance to defend their POS's when they are under attack, forcing more engagements to occur. Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond. Makes some sense. Just looking at goings on down south though, it looks like it would take a very long time (months to a year) to push the lines of a major alliance back far enough start impinging substantially on their income, wouldn't it? The second half of your equation makes some sense (costing them through lost POSes) but only for as long as they're losing far more than you are, relative to their GDP (or whatever you call the total economy of an alliance in eve). You're back to fighting a war of economic attrition, something that Rod said he thought wasn't all that feasible in Eve. Making POSes cost more might make some sense, but then you'd basically be taking them out of the hands of everyone but major alliances and mega-corps. Maybe the mechanic is backwards. Maybe they should make it so that outposts hold system SOV, and when you conquer the outpost, ownership of all the POSes changes hands instead of the other way around? Outposts are already **** expensive, and if it was the outpost that had to be conquered for sov, losing a system would be an enormous economic blow since you'd lose a 30b outpost and all the POSes too. You'd probably see some very determined defenses of sovereign systems.
Darknesss D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2006.11.07 00:40:00 - [16] POS warfare encourages pew pew. People are forced to defend, or lose lots of isk.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.07 01:17:00 - [17] Originally by: Darknesss POS warfare encourages pew pew. People are forced to defend, or lose lots of isk. I think this applies on smaller level. Personal loss of large tower & equipment(and moon) surely can't be ignored, but on bigger alliance level, death star is cheap. Luckily it is not insurable. ----------------------------------------------- Remove flashes from capital torps.
Sebo Darrens Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.07 03:15:00 - [18] Originally by: CamMan KILLING POS's POS's are easy enough to take down with superior tactics, it is just alliances that dont have superior tactics revert to POS spamming a system as it is "easier". A fully fitted POS is on the range of 2 bill isk, so if you arent willing to defend your POS's then the alliance can lose isk very quickly. Easy way to take down POS's are to kill most enemy that are currently in the system, then blockade the gate to stop reinforcements from arriving. Meaning they have to engage in PvP and win in order to stop their POS's being taken down. Except sometimes your enemy doesn't engage because it knows it will lose, so it hides and logs off all at a crucial POS and sits on TS for the orders to logon-crash the node. no PvP required, just a deathstar and underhanded techniques to purposefully crash the computer system behind the game, which to this point appears to be acceptable to CCP.
Smokemon Amarr No Quarter. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.11.07 08:46:00 - [19] Thought I'd throw in a little bit for this discussion. One thing I'd like to mention on alliance economics. One thing is very important. Communism. In one form or another, all successful corps/alliances will recognize the benefits of this system and adopt it. RKK for example (if I'm correct) are 99% communistic. Some members may have a /small/ personal wallet, but nearly all isk generated is given to corp. This is why the BoB corps are so successful. Communistically sharing resources is a great way to increase overall wealth as Eve is a game of economies of scale. Here's an example for you. No Quarter, the main fighting chunk of the old Huzzah Federation have adopted this procedure. Prior to this, Huzzah was not a communistic alliance. And only 1 or two corps that I know of worked communistically. However, now with the creation of NoQ, our industrial and pvp potential has increased 10 fold. We built nearly 100 BS in one week, something that would've taken Huzzah a month to do. That's the power of communism when its used in a game such as Eve. It's especially effective when your entire corp works this way, and no one holds out. The problem with 99% of the alliances out there, is that they preach brotherhood but are only in the alliance to make themselves rich. This is why you see pilots flying t1 cruisers after a month of war. If they were in a communistic corp or hell, even better an alliance, they'd still be flying BSes. I won't pretend to know how BoB for example works, but I'd hinder a quess that atleast most of their corps, if not their alliance works this way (communism). My point in all of this. Is you cannot OVERESTIMATE an alliance's wallet. it's important to take into consideration the type of corps that make up said alliance. For example, AXE has only a few, large, well developed corps. DDC is a good example of this. They work similarly to how NoQ works. Just look at them, they lost several dreads and had them replaced within 3 days. Some may say its because they've had a year or two to stockpile resources. Well stockpiling doesn't work unless its in a communistic way. If this were true of a different type of alliance, such as the old Huzzah which had over 20 corps, but same # of people as AXE, who has half, we never had a BS stockpile or a dread stockpile. Cliff Notes: An alliance with 5 large corporations of 200-300 members with a communistic approach to corp and personal finances, versus an alliance with 20 smaller corporations, with a capitalistic approach to corp and personal finaces, the communistic alliance/corp will win, every time. No Quarter learned this the hard way (with the downfall of Huzzah and the loss of our home in Catch) but it's definately stronger for switching to this style of managing our money. ---------------------------------------- -Proud member of No Quarter -Proud member of Axiom Empire -Proud ex-member of Huzzah Federation
Ackaroth Gallente Catalyst Reaction Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.07 09:09:00 - [20] This communism idea sounds pretty intriguing, but I dont like how the game wont let you raise tax above 10%. I would be in favor of a 90% tax and then have the corp provide alot of your needs. Seems like that would put a cool spin on things. I dont understand why Eve allows for an option of "Dictatorship" in alliances, but doesn't allow you to raise tax, or do anything all that dictator-like...
Rippey Minmatar hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.07 09:43:00 - [21] "Everytime you siege a dread, a little kitten dies" What LordDragon forgot to add is that we all die a little bit inside aswell. I can only concur with the rest of the scribents in this thread, POS wars and POS spamming + the current state of the EVE servers makes it waaaay to easy for a defendent to dig in, and avoid fighting and risks if he chooses so. Solutions? First of all, you need to raise the price of POSes. A big scale assault should cost yes, big scale. If you want to go to war and take over another entities 0.0 space you should be faced with the economical aspect; will all these billions we will need to pour into it, be worth it in the end? The current inflation state of EVE has made Capital class warring much to cheap. Isotope degeneration times? A "freshly" mined ice will degenerate in say 7 days time. Would force both the defender and the aggressor to commit to supply operations during the burning war. This way we would avoid bigtime warehousing of POS fuel and stront. Thirdly, the state of the servers. We'd see a totally new landscape where sovereignity could be lost or won much more dynamically than today if people actually would be allowed to pew-pew at each other on a big scale. Today we resort to entrenching down, POS'ing up our systems, and pray that the enemy alliance has a big national holiday of drunkness and that the server god has a good day.
Smith Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.07 09:47:00 - [22] Not all BOB corps are Communistic but those that dont apopt a taxing policy which allows the corp to fund and maintain its infastructure. This policy will ensure that members dont have to do corp mining ops which I would personally rather kill myself than have to be at one.
Cell Satimo Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.07 09:53:00 - [23] Edited by: Cell Satimo on 07/11/2006 09:53:25 Wrong Thread. Eve Web-Ring Your guide to all sites In-Game and Out. Works in IGB
BOldMan Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.07 10:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Smokemon ... Communism. In one form or another, all successful corps/alliances will recognize the benefits of this system and adopt it. RKK for example (if I'm correct) are 99% communistic. ... Just for the record. Wrong. RKK are not comunistic. Please use other examples and corect your post. Thank You.
Attonasi	Posted - 2006.11.07 11:30:00 - [25] I think the cost of POS's isn't the problem, it is the number of POS's you can spam and support easily. Soveriegnty cuts fuel costs in half. It should go the other way imo. If you declare a POS to support your soveriegnty claims then it should take 10X as much fuel. That way you can only realistically support a few Sov. claiming POS's in your system, and the 7 day challenge period to take it away is going to cost you. Let people have their mining POS's and base's for ammo building/ratting. But to cover a station/outpost you can either mine 10X as much ice or actually have to think about how many POS's you use for defence and make it a part of your plan rather than putting up a POS on every available moon and having it support your claim on the system for 1/2 cost.
Darcuese Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.07 12:25:00 - [26] Edited by: Darcuese on 07/11/2006 12:27:08 Tbh, I would remove soveregnity the way it work atm. Would have stations with improved HP. Improved in a way that each station cant be taken down fast as it can be taken atm. Couse primary objective in the end is taking down the station and unable your opponents to use it for logistic purpose. RL siege of castles (for examples) lasted longer then day normaly. But in the end it was castle that needed to be taken down (atackers and defenders involved), and not some random villages (POSes) to claim victory. But i know it was something from the EVE history, and probably had problems that made CCP to invent this POS style. I dont know if raising HP of station is good solution or something else...but it is a bit funny that taking station have almoust nothing to do with station itself but with POSes. And hi Omeega, nice to know you keeping an close eye to these POS threads Darth Solo=McCready...in different package
Major Tarsis Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.08 11:11:00 - [27] Originally by: CamMan KILLING POS's POS's are easy enough to take down with superior tactics, it is just alliances that dont have superior tactics revert to POS spamming a system as it is "easier". A fully fitted POS is on the range of 2 bill isk, so if you arent willing to defend your POS's then the alliance can lose isk very quickly. Easy way to take down POS's are to kill most enemy that are currently in the system, then blockade the gate to stop reinforcements from arriving. Meaning they have to engage in PvP and win in order to stop their POS's being taken down. I would say this is open for discussion not flames etc.. but that is probably a little much to ask. The highlighted above is the way POS warfare should be carried out however can I ask how you would take a POS out under the following conditions: You have control of the system and you have blockaded the gates with Fleets and bubbles. There is a large number of hostiles jump into the system in Tech 1 ships (read cheap and disposable). However they log while cloaked and log on an alt onthe same account. The ships warp off to the usual emergency warp out point. However they log back on and start to warp to the gate in warp they log out and back onto the alt on the same account. This process is repeated until they are far enough off the gate to avoid the camp and then warp to a safe spot or friendly POS and log for a while. This is repeated for the few ships that happen to get shot by the fleets at the gate camp, until 99% of the large fleet wis now safely in system in either a SS or a friendly POS. Meanwhile the attacking force that had control of the system has initiated a dread seige of the POS (deathstar type) and will put this into reinforced mode in say 40 mins (depending on POS setup etc). Once the attacking Dreads are in seige mode with the POS engaging them and the dreads happily tanking away, the defenders start their defence of their POS now the ships have managed to get past the bubble camps. However the defenders do not fight for the POS instead they go for a NODE crash. After the NODE comes back on line the attacking force resume their gate camps the defenders reassemble at their Safespots or friendly POSes and the Dread pilots now in pods due to the POS's guns killing the Dreads during the node crash decide warp to a safe spot and decide on the next events. So the defenders have defended the POS and have not actually fought anyone but the server for it. The attackers have lost Dreads to a Node crash and are busy petitioning CCP about the losses. How is this type of POS defense counterable with the current game mechanics? MT My comments are purely in character and should not be considered a personal attack especially if taken out of context. - awaiting mods reply via email.
Tessa Vaako Ars Caelestis Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:09:00 - [28] Half a year ago Seleene made an excellent post on this topic. I still agree with it. -- The Future is Exciting.
Mallick Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.08 15:32:00 - [29] Support POS Overhaul! Support POS Overhaul - Read it NOW!

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.