EVE Search - Starbase Warfare 2.0

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Starbase Warfare 2.0 - Feedback thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Arcadia1701 Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.05 12:30:00 - [61] All this is doing is making blobs even stronger and more un-stopable. My sig> Post with your main, or don't post at all.
Goberth Ludwig eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.05.05 12:49:00 - [62] BRIDGES - beware of all the potential gamebreaking stuff about those that you cant test on sisi !!! 1) Please add a time delay to bridges - like you activate them and you are jumped after 5 minutes. Reason: stuff jump bridging from nowhere is alredy a BIG ISSUE when trying to get a fight in pvp. Everytime you try getting a fight you need to worry wheter a bunch of carriers could be cynoed in from nowhere. Now with the bridge unless you check every moon of a system before engaging you will never know if an ENTIRE FLEET could spawn from nowhere and drop on top of your head. 2) Please make them require sov to anchor AND operate. We all know how easy it is to sneak up a pos in hostile space... next step you simply throw up a bridge and jump in a swarm of freighters -> add that to the fight freighters can now operate from cans when at a POS you basically make it a joke to resupply ships and troops in he middle of hostile territory not to mention this makes POS spamming a lot easier. 3) Please have a relevant activation cost on bridges. Once bridges are in the game WHY should anyone ever "fly up and down the pipe" to move into 0.0 ? Result => pirating in the pipes will become useless apart from killing some noobs in their shuttles. In fact even with an activation cost anyone with something expensive would use the bridge anyway... basically this forces all forms of piracy to happen at belts or the 0.0 entry gate camps. Bye bye roaming piracy... This could also be in part solved by making the bridge require sov as suggested in 2) ... but then you would have the main alliance bridge up the entry point and then all others having a bridge 1 jump away. I hope you have considered all this stuff when designing bridges because its not something that can be tested on sisi - Gob
Sniser 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.05 13:06:00 - [63] Edited by: Sniser on 05/05/2007 13:03:21 Moving defense outside pos make them vunerable to dreads. So i think its the time we need capital sized defense turrets. very dangerous to capital ships but very vunerable to battleships and support. So if someone wants attack a pos , first should send small fleets killing defenses and later come in capitals
Ale Tricio Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.05.05 13:20:00 - [64] How about having Sovrenty MODULES say max 5 per system or something to that effect. There by attackers can only erect a sov module once there's a free module space available. Allows attackers a fair chance and cuts down on 60-70 large pos's being deployed to defend systems which quite honestly isnÆt fun for the defenders that have to spend weeks putting them up or the attackers taking just as long taking them down. The point is to have fun playing a game not spend hours reading a book or doing homework with hitting an anchor button every 10 minutes honestly or reload on your dreads for that matter. It should also get the Fight aspect back into the pos warfare and not this "oh their attacking our less and 700 million isk pos with tens of billions in assets. oh well we'll not risk 5 TII bs to try defend it because it costs more to replace than the pos. Just throw up another one on the spare moon over there" syndrome
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.05 13:57:00 - [65] Edited by: Silvero on 05/05/2007 13:56:49 The pos spamming of today is just ridiculos, and now a suggestion of even making the cheap structures capable to take down multibillions investments such as dread is well simply deranged. If players know they gonna lose 1-2 dreads for every pos you siege unless you can field atleast 50 dreads, who is gonna siege ? Answer no one.... (or maybe the top 3-4 alliances) Solution posspam yourself until your eyes bleed .... Sounds fun dosen't it ! What we need is a soverginity module as Ale Tricio points out, i know this has been suggested before and it's about time to implement it. Only 1 module per system can claim soverginity, if you want soverginity you have to take it down and erect your own module simple as that. More then one can be erected in the same system but only one can claim soverginity, and they should be perma anchored. And i'll recon a price tag of about 3-5 bil a module whould be suitable. To make sure there is no sov module race into hostile territory when it gets released, all alliances already claiming soverginity in systems should get "one" sov module per system, and it should be anchored.
Bozse Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.05 16:46:00 - [66] Checked the HP of a large gun today and 1,5m armor with 100k shield would take a dread fleet of 30+ 2-3min to kill so hardly enough to be called defences. POS warfare has big issues as some allready has pointed out, i started writing down an idea around this a while back that never got finished but might aswell post parts of it here now. Keep in mind that this is just a rough idea so far: ** Change the current POS's to be of different types hence making them more suited for what ever purpouse u have them, this will make it more easy to balance out and allso change over time if something steps out of balance with future changes. New SOV claiming tower: (Only required for SOV in station systems) This POS type would be the most powerfull military POS with 4-5 times the hitpoints / powergrid / cpu (caldari) then the current large tower, modules allowed would be defensive and corp hangars, only 1 of these would be allowed per system to preven the POS spam tactics we see today. New Capital POS: Tower for building capitals, not come up with a final idea on this yet but as it is today "ganking" a large tower is to easy hence some sollution is needed that's not overpowered but still prevents it. My thought atm would be a much larger structure buffert forcing more siege cycles to get the shield down allowing more time to defend but not an optimal sollution, allowing some form of repair mods to it might be another , tradeoff would be firepower forcing u to defend with ships rather then POS guns. New Industrial POS: (All 3 sizes) Less PG but more CPU allowing for more industrial mods to be anchored at the cost of defenses, can disalow hardners on this pos to make it vulnrable but efficent for it's purpouse, could allso have a bonus to CPU fuel use. The possibilitys with more specific towers is endless and not as hard to balance that todays POS's is, a SOV module is another way to solve the spam issue but i prefer the specific tower for it. For weapons i think a better sollution would be to allow grouping of guns with the current system (still inside shields and non-player controlled), a maxed group shuld be able to deal about the same dps as a 1 rep dread in siege can repair with resists (t2 kit), ordinary large shuld be able to field perhaps 2 groups and SOV tower around 8 groups (debatable ofc) Another thing that needs some love regarding POS is the reenforcement timer, the ability to set a static time that u want your POS to come out of reenforced, the amount of stront in the POS would decide if it stays in for 1,2 or 3 days, only time it wouldn't come out at the set time is if the stront amount is to low to last to the set time and then would just be in reenforced as long as it has stront. Damn tired atm so hope my ramblings makes some sense Originally by:** CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
Kaahles Decadence. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.05.05 17:29:00 - [67] just a short question. Is it possible to lower the anchoring/onlining time for the towers and modules for the time of POS testing? Would save much time in deploying and gives as more time for testing And I think this "Claiming Module" would be a nice solution to avoid POS Spamming. And i want to see two types of towers too. Industrial towers and military towers would be realy nice. Arr. any... as far as i can see you well be able to conrol 5 defense modules max. with the infrastructur tactical officer skill. Will it be changed for the case you got more guns? or will two chars be able to control up to 5 guns at the same tower at the same time?
Tobias Sjodin Caldari Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.05 18:38:00 - [68] For some reason I think CCP really already has decided on this, and really wanted to have some feedback for maybe a small tweak or so. Which is pretty sad, since it seems TO ME that this change shows a lack of insight into the problem with player owned stations currently.
Shavar	Posted - 2007.05.05 18:54:00 - [69] This needs a good fix if you are supose to keep capital building arrays outside the POS shields and ofcorse if we are supose to be abel to use our freighters to load the arrays. 2007.05.05 18:47:18 Hint The cargo of this class of ship can only be moved while docked at hangar or close to an online Control Tower.
Arlenna Molatov Caldari The 59th Parallel	Posted - 2007.05.05 19:33:00 - [70] Bad and BAd and worse ideas. Putting starbase structure outside the shields....geeze, how damn easy do they want to make it to kill towers now? Unless they increase tower PG/CPU by 25-50% to make up for the lack of those structure defences so that the guns could actually kill Capital ships, then its pointless and removes the little advantage the "defensive" team had. You see how short of time it takes a concerted effort from a Dread fleet to take out a tower. And defensive structures will NOT have the HP of a tower....its a joke. Sorry CCP but it seems the overwhelming consensus here is.....Sorry, try again please.

Karu Manara	Posted - 2007.05.05 20:15:00 - [71] Edited by: Karu Manara on 05/05/2007 20:14:49 You state that only "defensive structures" are being placed outside the starbase forcefield; and yet on Sisi, my CHA, SMA, and hardeners were moved outside the POS. Good job ;) What's more is that my 50-or-so guns are now a mess! Do you have ANY regard for the amount of time it takes me to set up my POS so that I can test it the way I wanted? With guns being outside the bubble, it's going to take FOREVER to pack up a POS! You'd better make the POS able to multitask your anchoring/unanchoring/onlining orders, or else you're going to make a lot of POS managers very unhappy. According to the Infrastructure Tactical Officer skill, you'll be able to control a maximum of 5 arrays (1 arrays per level). You do know that controlling only 5 guns will be utterly useless, right? What's more is that if you're only able to control them while you're outside the bubble, it'll be really easy for the hostiles to remove you rather than the guns. Good job ;) Jump bridges sound pretty awesome with both good and bad consequences. Will they have a maximum range? Will they work for alliance members as well? Will they work for anyone in the forcefield (even non-alliance members)? If there's a forcefield password at the destination starbase, will your ship's password automagically get set? Lots of questions...! Edit: Oh, and you're making all these changes to starbases, and yet STILL not a word on fixing structures to actually be able to be used by alliance members. When will I be able to use alliance mobile labs for copy jobs? Invention jobs? What about manufacturing slots? It seems to me as though you (CCP) are yet again adding new features without regards to existing problems.
G Dabak Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.05 22:12:00 - [72] 1) Damage seems a little too low now that the guns are actually usable and can be disabled. I don't mean they should be ganking dreads, but they should be more of a threat to capitals if you decide to stack up on guns over other modules. 2) Autorepair module is definitely needed. It could just rep a big chunk of armor/structure every hour, maybe even a percentage like 5% or 10% because repairing a gun that's halfway through structure would be a nightmare. 3) Fighters/drones wouldn't make them shoot back, and I had to aggress each one individually (rather than shoot one and get shot by all). These aren't a big deal in a real situation with standings etc, but it seems like a bug to me. Turrets were also slow to respond, so I hope they work immediately with a player controlling them. 4) Echoing support for other POS suggestions: - Restrictions on the number of sov-claiming POSs in a system either though a special POS or sov module. - Launchers, hardeners, and EW should not shut off when reinforced - Stront timing should be restricted to specific lengths - POS set up/take down time should be lowered somehow. Maybe by lowering timers or making certain modules more effective with higher fitting cost so you need fewer. - Lower fuel requirements or at least fuel volumes. Although if we had to have fewer starbases for sov this might not matter. I'd still like more of an emphasis on ice and less on trade goods.
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.05.05 23:52:00 - [73] good ideas i would say but: we need co-processors, reactor controls, MAUX (those will increase total fuel use on pos) so we can fitt up to 6 more large turrets with implementing jump bridges, make sure such an array needs massive cpu and pg (defenses would stay week) ah, and it should require constellation SOV - Outpost bpc available, check my bio -
Arcadia1701 Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.06 02:04:00 - [74] Edited by: Arcadia1701 on 06/05/2007 02:03:15 Nice one guys, just had my cap ship assembly arrays killed, with in progress MS inside , cause they got moved outside the POS field. No onder no one tests ** on sisi anymore. Theres always some ** to ruin it all for u. The he decided to shoot my freighter while i put out a new one. Weres a dev to bann these s when u need one. Why did ALL structres get moved? last time i checked a cap ship array isnt an defensive or offensive structure. I bet this post vanishes, and nothing gets done about the rule breaking. My sig> Post with your main, or don't post at all.**
Bozse Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.06 02:50:00 - [75] Originally by: Arcadia1701 Edited by: Arcadia1701 on 06/05/2007 02:27:15 Nice one guys, just had my cap ship assembly arrays killed, with in progress MS inside , cause they got moved outside the POS field. No onder no one tests ** on sisi anymore. Theres always some ** to ruin it all for u. The he decided to shoot my freighter while i put out a new one. Weres a dev to bann these s when u need one. Why did ALL structres get moved? last time i checked a cap ship array isnt an defensive or offensive structure. The new ones i put out, have gone online inside the field at least. But i bet they magicly spring out after DT . And get killed again. I bet this post vanishes, and nothing gets done about the rule breaking. Since were not even told who to contact when they are broken. And theres been no devs on to ask for any kind of help for days, even in the supercapital channel. #eve-chaos channel on the Coldfront IRC server, this would be your best bet of getting help with this, save the mail with the attackers name aswell. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world

BH Desryn ISD BH Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2007.05.06 03:00:00 - [76] I am always in the Starbase-Warfare channel on sisi when I am logged in. [Bug Report Here]

Arcadia1701 Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.06 03:06:00 - [77] Edited by: Arcadia1701 on 06/05/2007 03:02:53 Ill try contact u tomorowo then:P. Im still ahveing problems with the eve - chaos channel, im all registered, logged in etc etc. Yet apparently it thinks im still un registered, so i cant join it. My sig> Post with your main, or don't post at all.
Bozse Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.06 06:52:00 - [78] Did some testing of a large towers firepower on sisi today to get a better feel for what a single dread could take. POS config was: Large Minmatar Tower 4 Large Autocannons 5 Medium Artillerys 10 Medium Autocannons Moros setup was: 1x Capital rep 3x active hardeners t2 exp/therm/kin 1x EANM t2 2x Magstab t2 3x Rails 1x Siege module Rest was cap including rigs Tank started to strugle with: 4 L ac's 5 M Artys 7 M ac's Once the last 3 M ac's was online there was no way to tank it with that fitting, this setup was as max dmg pos as u can get which shows that currently the issue lies more with the fact that a pos can't produce anough dmg to make a differance, the sugested sollution while beeing effective if u can get all guns to focus like this is still not a good one. While in siege i engaged one of the large guns and would have got it down to structure and disabled it in 1 siege cycle so a fleet of 20+ dreads would take 10min to disable all guns and then bring in the BS fleet to help make up the lost time. My sugestion as the earlier post would be to cut PG requrement on the guns by 50% thus giving the tower more firepower, make a new tab in the management inteface where u can setup 2 groups of guns each allowing 50% of the towers total PG (any gun not grouped would work as they do today). Keep the guns inside the bubble and either have them use the current targeting system that cycles (doesn't matter if u get both groups on u then as it will move on) or allow the groups to be player controlled with the restriction that they can't both have the same target locked. An alternative to the restriction could be allowing carriers/moms to remote repair sieging dreads but would need a less then 3 sec lock time on gang members to be effective for that (which i think they shuld have either way) Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
Rabb Darktide Independent Fleet O X I D E	Posted - 2007.05.06 08:31:00 - [79] Rather than weakening one of the few strenghs POS have, why not work on some of the things that make POS operations on the same level as major dental work? Specifically: 1)Repackaging stuff in hangers 2)Being able to do a "stack all" within a reasonable amount of time. 3)Allow more than one person to go near a ship array 4)Being able to use cans inside pos hangers 5)Being able to store a ship with ammo inside 6)Being able to rename corp hangar arrays 7)Being able to unanchor a corp hanger without something being "stuck" inside And about 100 other things... ---- Rabb Darktide Fleet Admiral (CEO) / O X I D E High Council Independent Fleet [INDF] INDF Recruitment
Entilzah Valen 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.05.06 11:30:00 - [80] Originally by: Bozse My sugestion as the earlier post would be to cut PG requrement on the guns by 50% thus giving the tower more firepower, make a new tab in the management inteface where u can setup 2 groups of guns each allowing 50% of the towers total PG (any gun not grouped would work as they do today). Keep the guns inside the bubble and either have them use the current targeting system that cycles (doesn't matter if u get both groups on u then as it will move on) or allow the groups to be player controlled with the restriction that they can't both have the same target locked. An alternative to the restriction could be allowing carriers/moms to remote repair sieging dreads but would need a less then 3 sec lock time on gang members to be effective for that (which i think they shuld have either way) Some winner ideas in there. Talk with your friends and corpmates folks. Ultimately we decide what is fun or not, so the better ideas we all come up with the better things can be. __________________________ Quote: Marko Debreault > I WILL MAKE BROTH FROM YOUR BLOOD AND DRINK IT FROM YOUR SKULL

Lin Dei Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2007.05.06 14:53:00 - [81] I'm sure the reason devs put these structures outside POS's is because they couldn't code it that you can target outside the pos while you were in the pos. Just fix that rather than doing some elaborate work-around coding. Either that or make guns invulnerable even when outside the shields and let them be controled by a player. Fixes needed: - Make anchoring/unanchoring easier/faster. - Fix the AI so it actually shoots all the time - Remeber not everyone has large pos's. Some people can only afford a small or medium pos, and now you're making them extreemly weak. Weakening them means small corps cannot play in low-sec/0.0 anymore because any random single dread or BS gang can take it out. Please don't forget the smaller groups of players in EVE. - Need a way to monitor the status of guns from the pos menu. We need info like HP, Ammo and perhaps the target. - Make POS's more dangerous. Having a dread or two tank a pos is insane. ------------------ If you see me post it's because either: 1) Silly forums made me do it 2) Because I was too lazy to change characters 3) Because I wanted to 4) <insert mod comment here>
Bruno Capri Minmatar The Scarecrows	Posted - 2007.05.06 15:19:00 - [82] Whatever you do, don't spend any amount of time trying to tidy up your POS and re-anchor non-defensive structures back inside the forcefield. 'Cus guess what? They move back outside the forcefield again after downtime _______________ Fight the Power
Murukan Minmatar Chaos Reborn	Posted - 2007.05.06 19:32:00 - [83] If you absolutly have to have pos jump bridges then make them cap ships only. Cause or else you really will just make small gang warfare that much harder. I thought ccp wanted to eliminate blobs. It's rather frustrating when you have been telling us for the last couple months how you're going to improve the usefullness of small gangs and then turn around and completely demolish them Manlove by Zaphod Jones
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2007.05.06 19:49:00 - [84] Sounds like good ideas but also like this means POS's need more gigantic weapons specifically to take down cap ships. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Bozse Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.06 20:04:00 - [85] Originally by: Frug Sounds like good ideas but also like this means POS's need more gigantic weapons specifically to take down cap ships. Imo POS's shuld never have enough firepower to take down cap ships solo, enough to keep there tanks buissy if targeted yes but u shuld allways have to use your ships to make the tanks brake and kill the dreads. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.05.07 04:37:00 - [86] - Whats the point of the forcefield if it doesn't protect assembly arrays and hangars? - If a single carrier / dread can strip the modules off a large POS in a different timezone (when the POS owner is working or sleeping) then this will get reaaally ugly really fast.
Tegan Darcy	Posted - 2007.05.07 04:50:00 - [87] A POS is a fixed defensive structure that depending on its importance a corp should Have the ability to decide just how well defended or affensive it can be. Limiting the total amout of defenses by limiting CPU or Power for technical reasons makes logic but allow the owner to decide not CCP if the POS will be a death star of huge proportions or a great annoying rock in space designed to absorb vast amouts of damage. Also let this be changeable so that someone coming in to beat on a rock could find themselves taking huge damage themselves. Flexability will be the real fun and practical defense not some fixed idea a few have today. Put on POS defensive shield boosters, Remote armor repers and structure repers. Give the attacher a real fight but make it worthwhile. take out the defenses, sake out the shields, take the POS. what infrustrcture was the enemy's now is yours. The defensive fixed fortification advantage has always been that relatively small numbers of men can hold off great numbers of enemy. But real victory has always come down to the ability to bring the best most effective force the the battlefield in the most effective time frame. TAKE out the jump gate bring in the right force you win.
Thomas Torquemada Minmatar Universal Peace Corp	Posted - 2007.05.07 06:42:00 - [88] Originally by: Miyau Won't jump bridges put an end to incidental PvP within alliance regions? How will I be able to go harrass my enemy if they're all travelling about invincibly and invisibly using jump bridges? Id hope whatever portal at Starbase A) would not then be useable in either direction for a good while after its been used. Otherwise well have the equivalent of a FPS Bunny Hop situation. UPC - PVP'ers Good and Bad, How Do You Want Peace? Through Talk Or In A Casket? We Decide! Peace My Brothers...
Thomas Torquemada Minmatar Universal Peace Corp	Posted - 2007.05.07 06:43:00 - [89] Originally by: Arcadia1701 All this is doing is making blobs even stronger and more un-stopable. Have the fuel requirement of a jump exponentially increase depending on the gang/fleet using it, and increase the time taken to reuse the portal again increasing the recharge time according to fleet size. UPC - PVP'ers Good and Bad, How Do You Want Peace? Through Talk Or In A Casket? We Decide! Peace My Brothers...
Thomas Torquemada Minmatar Universal Peace Corp	Posted - 2007.05.07 06:48:00 - [90] Originally by: Sniser Edited by: Sniser on 05/05/2007 13:03:21 Moving defense outside pos make them vunerable to dreads. So i think its the time we need capital sized defense turrets. very dangerous to capital ships but very vunerable to battleships and support. So if someone wants attack a pos , first should send small fleets killing defenses and later come in capitals Boost the damage on all weapons systems, and add things like target painter batterys, and maybe Smartbomb Defence Batterys to act like a minefield, if were to have external POS structures then id like to see a minefield style ability and maybe other interesting toys. UPC - PVP'ers Good and Bad, How Do You Want Peace? Through Talk Or In A Casket? We Decide! Peace My Brothers...



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: 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.