Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Xtro 2
Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 07:08:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Kaylana Syi If you give massive hp boost to the guns and the focus fire ability /w the ability to control what they target you have a winner. You'll loose so many dreads on a well protected POS that it will make people think twice before they bring in the dreads.
You commit a mothership or a carrier squad to kill the guns and you could have a massacre of those ships on your hands if you are serious about claiming space.
I see really good changes here beneath the surface. Lets just hope you don't break the system even more. It can't get much worse than it is now tbh.
As long as POS weapons are given a mass dmg increase then dreads should be at risk, we do have carriers with 50+k range on remote reps, and the ability to use repair drones, maybe its about time they got the chance to be of use in that role.
Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder. |
Xtro 2
Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 07:25:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Xtro 2 on 07/05/2007 07:23:35 I see the minimum anchoring distance from the POS is only a mere 5000m, i got all excited when i heard you could place outside the POS, tbh i think weapons/ecm should be anchorable up to 50k from the shields, with defensive things like shield hardeners etc being set to 5k - 10k.
You cannot target to remote repair the structures from inside the POS bubble, leaving repairers etc open to sniping, this is why i think offensive structures should have a 50k limit to anchoring to get repair squads spread out and to further the distance of countermeasures/pos defences.
Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder. |
Chewan Mesa
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 07:54:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Xtro 2
Originally by: Kaylana Syi If you give massive hp boost to the guns and the focus fire ability /w the ability to control what they target you have a winner. You'll loose so many dreads on a well protected POS that it will make people think twice before they bring in the dreads.
You commit a mothership or a carrier squad to kill the guns and you could have a massacre of those ships on your hands if you are serious about claiming space.
I see really good changes here beneath the surface. Lets just hope you don't break the system even more. It can't get much worse than it is now tbh.
As long as POS weapons are given a mass dmg increase then dreads should be at risk, we do have carriers with 50+k range on remote reps, and the ability to use repair drones, maybe its about time they got the chance to be of use in that role.
Afaik you can not remote rep a dread in siege.
|
Princess Voodoo
FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 09:45:00 -
[94]
Bad ideas, the whole lot.
Back to the drawing board. I KILLED SOMEONE - HERE IS A PICTURES OF IT [ ] |
BluOrange
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 11:29:00 -
[95]
Allowing fleet commanders to concentrate more force more quickly via POS jump portals will make blobbing worse. ------ Agony Unleashed is recruiting. |
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 13:22:00 -
[96]
- Infrastructure tactical officer skill.....this requires Starbase management V which in turn doesn't have a market entry ergo not seeded on the test server.
|
Internet Knight
Caldari The Knighthawks FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 14:11:00 -
[97]
Moving everything outside the bubble: that's the sh1ttiest idea ever.
Defensive structures getting a massive HP boost; mmhmm. Needed more shields and armor too, not just a lot more structure... ;) At least it's a step in the right direction
"Improved" defensive AI? Yeah, sure, I'll believe it when I see it.
Taking control of outside structures: one of the most called upon features that I've heard finally gets implemented, woo... just one problem. Combine the facts that the defensive structures are roughly worthless against capitals, can't be placed outside the bubble for it to work, and they can't tank worth a damn ... it all comes down to yet another idea gone horribly wrong (invention, anyone?). Nonetheless, there could be some boons to it: 1) Make starbase shield hardeners harden the shields of outside structures, and ffs, give the structures more shields 2) Perhaps allow people to "group" defensive structures, and then a single group will act as and count as only a single defensive structure (they all target the same thing, their shields are combined to a single hitpoint value, etc... and you can control a max of 5 groups if you have infrastructure management skill at 5) 3) Remote assistance modules (remote tracking boosters, etc) should help the structures 4) Your drone skills should boost the structures abilities: level 5 drone durabilitiy, interfacing, and sharpshooting would boost structures' shields/armor/hull by 25%, double their damage, and increase their optimal range the same amount as well; Minmatar Drone Spec 5 would boost artillery/autocannon damage an additional 10%, Caldari Drone Spec 5 would boost missile batteries damage an additional 10%, etc
Jump bridges: just about the only thing that you've mentioned that I think I'll like, as long as the following applies: 1) Anyone inside the bubble can use them (corp, alliance, non-alliance with password set, etc) 2) Jumping to a starbase with a password set won't bump people hundreds of kms away (auto-set the starbase password) 3) Ships requiring the "Capital Ships" skillbook should not be able to use it (for same reason as not being able to use a stargate) 4) Jump bridge has a limit of one activation per every 5 minutes, but can jump a whole gang through (all 200+ people in the gang count as a single activation ... anyone not in gang wouldn't be able to jump in any direction for 5 minutes, and anyone in gang wouldn't be able to jump *back* for 5 minutes) 5) Anyone using the jump bridge should get a warning if the destination starbase is set to shoot that person (standings, aggression, whatever); it's simple to think that two starbases would be able to tell eachother whether or not they'd shoot a particular person 6) Jump bridges should be short-distance without constellation sovereignty (5ly), medium-distance if one of the starbases has constellation sovereignty (10ly), or long-distance if both starbases have constellation sovereignty (15ly).
In all, it looks like some good ideas, but they definitely need refinement and most certainly need more helpful descriptions.
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 14:28:00 -
[98]
1) Make starbase shield hardeners harden the shields of outside structures, and ffs, give the structures more shields
If they are to be on the outside then i agree, still think it's a bad idea to have them outside though.
4) Your drone skills should boost the structures abilities: level 5 drone durabilitiy, interfacing, and sharpshooting would boost structures' shields/armor/hull by 25%, double their damage, and increase their optimal range the same amount as well; Minmatar Drone Spec 5 would boost artillery/autocannon damage an additional 10%, Caldari Drone Spec 5 would boost missile batteries damage an additional 10%, etc
Strongly disagree with u here, what u are asking for is the ability for a pos to kill dreads without any assistance (assuming the guns will be controlable hence able to focus fire).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Khajit Smitty
Minmatar MisFunk Inc. Frontline.
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 15:05:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Rabb Darktide 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...
Yes i agree, the existing painful/limiting/annoying/daft things about POS's should be fixed/changed at the same time these planned features are implemented.
Originally by: Bozse [i] Strongly disagree with u here, what u are asking for is the ability for a pos to kill dreads without any assistance (assuming the guns will be controlable hence able to focus fire).
And why should a large POS setup to dish damage not be able to kill of capitals without support? I think a balance needs to be found to make sieging POS's risky if done incorectly or without any form of support to aid. Just my opinion.
In-regards to the Jump Bridge idea, its no different from using a carrier to resupply POS's. It has some unique advantages and i feel it should a) have a time penalty to move a gang through it (5-15min wait) and b) possibly have a fuel cost to use it depending on the length of the jump.
Stupid idea of the moment : Why not have a defensive module that when onlined causes nearby capital ships to have their targetting system "hacked" and offensive structures on a POS can then only have X amount of targets locks on them (first come first served).
It will prevent the 30+ dreads from instapopping guns with focused fire, make the engagement longer and allow the defenders the oppurtunity to defend provided ofcourse the guns can take some punishment. Just a thought
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 15:30:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Dianabolic on 07/05/2007 15:27:06
Originally by: Khajit Smitty
Originally by: Bozse [i] Strongly disagree with u here, what u are asking for is the ability for a pos to kill dreads without any assistance (assuming the guns will be controlable hence able to focus fire).
And why should a large POS setup to dish damage not be able to kill of capitals without support? I think a balance needs to be found to make sieging POS's risky if done incorectly or without any form of support to aid. Just my opinion.
2 reasons why not:
1 - No afk, ai controlled structure should ever even come close to killing a piloted ship. Even if the structure IS controlled by a "single" person it should still not stand a chance against a deployed capital fleet, especially when...
2 - The cost of a deathstar pos is less than 1 billion isk. The cost of a single dreadnought is upwards of 1.5b (and that's a cheap dread btw).
For what it is worth, whilst these changes are being considered I would like to repeat and reiterate a post made on page 1:
Do away with pos spam, release an XL tower (only one of which may be deployed per alliance in any one system) that will be the ONLY tower able to have player controlled weapons.
Maybe make player controlled weaponry another class again (small / med / large) that do not have any ai? Thus keeping the existing options.
Make the XL tower have a seperate "grid" (similar to what ships have for rigs?) for player controlled weaponry so as to avoid them being overloaded with ai controlled guns.
Make the towers cost 10b isk each.
Do all of those things and you can justify a tower (eventually) breaking the tank of a dread but it should absolutely in no way, EVER, be able to "one volley" them. Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
|
Mortiferus
Minmatar Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 16:10:00 -
[101]
In reality I personaly see no problem with the changes made so far. As a matter of fact this should make POS warefare a bit more fun and expensive for the owners.
Now my major problem with POS's is the low low cost of them and there modules to start with, and the fact that it takes only anchoring 1 to put one up. POS should be very very costly, very very expensive to run and should take a good bit of skills to put up and maintain. Fuel on a POS as it is is to low and to easy to maintain. What, you only have to go to a POS once a week to keep it running. Oh I can see people screaming at me now. Why should it be made easy? It should not be easy, a POS should be hard to maintain and should be very expensive.
As stated in a post a bit ago a Sov POS is a huge idea and would be a great step forward. The whole concept of a POS should not be for anyone who has a few hundard million ISK and a month in game to be able to use. A POS is a mini station and should be treated as such. As it is I would hate to think how many POS's there are in game.
No single person should be able to field there own POS's, a POS should that a group effort.
As for jump bridges, Well I personaly feel this is not the way forward for Eve but as long as it is super costly and takes a huge amount of skills to put online, maintain and use maybe it will not be the disaster some see.
To bad the real problem with POS warefare is not getting solved here, that is the problem of time zones differances and the advantage some timezones have over most players in the game. Every one who has ever been involved in POS warefare knows that it is timezones that can make or break a alliance where POS warefare is concerned. The up coming changes are only going to bring this problem to the forefront even stronger.
Best looking man in M. Corp, OK Quit drooling over my good looks. |
Kukki
Gallente ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 16:19:00 -
[102]
We've been doing some changes to starbase warfare, these changes are already on Singularity for you to try out:
-Means BoB cried for help an now their developper friends must change things that BoB will not be knocked down.
Why not give a POS Fighter for its self defence? Then implant that, if one POS in the system is atacked the other POS in system will help that POS to defence it. More the Point. If u implant jump-bridges, implant that all POS in the Region open jump portals to the atacked POS and send their fighter to defend that POS. If the fighter got dmg to sruck, they will jump back, get automaticially repaired and fight again.
I miss Mines in Space. A POS has to do that much dmg that no single player can knock down a POS. Increse the dmg output of the XL weapons by 500%. That makes POS wars more interesting. _________________________________________________________________
So etwas wie dauerhaften Frieden gibt es nicht. Das h÷chste was wir erwarten |
Mag's
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 19:17:00 -
[103]
Well I sit here open mouthed. I spent weeks getting our pos's in order, only for you to tell me it was all for nothing. I'm so naffed off with this it's not true, I just feel so frustrated about all the time wasted.
Gobsmacked.
Mag
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 20:48:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Kukki We've been doing some changes to starbase warfare, these changes are already on Singularity for you to try out:
-Means BoB cried for help an now their developper friends must change things that BoB will not be knocked down.
For want of inviting flames...
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Dude, seriously, get a clue, if you really think CCP are making these changes just to suit us, when we're doing pretty damn "ok" without them, then perhaps a little time in the sunlight would help you? Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
Hast
Refused.
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 23:44:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Kukki We've been doing some changes to starbase warfare, these changes are already on Singularity for you to try out:
-Means BoB cried for help an now their developper friends must change things that BoB will not be knocked down.
you win stupid award for this millenium. yes there is stil 993 years left, but I doubt anyone will surpass you.
Originally by: omeega PICTURE TOO BIG, KGB INCOMING HAVE FUN.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 23:44:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Dianabolic Do away with pos spam, release an XL tower (only one of which may be deployed per alliance in any one system) that will be the ONLY tower able to have player controlled weapons.
Then there'd just be created a number of 'dummy' alliances and there'd be more spam.
Just limit the number of this sovereignty generating POS to one per system.....
|
Xrak
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 00:54:00 -
[107]
Sov. module please, one per alliance per system.
Sig stolen from Tekka. Evemail him for details about free sigs. <3 |
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 02:02:00 -
[108]
And why should a large POS setup to dish damage not be able to kill of capitals without support? I think a balance needs to be found to make sieging POS's risky if done incorectly or without any form of support to aid. Just my opinion.
As Dian said it's first of all the cost issue between the two, then u have the issue that no one would attack POS's if it would be powerfull enough to kill dreads without support.
What i sugested is making a POS way more powerfull then they are today, not able to kill dreads on there own but able to deal enough dps to allmost brake the tank of one, the killing shuld allways require that little bit of extra dmg from players.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Dal Thrax
Caldari Multiverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 02:14:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Bozse 1) Make starbase shield hardeners harden the shields of outside structures, and ffs, give the structures more shields
If they are to be on the outside then i agree, still think it's a bad idea to have them outside though.
4) Your drone skills should boost the structures abilities: level 5 drone durabilitiy, interfacing, and sharpshooting would boost structures' shields/armor/hull by 25%, double their damage, and increase their optimal range the same amount as well; Minmatar Drone Spec 5 would boost artillery/autocannon damage an additional 10%, Caldari Drone Spec 5 would boost missile batteries damage an additional 10%, etc
Strongly disagree with u here, what u are asking for is the ability for a pos to kill dreads without any assistance (assuming the guns will be controlable hence able to focus fire).
There is RL precedent for fixed fortifications to have the ability to take out capital ships. Personally I think arrays should just have so much cap and high slots and let the owning corp load in what they want. On the other hand the most logical weapon for a fixed fortification in EvE would be a POS mounted DDD.
Dal
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait we are screwed. delaying startup again. soon as i have time i will fill you in on the details
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 02:19:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Bozse on 08/05/2007 02:15:38 There is RL precedent for fixed fortifications to have the ability to take out capital ships. Personally I think arrays should just have so much cap and high slots and let the owning corp load in what they want. On the other hand the most logical weapon for a fixed fortification in EvE would be a POS mounted DDD.
Dal
RL has nothing to do with EVE, the need to "fit" your POS guns would be hard to balance and make seting a POS up even more time consuming, POS mounted DD would make no differance unless u think it shuld do dmg enough to kill capitals and that would never happen.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
|
Gerome Doutrande
Rue Morgue
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 05:41:00 -
[111]
What are you trying to achieve with these changes?
|
Internet Knight
Caldari The Knighthawks FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 06:00:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Bozse 1) Make starbase shield hardeners harden the shields of outside structures, and ffs, give the structures more shields
If they are to be on the outside then i agree, still think it's a bad idea to have them outside though.
4) Your drone skills should boost the structures abilities: level 5 drone durabilitiy, interfacing, and sharpshooting would boost structures' shields/armor/hull by 25%, double their damage, and increase their optimal range the same amount as well; Minmatar Drone Spec 5 would boost artillery/autocannon damage an additional 10%, Caldari Drone Spec 5 would boost missile batteries damage an additional 10%, etc
Strongly disagree with u here, what u are asking for is the ability for a pos to kill dreads without any assistance (assuming the guns will be controlable hence able to focus fire).
I also agree that it's a bad idea to have them on the outside. Good luck telling that to CCP - moving drones & fighters to only outside the bubble, and now moving structures to outside the bubble? It sounds to me like their little fscktard designers' heads are made up already.
Originally by: Dianabolic Edited by: Dianabolic on 07/05/2007 15:27:06
Originally by: Khajit Smitty
Originally by: Bozse
Strongly disagree with u here, what u are asking for is the ability for a pos to kill dreads without any assistance (assuming the guns will be controlable hence able to focus fire).
And why should a large POS setup to dish damage not be able to kill of capitals without support? I think a balance needs to be found to make sieging POS's risky if done incorectly or without any form of support to aid. Just my opinion.
2 reasons why not:
1 - No afk, ai controlled structure should ever even come close to killing a piloted ship. Even if the structure IS controlled by a "single" person it should still not stand a chance against a deployed capital fleet, especially when...
2 - The cost of a deathstar pos is less than 1 billion isk. The cost of a single dreadnought is upwards of 1.5b (and that's a cheap dread btw).
1) What I think you're failing to realize is that with my stated intentions, a POS should not (read: doesn't mean cannot, if set up for *all* guns and no hardeners whatsoever) be able to kill a dread UNLESS it's being controlled by a pilot with good drone skills. That means the idea of a POS being able to wtfpwn any fleet without a single defender wouldn't work well.
2) Who cares about the price difference? A battleship can and frequently does die to a dozen cheap frigates (just ask Agony Unleashed). Does that mean that frigates need to be omgwtfnerfed?
Originally by: Dianabolic For what it is worth, whilst these changes are being considered I would like to repeat and reiterate a post made on page 1:
Do away with pos spam, release an XL tower (only one of which may be deployed per alliance in any one system) that will be the ONLY tower able to have player controlled weapons.
Best way to remove POS spam would be to allow only one XL tower per system, not one XL tower per alliance per system.
Originally by: Dianabolic Make the towers cost 10b isk each.
Hell fscking no! That would literally bankrupt anything except the richest corporations with access to the phattest lewt!
Originally by: Dianabolic Do all of those things and you can justify a tower (eventually) breaking the tank of a dread but it should absolutely in no way, EVER, be able to "one volley" them.
I don't think anyone in their right mind wants a POS to be able to "one volley" a dread. I most certainly don't. However, I do want a POS to be able to give a single dread a good run for its money if no one is awake to defend the POS, and most certainly cause a single dread some worry if there IS someone there to defend the tower.
|
Internet Knight
Caldari The Knighthawks FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 06:05:00 -
[113]
It's also worth mentioning that I think that the resolution to POS spamming is to actually reduce the number of moons per system. I mean, come on... have you counted the number of systems that have more than two dozen moons? It's rediculously hard to find a GOOD system with a LOW mooncount that is NOT already taken by some other large alliance.
^ I speak those words as an Ex-Ratel member, not as a current FREGE member
|
Silvero
Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 06:59:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Silvero on 08/05/2007 06:56:49 Diana covered it
|
Professor Pizi
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 07:03:00 -
[115]
Do away with pos spam, release an XL tower (only one of which may be deployed per alliance in any one system) that will be the ONLY tower able to have player controlled weapons. -----------------------------------------
but this will only make it easier for the few superaliances like bob d2 .... with their extreme large cap fleet
they will take down the sov claiming tower in no time smaller alliances will struggle
|
Qual
Gallente Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 07:43:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Xrak Sov. module please, one per alliance per system.
Something much simpler would do it. Let the number of days the POS have been anchored count. Thus one pos that has been up for one year would count 356 point toward sov. So if someone spammed the remaining 20 moons in a 21 moon system would still have to wait 19 days to outweigh the lone old pos. THis would favor the long time owner defender, where as new conquests would have to be better fortified to prevent the emimy to just pos spam you out of the system again.
"The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf |
Silvero
Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 07:58:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Silvero on 08/05/2007 07:57:01 doh
|
Vanderkell
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 08:05:00 -
[118]
Anyone knows when pos structures (not defence) will be moved back inside shield ?
/Vanderkell
|
Spike Spiegle
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 08:22:00 -
[119]
Fix your overpowered titans and motherships before you break anything else! or are you still trying to deny the fact that they are over powered?
|
ZoXoR
Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 08:33:00 -
[120]
constructive reply:
reduce lag for pos warfare first
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |