EVE Search - A proposal to reduce POS spam and add more strategy to POS wars

All Channels

Science and Industry

A proposal to reduce POS spam and add more strategy to 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)
Dalekplunger Slick Caldari DPS Holding Corporation	Posted - 2007.01.31 19:54:00 - [1] Current Mechanics: Deploy more large towers than your enemy has in order to capture sovereignty. Having 51% of a system's moons covered with large towers ensures that you will hold sovereignty unless the enemy attacks your towers. Moons are identical to each other in value. Proposed Mechanics: Bring planets into the calculation. Instead of basing sovereignty on a flat majority of all moons, base it on a majority of moons orbiting a majority of planets. This makes some moons much more valuable than others and reduces the number of large towers needed to control a system. Example: Our beloved Jita. 8 planets 33 moons If Jita was a conquerable system you would need 17 large towers, (51% coverage), to ensure sovereignty and force an enemy to attack your towers. This is pretty tame û there are systems with up to 80 moons in the game û but it's a good example anyway. How would the new system work? Jita planets I and II have no moons. Neither does planet VIII. This means that out of 8 planets only 5 are in contention. If one side captures a majority of moons at a majority of these planets they will get sovereignty. Let's take a closer look at the planets in contention: III û 1 moon IV û 12 moons V û 17 moons VI û 1 moon VII û 2 moons While in the old system you would need 17 POSes to secure Jita, this new system would require only 4. You could capture planets III, VI, and VII and force a siege if an enemy wanted to take the system. In the new system a POS at planet III is incredibly more valuable than a POS at planet V. Let's say that the ruler of Jita goes with this 4-POS plan. An invader arrives and puts 7 towers on planet IV and 9 towers on planet V, thus capturing those two planets. The battle then turns to the single-moon planets of III and VI. That is where the war is decided. Fewer towers, more strategy, and a nice lead-in to enhanced sovereignty bonuses and more starbase structures.
Salvis Tallan Gallente Team Condor	Posted - 2007.01.31 20:15:00 - [2] The issue I see here is that ccp wants to break up the blob wars, and if you have 2 entire fleets fighting it out over one POS constantly, its not really helping. Also if you weight it like this, taking systems will be an incredibly uphill battle for the invaders, having to set up 16 deathstars or so in this situation while fighting off the enemy, who only have to worry about defending 4 POSs and so have more offensive ability. ------
Banedon Runestar Gallente Blue Star Enterprises	Posted - 2007.01.31 23:17:00 - [3] Why would they need to follow the old deployment rules? Blow away the old POS and put up one of your own. This is an interesting idea. ----- Blue Star Enterprises
Salvis Tallan Gallente Team Condor	Posted - 2007.01.31 23:38:00 - [4] Originally by: Banedon Runestar Why would they need to follow the old deployment rules? Blow away the old POS and put up one of your own. What do you mean by this? 'Blow away the old POS' is what we have now. If you mean why I was taking about setting up 16 stations, its because (in my opinion) in that scenario, most of the moons have nothing around them, so they only have to worry about fighting a fleet to put up the stations. Then once those are up and the attackers are controling some moons/planets, they only have to attack the single-moon planet's stations, rather than all 4. Once they get that single station they win sov, and one fight is far easier than 4. This all still suffers from the Blob problem that CCP is trying to move away from aswell. ------
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2007.02.01 11:41:00 - [5] Thats quite good idea. If implemented then it might be used also for planned 'planetary interaction' in future. Something on the lines, that before you get acsess to planets you will need to claim 'mini sovernity' over those planets. No idea how it would affect actual gameplay. Propably not mutch as in big enough fights both sides are usually capable (question on it's own is if they are willing) of removing any deathstar type towers.
Evil Oreo	Posted - 2007.02.02 06:52:00 - [6] What is this griefing topic filled with near-unintelligible English?

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.