| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rowan Mayfair
   |
Posted - 2007.03.29 15:29:00 -
[1]
Enemy POS in highsec - is there still no way to take it down?
If not, CCP - what do we have to do to convince you to give these highsec POS owners a bit of risk?
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 15:48:00 -
[2]
It's a risk versus reward schema. High sec POS don't produce much reward. They can't mine moon materials, can't run reactors, require additional costs in starbase charters to run, cannot benefit from 25% soverignty fuel reduction like 0.0 POS can and they aren't valuable as bases of operations because there are very few high sec systems without NPC stations.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Tunajuice
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 16:58:00 -
[3]
Last I heard, concord didn't fire at you for attacking a pos?
So no, can't use dreads. I am pretty sure a fleet of properly tanked BS can take down even a large POS with the right strategy... DPS wise BS can easily do it. I think with right resists you won't blow up that many BS before you warp out.. its not like most large POS in empire have 5000 guns or anything.
|
Rowan Mayfair
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 18:02:00 -
[4]
From what I have heard, Concord defends hisec POS even if you are at war. If this is true, then there is no apparent way to hit a hisec POS by the current game mechanics. It's this imbalance I feel needs addressed.
|
Arric Rohr
Valley Forge
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 19:47:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Rowan Mayfair
From what I have heard, Concord defends hisec POS even if you are at war. If this is true, then there is no apparent way to hit a hisec POS by the current game mechanics. It's this imbalance I feel needs addressed.
There is no imbalance. High Security POS are very expensive to run and of limited usefulness. However, there is no game mechanic that keeps you from shooting at one. You just need to have the stones to tank Concord while you are doing it. What's the matter, you don't have them? Oh well...
AR
*Where do I get one of those cool signatures?* |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 20:02:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Arric Rohr
Originally by: Rowan Mayfair
From what I have heard, Concord defends hisec POS even if you are at war. If this is true, then there is no apparent way to hit a hisec POS by the current game mechanics. It's this imbalance I feel needs addressed.
There is no imbalance. High Security POS are very expensive to run and of limited usefulness. However, there is no game mechanic that keeps you from shooting at one. You just need to have the stones to tank Concord while you are doing it. What's the matter, you don't have them? Oh well...
AR
Well technically nobody should have them. It's concord.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Rowan Mayfair
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 20:05:00 -
[7]
The cost to setup/run the POS is irrelevant. Outposts cost much isk, and they can be taken. Titans are astronomically expensive, and they can be popped. Why should a little thing like a highsec POS be immune to destruction?
|
The Executive
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 21:07:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rowan Mayfair
The cost to setup/run the POS is irrelevant. Outposts cost much isk, and they can be taken. Titans are astronomically expensive, and they can be popped. Why should a little thing like a highsec POS be immune to destruction?
No, the running costs are definitely not irrelevant:
a) Because the set up costs/running costs are high compared to the reward, having to also run defences in high sec, where all you can do is research, would make the majority of POSes, especially small corp POSes who don't have the manpower to run large POSes, inefficient to run and they would probably be taken down.
b) This would then increase the public ME research problem, which is already ridiculously out of hand.
It would be much harder to take part in production unless you're in a huge industrial corp who have the economies of scale to run large POSes and defence and still maintain a profit.
So no, it is not imbalanced, what would be imbalanced would be high sec POSes sharing the same risks as a low sec POS, with a fraction of the benefits.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 22:33:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Rowan Mayfair
The cost to setup/run the POS is irrelevant. Outposts cost much isk, and they can be taken. Titans are astronomically expensive, and they can be popped. Why should a little thing like a highsec POS be immune to destruction?
Running costs minus the amount of isk you can make at the POS equals the reward that POS brings. In high sec, you can't mine or react, giving very low amounts of isk to be made. This and the increased running costs make high sec POS give low rewards. The risk should be equally low and it is.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
qvacky
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 05:47:00 -
[10]
Originally by: The Executive
No, the running costs are definitely not irrelevant:
a) Because the set up costs/running costs are high compared to the reward, having to also run defences in high sec, where all you can do is research, would make the majority of POSes, especially small corp POSes who don't have the manpower to run large POSes, inefficient to run and they would probably be taken down.
b) This would then increase the public ME research problem, which is already ridiculously out of hand.
It would be much harder to take part in production unless you're in a huge industrial corp who have the economies of scale to run large POSes and defence and still maintain a profit.
So no, it is not imbalanced, what would be imbalanced would be high sec POSes sharing the same risks as a low sec POS, with a fraction of the benefits.
Rubbish. CONCORD firing at everyone who shoots a high-sec pos is just as much of a bug as when they didn't protect the pos at all.
The risk of running a high sec pos is very much reduced by not being able to use dreads to attack it. Which basically means that anything bigger than a small pos should be near on invincible unless you've really ****ed someone off.
|
|
|
Shameless Avenger
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 08:30:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rowan Mayfair
Enemy POS in highsec - is there still no way to take it down?
If not, CCP - what do we have to do to convince you to give these highsec POS owners a bit of risk?
Maybe give these POS owners a little bit of reward? And please don't come with the POS=BPC_Printing_Machine fairy tale.
The truth is this:
High Sec POS are 99% of the time dedicated research facilities. They cost a lot up-front, it cost a lot of isk to fuel them and it even costs RL money too as you need 2nd and 3rd accounts just to have enough characters to use all the available slots.
And what's the reward? Your research is done faster.
On the long run, the same or even better results could be achieved by just queueing a whole lot of jobs on NPC stations using multiple characters. The pos have queue-less limited ammount of slots. NPC station are queue-infested but have a lot more slots available for you to queue in.
So, make the High Sec POS gankable and researchers will offline-them and use the NPC stations, using more characters to make up for the time lost to the waiting queue.
That will affect the noob industrialist trying to research his shuttle BPO. It would hurt the ice miners. It would benefit t2 producers since it would hurt invention. But the corp owning the POS don't have to suffer. There are workarounds to get the research done.
In the end, I keep my POS just cuz I like the shiny lights.
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 12:08:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 30/03/2007 12:08:40
A usual research pos should be tankable, if you do it right.
But I have no clue, if concord responds, although the corp has been war-decced.
We shot some armed small and medium ratting/refining poses in 0.0, some with only with BS, some with mixed dread/bs-gangs and it worked. Highest hits I received were over 8000 damage, 6000 was not uncommon. Battleship still lives. 
___________
Muuuhhh !!! |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |