Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
Nozh
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 16:43:00 -
[1]
Starbase Warfare 2.0
We've been doing some changes to starbase warfare, these changes are already on Singularity for you to try out:
- All defensive structures are being placed outside the starbase forcefield
- Defensive structures are getting a massive HP boost
- Defensive structures become incapacitated when they've taken a certain amount of damage (atm 1% structure)
- Defensive structures get reactivated once their shield reaches 50% (they need full structure/armor also, remote structure repairers are being made available)
- Improved defensive structure targeting AI
These changes are something youÆll see on Singularity in the weeks to come:
- Structure management - Ability to take control of outside structures
- More types of defensive structures
- Jump bridges (Which allow corporations to link two starbases in nearby systems, granting instantaneous transit between the two (requires sovereignty))
We need a lot of feedback on these changes, please note that the current balancing values are just placeholders at the moment, everything is yet to be tuned. WeÆve created an in-game channel on Singularity called ôstarbase-warfareö where people can discuss the changes, also weÆll be planning some events there to test the changes on a large scale.
Note: Detailed documentation will be released later.
Please try to keep the replies constructive.
Nozh EVE Online |
|
Canine Fiend
Minmatar Gekidoku Koroshiya Buntai
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 16:56:00 -
[2]
These plans sound interesting, however I do have a few bits of feedback.
Moving defensive structures outside the POS and then allowing them to be damaged to the point where they can't fight gives things like Supercapitals another unintentional boost. If I can just jump in a doomsday a bases defenses (or in some cases, multiple doomsdays) then taking down a POS is practically a cakewalk.
Will the structures still fire at targets if not under the control of a player? If not, well that's terrible.
One of the biggest things about POS warfare was that an enemy has to commit capitals, and if you set up a tower right, a support fleet will get decimated if they come in and try and help the capitals. This isn't the case now as the capitals will just take out all defensive structures first. (Do defensive structures mean hardeners as well? Because killing the hardeners before shooting the POS is just silly too)
Will capital ships be able to use the aforementioned jump portals? I foresee a freighter making 3 jumps to a 0.0 home system, where the only danger is the first or second jump through 0.0 to get to the sovereignty claiming POS.
I also think supercapitals should not be immune to ECM put out by towers, think about it... Our little ships might not be able to lock down a massive ship like a titan, but a POS? With Tons of Grid and CPU with those massive scramblers and ECM? This would also help solve that pesky Bumping ships out of a bubble problem.
Just a few thoughts, sorry if I rambled a bit.
-------------------
|
anta baka
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:02:00 -
[3]
Edited by: anta baka on 04/05/2007 16:59:15 MS immune to srambling and any EW? check MS able to spit out ****ton of drones? check MS able to tank a pos? check thanks to HP boost Guns shooting at drones/fighters? no
whats stopping the mothership then from rapping the **** out of the pos... besides having someone sit at the POS for 23/7
thats a real improvement of POS warfare
|
Righteous Fury
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:08:00 -
[4]
This is going to lead to a multitude of problems with pos warfare, I'm reserving this spot for my reasoning why,
|
Gai Servos
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:13:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Gai Servos on 04/05/2007 17:13:24 I thought you were gonna give small gangs ability to kill something :(. You primised but bah.
Again hitting the usefulness of solo and small gang PvP. You want us out of blolb and all your actions make it more blobby
|
IntegralHellsing
Gallente The League of Legitimate Nigerian Businessmen
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:14:00 -
[6]
uh..... defensive structure outside forcefield? so people can just blob the defensive structure with massive cap fleet and kill the remaining control tower easily while the support warps in without any fear of enemy pos pew pewing their ships into pieces?
i don't think so. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes by 21922 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
viceman
Caldari Without Reason
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:19:00 -
[7]
well I think this is great for small corps as they can now figth a pos without havign a bunch of dreads or a ****load of bs' --------------------- Ex-benwallace :P I am back foo! |
Hllaxiu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:20:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Canine Fiend
Will capital ships be able to use the aforementioned jump portals? I foresee a freighter making 3 jumps to a 0.0 home system, where the only danger is the first or second jump through 0.0 to get to the sovereignty claiming POS.
Since freighters can use Titan based jump portals, I would assume that the answer is yes they can.
This should be interesting - freighter loads of materials moving from lowsec (Titan) to anywhere in 0.0 nearly instantaneously. That will almost certainly cause an increase in super capital production... --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:21:00 -
[9]
Structures outside forcefield:
This should be optional. Those outside of the forcefield should be controllable, those inside should be automated (as they are now, or even with "improved" ai support) - otherwise any afk pos is vulnerable, this should not be the case, gangs of laser bs should not be able to engage in timezone wars against a POS.
(I'll go on SiSi to see these for myself later this weekend, for now though...:)
HP Boost:
How massive? What resistances? Will dread guns be able to hit them? Citadel torps? (aka what sig radius etc?)
Structures incapacitated:
Not a fan of this, would prefer to see a reduced ROF / damage output, and the balance of this change also depends on whether they can be repaired whilst the pos is in reinforced mode etc?
Reactivation:
Linked to above, structures should not be deactivated, only reduced in effectiveness and only returning to 100% capability at X %.
Improved AI:
Meaning? Shooting at one target at a time? Applying to all guns? Some guns allowed inside the shields? Details plz.
Structure Control:
Kewl... pending balance / implementation.
More types of defensive structure:
Will they use cpu? If so, they're pointless.
Jump bridges:
(Have my babies?) How will they work? Range (linked to skills?) Cost? Details plz!
I look forward to the notes :) Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
Spikum
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:22:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Spikum on 04/05/2007 17:21:00 In my opinion there should be atleast two types of poses:
1: Complete Logistic pos, with weak self defence but able to "fitt" Miningmods and all this producing stuff
2: Sovereignity only, tanked and high damage dealing with the restriction to have like only 3 per system or whatever
pos spam ftl imho :(
|
|
Ozstar
Naughty 40
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:23:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Ozstar on 04/05/2007 17:21:26
Originally by: anta baka thats a real improvement of POS warfare
Do something constructive and help them test it.
Looking forward to seeing how this develops and will help you test it if i can.
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Hllaxiu That will almost certainly cause an increase in super capital production...
I have no issue with increased production, my current issue is that (ms / titans) cannot be held down. We need capital warp scramblers, this will result in alot more dieing to counter the easier production. Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
Hllaxiu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:30:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Dianabolic
Originally by: Hllaxiu That will almost certainly cause an increase in super capital production...
I have no issue with increased production, my current issue is that (ms / titans) cannot be held down. We need capital warp scramblers, this will result in alot more dieing to counter the easier production.
Absolutely agreed - should be a module for carriers or something like that. I do not like the idea of having a huge boost in super cap production before such a change, but this is the correct thread for that. CCP needs to understand that this will vastly decrease the distances for minerals in eve. Though, I imagine that they know that...
I'm somewhat skeptical regarding the defenses changes, but this should all become more clear once its on SISI... --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:34:00 -
[14]
Allowing POS fire to be focused is a major improvement... That needs to be balanced. We'll have to see how much HP the guns will get, and I assume it's only guns right? Not hardeners for sure. Though if you feel that poses would just be that powerful, maybe it wouldn't be so bad as long as pos messages now come when any defensive structure reaches half shield or something, and with the jump bridge, it shouldn't be too hard to get someone in there for pos defense. I also wonder if pos defense GUI will be like a regular ship... a bunch of buttons, you can choose who to web/scramble/etc.... If so, then having to risk hardeners doesn't sound too bad.... It's all about how much control you give the players vs. risk of defensive structures.
But allowing freighters through the jump bridge will have huge side effects, I don't think you will want this in the end. High end mins will reach alltime lows, and empire mining will most likely be much better than 0.0 mining. Right now it's messed up enough as is.
But lol, this will encourage huge fleets of dreads/carriers.... They will need many to take a pos down quickly, and have enough to remote rep each other. Which will in turn cause more lag than ever before. Are you prepared for this? Or are you introducing features at the cost of playability, once again. Fix the lag before you make it worse please. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Righteous Fury
Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 17:35:00 -
[15]
Actually, another problem with the jump bridge as well. While creating a very interesting way to move forces about quickly without the need of a titan, you're also creating a huge defensive requirement for those under attack.
With current POS fueling/deployment mechanics, its unfeasble to claim soverignity in every system an alliance owns (every constellation for that matter). With the possibility of a hostile force dropping a POS in some remote, unclaimed system, it would be simple for them to claim sov, deploy a jump bridge from a cyno-ed in mothership or carrier, and then use that as a backdoor into a hostile region.
While it creates some brilliant tactical strategy, it also requires that the only possible defense against this is either a) constant scans of systems with literally hundreds of moons - OR the deployment of a POS in every solarsystem in every region to counter hostile soverignity claims.
To be honest, the jump bridge capability should only be possible once alliance constellation soveriginty is implemented, and then worked into those mechanics, instead of putting it in the game before its ready.
|
Astasia Orian
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:11:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Astasia Orian on 04/05/2007 18:08:47 Echoing Dian's comments (especially the skepticism on timezone warfare) with one major difference.
I'm extremely dubious on the need for a jump bridge to be implemented. Part of doing logistics in 0.0 is and should be risk. You manage your logistics properly or invest 60+bn in a Titan (which even then is limited by the pilot's play hours and opportunity cost of not having it out DDing people).
On the other hand it will likely make logistics a lot more attractive to a lot of people. I suppose I just don't care for the dilution of a specialist task.
I'd prefer to see the bridge implementation discussed earlier, which involved the pos tranferring its product directly to a station via the bridge rather than free static Titanbridge for everyone.
|
Haldor Gret
Minmatar ARK-CORP
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:23:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Nozh Jump bridges (Which allow corporations to link two starbases in nearby systems, granting instantaneous transit between the two (requires sovereignty))[/list] Nozh EVE Online
Everyone seemed to have missed he says two Starbases. i would assume this mean no jumping from a titan or mothership to a starbase. In Rust We Trust Duct Tape Forever |
Tarnish Katharr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dianabolic Long Post...
Rather odd to be saying this but I agree with Dianabolic's post entirely.
As another concern, how many Titan Doomsdays will it take to totally wipe out a POS's defensives?
|
doctor lol
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:24:00 -
[19]
A lot of people are complaining that this will make it easy for super capitals to take down the POS equipment outside of the force field. Solution: Anti Titan POS weapons : devil : yarr etc |
DeadProphet
Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:36:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tarnish Katharr
Originally by: Dianabolic Long Post...
Rather odd to be saying this but I agree with Dianabolic's post entirely.
As another concern, how many Titan Doomsdays will it take to totally wipe out a POS's defensives?
the way things are now anchored structures are not effected by the doomsday afaik.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:45:00 -
[21]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 04/05/2007 18:44:03
Originally by: Spikum Edited by: Spikum on 04/05/2007 17:21:00 In my opinion there should be atleast two types of poses:
1: Complete Logistic pos, with weak self defence but able to "fitt" Miningmods and all this producing stuff
2: Sovereignity only, tanked and high damage dealing with the restriction to have like only 3 per system or whatever
pos spam ftl imho :(
Agreed 100%. I think we all understand the need to reduce long drawn out pos warfare, I don't see how these changes move us in that direction tbh.
The ability to focus fire the guns may present some interesting concepts though, however this will change current tactics only slightly from how they occur today (especially if they can be deactivated).
If someone can control the firing of guns, can they shoot drones?
I like the idea of the jumpgates (it's been talked about for a while, glad to see it may come to fruition). But as asked before, whats the maximum distance? Is fuel required? Skills? What type of ships will be able to jump through these gates?
I hope this is step 1 of more pos changes to come.
The jumpportals raise interesting concerns, even beyond freightors. Is there a delay between activating jumpportals, or could you move an entire fleet across the map in a matter of seconds?
--- Siggy Starts Here---
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Most people in eve would rather win than have a good fight
|
Glaren
Eagle Inc. Warlike Handicraft Organization
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:47:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Nozh Starbase Warfare 2.0
.......
Defensive structures become incapacitated when they've taken a certain amount of damage (atm 1% structure)
..................
Nozh
This seems to imply that defensive structure can not be destroyed until the pos tower is destroyed. Else, why wouldn't someone just finish off the last %1 of structure. Is this correct?
|
Miyau
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 18:47:00 -
[23]
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? |
Hllaxiu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 19:15:00 -
[24]
New Skill (replaces starbase tactical officer) Infrastructure Tactical Officer Skill at using starbase weapon systems. Allows control of one array per level. Arrays must be placed outside of the forcefield to be contolled.
Can not be trained on Trial Accounts.
Rank 7, Memory/Charisma (corporate management skill)
Requires Starbase Management 5
Starbase Management (new skill afaik) Skill at setting up Starbases
Rank 4, memory/charisma
Requires Corporate Management 4, mechanic 3. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
iqplayer
Caldari Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 19:20:00 -
[25]
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?
I have to imagine that it will cost fuel to jump bridge between POS, just like it does with the Titan. I suppose it would be possible to make every move via the bridge, but you'd be paying a price for the safety, which seems fair, subject to balance of the cost. More likely though, it will mean that the bridge is used for important shipments, and to move defensive forces into a system, helping to end fleet battles at gates, which can cause massive lag problems at jump in.
I like the jumpbridge idea, though of course like everything in Eve, it will need balance. It does help to give a little more advantage to an entrenched defender, which is sorely needed.
POS defenses - well, I guess we'll see won't we? The thing is, at current damage outputs, a well tanked dread can cope with any amount of large guns you can fit on a POS, and that will have to change for the moving of guns outside a POS to work. Frankly, this isn't a simple change, and I hope that all the angles are examined and thought out before it's tossed onto Tranq. For us players though, I guess the point is - if you're worried about the balance, load up Sisi and try it out.
|
Grytok
German Kings The Fifth Race
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 19:51:00 -
[26]
You gotta be kidding, right?
This makes it absolutely impossible for small Corps/Allys to defend at least a little bit of space
Yay, for the big Allys...
Well at least make it so, that the Starbase Officer can concentrate fire of all guns to one target, so the guns can actually try to take down a Dread. But I tried to kill a Thanatos on Sisi with a deathstar... meh, not really that great defense, a POS has so far.
I'd say: LEAVE IT ALONE! .
|
Murukan
Minmatar Chaos Reborn
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 19:51:00 -
[27]
The jump bridges on pos are an absolute horrible horrible idea. This will really kill small gangs even more.
Enemies will be able to completely bypass roaming gangs now through pos that a small gang can't hope to take out (since pos warfare is the suck no thx). So now we will be forced to just camp 0.0 entrance points, and frankly that gets boring after about 30 minutes.
Also it will allow the enemy to quickly bring a blob to the general area of your gang to blob you away. This will make it even harder to avoid blobs as they can jump around quickly cutting you off.
Please please please don't do this. Small gangs already are hard enough and take more skill than noob alliance blob warfare, and you guys are trying to kill it off completely. WTF!!!!
Manlove by Zaphod Jones
|
Lars Erlkonig
Caldari GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 20:18:00 -
[28]
Nozh,
You were looking for an online POS earlier in FD- and I told you the location of one that I had helped set up in X-M2LR. I went to check on it later, and found all of the modules - including all the non-defensive ones (ship hangers, moon harvesters, etc) - were outside of the shields and were all missing a majority of their shield HP. Did you use a doomsday device on that POS? So do alliances now have the ability to just DD away everything outside the POS so they can attack it with impunity? Are making titans into solo pwn mobiles that good of an idea?
|
iqplayer
Caldari Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 20:25:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Grytok You gotta be kidding, right?
This makes it absolutely impossible for small Corps/Allys to defend at least a little bit of space
Yay, for the big Allys...
Well at least make it so, that the Starbase Officer can concentrate fire of all guns to one target, so the guns can actually try to take down a Dread. But I tried to kill a Thanatos on Sisi with a deathstar... meh, not really that great defense, a POS has so far.
I'd say: LEAVE IT ALONE!
??? The whole point of moving the guns outside is so that the Starbase role will allow fire control, but the OP already stated this wasn't active yet on Sisi. It will be interesting to see how this affects defense, but against smaller enemies, it *should* be an improvement.
However, I do agree with you that the guns may need a bit of a boost to damage - keep in mind that POS guns were originally created/balanced against capital ships *before* the huge cap HP boost, and more importantly, before Rigs. Maybe tweak the L POS guns so that they can only hit Capitals, and boost their damage a bit? Or create an XL turret that uses the same XL ammo but a higher damage mult, and reduce the tracking on it so that it can only hit Capitals?
|
xeom
Exit 13 Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 20:29:00 -
[30]
Fantastic,So the answer to all this POS stuff is to simply move the guns outside!
Good job CCP. --- "Those nuclear missiles are for domestic heating." - Scagga
|
|
kego
Amarr Black Avatar Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 20:32:00 -
[31]
Suggestion: have the anchoring box change color once at the required distance from the tower rather than having to guess the distance ... trying to anchor and then not being able to.
|
Kaylana Syi
The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 20:40:00 -
[32]
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.
Team Minmatar
|
Jordan Musgrat
Convergent Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 20:56:00 -
[33]
I retract my support for these new features. Fix your game first, then add to it. Poses work, they don't lag out or anything. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Trigger64
Gallente Black Avatar Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 21:18:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Trigger64 on 04/05/2007 21:14:36
Originally by: Jordan Musgrat I retract my support for these new features. Fix your game first, then add to it. <sarcasm>POSes work, they don't lag out or anything.</sarcasm>
Bump
Edit: i SpeL gUt!
|
Aelena Thraant
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 21:29:00 -
[35]
Ok 1st off... All my production items got moved out of the pos bubble.. Though they are not targetable...
Now to the nitty gritty... Pos warfare is boring for the most part.... These changes do not make that better... Though a lot of details were left out. Jump Bridges are awesome though..
Now I do have a new idea for a pos structure... POS Neut - Make them about 4x a heavy Neut energy wise... or make 2 version.. 1 close range high sucking :D and 1 long range not so much sucking... I also thing that poses should be able to scramble supercapitals... Which hopefully would keep the solo motherships away.
Are shield harding arrays going to get moved out as well? Fighting a pos with 14+ hardners really sucks even with a good number of capitals. The only advantage is that they have crap dps so support can be brought in.
It would be nice to allow the jump bridge to be accessible by Alliance members... and maybe for allies??/
Also are you saying that they get disabled but not destroyed while the pos is alive?
I'll get on this weekend and test these changes as well...
|
vostok
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 21:39:00 -
[36]
Edited by: vostok on 04/05/2007 21:37:25 right just been on test with my carrier (thanatos with 12 fighters) took down a stasis webber in 25 minutes while tanking 7 cruise missile battery and 3 large arty (T2 tank)
if this is how easy it will be to disarm a pos... well a group of say 5 dreads would take down defences on a deathstar in no time at all
and yes all the shield hardners are sitting outside the pos, ill try killing one of those next :)
|
rodgerd
Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 21:51:00 -
[37]
I have to say I'm pretty skeptical about the POS jump bridges. This has the potential to make 0.0 sov space less risky than Empire for alliances, and eliminate the value of wolfpack ops in harrassing enemy logistics. -- Not the opinions of my corp or my alliance. |
vostok
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 22:24:00 -
[38]
citadel torp battery out in 22 minutes with around 1500 dps
there also seems to be some kind of problem with the agro on the pos. twice now it has stopped attacking me and then started again about 1 or 2 minutes later for no real reason. it doesnt shoot anything else it just does nothing. sometimes it will fire off a single volly and then stop targetting me
i think this is due to a wreathe i dropped from my ship maintanence, it seems to be drawing agro but not being shot.
|
minemine 04
Gallente World Order The Imperial Order
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 22:31:00 -
[39]
something I've noticed thus far...
The guns (and mods such as Webber and scram arrays / batteries) are too small to receive a full hit from a dread. They have way to much structure hp, and they cannot be painted (says they are invulnerable). I think something in that list needs to be rectified...
|
vostok
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 22:41:00 -
[40]
Originally by: minemine 04 something I've noticed thus far...
The guns (and mods such as Webber and scram arrays / batteries) are too small to receive a full hit from a dread. They have way to much structure hp, and they cannot be painted (says they are invulnerable). I think something in that list needs to be rectified...
WTF they are SO easy to take out now its not like you have to kill all of its hull, just offline it... im sure a sieged dread still does a hell of a lot more damage than a thanatos does but im killing them easy enough. a group of spider tanked carriers would wreck a pos.
i guess this is why jumping from pos to pos would be a good thing... so people could move to defend their pos because they're going to need to LOL
|
|
Bruno Capri
Minmatar The Scarecrows
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 23:20:00 -
[41]
After running some tests with vostok, we've concluded that a single carrier can probably disable a POS unless it's got like 10 Citadels & 6 or more Large Turrets online, but if it has all that online then what is the point of a POS apart from being a deathstar.
Some other things I noticed as vostok pummeled my poor POS:
1) I had no idea what the status of the structure being attacked was. I couldn't target it from inside the forcefield to check it and unless I've missed something, there is no info in the Tower Management window (maybe this is coming soon).
2) As vost already said, the AI seems a little odd. Even with his corp set to -10, the batteries only fired once every so often. The only time they fired constantly was when they were actually under attack.
3) If I was to try and rearm a battery I would probably get popped unless I'm superfast.
These are just some things to think about; I haven't really thought of resolutions for them yet, it's too late to think properly. _______________ Fight the Power |
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 23:24:00 -
[42]
As a suggestion for an alternative to pos <> pos jump gates (as much as I love the idea...) how about pos CYNO arrays? (permanent cyno arrays) that we can use to jump cap ships to / us portals to?
Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
Nicholai Pestot
Gallente Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2007.05.04 23:25:00 -
[43]
I believe this is a good change.
-POS are easer to engage allowing you to attack multiple POS at the same time.
-Moving ships about becomes easer allowing you to defend multiple POS at the same time.
-DD's make attacking with one giant fleet at one location a bad idea.
This sounds like a prelude to blob reduction.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
|
BH Desryn
ISD BH Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 00:42:00 -
[44]
For people who want a Starbase to pew pew, I have one setup on Planet 6 Moon 2 in FD-MLJ.
Also join the "Starbase-warfare" channel on sisi.
[Bug Report Here] |
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 00:47:00 -
[45]
1% structure is a stupid deactivation amount. Why would I not just pop the thing?
|
|
BH Desryn
ISD BH Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 01:03:00 -
[46]
They deactivate once they've taken 1% structure damage (so they are at 99%). However they have huge structure hp which allows a defending fleet to repair them and reactivate.
Shield hardeners are still inside the forcefield.
[Bug Report Here] |
|
vostok
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 01:06:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Dianabolic As a suggestion for an alternative to pos <> pos jump gates (as much as I love the idea...) how about pos CYNO arrays? (permanent cyno arrays) that we can use to jump cap ships to / us portals to?
this would be tricky since you have to be in gang to use a cyno. im not quite sure how you would implement this, perhaps by having it show up different on the map and having a corp/alliance role so that you could select who could use such a cyno
Originally by: James Duar 1% structure is a stupid deactivation amount. Why would I not just pop the thing?
its not 1% structure left, its 1% damaged, so unless you want to deal 50,000,000 damage instead of 500,000 you just disable it
|
Valmic
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 01:32:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Valmic on 05/05/2007 01:30:25
Originally by: Aelena Thraant Ok 1st off... All my production items got moved out of the pos bubble.. Though they are not targetable.....
I would have made a Petition but "The amount of open petitions for this user has already been reached."
But my point is I am trying to add some parts to my Capital Ship Assembly Array, I am flying away from my tower since the array is now 32km away, the problem is when I get there it tells me I have to be closer than 1500 bla bla bla. So I do a bit a troubleshooting and eject from the ship. Well it sends me right back to the center of the POS. I have done this 6 times with the same problem each time.
So the issue might be that the Array is outside the POS? And if thatÆs the case is there a way to move it back inside without loosening the 10,000,000m3 that I have in it?
OFFTOPIC (Kind of):
The system that I am in seems to have a HUGE amount if Mobile Small Warp Disruptors, We are talking about 300 or more and they are all over! This is a issue because when I warp back to the station it always warps me past the station by 80km even when I setup a bookmark 80km on the other side of the station.
So think of a 80m/s Charon trying to move 80km and not being able to warp! It blows lol
Thank god this is on the test server!!!
EDIT:Valimc is my alt Scioneth is my main
|
Scioneth
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 01:33:00 -
[49]
DOH! The last post was mine, after I previewed my post it reset my Character sorry!
|
|
BH Desryn
ISD BH Interstellar Services Department
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 03:04:00 -
[50]
Evemail me the system name on sisi and I'll try and clean up the bubbles.
[Bug Report Here] |
|
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 04:33:00 -
[51]
If you ask me, I see the idea of POS jump portal generators, even if its like a personal stargate between to POSes, as being bad for small-scale PvP. The biggest drawback to large gangs (aside from lag) is that they are far slower than a small group of ships (1-7). With the ability to jump around strategically in a way that a small gang cannot, the large gang effectively becomes more mobile than the small one.
Seems counterproductive...though I haven't seen what exactly it is yet. |
Dark Blossom
Gallente Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 06:07:00 -
[52]
ok, so after playing with the POS's today and have about 18 hangar arrays pushed outside of the bubble, im a bit disgruntled to say the least,none the less it was easily fixable just a bit time consuming.
Heres my list things i'm going to discuss
- Equipment placement - Ideas for defensive POS equipment - Misc ideas
There are a few issues i have with this new system. I do like the fact that we can now target and shoot defensive equipment but placing the equipment is a real pain. Its nice that when u go to anchor something u can choose where to put it in space, but the arrow system can get very tedious the further out you go. When going out 35KM from the POS its hard to get a good view on the arrows to properly move the equipment to where you want it. From that I think a new placement system needs to be developed to make anchoring a bit easier
With that first thing being said i'll go into some ideas that i think would make POS warefare a bit better. Its going to be way to easy to start taking out defensive arrays, so i think that some other POS equipment needs to be developed to help the resistances on equipment shielding. Much like hardeners for the POS shield itself, the equipment is protected and benefits from the shield resistances, but the equipment outside of the POS now does not. I believe the equipment should have the same chance as everything else.
Now for some Misc. Ideas. I believe that setting up a POS is alot of waiting and downtime, with anchoring, unanchoring, and onlinin delays. Either let the POS multitask, or let the POS queue up its tasks. With a jump bridge between POS's now, POS's will have a much larger use somethings should be updated. I dont forsee any reasons agaisnt something such as this, but i could be wrong.
hope this helps I'm setting up 6 large towers as of now and am fitting them with an assortment of stuff, preparing for mothership production and testing the whole thing out on full scale, 6 different times. ill keep my eye out for any glitches along the way
|
Obsidian Hawk
Gallente RONA Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 06:41:00 -
[53]
Ok I will be honest, I hate the new system, plain and simple. Recent pos testing revealed that a group of battleships with good tanks could go in and off line all the guns by giving them the 1% damage and then the dreads can come in and fire away without any worries. Second, when testing with my corp the guns took their sweet time to fire, sometimes they did not fire at all for periods of minutes.
Honestly pos's seem like they have been nerfed, it is not that hard to render them defenseless very fast, as soon as the dreads off line the guns by giving them that 1% hull damage what is to stop them warping in the giant support fleet to off the pos with a 500 ship lag fest.
|
vostok
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 06:54:00 -
[54]
took me about 4 hours afk to disable a pos of:
7 citadel torp batteries 3 large arty 1 stasis webifier
i tanked all of this solo not to mention it would have gone down a hell of a lot faster had i been there for any of it. a small gang of capitals could strip a standard pos of defences so fast its really not even funny. i dont think hp on the guns is the issue here either, since using a ddd to clear them already isnt at all viable considering how easily they can be taken down anyway. ddd would just be expencive
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 07:12:00 -
[55]
What is this supposed to solve?
Will it solve a blob of dreads? No... they will still be needed to take down the POS-shield. Difference is they can now do that without taking fire (when the guns have been dealt with).
This is just stupid.
|
Bittersweet Blossom
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 07:19:00 -
[56]
thinking about it, i just had an idea, what about a repper system for the POS's equipment to counter the quick disabling of guns, inda like fitting a ship, but a pos, with a repper system and a capacitor, make POS's a bit more customizable. maybe something to work off of
|
Serenity Steele
Rearden Steele
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 11:03:00 -
[57]
Could we please have an explanation of the reasoning and goals of EvE for placing the defensive stuctures outside the POS shield?
If this was supplied, then we players can think together with CCP on how to achieve the goals, rather than waste time being test-dummies and having to come up with our own reasoning.
I can think of 10 good/bad results in balance, but without a direction, I might as well save my text.
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - System Sovereignty - Alliance Rank |
Stalert Balakos
Fallen Angels Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 11:08:00 -
[58]
I'm a bit confused by these changes. I thought one of the key purposes of changes to POS warfare would be to give small, roaming gangs a role in POS/sovereignty warfare but I just can't see a gang of 6-7 inties orbiting a POS gun for half an hour to knock it out (could they even carry enough ammo?).
By linking the destruction of POS defences to firepower (by giving them a huge HP increase) you merely encourage blobs. All attackers will want to minimise their exposure at a hostile POS so you just bring more and more guys to knock out the defences quicker. Hey presto, you've got a blob and the lag associated with it.
I think it would be a good idea to remove firepower from the equation by allowing certain classes of ship (cov ops and recons spring to mind) to "hack" starbase structures. That would have the same effect (ie, offlining a POS's defences) without bringing a huge blob to do so.
Of course, it should be pretty difficult to do with a sliding scale according to how damaging each hack is (ie, guns should be tricky, labs even tougher and towers themselves exceptionally difficult). The POS owners should also get an Evemail saying the starbase is under cyberattack.
It gives the roaming gang a chance to do something more effective than simply hanging around looking for ganks and gives the defenders the chance to counterattack and take down the hackers.
It would also open up some nice possibilities for sneaky commando style ops, such as: Hacking the labs to make copies of the BPOs under research Pausing (but probably not canceling) manufacturing jobs Stealing moon mins You could even lock the owners out of their own POS (until they hack it back)
Not sure how this system should be allowed to affect sovereignty etc but I think it's something we could all give some thought to.
|
aeti
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 12:02:00 -
[59]
why did hangers, assembly arrays etc get moved outside the shields?
you cannot target them, but it should be easy enough to surround one with a bunch of smartbombing carriers and remove one
|
Sniser
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 12:11:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Spikum Edited by: Spikum on 04/05/2007 17:21:00 In my opinion there should be atleast two types of poses:
1: Complete Logistic pos, with weak self defence but able to "fitt" Miningmods and all this producing stuff
2: Sovereignity only, tanked and high damage dealing with the restriction to have like only 3 per system or whatever
pos spam ftl imho :(
yes please, nothing is more boring than pos spam -.-
|
|
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... |
|
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
|
|
Stalert Balakos
Fallen Angels Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 10:20:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Gerome Doutrande What are you trying to achieve with these changes?
Originally by: Oveur Intermediate goals to the rescue
If you look at how player infrastructure is built, there are intermediate goals already in place. You need Starbases to build an Outpost. The problem is, that there aren't that many of them, especially not combat-wise. There aren't really any goals to achieve against the larger player infrastructure when you are a part of a roaming 5-man fleet. We want that to happen, there should be goals for smaller fleets. Note that this is specifically about "fixed" goals, not taking out industrials or camping a gate.
Small fleets are fun. Roaming around, no need to wait for people, just gather some friends and start some skirmishes, deep infiltrations, war of attrition, mischief, mayhem and soap. This is achieved by adding more ways to affect player infrastructure, not just the only option of full destruction.
We'd like to give you the ability to upgrade individual parts of an Outpost but likewise allow your opponents to disable that specific part. If it's a factory, it might put all jobs on hold until you repair the facility. Don't worry, there would also be defenses at the Outpost, but I think you get the idea. More goals and more stuff for smaller groups to achieve.
Sure, big fleet encounters are still in there, but there should be a more natural escalation towards the fleet encounter, it shouldn't be the only option. A large fleet encounter should also span multiple solar systems, have tactical and strategic goals, it should be worth something to flank your opponents constellation, right? Right.
That's just one of many points about Rev 2 brought up in recent devblogs but I've picked it out because I don't see how these changes lead us in this direction. You still need a load of firepower (and with player controlled guns you'll need an uber-tanked dread or 20) to do any damage to infrastructure - so there's nothing a "roaming 5-man fleet" can do.
|
Nifel
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 10:27:00 -
[122]
The only thing I really want to see apart from limiting sov claiming towers to 1 per system:
Ability to shoot ships inside the shield of the sov-claiming POS. For giving up that defense the ships inside the POS would be able to shoot back and have the POS shield act as a giant hardener, taking away damage before it'd be applied to you.
I firmly believe that this would shift focus to actual combat again instead of POS-spamming, boring (BORING BORING BORING!!!*) POS sieging and possibly even make a boring part of the game fun again.
It looks like the currently proposed model would work with that as long some sort of mechanic is put in place to limit sov-claiming towers. I must say I'm in favour of an XL tower that costs a lot and of which you can only have one per system per alliance.
* "Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind" - Terry Pratchett You're poisoning my brain!:(
"When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car." RKK Ranking: Sama |
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 10:39:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 08/05/2007 10:37:36 Before we all go into discussion about the different modules etc. (yes, I know it has already started), shouldn't it first be defines what CCP is aiming to achieve with them???
Personally, what I see are these two goals: 1. POS/Sovereignty warfare made less boring 2. Small(ish) gang warfare made more exciting
Now on to the your proposed changes.....
Haven't you learned from the HP increase you did last time that more HP in itself doesn't really provided more fun? It just means that battles take longer. Now, that was ok for fleet battles (they were a bit too short), but for POS battles which already takes HOURS and are utterly boring for the most part, you want to INCREASE that (through giving structures massively more HP)?
Attack the REAL problem instead that makes POS warfare boring, i.e. POS spamming!
Currently, system attack/defence is more often than not about who can spam the most POS, not who will actually fight to take/keep the system (i.e. bore your opponent to death instead of fighting him to death). You only need a carrier pilot to spam a number of POS over a few low-activity hours, and whoever you're opposing has to either duplicate that (how exciting!!), or spend hours of effort as well as gathering lots of people to remove them (after which more POS will be spammed...).
As has already been suggested in this thread, remove ALL participation in sovereignty from the current set of POS, and leave them as industrial structures. Their shields should NOT be able to protect ships, but only the POS itself (don't complain yet, a system for protecting ships during assaults come later...), and their defensive installations should be less than today.
Then, add a System Control POS, which determines sovereignty in the system. There can only be ONE of these in system, meaning that to take over a system, you need to kill the enemy one. The reason for only having one per system is to limit a new form of POS spamming by alt-alliances...
This POS may have more PG/CPU than current large ones (depends on how you want it balanced...), but should have some limitations: 1. Can only have Stront for maximum 36 hours (maybe 24...). 2. Can not anchor industrial structures.
For fleet protection during assaults, create a new anchorable module, which is a Shield Generator. Make it something like this:
Shield Generator Takes 10 minutes to anchor, can not be anchored near warpable objects (i.e. not near moons, planets, stations etc..), has X million HP, uses fuel to start and fuel to recharge, can only be up for X hours (X < 24).
Something like this will more or less solve my goal #1. Spamming will be taken out of POS warfare, and if you want sovereignty, you'll have to fight for it.
On to my goal #2, making small gang warfare more fun.
This is probably the most difficult one of the two and I don't think it has any easy solution like goal #1. The problem is that is has to cover both 'more fun' and 'less blob'. I don't have any easy solution....
However, I think one of your proposed changes (jump bridges in POS), will make small gang warfare way LESS fun. How fun is it to roam through an enemy area if they can just use a (safe) jump bridge network? Bravo, you just made roaming in enemy areas close to useless. Yes, I know you can still kill people in belts, but the majority of kills during roaming are NOT in belts... They're at gates!
I imagine your idea about moving defensive structures outside the POS shield is an attempt to involve small gangs in POS warfare, but it'll have no effect unless you significantly reduce the damage given out by POS, since small ships get WTFPWN'ed by a properly setup POS.
So, in conclusion, I think in general these proposed changes are actually counterproductive to the goals above. If these are not your goals, PLEASE tell us what the hell it is you want with these changes so we can have a PROPER discussion.
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Stalert Balakos
Fallen Angels Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 11:16:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Tzrailasa
This is probably the most difficult one of the two and I don't think it has any easy solution like goal #1. The problem is that is has to cover both 'more fun' and 'less blob'. I don't have any easy solution....
I made a suggestion on page two of this thread about allowing small gangs to "hack" and thereby temporarily disable certain POS modules. I think it could do with some more work but I think the basic idea is a good one. Anyway, here it is...
Originally by: Stalert Balakos By linking the destruction of POS defences to firepower (by giving them a huge HP increase) you merely encourage blobs. All attackers will want to minimise their exposure at a hostile POS so you just bring more and more guys to knock out the defences quicker. Hey presto, you've got a blob and the lag associated with it.
I think it would be a good idea to remove firepower from the equation by allowing certain classes of ship (cov ops and recons spring to mind) to "hack" starbase structures. That would have the same effect (ie, offlining a POS's defences) without bringing a huge blob to do so.
Of course, it should be pretty difficult to do with a sliding scale according to how damaging each hack is (ie, guns should be tricky, labs even tougher and towers themselves exceptionally difficult). The POS owners should also get an Evemail saying the starbase is under cyberattack.
It gives the roaming gang a chance to do something more effective than simply hanging around looking for ganks and gives the defenders the chance to counterattack and take down the hackers.
It would also open up some nice possibilities for sneaky commando style ops, such as: Hacking the labs to make copies of the BPOs under research Pausing (but probably not canceling) manufacturing jobs Stealing moon mins You could even lock the owners out of their own POS (until they hack it back)
Not sure how this system should be allowed to affect sovereignty etc but I think it's something we could all give some thought to.
All thoughts welcome.
|
untook
Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 11:25:00 -
[125]
If the offensive modules are located outside of the the forcefield will this make them vulnerable to an attacker/s sniping from a position where only a small number of the POS weapons are able to return fire?
Rather than getting the POS/Dreads into an arms race, I would like to see modules on the POS that provide some sort of support to active POS defence. For example a Shield repper that cycles through the friendly ships.
Why not integrate the offensive/defensive modules into the Pos structure in the same way as guns are on ships. They could take bleed through damage from the POS shields and it might help reduce lag by having fewer individual anchored objects in space. It would also make it more difficult to determine the POS defences beforehand.
|
Sniser
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 11:28:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Tzrailasa
So, in conclusion, I think in general these proposed changes are actually counterproductive to the goals above. If these are not your goals, PLEASE tell us what the hell it is you want with these changes so we can have a PROPER discussion.
if ccp wants fix this pos owner should have to make a choise.
1.- Setup his pos with XL turrets for dread defense
or
2.- Setup his pos with Large turrets for support defense
XL turrets should be able to hit dreads easy but they couldnt hit well a bs or support. So if a pos is well defended for dreads small gangs could go and destroy those XL turrets before dreads come.
Also please 1 XL POS per system, not more POS spam!
|
Juan Andalusian
TAOSP Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 11:36:00 -
[127]
These changes affect nothing. The problem still remains.
Counter Pos spam = Tower, Module , Whatever that claims sov.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 12:54:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Stalert Balakos
Originally by: Tzrailasa
This is probably the most difficult one of the two and I don't think it has any easy solution like goal #1. The problem is that is has to cover both 'more fun' and 'less blob'. I don't have any easy solution....
I made a suggestion on page two of this thread about allowing small gangs to "hack" and thereby temporarily disable certain POS modules. I think it could do with some more work but I think the basic idea is a good one. Anyway, here it is...
Originally by: Stalert Balakos POS hacking description...
All thoughts welcome.
I like the idea behind it, but there is one big hole in it, something that's inherent to all chance based things in a game like this. What's going to keep people from just trying again and again until they succeed??? Even if the chance to hack the POS tower is only 1%, the cov-ops can just try 100 times... We have to be very careful of putting in something which could just be an I-Win button without any real risk...
If POS warfare is changed into just 1 sov POS per system, I think we can actually leave handling that to capitals. The thing that makes capitals fill so much in alliance warfare today is more the fact that POS spamming is so easy, than it is to people actually wanting to shoot POS with dreads...
To give small ships something to do during territorial combat, I would more like to have 'smaller' targets for them to hunt, away from POS. I had these modules as ideas for such targets (needs tweaking and thinking about price etc...):
Cyno Disruptor Prevents hostile cynofields from being activated in system.
Warp Inhibitor Halves enemy ships warp speed in system.
Other could be thought of which provide something like the current gang bonuses to friendlies, or disrupts enemy gang bonuses, etc.... The main thing is they should be nice-to-haves, not need-to-haves...
For all of these targets, the following rules should apply: Can only be anchored away from other objects (i.e. NOT near POS etc.), and only if you have constellation/region sov. Can only be found through probe scanning (and difficult to find too, like exploration). Can not be anchored when there is a significant enemy presence in system. Requires a medium sized gang to kill, and even that takes a while.... Some could require fuel, some could require regular maintenance etc.....
These are just ideas for smaller anchored objects that could be targeted by small-medium gangs. They're intended to provide some benefits to the owner of the system if left active before an attack, meaning they're an inviting target for the opponent to find and kill before attacking, which as such provides some limited and fixed objective that are worth small-gang fights to attack/defend...
Comments welcome....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Shin Ra
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 13:17:00 -
[129]
Sounds interesting.
|
DanMck
Amarr Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 15:01:00 -
[130]
Edited by: DanMck on 08/05/2007 15:07:29 Edited by: DanMck on 08/05/2007 14:58:16
Originally by: Dianabolic As a suggestion for an alternative to pos <> pos jump gates (as much as I love the idea...) how about pos CYNO arrays? (permanent cyno arrays) that we can use to jump cap ships to / us portals to?
good idea , far better than teleporting your gang or assets to safety
a jump bridge is a very powerful tool and needs to be totally limited in eve imho ..... it would be fair to easy to runaway using this option or make it to easy to remove all assets making the pos takedown pointless (musical chairs anyone ?)
if people don't want to fight they safe spot at a pos , now they can safe spot and jump out ? they might aswell all just log
50 people just jumped into local to the hostile pos , so now we have no time to form a gang , they just camp the station or the gate and we can't do nowt....
|
|
Delwin Amber
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 15:12:00 -
[131]
I think you're starting to hit on something I was tossing around a while ago on my Alliance's internal forums. The real problem with territorial warfare is twofold: 1) It's not fun, and 2) the servers can't handle the scale it's going to be fought at. The battle for JV1V would have been epic if the server could have handled 2000 people fighting over a single object.
The problem with the concept of a single Sovereignty POS in a system is you're forcing the same circumstances that brought about JV1V - a single target that's an all or nothing fight or die situation. What you need is the opposite. You need to be able to kill your enemy through a thousand paper cuts and have them be able to make strategic decisions to not defend certain places because they are expendable in the short term. This ability to fight a hundred small battles all at once across a dozen systems will force the defender to pick where to defend, and force the attacker to attack where the defender isn't (basic tactical theory - see the Art of War).
As long as all the targets are of similar or equal value then the system will work. Right now all POS's (well all Larges) are of equal value in a system. This is a good thing because there's multiple targets to attack and defend. What you need to do is distribute that over a large enough area (multiple systems) so that the server can handle the battles properly. Then you need to sync up the battles so both attacker and defender have to actually make choices and not just hit them all in sequence.
Then things like the POS and Titan Jump Bridges will be used for mobility and force projection (which the servers can handle) and not force concentration (which they can't).
As soon as I dig up that post I'll edit it for public consumption and post it here so people can see what I'm talking about.
|
gordon cain
Minmatar x13 Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 15:23:00 -
[132]
I think that one tower to rule em all is a bad idea.
At least 3 is needed in order for the defender and agressor to stand a chance. By this I mean that when you going to work on monday and come back the next day, not everything is lost because one of the towers is blown up.
This means that when the enemy has taken 2 of the 3 then they have sov. But you still have a chance and a place to defend.
Gordon Cain
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 15:36:00 -
[133]
As long as all the targets are of similar or equal value then the system will work. Right now all POS's (well all Larges) are of equal value in a system. This is a good thing because there's multiple targets to attack and defend. What you need to do is distribute that over a large enough area (multiple systems) so that the server can handle the battles properly. Then you need to sync up the battles so both attacker and defender have to actually make choices and not just hit them all in sequence.
Well as u say the L POS's today are of equal value in a system and it won't matter if u distribute them over several systems as the attackers will do them in a sequence anyway due to support for the costly dread fleet.
It will allways come down to the last fight of epic proportions, no matter how many systems u spread it across it will allways end at the last standing, the sov array / sov tower is imo a good mechanism as it forces a fight deciding who wins / looses for the day instead of more POS spam / shooting to reenforced, u will have much biger chance at a proper fight with a moving fleet then one thats stationary killing POS after POS and allso less likely to encounter titans / MS / carriers in the moving fleet.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 15:40:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 08/05/2007 15:44:32 Just a few quick comments......
Originally by: Delwin Amber The problem with the concept of a single Sovereignty POS in a system is you're forcing the same circumstances that brought about JV1V - a single target that's an all or nothing fight or die situation.
I disagree. There are quite a few differences.
JV1V and F-TE1T had targets of opportunity (real or fake... doesn't matter...) that had to be attacked within a limited timeframe or they'd be gone. A system on the other hand can be attacked at any time (it doesn't go anywhere...), also after you've broken your opponents spirit (ref. the ASCN war...).
In addition, in both those instances, the targets were one of a kind (there were NO more worthy target to attack, nor any object more important to defend). Systems under Sov are all (mostly) equal.
Originally by: Delwin Amber As long as all the targets are of similar or equal value then the system will work. Right now all POS's (well all Larges) are of equal value in a system. This is a good thing because there's multiple targets to attack and defend.
That's a nice theory, but in the current reality there is still just one target, which is the system currently under attack. Either the system is defended or it isn't....
Also, most often these days, the 'valiant defence' of a system is to let the attacked POS' die, and then spam some more POS during the next low-activity period. THAT is the problem the 1 Sov-POS per system is supposed to solve.
Originally by: Delwin Amber What you need to do is distribute that over a large enough area (multiple systems) so that the server can handle the battles properly. Then you need to sync up the battles so both attacker and defender have to actually make choices and not just hit them all in sequence.
Then things like the POS and Titan Jump Bridges will be used for mobility and force projection (which the servers can handle) and not force concentration (which they can't).
That is actually the case of today. If you're attacking a large alliance, its systems will be spread over a wide area and they have to choose which to defend. If their opponent spreads their attacks, they'll have to run back and forth.
The current Multi-POS Sov determination is actually a hinderance here since you have to put maybe 5-10 POS out in a system to have any effect, and even then the defender can just spam more.
If it was limited to 1 Sov-POS per system, and 2+ was attacked at the same time, choices would have to be made by the defender, and the attacker had a decent chance of knocking down at least one of his targets...
Originally by: Delwin Amber As soon as I dig up that post I'll edit it for public consumption and post it here so people can see what I'm talking about.
Looking forward to it...
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 15:45:00 -
[135]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 08/05/2007 15:43:01
Originally by: gordon cain I think that one tower to rule em all is a bad idea.
At least 3 is needed in order for the defender and agressor to stand a chance. By this I mean that when you going to work on monday and come back the next day, not everything is lost because one of the towers is blown up.
This means that when the enemy has taken 2 of the 3 then they have sov. But you still have a chance and a place to defend.
Gordon Cain
That's what the stront timers are for..... You'll never (unless you didn't manage your stront or didn't log on for a while), come back and find a POS just suddenly blown up.
It doesn't really matter whether you have 1 target to shoot with X million HP, or 3 targets with X/3 million HP.
However, I'm reasonably indifferent to the exact mechanics (1 or 3..... just don't see any real difference between them...), as long as the REAL problem, POS-spamming, is adressed...
If you want a system, you have to fight to take it, and you have to fight to keep it!
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Delwin Amber
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 16:08:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Bozse It will always come down to the last fight of epic proportions, no matter how many systems u spread it across it will always end at the last standing, the sov array / sov tower is a good mechanism as it forces a fight deciding who wins / looses for the day instead of more POS spam / shooting to reinforced, u will have much bigger chance at a proper fight with a moving fleet then one thats stationary killing POS after POS and also less likely to encounter titans / MS / carriers in the moving fleet.
(note, spelling and grammar fixed, so please don't freak that I edited the quote).
There's a couple of critical things that need to happen to fix Fleet combat, and I hope that the POS adjustments are only the begining of a full Sovereignty overhaul from the ground up.
It needs it.
My vision is that the Stations (Outposts and Conquerable) would be the holders of Sovereignty. They are after all the real target in territory warfare. What is needed is to gut the implementation of the POS and rebuild it from concept as what they really are û not Player Owned Stations (theyÆre not stations at all) but rather Support Infrastructure. You can even leave POSÆs as they are now for non-station owning corps to prevent the massive upheaval that changing one of the core mechanics of Empire dwellers use.
For Sovereignty holding Alliances however we replace some of the POSÆs with SIÆs (POSÆs still have their place even in 0.0). This infrastructure goes in the systems in the constellation that the Station itself is not in û so now the both sides have a vested interest in non-station systems. Since there is usually more than one Station in a constellation you network all Stations in a constellation together so they share Sovereignty (I.E. you need to control all of them to maintain Sovereignty and all the benefits thereof).
What do SIÆs do you ask? Well they upgrade your Station. The SIÆs donÆt get a reinforcement timer like we know it now, controlled from each tower through manipulating the Strontium in it. Instead all SIÆs are attached to a Station (yes, that Station is in another system, thatÆs intentional). From the Station you control a unified timer for all SIÆs that are placed in reinforced. ThereÆs some minor details there to make sure it doesnÆt get abused but the gist is that you can select the time they come out (obviously in the defenderÆs prime time) and all modules that got reinforced come out at that time all at once.
They also recharge their own shields in a reasonably short period.
Those two together means that itÆs in the attackerÆs best interest to send in BS gangs to put multiple systems into reinforcement to force the defender to choose what systems to defend with what. It also makes it improbable to hit all the systems once they come out of reinforced since the window is reasonably small. The kicker here is that those SIÆs not only give Stations added utility (more offices, better refining, more slots, etc) but power up the stations defenses and offenses that until youÆve managed to get through those taking the Station itself is suicide even for a 50-100 cap fleet. One the infrastructure is beaten back however itÆs one siege cycle to drop the shields and itÆs yours. Then of course you need to start putting out ISÆs as the new owner of that station so it doesnÆt start ping-ponging on you, and that means that now you need to defend those other systems.
This gets really fun in constellations with multiple stations as once one is taken Sovereignty drops (turning off or reducing range of Jump Bridges, turning off Capital production, etc). ItÆs also a nightmare in that you may need to take out ISÆs in a system with a hostile station but you canÆt take that station yet because itÆs ISÆs are still in place.
Yea, welcome to happy fun tactics.
(cont.)
|
Delwin Amber
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 16:08:00 -
[137]
Now yes, you still have the final climatic battle when itÆs time to take the Station itself, but itÆs a battle that only happens when an enemy is already so beaten back that their logistics is burnt out and they cannot maintain their infrastructure anymore. So long as they can maintain their logistical infrastructure the Station should remain in their hands.
Does this weight things a little towards the defender? Sure, but thereÆs a balance there. How much IS do you need to take down before you can amass a fleet that can take the station? Can you afford to lose some caps and take out the Station while itÆs still got a few ISÆs left? If so then you might get the drop on the defender and be able to take out the Station when they didnÆt think you could. Depending on exactly how much power the ISÆs give to the Station will dictate where that balance is. It should be noted however that this balancing act needs to be a moving target with the continuous inflation of power in EvE.
ThatÆs the concept in a nutshell.
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 16:34:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 08/05/2007 16:32:35
Originally by: Delwin Amber Above post...
While your idea about the station getting more abilities depending on Sov is VERY interesting, I have a little problem with the rest....
In short, how are the IS REALLY different from todays POS (except not being in one system)?
MOST importantly, how are you going to prevent IS-spam (formerly known as POS-spam)?
I also don't really like the additional control over when something comes out of reinforced. Todays Stront mechanism makes you able to control it somewhat, but you can get caught with your pants down etc. If the defender can 100% control the time, I think the attacker is at too much of a disadvantage. Fights between groups from different timezones would not happen without alarm-clock ops, and since this IS a game, alarm-clock ops shouldn't really be needed to get a fun fight.
However, while I think there are a few weak points, a worthwhile contribution nonetheless. Keep 'em posts coming...
Note: I think you got a small thing wrong. People today don't manage stront to make the POS come out in their own prime-time. They manage it to come out in their opponent's non-prime time (a small but crucial difference)....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 16:49:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Bozse on 08/05/2007 16:47:14 (note, spelling and grammar fixed, so please don't freak that I edited the quote).
No worries i know i suck at grammar and spelling =/
This gets really fun in constellations with multiple stations as once one is taken Sovereignty drops (turning off or reducing range of Jump Bridges, turning off Capital production, etc).
Having cap production linked to that would imo be a bad idea.
The kicker here is that those SIÆs not only give Stations added utility (more offices, better refining, more slots, etc) but power up the stations defenses and offenses that until youÆve managed to get through those taking the Station itself is suicide even for a 50-100 cap fleet.
More / Less offices, slots and such is not a good idea and i doubt even possible to have fluctuating within the current mechanics.
I see what u are trying to do with the idea but to be fair it brings up another issue with how easy it is to just go with a roaming gang in to some ones space just to harrass a bit, this system would just make that the new big issue with 0.0 as u have little to no controll over who enters your space.
Im guessing my main issue with this comes from it beeing an internal goon discussion to start with though (and no it's not a stab at goons) as your member base if some what younger and isn't that capital ship strong, your sugestion makes capitals more or less obsolete as they wouldn't be used for any of this besides the actual station taking which is the same as not at all.
Edit: Was a nubtard and said the same thing twice =/
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Delwin Amber
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 17:27:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Tzrailasa Edited by: Tzrailasa on 08/05/2007 16:32:35
While your idea about the station getting more abilities depending on Sov is VERY interesting, I have a little problem with the rest....
In short, how are the IS REALLY different from todays POS (except not being in one system)?
The two main differences is that IS's wouldn't be as strong as POS's, they would have a more variable placement (in some cases needing probing) and most importantly the reinforced timers would sync. That syncing of timers is really the critical piece to this. You could do the rest with POS's and leave the station invulnerable completely until the last of the POS's is removed. With the synced timer there is now a choice of what to attack/defend.
Quote: MOST importantly, how are you going to prevent IS-spam (formerly known as POS-spam)?
Because spaming by the attacker is useless - there's no Station to power up for them. Spaming by the defender is taken into account by the style of combat generated. As long as IS's are easier to take out than POS's then there's something to do for smaller gangs (20-50) and single or very small cap groups (something I do note I forgot to mention, I envision them about the power of small POS's, but there would be more of them).
Quote: I also don't really like the additional control over when something comes out of reinforced. Todays Stront mechanism makes you able to control it somewhat, but you can get caught with your pants down etc. If the defender can 100% control the time, I think the attacker is at too much of a disadvantage. Fights between groups from different timezones would not happen without alarm-clock ops, and since this IS a game, alarm-clock ops shouldn't really be needed to get a fun fight.
I agree, the syncing is the important part. How you set the time can be as simple or complicated as needed to provide a chance of player-failure like we have now.
Quote: However, while I think there are a few weak points, a worthwhile contribution nonetheless. Keep 'em posts coming...
yea, I had to cobble this together out of an initial discussion on design principals to reduce lag so there are holes in it.
Quote: Note: I think you got a small thing wrong. People today don't manage stront to make the POS come out in their own prime-time. They manage it to come out in their opponent's non-prime time (a small but crucial difference)....
true. As noted above the exact mechanics of how you decide when the battle will take place needs to be in the hands of the defender, and this design relies on the sync'd timers to prevent a ripple effect but other than that it's all very changeable.
|
|
Delwin Amber
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 17:43:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Bozse
Having cap production linked to that would imo be a bad idea.
It's just an option for more things to be tied to Sovereignty. With Stations harder to take down than POS's it would mean no more 11th hour baby titan kills but likewise if you so lose Sovereignty you're not getting it back any time soon (short of the attacker screwing up and allowing a ping-pong).
Quote: More / Less offices, slots and such is not a good idea and i doubt even possible to have fluctuating within the current mechanics.
Hm. Point. factory slots, refining capacity, maybe even bonuses for certain types of refines (35% for general, 37% for scrap metal, 42% for morphite, etc) could work though.
Quote: I see what you are trying to do with the idea but to be fair it brings up another issue with how easy it is to just go with a roaming gang in to some ones space just to harass a bit, this system would just make that the new big issue with 0.0 as you have little to no control over who enters your space.
Isn't that what's wanted? The ability for the small (well smaller than Fleet) gang to actually be able to do something? I've seen multiple dev blogs stating that. If you can spread the combat out from Fleet to Wing or even Squad level then the stress on the server is less and everyone gets to participate more.
Quote: I'm guessing my main issue with this comes from it being an internal goon discussion to start with though (and no it's not a stab at goons) as your member base if some what younger and isn't that capital ship strong.
Being on our boards doesn't mean much - our boards have more traffic than Eve-O gets. The problem you're running into is that I had to convert it from a discussion of lag and ways to mitigate it to a discussion of new POS mechanics. Some pieces were lost in translation. No big deal :)
I fly a Thanatos myself so I do know how cap ships work. They weren't left out.
Quote: Your suggestion makes capitals more or less obsolete as they wouldn't be used for any of this besides the actual station taking which is the same as not at all.
Quite the contrary. Dreads in siege would make short work of many of these structures so taking a dread fleet in you can put entire systems into reinforced to provide more targets for the final attack. Likewise carriers (and Motherships) would provide the exact same support roles they do now. Titans would allow jump bridges into hostile systems just like they do now.
The major change is the Dreadnaught's primary role. It goes from POS killer (though it'd still do that too) to Capital Ship killer. Siege mode might need a little tinkering to allow them to hit (very) slow moving cap ships but the horrors of hot dropping 20 dreads into the middle of a cap fleet will still keep Alliance leaders up late at night on both offense and defense.
In summery the role of capital ships is to counter other capital ships, not to shoot at a very large unmoving target that just soaks up massive amount of damage. I think everyone can agree that it's a lot more fun when there's someone to shoot back.
|
Delwin Amber
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 17:44:00 -
[142]
Anyway, sorry for hijacking the thread, it really wasn't intentional.
Back to testing POS's on sisi.
|
Eewec Ourbyni
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 18:36:00 -
[143]
After a bit of a chat on the development irc channel, I compiled the following summary of how the new system roughly works.
This is probably subject to change, but I figured I'd share with the rest of you the information gleened
- Level 0 Sovereignty = Not yours (To upgrade to level 1: Hold Sov claiming POS for 7 days)
- Level 1 Sovereignty = Territory (To upgrade to level 2: Hold Sov claiming POS for another 14 days)
- Level 2 Sovereignty = Protectorate (To upgrade to level 3: Hold Sov claiming POS for another 14 days)
- Level 3 Sovereignty = Province (To upgrade to level 4: Have 3 outposts in Constellation or conquerables and have one outpost as Capital (this is considered constellation sovereignty - the constellation is now yours), which then starts the 30 day timer to upgrade to lvl 4)
- Level 4 Sovereignty = Constellation Capital (you now get to play with all the big toys!)
There is probably more in there aswell, oh and the higher the level the more things you can upgrade you Outpost and anchor.
This is a sig...
-- You think this guys post is nuts.... you should see his bio --
... good, ain't it! |
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 18:55:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Bein Glorious on 08/05/2007 18:54:51 I had a question for Delwin Amber about his "Support Infrastructure" idea or whatever, though its not entirely clear to me:
If the attacker must or at least should spread its forces across multiple systems to have an effect on sovereignty, does the defender have to split forces as well to prevent it? Does the station owner have to hold all of the SIs to maintain sov, or does the loss of one only decrease the benefits of these SIs? The way you phrased it in a couple sentences isn't very clear to me.
If the attackers have to split their forces and the defender doesn't, it seems like the defenders could just go from system-to-system wiping out the attackers with relative ease.
An ideal sovereignty system would not take a prerequisite number of players, would anticipate that not everyone can play at all hours of the day (or week), wouldn't introduce new mechanics or ships that disrupt other non-problematic realms of the game (e.g. lowsec piracy), and wouldn't give too much power to either the defender or the attacker. Not causing or facilitating server stability is a nice perk in addition to that. In some ways, I think the current system has its good parts, but in others, yeah, definitely could use some work.
If they were going to change the current system as little as possible, I'd decrease medium and large tower HP, decrease the total potential damage of turret batteries, decrease the damage of Dreadnoughts in siege, and decrease the HP of capital ships as well. Hell, most of the reason why I think the HP increase in Kali was good was because a few dreads could take down another one in under a minute.
Also, a couple ideas and concerns of mine:
- I haven't seen the jump bridge battery for POS's yet, and I don't know if its only for bridging from POS-to-POS or from POS-to-cyno. However, if its POS-to-cyno, I second the suggestion from a few pages back to give it a startup timer for those jumping through it. Without that, it would essentially make large gangs just as mobile or more mobile than small gangs or single players. Maybe give it a timer for POS-to-POS too, depends on how it turns out. I really don't want to be flying around just to get thirty command ships dropped on my head, that would suck like nothing else.
- Judging by general opinion, I don't know if the "POS guns outside the force field" idea is really going to take off, but if it does get pushed through in the future and it appears that POS guns take too long to repair compared to how long it takes to destroy/disable them, I'd suggest giving the guns less HP but higher resists. Purely as an example, if you gave a turret 10,000 HP and 90% resists across the board, it would have 1,000,000 effective HP but take less or equal amounts of time to repair it. I am concerned about this mostly because if these large turret batteries have 500,000 structure HP, no resists, and the remote hull reps for them are as slow as normal hull reps, that would take an age to repair. If they repair too much raw HP, then I worry about the effects that might have when used on other ships (if they can be used on anything but structures).
Still not very sure about how well the "guns outside the forcefield" idea will fit with the game, regardless of their current bugginess, but if the guns can't reactivate or repair themselves over time, it sounds pretty hellish to me. I personally hope that this Starbase 2.0 doesn't come out until another few months of testing and player feedback proves that its an acceptable change.
edit: typo |
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 19:18:00 -
[145]
Wanna break up the blob?
Make large towers a tad easier to kill BUT allow the defenders to network a limited number of POSes in the constellation linking their shields together.
What I mean is that attacking one tower would be futile as the unaggressed towers would regenerate the aggressed tower's shield.
In order to take down the sov. claiming towers the attacking force would have to split up and attack the majority of the networked towers at the same time.
The defenders would have to also split up or if they blob up on a single group of attackers they risk getting the rest of their towers blown up while they save one POS.
There, constellation sov. and blob killer suggestion in one package.
|
Kharo Khann
Cosmology
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 19:32:00 -
[146]
I see all sorts of reactions and jumping to conclusion, but i rather would like to know what sort of problem CCP does want to solve with their POS changes?! CCP proposed a lot of changes to POS'ses but forgot to tell why.
|
IHaveTenFingers
Caldari ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 19:52:00 -
[147]
Im sure the idea has been brougt up by now, but how about, say logistics arrays insie of starbases (shield, armor, cap, mabye structure Xfer, as well as tracking and sensor boosters) that randomly target damaged friendly objects outside of the bubble. Might help to solve the problem of targetable starbase guns. That would cause people to have to rethink starbase engineering and balance their logistics and guns instead of the "OMFGWTFPWN LOTS OF GUNS" death star idea.
Now i wonder, will guns be ECM / sensor damp / tracking jammable? ------------------------------------
Your signature has exceeded the maximum allowed 2x1 pixel size and 4 byte file size limit, and has been removed. |
IHaveTenFingers
Caldari ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 19:53:00 -
[148]
Oh yeah and i almost forget, wheres our stealth arrays? ------------------------------------
Your signature has exceeded the maximum allowed 2x1 pixel size and 4 byte file size limit, and has been removed. |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 20:01:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Bozse And why should a large POS setup to dish damage not be able to kill of capitals without support?
As Dian said it's first of all the cost issue between the two...
Erm, yes. But titan doomsday and supercapital pos bowling is okay then regarding risk/reward ration? Hehe, but nice try!
Now to the ideas:
- Moving all modules outsides is bad because of smartbombing
- defence structures would need much more shield/armor hp because of multiple ddd
- using jumpbridge should set up a counter of a certain time during which you cannot use another jumpbridge
The idea about one sov module/pos per system is a very bad idea! If you have one such pos, then what will happen? The attacker will jump in with as many capitals as possible and attack. Capital blobs for the win? I don't think that this should be the solution.
Let's take a different approach! Why do we need sov at all? To anchor certain modules, to hold stations and to be shown on the map as current owner of that space.
I believe that the pos warfare can only be solved if the whole sov business would be seriously reworked. Why not remove sov claiming pos at all? Why not introduce some other sov model, independent from the pos stuff?! Or at least make the pos not the only determinating factor in the whole sov stuff.
Why not introducing some other sov model like a mixture of some sort of 'capture the flag' and military superiority. Of course both averaged. Or any other, better, model?
I think the recent years and especially months showed that the sov-by-pos model failed and is not at all fun, never was. Time to take a bold step forward and do something new, something better!
Change the whole system and don't meddle on pesky details! Because messing around some details won't change anything. Probably it will get only worse.
|
JP Moregain
Gallente EVE Reserve Bank
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 20:38:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Gnulpie The idea about one sov module/pos per system is a very bad idea! If you have one such pos, then what will happen? The attacker will jump in with as many capitals as possible and attack. Capital blobs for the win? I don't think that this should be the solution.
4 words for you: Cyno System Jammer Array
http://www.evereserve.com |
|
SpaceSlag
Blast Surface Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 21:17:00 -
[151]
First, I'd like to start out by saying I read the entire post thus far and am VERY interested to see how POS management changes in Revelations 2.0.
Secondly I'd like to start out by quoting two insightful people.
Originally by: Karu Manara
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 ;)
Originally by: Delwin Amber
I think you're starting to hit on something I was tossing around a while ago on my Alliance's internal forums. The real problem with territorial warfare is twofold: 1) It's not fun, and 2) the servers can't handle the scale it's going to be fought at. The battle for JV1V would have been epic if the server could have handled 2000 people fighting over a single object.
Everybody, including devs, understand that the wholesale of POS warefare is fleet oriented. Many dreads and carriers siege a POS and remote repair each other making it impossible for any variation of deathstar POS to take down any one of their capitolships.
However, any veteran of JV1V can see this latest POS idea from the Dev team exactly for what it is: An overenhancement for the attacking side.
If no capsuler may target a hostile outside of a POS shield from within the shield, then what is the point of player controlled POS guns? You have to target your enemy before you know who to fire on yes? JV1V made targetting, moving, even logging into the game an impossibility for the other 1500 players petitioning CCP for not being able to log into the node. If we first must move outside the shield making ourselves vulnerable and then must activate the maximum of 5 POS guns, wouldn't it be easier to just self-destruct? POS towers as they are in the latest Tranquility Server Revelations version auto target and do not stop firring from lag or other clientside/networking/serverside game mechanics that prohibit any one pilots ability to aggress another pilot.
Making a single tower the source of sovreignity only makes the do-or-die situation that much greater and that much greater a chance of another 2000 man battle occurring.
Upgrade the current POS mechanics and change types of control towers so that more CPU or Powergrid are variations of the Standard Small, Medium, Large. -Sort of like t2 missles (short range, high damage to long range, penalties and less damage)
Additionally, make some type of tracking for all types of cargo compartments and on/offlining in POS structures so that accountability may finally be achieved.
|
Lobo Noturno
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 21:38:00 -
[152]
I realy like the way CCP is taking to fix POS warfare. I am sure moving the defending structures outside is actually just the first step, and not the complete overhaul. Having towers outside the shield allow for smaller fleets to have specific targets and use small, coordinated attacks to bring down the defenses of a POS. Also, being able to control such defenses will make a very big impact, since concentrated fire is key for killing a dread or carrier.(damage output of capital sized weapons defenses should be modified so that, when used manually, provide a real danger to any attacking fleet.) I also suggest that all defenses have small signatures, so the dreads/carriers need a support fleet to kill those if they want to kill the POS without dieing in the process.(and the support fleet need to be fast and effective to kill those defense towers before being killed by the smaller defenses too...) I think the POS might require some shield regen change, to be sure that a big POS, even without it's defenses, can only be killed by either a huge blob or a capital fleet. A new balance need to be found.
I also liked the cyno interdictor structure, perhaps a whole dedicated POS that do it(with no defenses except it's shield), that requires sovereignty and take a full day to become active. Perhaps this is one of many other interesting stand-alone structures that would be worth attacking and defending, specially if the end up having constellation wide effects...
The jump bridge is also a very good idea, as long as it consumes fuel(stront? :-) ), has limited range and requires sovereignty too.
|
Ruciza
|
Posted - 2007.05.08 21:48:00 -
[153]
Dude we're weeks away from controlling pos guns. We don't know yet who will be able to target what from where.
What I suppose will be implemented is that pos guns will be absolutely able to take out dreads, and quickly enough to pose a considerable risk for any dread fleet. If it's clear that one or more people will lose their capitals, they won't engage until a smaller squad has destroyed some guns. They don't need to kill all guns, just enough that a dread can tank it. Or at least most dreads.
So in order to invade a sov constellation, an attacking fleet has to break through camps, take out the cyno jammer (mission for recons), jump in (super-)capitals, maybe carriers with spare AF on board, which can't easily be hit by 400m sig resolution pos guns, AF warp to pos, kill webbers, kill guns, dreads warp in, kill pos. And all that while the defenders try to stop them.
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 03:46:00 -
[154]
Hm. Point. factory slots, refining capacity, maybe even bonuses for certain types of refines (35% for general, 37% for scrap metal, 42% for morphite, etc) could work though.
Yeah things like that might work, changing timers might be a possiblity on factorys and such but i the actual number of them is a constant.
Isn't that what's wanted? The ability for the small (well smaller than Fleet) gang to actually be able to do something? I've seen multiple dev blogs stating that. If you can spread the combat out from Fleet to Wing or even Squad level then the stress on the server is less and everyone gets to participate more.
Yes something but not everything, the problem im seeing with the change to many small easy targets for a roaming gang is that we have no defence systems in place to protect our space, this would lead to alot of fast strikes against structures in weak timezones or when u know the enemy isn't at home just for the sake of harrassment and not the desire to take space.
Quite the contrary. Dreads in siege would make short work of many of these structures so taking a dread fleet in you can put entire systems into reinforced to provide more targets for the final attack. Likewise carriers (and Motherships) would provide the exact same support roles they do now. Titans would allow jump bridges into hostile systems just like they do now.
The major change is the Dreadnaught's primary role. It goes from POS killer (though it'd still do that too) to Capital Ship killer. Siege mode might need a little tinkering to allow them to hit (very) slow moving cap ships but the horrors of hot dropping 20 dreads into the middle of a cap fleet will still keep Alliance leaders up late at night on both offense and defense.
In summery the role of capital ships is to counter other capital ships, not to shoot at a very large unmoving target that just soaks up massive amount of damage. I think everyone can agree that it's a lot more fun when there's someone to shoot back.
Well sure a few dreads would take out one of the structures fast but no one in there right mind would use them like that as the defender can have a 30 man cap fleet standing by ready to kill your 3-4 dreads, and as far as capital fleets go there would be none due to the mechanics so u would have no capital fleet to drop your capital fleet on.
At the end of the day i think what makes the "blobing" beeing so widespread atm is due to the wast number of POS's that is beeing spamed, when the POS shooting is done for the day people tend to go roaming in smaller gangs which is what's wanted, so a reduction of the amount with the sov array or a sov tower will focus the blobing just for station taking / defence and leave alot more time for roaming in smaller gangs.
And even with your sugestion there will still be blobing when it comes down to the final structures or the actual taking of the station so it can't be avoided, the sov tower would be a much stronger then the current large to compensate for beeing the only mechanism to hold sov in a station system but would force a fight then and there instead of the drawn out POS spam we see today to avoid the actual fight.
I do think your idea can be used in combination though to enhance the sov tower with more shields, resists, dmg and so on much like fittings to a ship, that way making the sov tower allmost unbeatable unless u take out strategic targets first, harrassment value would be way less aswell unless u want to fake an attack on a system.
Not had my morning coffee yet so hope that made sense =/
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 03:59:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Bozse And why should a large POS setup to dish damage not be able to kill of capitals without support?
As Dian said it's first of all the cost issue between the two...
Erm, yes. But titan doomsday and supercapital pos bowling is okay then regarding risk/reward ration? Hehe, but nice try!
This is not a discussion about supercapitals so lets leave that for the multiple of threads about them.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Dr Brains
Boli Me Kurc
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 07:57:00 -
[156]
Changes are good, normally. This ones are just useless. OK, i like the jump portal thing :) The cyno disruptor is bad. You can't block gates, but you can block cynos - very crappy idea.
Why don't you just make some kind of active tank on POS. And pleaseeeeeeeee, do something about the POS spamming thing. This is just the lamest thing around, been ingame since POS exists. People can just spam 10 POS, go carebear for 5 days, and have the system after that. If you take the price of those 10 POS against the 5 day carebear profit - you come out with ISK for more towers.
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 07:58:00 -
[157]
(a few bits cut out for shortening, but context should be fine)...
Originally by: Delwin Amber
Originally by: Tzrailasa In short, how are the IS REALLY different from todays POS (except not being in one system)?
The two main differences is that IS's wouldn't be as strong as POS's, they would have a more variable placement (in some cases needing probing) and most importantly the reinforced timers would sync. That syncing of timers is really the critical piece to this. You could do the rest with POS's and leave the station invulnerable completely until the last of the POS's is removed. With the synced timer there is now a choice of what to attack/defend.
Originally by: Tzrailasa MOST importantly, how are you going to prevent IS-spam (formerly known as POS-spam)?
Because spaming by the attacker is useless - there's no Station to power up for them. Spaming by the defender is taken into account by the style of combat generated. As long as IS's are easier to take out than POS's then there's something to do for smaller gangs (20-50) and single or very small cap groups (something I do note I forgot to mention, I envision them about the power of small POS's, but there would be more of them).
Something was bothering me about your replies, but I didn't get it pinpointed until this morning.
If I boil down and rephrase your suggestion (i.e. calling your IS a POS etc.), your idea boils down to: 1. Make POS more expensive for a defender to spam. 2. Attackers can not use POS-spam for attacking.
The main point is that it is not really different from what we have today. It still boils down to that you can throw ISK in front of an attacker until he is bored and goes away.
Todays situation is that there is are moving goalposts for the attacker, where the defender can just throw ISK at the problem, and the goal is moved further away. Your option doesn't really change that. This means that sovereignty is not determined by people loosing ships in fights (which I think we all find is the fun part), but which party is either bored away, or runs out of money (neither of which is fun).
The One Sov-POS per system option fixes the goals at both ends of the field, thus if people want to play, they have a clear-cut objective. The attacker has to kill the existing POS, the defender has to prevent that from happening (i.e. we have a fun fight on our hands).
As for attackers not being able to use POS spam (or whatever name it is called), while the defender IS, is not only unfair, but also contrary to the fact that POS spam usually is used for defence, not offence (since it can be easily countered by defensive POS spam)....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Xylynex Farqir
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 08:34:00 -
[158]
I like the idea of specific types of POSs depending on what you are wanting them to do. Here is a modification to those suggestions though which would only create more types of POSs.
Each POS should have a limited number of offensive defences (turrets/launchers) depending on the POS size. These structures do not use any CPU and limited PG (possibly 50% of current as suggested by someone in a post before (appologies)). These limited number of structures should be allowed to be anchored within the POS.
If you wish to anchor additional offensive structures, then you need to anchor a new structure (within the shield/attached to the POS) that increases the offensive strucutres limit. This attachment would use CPU/PG. Therefore, a POS could still be setup as a Deathstar if so wished. These additional offensive strucutres (turrets/launchers) can ONLY be anchored outside of the POS.
The new Offensive Strucutre Controller (within the shield) is linked to those turrets/launchers outside the shield (similar to the manufacturing chain presently). This structure would be used to effect the focused fire as pointed out, but the offensive structures would work normally if someone was not controlling them. Additional damage would depend on the skill level of the controlling player.
The sovereign control structure as mentioned before is a good idea also. Could be setup to take up a lot of the CPU/PG and also causes POSs to use more fuel. This would be an exponential increase on those Sovereign type POSs, depending on how many are operating within a system already? Sovereign control structures could not be placed by another corp/alliance until all the existing ones in a system are destroyed. Therefore change of system ownership would occur then and this would help with reduced POS blobing.
I would like to see a balancing of the POS CPU/PG dependant currently on the various races. Why not have various structures instead that control what the POS actually does. Maybe get rid of the races completely? It seems that Amarr and Caldari are the most used towers irrelevant of the space they are operated in.
In relation to Jump Bridges, these should be setup as a capacitor / timer situation. Recharge takes some time (can be external boosted?) and there is a 2-5 min timer (fixed) to stop instant massive fleet movement (of small ships also). The capacitor use would be proportional to the size of the ship. A capital ship might use 90% of the Jump Bridges cap, whereas a Frig might only use 2%. The jumping ship might need a new navigation module fitted (therefore Freighters cannot travel this way)? This module might also be needed when jumping with a Titan?
|
|
BH Reechani
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 11:56:00 -
[159]
ok for those complaining about targeting players controling guns.
for the moment (and this is only a temp method as the final interface is not finished) all targeting and ording to fire is managed through the tower itself. if you look at the dev blog on corp changes, there is a screen shot of the ability to set structures so a "caretaker" can fuel them but can not offline them or remove fuel from them. there is a new tab called "control" that is where you take control of guns. you go there and you take the gun, you tell it to target something and the gun gives you a list of everything it can target (even if out of gun range). once targeted you can tell it to attack (this does not do anything yet). You can be inside the shield the entire time you do this for them moment but as long as you are controling the gun you can not move and you can not warp. if you release control (so you can add ammo to a gun or something) the gun immediately reverts to ai control.
Again this is subject to change, and there are some players that have seen this and can verify what i have said because they were present when we started trying to test this feature and discovered it is not fully functional yet. If you want to see it yourself, log into the test server make your way to FD- and watch for requests from devs/BH in local to help with testing or join the channel "starbase-warfare" on the test server and ask if there is any testing going at the moment.
|
|
Jai Cee
Quam Singulari Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 12:29:00 -
[160]
And even with your sugestion there will still be blobing when it comes down to the final structures or the actual taking of the station so it can't be avoided, the sov tower would be a much stronger then the current large to compensate for beeing the only mechanism to hold sov in a station system but would force a fight then and there instead of the drawn out POS spam we see today to avoid the actual fight.
I do think your idea can be used in combination though to enhance the sov tower with more shields, resists, dmg and so on much like fittings to a ship, that way making the sov tower allmost unbeatable unless u take out strategic targets first, harrassment value would be way less aswell unless u want to fake an attack on a system.
To me the ideas proposed by yourself and Bein Glorious are pretty similar. The main target is either a station or a single super POS. Personally I prefer the station being the ultimate logical target.
If I can sumarise what I think of the ideas: SIs to me seem to be the equivalent of modules for stations, they should be stacking nerfed (so you can't deploy the equivalent of 10 hardners etc) but they can upgrade your stations defences considerably. With a network of SIs in place your station is pretty much invincible except vs an incredible number of Dreads. As you take down SIs the station itself becomes a more reasonable target. What would be really great is if the SIs were all under the control of the station owner therefore you could choose to destroy all the SIs and take the station easily OR only take down a few and face a bigger fight for the station but you get control of an intact infrastructure. This would add to the strategic element, at what point is a station vulnerable enough to risk an assault?
To give smaller squads a role SIs should be reinforcable by a squad of 30-50 BS in a period of maybe 30-40 mins AND to make it interesting their automated guns should pose very little threat unless there is a player controlling them (making them similar to gate guns when uncontrolled in targetting AI and damage perhaps). I like the synced reinforced timer idea and faster recharge rate (pospreying is sure boring) as this adds incentive for hits on multiple SIs but to keep dreads with a role when SIs come out of reinforced they should be in an equivalent of siege mode (to kill a reinforced SI is as hard as a large POS now and their guns become mostly ineffective vs anything smaller than a BS but their damage is enough to worry a dreads tank), you would need dreads to take them down.
There are other ideas that tie in with this, increased periods of sovereignty allow you to put up more advanced SIs and things like jump portals and cyno blockers that can form a chain stopping hostiles cynoing through them thus making your peripheries essential to be assaulted first. Industrial and regular POSes for ship storage and safespotting can still exist in this scenario, probably pretty much unchanged from their current status. POS spamming is no longer an issue as SIs only help the defender. Fueling should be at the station level for SIs and remain as it is for industrial and regular POSes.
One problem I foresee with this is that stations since they now have defenses would not be possible for small gangs to warp to in the same way that POSes also currently aren't. One way to avoid this would be for station guns to require extra fuel to run making it prohibitive to leave them active 24/7 day-to-day. Guns should have to be activated for multiples of 1 hour however when they turn off after being activated they have a cooldown period perhaps of an hour meaning that you could bring a small roaming gang in forcing the station owners to activate the guns for an hour to send you away but if you come back in one hour they will be vulnerable. When under heavy assault your supply lines will become much more stressed as you will want to leave guns activated 24/7 resulting in a possible war of attrition
|
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 13:41:00 -
[161]
To me the ideas proposed by yourself and Bein Glorious are pretty similar. The main target is either a station or a single super POS. Personally I prefer the station being the ultimate logical target.
I disagre as the stations as they are now work and your way would case issues with people beeing inactive no beeing able to undock and escape due to guns, u could not warp to station in hope of catching targets, u could not camp station (not the most fun nor glorious way to spend time but the option shuld be there) and so on.
I can agree with most of the other stuff in some variation atleast, the fueling of guns at station (if it would come down to the station beeing used instead of a sov POS) is something i have to disagree with, if the station is the ultimate target then it shuld be armed without interuptions and without fuel needs as we have enough logistics in EVE as is without adding more.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
EL TITAN
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 14:10:00 -
[162]
Edited by: EL TITAN on 09/05/2007 14:06:50 I think its great that CCP is thinking about changes, to improve gameplay surrounding a starbase/pos.
However my concern, is that the biggest problem is pos spamming. So Id like to introduce my idea:
Release Large sovereignty claiming towers. Basically they will be the same as a large tower with maybe some more power grid and cpu, but only these towers can claim sovereignty in station systems. Make the maximum number of large sovereignty towers (claimers) deployable in a station system to 3 per alliance. This will force the attackers to have to attack towers to take over a system, and the defenders to defend their towers.
If a defender has 3 sov towers up, and a attacker puts up 3 of their own. Sov should not change after 5 days, the attacker should kill one in order for sovereignty to change. OR if defender has 3 up already, and attacker puts up 3 after 5 days it can go to neutral, meaning station is shootable. Forcing either side to have to kill at least 1 hostile tower to be able to have sovereignty of said station system. _________________________________________________ <3 hi |
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 14:25:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 09/05/2007 14:24:56
Originally by: EL TITAN I think its great that CCP is thinking about changes, to improve gameplay surrounding a starbase/pos.
However my concern, is that the biggest problem is pos spamming. So Id like to introduce my idea:
Release Large sovereignty claiming towers. Basically they will be the same as a large tower with maybe some more power grid and cpu, but only these towers can claim sovereignty in station systems. Make the maximum number of large sovereignty towers (claimers) deployable in a station system to 3 per alliance. This will force the attackers to have to attack towers to take over a system, and the defenders to defend their towers.
If a defender has 3 sov towers up, and a attacker puts up 3 of their own. Sov should not change after 5 days, the attacker should kill one in order for sovereignty to change. OR if defender has 3 up already, and attacker puts up 3 after 5 days it can go to neutral, meaning station is shootable. Forcing either side to have to kill at least 1 hostile tower to be able to have sovereignty of said station system.
Hi El T
The problem with this is that it doesn't close off POS spam anyway, it just limits the numbers.
Imagine this scenario. Alliance A has 3 POS, and Alliance B the same. Alliance A wants to fight, but Alliance B don't and have money. Alliance A shoots B's Sov claiming POS, but B just puts up more when they die. A doesn't get a fight, doesn't get sov either, and eventually leaves because POS shooting is boring, and B wins by POS spam.
In essence it is really no different from today.
This is my reason for wanting a total limit to the Sov-claiming POS in one system (whether that limit is 1, 3 or whatever doesn't matter). A fixed limit forces people to fight to get a system, and it forces people to fight to keep it. POS spamming in any kind becomes useless.... Also, if there is only a limit per alliance, what would keep a POS-spamming alliance from creating alt-alliances who spam away too..... Yes, they'd not get Sov, but they'd keep Sov from the attacker...
I think that if you want to attack a system, there should be a fixed set of objectives you have to do to conquor it, as well as a fixed set of objectives you have to do to defend it. In my above example, that objective is: "Kill the opponents Sov-POS and replace it with your own." Similarly for the defender, he has a fixed objective: "Defend your Sov-POS from the enemy." Both requires the parties to actually FIGHT for the system, and the objectives can not be changed by the opposing party by just throwing some ISK at it (unless those ISK are in the form of ships)....
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Jai Cee
Quam Singulari Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 14:32:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Bozse
I disagre as the stations as they are now work and your way would case issues with people beeing inactive no beeing able to undock and escape due to guns, u could not warp to station in hope of catching targets, u could not camp station (not the most fun nor glorious way to spend time but the option shuld be there) and so on.
I can agree with most of the other stuff in some variation atleast, the fueling of guns at station (if it would come down to the station beeing used instead of a sov POS) is something i have to disagree with, if the station is the ultimate target then it shuld be armed without interuptions and without fuel needs as we have enough logistics in EVE as is without adding more.
I kind of agree with you about the camping stations issues and hadn't really thought about the issues of people escaping from now hostile stations (though thats easily fixed by giving the guns a long lock time). I personally would love there to be guns at stations as it seems pretty illogical to have these expensive outposts defended by fleets of ships and not have any sort of defense to them.
Fueling the guns would not be done at the individual turret but inside the station, you would therefore need to either stockpile fuel in the station or ensure your supply lines are open. In reality this is far easier than the current POS system, I personally wouldn't envisage SIs needing to be fueled individually (maybe the guns should have to be stocked with ammo though). All fuelling for SIs would be done at the station. Industrial POS and those used as staging points would remain the same but given their now vastly lowered numbers this should not be a big issue.
Overall I'd hope that this sort of system achieves some key aims. 1) It completely removes POS spam 2) It cuts out a lot of very boring and time consuming logistics (fueling POS and managing stront) yet still requires some work to fuel an outpost 3) It gives small gangs something to do in reinforcing SIs (those upgrading outpost services such as decrease manufacturing time but not defensive would cease to function when reinforced) 4) Outposts finally get some upgrades and customisation (number of SIs should be limited)
|
EL TITAN
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 14:33:00 -
[165]
"If a defender has 3 sov towers up, and a attacker puts up 3 of their own. Sov should not change after 5 days, the attacker should kill one in order for sovereignty to change. "
o/ hiya, you missed that part dude ;p but I can see why you might have missed my point as its not very accurate, what I meant by that is that after 5 days sovereignty doesn't change nor does it go to neutral it stays in the hand of the existing owner. The attacker should kill at least 1 tower to force sovereignty to change. Making someone wanting to take a station, actually have to work to take over a station. _________________________________________________ <3 hi |
Sirr Hammer
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 14:44:00 -
[166]
my suggestion ..make a super pos sov claming pos ..only super about it shoud be extra shields "lots " no reinforcing option .let the superpos get suportet by 3 normal large posses ,,so u ned 3 posses to put up a super. and claim a system . in peace times u shoud be abol to claim whit normal posses ,whit the risk of a enemy comming and putting up a super .u shoud ned to kill the 3 suport posses before u can tutch the super.and if u put up a enemy set of posses 3+1 nothing shoud happen before u kille the enemys 4 posses ..and ofc putting up repacment posses shudent count ...unles there has gone like 14 days before new replacmen posses can be put up and addet to a super that had 3 suport .. and ofc the superpos shoud cost a ****load..
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 14:55:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Bozse on 09/05/2007 14:53:06 Overall I'd hope that this sort of system achieves some key aims. 1) It completely removes POS spam 2) It cuts out a lot of very boring and time consuming logistics (fueling POS and managing stront) yet still requires some work to fuel an outpost 3) It gives small gangs something to do in reinforcing SIs (those upgrading outpost services such as decrease manufacturing time but not defensive would cease to function when reinforced) 4) Outposts finally get some upgrades and customisation (number of SIs should be limited)
Realy don't think manufacturing times and such shuld be involved as the harrassement factor is just to big as we'r talking smaller gang objectives with the additional structures, and still think the station is a bad idea as the primary target, creates alot of new issues and balance work, POS is atleast something we know how it works and can make more or less balanced sugestions on.
Still like the idea of additional structures for smaller gangs to attack but think they shuld be limited to reenforcing defences forcing the attacker to reenforce them before the final assult on the tower, a nice balance with smaller gangs to remove reenforcements and a big battle in the end for the tower.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 15:33:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Tzrailasa on 09/05/2007 15:33:54
Originally by: EL TITAN "If a defender has 3 sov towers up, and a attacker puts up 3 of their own. Sov should not change after 5 days, the attacker should kill one in order for sovereignty to change. "
o/ hiya, you missed that part dude ;p but I can see why you might have missed my point as its not very accurate, what I meant by that is that after 5 days sovereignty doesn't change nor does it go to neutral it stays in the hand of the existing owner. The attacker should kill at least 1 tower to force sovereignty to change. Making someone wanting to take a station, actually have to work to take over a station.
Yeah, I did read that, but what I was commenting on from your post was this part (I shouldn've been more specific):
Originally by: EL TITAN OR if defender has 3 up already, and attacker puts up 3 after 5 days it can go to neutral, meaning station is shootable
I don't really care about the exact mechanics, as long as it is absolutely clear and fixed what is required to conquor and defend a system (i.e. no effects of things like POS-spam), and that it requires actual (and lots of) fighting....
If the 'neutral if equal' option is active, you could affect sovereignty without fighting, something I absolutely detest (we've seen enough of that from certain gutless alliances...).
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Gothikia
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 15:58:00 -
[169]
Awesome idea! Fixes one of the major problems of Starbases since their inception... They're too damn uber. But you can bet the big alliances aint gonna like it.
Aint that a shame. ---
sig nerfed again... ú$~"$%# |
gordon cain
Minmatar x13 Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 16:38:00 -
[170]
I see alot of good ideas in here.
And it appears that this is what most people want, including me.
1) Less and stronger towers (the spamming will kill eve at some point) 2) POS that you cant take out with dreads alone.
Gordon
|
|
Kai DeathCutter
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 16:47:00 -
[171]
My Ideas
|
Sheila Chandra
Marquie-X Corp The Pentagram
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 17:18:00 -
[172]
I know (or better hope) all this is still not balanced as it should be, and will be done before it goes to Tranquility, but regardless of imbalancing issues id like to give my feedback on this.
First of all i see a big Problem with especially the defense outside shield. The real big alliances have enough people to give their POSes a 24/7 human defence capability. The smaller alliances which also do and like to live in 0.0 mostly dont have the people to call a gang defence 24/7. Some of them even are mostly producers or miners and even dont have big defending fleets. And some are language specific which is also the way they like to play EvE, but that restricts them to mostly people that play on the same time. (Which currently is a good thing as you can plan things better).
However with these changes, i see a big problem for those to stay in 0.0. If a POS is lets say 6-8 hours a night undefended because of their owners needing sleep someone could come to the idea and attack it when the POS is on its own for hours. With these changes i guess much will find their POSes nearly every morning without defence if not completely destroyed. All in all together, its doing small things to avoid fleet battles with 1000 ships, but its giving those alliances that have a huge present in 0.0 a more and more benefit over the smaller alliances that just started in 0.0 or are not that strong.
Dont get me wrong, its clear that bigger alliances are stronger then the small ones, and its clear that if a 5000 man alliance decides to destroy a 500 man alliance that they will achieve this, but with that change it sounds to me like a small one living near a big one just should pack up their POSes before they get blown out some hours after Rev 2 Release, and small alliances living near small alliances i guess will be the question who shoots first will stay...
Beside that, there is another big problem. Many people are running much POSes to produce tech2 stuff, begining at moon harvesting POSes, reactor POSes and so on. With this change i see it getting very inprofitable to run such POSes if you have millions in a week to spend keeping up your defence, and knowing every time you go sleeping a gang of 10 people can harm you for 100 millions or blow a base with stuff worth 2 billions up... So how about enabling moon harvesting or at least reactors to run in highsec, maybe only 0.5 space?
Also id like to give some suggestions on what could be done better or would just be great ;) - 3 Outposts to be able to install Jumpgates sounds huge to me. Come on this is money someone could build a titan for ;) (And again with knowing who was able to build a titan in the past, this will only make the yet strong more stronger) - How would be the possibility to deactivate a given NPC jumpgate, if you install the same jumpgate at a POS? The Jumpgate at the POS could even be forced to stay outside the shield, routes would not be broken but someone controlling a region would force hostiles traveling through to get into POS defence.
Instead of just giving defences outside a POS and make it extremly vulnerable, how about this: - Add a "defensive shield battery" structure to the game. This acts like a small variant of a control Tower, but adding a larger, second, shield around the POS. (lets say 10-15km more radious) Not that strong like the original shield. - Lower shield HP of the control tower - Together, the defensive shield should have something like a quarter of what the control tower shield has currently. The control tower shield should get 2/3rd or so 3/4 of what it is currently. Shield hardener arrays would be needed to be configured which shield they strongen
That would give smaller forces a good chance to break though defences, it would still need time to destroy a POS, not that much like now but enough to not harm POSes with millions of ISK loosing over night against 10 ppl.
|
Derran
Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 17:44:00 -
[173]
I would have to agree with most of the detractors. I can't see this really accomplishing much. While right now it seems rather useless for modules to have any HP at all, putting them outside the shield feels rather useless as all that will happen is that you'll get 10-20 dreads focusing their fire on those guns and eliminating them fairly quickly much like you see in blob warfare already. Unless they do something about that root problem, the whole thing seems rather moot.
The jump bridge thing I have been keeping my eye out for awhile. Honestly, unless they do something about POS spamming, it seems to be more annoying than useful. An enemy can just come in and steal sovereignity by deploying more POS, gaining the early advantage. Unless something is done like requiring charters to deploy a POS on claimed territory, it just feels like an annoying ability.
|
AnubsiRa
Seraphin Technologies Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 19:02:00 -
[174]
It¦s a good idea to balance the POS on the TQ Server. But i think what i saw atm on Test Server isn¦t enough.
I will try to explain it with my crappy english.
For example a Deathstar with 9 large Arty¦s oder Rail¦s. You know the race then you know the Dmg types and you can tank the resitance as possible. Now you warp to POS with a gang (with or without Gangassist ship in space). With 12 Phoenix you¦re able to do on each weapon (No Resitance (will be changed to Race specific?)) around 720-750K Dmg so with 1.5 Million Hitpoints each Minute 1 Weapon down/inactive so in 4,5-5 Minutes all Weapons useless. EW didn¦t Work on a Siege Dread so not a Primary target then you can shoot then as normal into Reinfore. EW Modules can you shoot down with the rest of a Siege Cycle ;).
So to compensate the growing up Capship Fleet¦s (think that¦s the reason for that) you need the following things...
1.Large POS must be more expensive or bring a Tech 2 large POS Ingame (same model and attributes but more expensive and only on this you can use the POS Siege Weapon (Point 3 in this list). 2.For the Skill to Control POS Weapons 2 Guns per Skill Lvl and give them a Dmg Boni per Lvl or make a new skill for that( or let the Large "yyy"gun Spec Skill count on that and you prevent for using alt/cyno chars to do that). max are 9 Large Weapons and must be Controlled by 1 Char. With more Weapons like Med/Small ones more Chars Controlling Weapons then or if you want to Control EW Installations too. 3.Bring out a new Connon Type espc. for Counter Capship Fleet¦s like a POS Siege Cannon. This Module must be very expensive like a POS. As example with Hitpoints like 4-5 Million (Resistence?) and a Rate of Fire of hmm each 20-30 Sec with a Dmg of 30K Hitpoints(+ a spec Dmg skill of 2% per lvl??). This Weapon using 35% Of PG and CPU Output of a Large POS you you can fit 2 at maximum + some smaller things. This weapon using Racetypical ammo XL Version + Dmg Modifier and using Strontium or Isotopes/Heavy Water or something per shot too (example 500 Strontium/2500 Isotopes racetype/3000 heavy Water (for weaponcooling)). You can use the normal Weapon model ingame just change the Rof and Dmg Modifier.
4. make it able to Remote Rep Dreads in Siege (with a penalty of 50% of repaired Points). I think otherwise you will never see again a Carrier at a POS.
It¦s only a suggestion and i don¦t know if other ppl have the same point of view, And again sry for my bad english knowledge hope you can understand what i mean.
greetz AnubsiRa SERA
|
Eek NL
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 20:10:00 -
[175]
Im not really sure the changes on the testserver atm make things better or worse, but after reading some posts in this tread i had some ideas for the whole sov./POS thing:
When you drop your POS at a moon, you have 2 options; anchor it as an industrial POS or anchor it as a tactical POS
Industrial POS:
Stronger then before, but can't fit guns/EW/web or scram, they also don't do anything with sov. Takes to long to kill with non-capitals, and cyno's might be restricted by a Cyno Disruptor in system, so it would be reasonably safe.
Tactical POS:
- People can jump in a EW/Web/Scram/Turret after ejecting from ship (make ships passworded)
- When in a turret, you can use it just like a stationary ship, ea: target and fire
- Unmanned turrets will randomly pick targets, fire and switch target
- Has less Shield then a industrial POS, but more PG
New POS types:
Tactical Command Center 5.000.000 mW PG (Large POS anchored as Tactical)
- 1 per constellation
- Need constellation sov to anchor
- Gives ability to deploy outpost in constellation
- Gives ability to deploy gate sentries and other toys
- Gives stations in constellation 70% resists
When you fit a Jump Array here it will be alot weaker, but still dangerous. When it goes all out on guns, it will be very dangerous, even for Capitals. But remember all those guns need to be manned and focus-firing to be effective.
System Command Center 3.000.000 mW PG (Med POS anchored as Tactical)
- 1 per system
- Gives constellation sov when each system in constellation has one
- Gives stations in system another 30% resists, to make it a 100% (invul)
- Gives gate sentries in system 70% armor resists
Fitting a Cyno Disruptor here will make it alot weaker on the offensive side, so will be killable by non-capital gangs. Without one, capitals will be able to jump into system.
Logistics Center 1.500.000 mW PG (Small POS anchored as Tactical)
- Unlimited
- Slowly repairs ships within its forcefield
- Cant anchor anything as it uses its power to repair ships
New POS Items: Jump Array: 3.000.000 mW PG
- Can only be fitted on a TCC
- Can only link with 1 other in same region before onlining
- Takes 2 hours to online
- Uses stront (based on total mass moved?)
Cyno Disruptor: 1.500.000 mW PG
- Can only be fitted on a SCC
Other items:
Gate Sentries
- Stops firing if not at 100% armor
- Each system can anchor up to 8 total at it's various gates
- Station systems can fit 4 more at it's station
- Slowly recharges shields as long as there is a SCC in system
- Slow locking
- Does high damage, good tracking - insta pops cruisers and below that stick around too long.
- Random picks and switches targets after each shot
I think this will counter POS spam, boring POS busting OPs and making station/constellation takeovers a little bit more tactical. It will also give the smaller gangs some objectives to reach.
|
Tzrailasa
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 21:27:00 -
[176]
There is a hell of a lot of good postings in this thread, and a lot of good ideas.
However, when you look at all of them, they're not so much ideas to POS-modules etc..... No, they're ideas for VISIONS. Visions of how warfare in 0.0 should be!
THAT is what CCP should have presented to us. Not a few POS modules and tidbits of features, but THEIR vision of how warfare in 0.0 should be. They should have presents the objectives they hope to achieve with 0.0 warfare, so we could properly discuss those and help them arrive at designs/specifics that work.....
From a vision, you can create a design. From a design you can create specifics.
CCP, you have here presented us with a few of the specifics, but without your vision and at least a rough outline of your design, we can NOT properly evaluate these specifics, because we lack the context they're placed in.....
If you do not have these (and I severely hope and think you do), I seriously urge you to go back to the drawing board. For a game of this complexity and size, changes/additions should NOT be made on a "Gee, wouldn't this <feature> be cool!" basis..... If you DO have them... SHARE!
---
I have my own vision of warfare in 0.0. Some of which I've mentioned above. I think I can sum it up by these 4 words:
Fun! Embracing! Complexity! Variety!
Fun: Always that. The most important thing of all!! Embracing: Embraces all play styles (small ship, big ship, industrial) Complexity: Layers and layers of complexity, politics, intrigue Variety: Huge/small empires, huge/small ships, huge/small battles
My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance. |
Jessie Arr
|
Posted - 2007.05.09 23:08:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Tarnish Katharr
Originally by: Dianabolic Long Post...
As another concern, how many Titan Doomsdays will it take to totally wipe out a POS's defensives?
Isn't the better question: how many Doomsdays will it take to wipe out the people controlling the POSs defenses? Since that's sort of the key aspect they're working on here, and it seems that POSes will be free kills if there's no one there to fight back. All the guns will be offline in an hour, and then anyone who warps in to defend will die with no support from the POS. You'll wake up in the morning to find that the battle for your 2B POS was lost while you slept.
Perhaps it will be implemented somehow that I'm not forseeing, but it sounds like this just turns all the initiative over to the attacker in POS warfare. It would be better to allow the guns to be controlled from inside the forcefield, then allow them to be offlined temporarily, but not destroyed by attackers. This way POSes would function similarly to the way they do now, if unmanned, with guns being put offline by the BS support periodically, but would allow defenders to focus fire on key targets.
Additionally, I really like the idea of the POS Jump Portals, since I hate the way stargates bottleneck your forces twice in every system, but the concerns about freighters moving through 0.0 too easily are valid. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
|
Thomas Torquemada
Minmatar Universal Peace Corp
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 06:10:00 -
[178]
I have read a fair few of the posts here regarding the upcoming proposed changes and some new ideas.
I have rattled up a few ideas which i believe are possibly useful for pos warfare and reduction of lag and clutter in and around POS.
1st main note and suggestion. I do like the idea of having modules/structures outside of the POS shields, however i think it would be good to reduce clutter around the POS for lags sake and to simply keep the overview tidy.
Someone mentioned a sort of siege/weapons platform tower, i do liek that idea as well, however i recall CCP mentioning they would like to introduce the targeting and possible disruption of specific modules on ships, this gave me the idea of.
A New POS item.
an Amarr / Gallente / Caldari / Minmatar specific structure, in the same way that the actual POS itsself differs slightly.
The Small/Medium/Large 'Modular Platform', idea being that instead of Anchoring items near the POS, you basically chuck the modules we have now inside the Modular Platform and Online them in there, limit the number in the same way the POS limits items by CPU/PGrid according to size of the Modular Platform.
Tjhis way the POS does not have to take charge of everything and several items are packed away neatly inside 1 structure. This would allow say on a Small Modular Platform, the ability to add a few Shield hardeners for itsself, a few small sentry platforms and maybe a cruise missile battery.
Mediums could use more modules and large yet more etc etc, and because all the items are integrated into 1 structure, this would allow in a future form the ability to disable one of the structures contained within the Platform, maybe only offlining it for a few minutes then its back online as normal.
Perhaps have it open a fitting screen like our ships, and all you do is drag the POS structures into a slot and 'Online' it as we currently 'Anchor/Online' modules outside a POS.
This would allow the sieging of said platforms/modules, reduce some clutter and lag, allow the items to be hardened/protected, and more importantly grouped inside 1 structure which the Tactical Starbase user can take control of and direct its modules to the requested target(s).
Perhaps have it so the POS shields can only be attacked when the Modular Platforms have been reduced to the mentioned 1% structure, ready for capture or later destruction when the POS shields then fail after being sieged.
Each POS would only allow a set number of Platforms anchored near it as to avoid spamming the structures all over the places, and have said platorms able to be anchored up to maybe 20-50k away from the POS main structure.
Comments?
overall effect: Reduces the number of items "in space", uses current fitting methods already in place, similar to ship fits or rig slots and has the ability to be easily adapted/changed in the future.
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 - 2007.05.10 06:20:00 -
[179]
Using my idea of a Modular Platform, this would mean that each Platform appears as a Group on the Tactical Starbase users overview, the modules appear inside just like Drones appear inside the Groups we name them, if some Modular Platform's have offensive modules, then its simply Rightmouse/Attack target time.
It would make even mining easier, allowing the Moon Harvester, Reactor/Silo etc to be grouped inside 1 structure, with the ability to be shield hardened, i have noticed that linking certain structures to be a laborious and tedious task if some arent close enough.
im sure theres many more useful ways of grouping certain structures together but thats just a few i could think of.
UPC - PVP'ers Good and Bad, How Do You Want Peace? Through Talk Or In A Casket? We Decide!
Peace My Brothers... |
Deegan Malfroy
Amarr Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 07:19:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Mortiferus Edited by: Mortiferus on 07/05/2007 17:20:31 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 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.
It's like this... you go to work, slave away for however long, come home, greet the wife, take the garbage out, clean the garage a bit, sit down to eve for a bit.... *realize your entire game time will be spent managing your "Giga-pet POS", making sure you're wiping up its ***** and spit-up, disciplining it when it misbehaves, and making it go to the gym and burn off some calories so it doesn't get tubby* .....
Quote:
No single person should be able to field there own POS's, a POS should that a group effort.
/me shudders
Down with our POS oppressors!! Freedom from POS slavery!! (Vote for Deegan '08)
|
|
Ghost Reaper
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 09:13:00 -
[181]
Its good u relase a problem, but the fact stil remains a entity could go spam any system with a lot of moons (some systems have over 100moons) and how with giving them JP's will make it a lot easier to fuel them.
This has to be changed, most people think the introduction of a sovereignty module, that takes a lot of CPU and grid or limits the POS usability. I personaly think that every system should be limited to 15-20 sovereignty slots, (maybe using a sovereignty module) and that should be it for that system. This then forces people to engage towers rather then just spamming 20 deathstars and waiting the 5 days.
The jp is way overpowerd for POS, on the titan its one of the reasons u build it, and take the risk and pay the isk, if u can just setup 2 POS, link them and move in 100freighters with no risk, it defeats the point of combat and moves it more towards logistics
Gr
|
Eisenstein
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 11:03:00 -
[182]
I would like to see more choices when it comes to POSes. With the upcoming changes you will have the choice to either stick guns on it or hardeners. After not more then 2 month the POS gun business will be gone and over and all CCP employees that are currently building all those guns will find themselves on the street. That's not what we want!
Here is my vision (a bit dim as always):
- anything bigger then a POD inside a forcefield can be targeted - anything inside a FF will get a bonus to resi (a big on) and maybe sigradius - the resi bonus is different for different structures, all storage/production thingies will have really high resi - ship maintenance arrays will be able to store a lot more and are easier to use (maybe even less hard to fit) - you can have more then one repair structure which will repair the structure with the lowest armor hitpoints - repair structures have a storage and burn stront when they repair stuff - repair structures have insane high resi - a player can activate siege mode for a POS (need director role, able to do it remotely?) - in siege mode repairers and guns get a lot better - in siege mode the POS will burn it's stront, it should burn all stront in 5 min (or last out to blow up 2 dreads) - repairers will cost a fortune - in siege mode a POS will not be able to use any kinds of EW structures (i would even let them blow up right away) - a POS that left siege mode will drop below 50% shield - a capital shipyard that's under attack will stop building until it got full armor again but got a lot shield - cloaks work in a FF and ships that are targeted and in FF are able to activate cloaks - guns will be boardable (inside the FF and not really hard to blow up) - only structures that are online can be targeted and thus shooten (that means hardeners as well, so you better keep some supplies near by to replace the lost structures) - when manned guns will be way more effective (higher rate of fire) - anchoring structures will be quickly done but will eat up fuel (maybe even stront)
A POS owner got now multiple choices. He can make a real deathstar, that can blow up dreads but only for 5 minutes and he will loose the option to see his POS in reinforced mode after it poped dreads. He can put attackers into a risky situation, even if they heavyly outnumber him.
If he thinks a fat tank will help him to keep his POS he can do just that. With high resi POS structures should be able to tank a dread fleet until the repairer run out of fuel. A capital shipyard will have insane armor resi. If an attacking force got the balls to stay in siege with a lot dreads for hours to keep ppl from building supercapitals they should be able to. If you want to keep your POS save when you are not around hire somebody! We play eve, ISK will make you friends. He then will loose PG for guns and CPU for hardeners because of the repairers.
Or he builds a balanced POS that can defend itself from attackers (esp. with manned guns) and will enter siege after being attacked. But he has to be able to defend his POS or he will lose structures. They are tanked and got high resi so he will not lose all structures at the same day.
Attackers got more choises aswell. They can try to kill POS structures if they like or go after the POS itself. When gunnes are manned and if they want to bring support they will have to take the guns out first. They can kill ppl that sit in a ship inside the forcefield but that will be hard because they will get higher resi. A BS inside the FF should be able to tank multiply gank fitted BS. If you want to idle inside a FF you better fit a cloak. I'm not sure about letting ppl inside the FF to shoot ppl. One would have to try how that would works.
Defenders could setup new guns while the POS is attacked but that will eat up fuel/stront. Quite a risky decision.
128 characters left :)
|
MasterDecoy
Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 12:29:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Deegan Malfroy Edited by: Deegan Malfroy on 10/05/2007 07:40:47 Edited by: Deegan Malfroy on 10/05/2007 07:40:15
Originally by: Mortiferus Edited by: Mortiferus on 07/05/2007 17:20:31 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 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.
It's like this... you go to work, slave away for however long, come home, greet the wife, take the garbage out, clean the garage a bit, sit down to eve for a bit.... *realize your entire game time will be spent managing your "Giga-pet POS", making sure you're wiping up its fecal matter and spit-up, disciplining it when it misbehaves, and making it go to the gym and burn off some calories so it doesn't get tubby* .....
Quote:
No single person should be able to field there own POS's, a POS should that a group effort.
/me shudders
Down with our POS oppressors!! Freedom from POS slavery!! (Vote for Deegan '08)
i'll only vote for you if you promise universal health care for gallentean exotic dancers.
but seriously.
those changes could be very good, but nothing is finallized and i won't whine or applaud until we can actually control the guns. the canges can't really be worst than our current situation...
|
Blood Poison
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 14:22:00 -
[184]
Small POS can't take a Dread Medium POS should be able to take single dread wihout or whit minmal support Large POS should be able to kill Dreads if configured to do this, i.e. using bigger guns or focus fire (AI or not)
Small, Med and Big POs hsould be used for logistics, manufcaturing and so on.
I dont support teh idea, that the industrial POS should be weak. I dont want to lose all those BPOs, materials and production over nothing.
There should be XL POS for Sov claiming, only one per system allowed.
|
Alski
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 14:32:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Alski on 10/05/2007 14:28:55
Originally by: Sniser
Originally by: Tzrailasa
So, in conclusion, I think in general these proposed changes are actually counterproductive to the goals above. If these are not your goals, PLEASE tell us what the hell it is you want with these changes so we can have a PROPER discussion.
if ccp wants fix this pos owner should have to make a choise.
1.- Setup his pos with XL turrets for dread defense
or
2.- Setup his pos with Large turrets for support defense
XL turrets should be able to hit dreads easy but they couldnt hit well a bs or support. So if a pos is well defended for dreads small gangs could go and destroy those XL turrets before dreads come.
Also please 1 XL POS per system, not more POS spam!
This gets my vote. -
|
Bozse
Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 15:05:00 -
[186]
- you can have more then one repair structure which will repair the structure with the lowest armor hitpoints - repair structures have a storage and burn stront when they repair stuff
Reasonable idea, the rest i disagree with due to beeing to complex or to hard to balance.
He can make a real deathstar, that can blow up dreads but only for 5 minutes and he will loose the option to see his POS in reinforced mode after it poped dreads. He can put attackers into a risky situation, even if they heavyly outnumber him.
Increase the cost of a POS by about 10-20x the current price and we can talk POS beeing able to kill dreads imo.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
Nicholai Pestot
Gallente Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 17:52:00 -
[187]
Burn it all down
It is becoming clear that basing the territorial system on buggy, laggy, poorly conceived and frustrating to use/kill POSÆs is a flawed concept.
POSÆs perform admirably for moon mining, reacting, research and construction. Balancing off their need to be able to perform tasks like this securely for a small group of people against their need to be able to form the keystone of system control is obviously a difficult task. So far for CCP it appears to be an impossible task.
What if we remove them from system claiming? What if we remove POSÆs in their entirety from the equation and return to the time before claiming sovereignty?
The Gates are the Key
Back before POS sovereignty the only true way to control a system beyond bravado on the CAOD (see-difference between claiming a system and controlling a system) was to control its gates. Shut down the gates to a system and it is truly yours for that period of time.
Of course, this is a game and what more an international game. Shutting down the gates of even a single system permanently across all time zones would stretch the manpower, resources and patience of even the largest or most professional alliances.
Gates are control points. Gates are choke points. Even with POS wars, holding the gates is still very often an important consideration.
Would it not make more sense for CCP to expand upon this?
Provide a hierarchical system of structures throughout a system that allow you to defend and manipulate the area around the gate, even going so far as to eventually directly control what can and cannot go through a gate (if even by a limited degree).
Determine system sovereignty by gate control. Does your alliance have the required structures setup to control all the jump-entrances to a system (on both sides of the gate)? Yes? Then congratulations you now have sovereignty of the system.
The method for determining gate control can be as simple or as complex as desired, but by separating it from POSÆs it can be distributed across an entire system or region and tweaked at will without worrying about nock-on effects on Tech II production and the like.
Suns, planets, moons, belts or even just empty space can all be turned into conflict locations. Structures within or between systems can be linked, strengthening or re-enforcing the effect of one another to encourage attackers to spread not just across a system, but across multiple systems for simultaneous attacks on many targets.
Without being hamstrung by the limits of a POS and moon anchorage for territorial control, CCP devs can finally work on removing the problems of large scale 0.0 conflict
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
Lord Darcy
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 18:32:00 -
[188]
The problum with POS play is that CCP has limited POS development and not allowed the players to decide what works and doesnt.
A large fully equiped Deathstar including fuel 60 days costs as much as a dred. Why cant it kill a dred if the player decides it should at the expense of other opportunities? If a system is important to a corp why cant it be fortified to an extreme. After thr first world war the French implemented fixed defenses we all know about but do you know that they all had thin rear defenses. The french fortifications built during the first world war had very good balanced all around defenses. Problum was when one did fall they provided those defenses to the enemy and where just as hard for the French to take back. The result was that Maginot Line defenses had 6 foot thick walls in the front and 6 inch walls in the back.
Let POS be capturable in exchange for there increased flexability. let specific moduels determine levels of soverenty not just the volume of towers.
And as for the POS jump idea thats trable if its for anything bigger than a pod. Let people park fleets of ships at a POS and be able to jump pods there to use them but not clones and not ships.
|
acompton
Gallente Dark-Rising Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 20:09:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Lord Darcy
Let POS be capturable in exchange for there increased flexability. let specific moduels determine levels of soverenty not just the volume of towers.
And as for the POS jump idea thats trable if its for anything bigger than a pod. Let people park fleets of ships at a POS and be able to jump pods there to use them but not clones and not ships.
I agree with item 1 (spamming = not fun)
I entirely disagree with item 2: moving forces between your own systems (with a high level of sov) should not the the drudgery that it is currently. I would let any ships use it that cannot currently cyno jump (= non-capital ships)easier to get to battles = more pew pew less "jump on contact.."
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 21:06:00 -
[190]
The problem with one sov module per system is that then it is all about this one pos/module. You have to kill/defend it at all costs which leads to large blobs. I don't think that this can be solution.
The idea that small gangs should be able to do something useful in pos warfare is not a bad idea. But on the other side the question remains why anyone should use a small gang when a large gang could do the job faster and much better?
This is a question about balance: allowing small gangs to do something useful but at the same time disallowing large gangs to do much more damage because that will only lead to large blobs so that the job could be done as quickly as possible.
Sadly I cannot see in the current ideas anything which leads to a better balance. Massive hp boost? That means only larger blob! More defences? Leads to more attackers = larger blobs. Defence management? Useless if you need to be outsides the pos shields. Jump bridge? No clue, too many possible side-effects to give out any judgement.
All in all I think that these ideas would lead only to larger blobs and less fun (if that is possible). The whole pos warfare is not working as it should and I already mentioned that we need something else that determines the sov of a system/constellation/region than those pos!
|
|
Eisenstein
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 21:37:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Bozse
Increase the cost of a POS by about 10-20x the current price and we can talk POS beeing able to kill dreads imo.
Risk vs. Reward?
That's another good point we should think about. ATM your reward from blowing up a POS and risking billions in ships and mods is a Vigil and some m¦ of fuel. Not that a Vigil would be a bad ship, we all like it, but as a reward for hours of work it's a bit to small.
I would like to see structure wracks. What you can salvage out of them wont matter that much as long as it stays of high value even if the market changes. If somebody got the nerve to spam you with 10 large towers and then don't bother to defend them he should pay for that by making his enemy rich.
And keep in mind that being able to use a POS to blow a dread up does not mean that any player would have the skill (skill like in being smart, not like in being there since beta) to do it. That's why a POS should not be able to use any EW in siege. If he wants to keep you there he has to send a ship out to hold you.
And about complexety and balancing. That stuff is hard never stopped CCP from doing it. It works for ships, why should it not for POSes?
|
Lord Darcy
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 22:58:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Lord Darcy on 10/05/2007 23:05:57 The answer to the blob of any kind has and is from real life. During the second world war and in diferent ways naval and aviation have restrictions on ew emissions and other activities because it generates ew overload and static that can be worse jaming than anything an enemy can generate.
All the EVE story line has to do is say that there is an ew clutter that reduces the effectivness of to many ships in a given area. That way things like turrets outside of a POS shield could and would be targetable by smaller groups of ships specificly attacking small objects while larger objects like Towers could be targeted by a blob once the smaller defenses had been taken out. The reason sov helps reduce POS cost is because it crates a sort of POS industrial convoy thing that the owner must deploy NPC style industrials that run up and back to the different POS. This industrial convoy is attackable by enemy players and if effectively done weakens or increases the cost of the defenders POS. Also, command ships could be used to help deal with this factor for larger fleets by being able to cut through or better yet coordinate all the diferent ships into one less laggy squadron instead of 200 diferent ships.
Imagine this scenario: Alliance A has sovrenty in a system with 20 moons. Its level 5 Soverenty because it has 3 soverignty moduals, an outpost and a system drone control station. Alliance A has also put up 17 small def POS at the other 17 moons to make it harder for an attacker to get a foothold.
1. sov mod grants map and POS fuel savings 2. sov mod grants greater CPU or unified CPU throughout system so a more flexable deployment throughout the system can be put at the POS. Yes, this might lead to the very powerful deathstars but hey if the defender wants to eliminate the idea of random groups taking sov away why not? 3. sov mod grants multi directional tracking and scaning that helps targeting of enemy ships. 4. The drone control mod grants the ability to deploy up to 20 fighters or other drones that automaticly launch and attach any hostile in system and 15 industrials that carry fuel from POS to POS or outpost to POS automaticly. 5. The outpost provides the imensly powerful signal strength to decloak ships in system in combination with scaning ships and the vast storage to suport the POS. 6. full sov including gate guns or some such thing is granted after sov is held for a predetermined time and a colony modual has been deployed that can do basic mineral mining at planets etc but thats another post.
Now for Alliance B thats wants this system. It spends a month sending in fleet after fleet of conventional ships to attach defensive turrets and POS convoys until it feels the sytems owners have been weakened enough then it jumps in the first group which attacks and destroyes a small POS or two (get rid of automatic reenforced mode in exchange for allowing greater resistance and hit points). With the poses down the Attacker puts up his own two large POS as a forward base. In jumps the big attacking capital fleet who are useless at anything other than targeting the large POS because anymore that XXXX is ew cluttered out of use. In comes the attackers command ships who allow the clutter to be cut through but are very targetable by the player run POS (because the attackers capitals are spread all over the system because they need not be at the attacking POS you don't get the lag).
More
|
Lord Darcy
|
Posted - 2007.05.10 23:18:00 -
[193]
The command ship is also essential here because instead of 200 attacking and 50 defending ships all in one spot what you realy get is 6 command ships sucking all sorts of capabilities out of the other ships that are deployed all around the system in groups of 10 or 20. the command ships duke it out without lag. the defender is now faced with the choice of using his tanking mods to stretch it out until reinforcments arrive or trying to fight it out on his own.
He may decide to use his sov cpu to go defensive but send his garisson ships on a hunt for the seperate capital groups to weaken the attacker. This would probably mean that capitals might get better tracking for there existing weapons for ship on ship fights and new stand off weapons that dont require ships to actually be at the POS to attack it (capital torps or strategic missiles FTW).
|
Hon Kovell
Gallente Intaki Peace
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 02:55:00 -
[194]
It might be better if guns were damaged before being disabled. I think this would be best done by reducing tracking with increasing structure damage. This way they will always hit sieged dreads until they are completely disabled but anything else would be safe.
The neut looks nice. The 50km range is far too short to be that useful but a longer range would be far too useful. A long range, less effective neut could be a handy addition. Short range neuts control positioning of attackers. Long range neuts are useful vs attacking dreads but are prime targets to be taken out prior to the siege or during if you have 10+ dreads. Alternatively, send in the fleet of Nags.
POS need to start shooting Fighters and drones. Perhaps with a specialised anti-drone weapon. With the current targeting speeds a carrier can warp in, set drones on a module and warp out before being scrammed. Even without that a few stabs would handle most POS. Motherships would obviously have no problems. |
Gerome Doutrande
Rue Morgue
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 06:14:00 -
[195]
Would the gentlemen from CCP be so kind to explain their plans for sovereignity please?
|
Gyle
Caldari Knights of Chaos Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 07:10:00 -
[196]
Obviously its just a start and i know there is a lot of balancing to do. but on sisi i took my revalation into an assault on its own against a pos with 44 small turrets on it. In 3 cycles I disabled about 20 of the guns. Now i know these are only small but c'mon 44 guns? And it actualy didnt even begin to test the tank.
I am going to try it again with large guns but on paper the dmg output will be similar since i cant fit nearly so many.
So i really dont know if putting the guns outside the shield is a good idea, not unless you ramp up their dmg significantly.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 11:28:00 -
[197]
Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 11/05/2007 11:33:11 My idea to introduce:
Fighter hangars. Let POS have fighter hangars as a carrier have and deploy them as defenses.
Also I think changes are goign into the correct direction.
A POS with XLarge guns and cyno inhibitors will need a non capital raid to be attackable. If they give some AOE weapons to the POS, large blobs would be deterred in favor of smaller, more organized gangs.
This new POS warfare is already a boost to stealth bombers, Since they will be too small for long range guns to hit while at speed. While being ablew to hit back with cruise missiles. Very nice.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kitsune Possession
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 11:34:00 -
[198]
Here are my 2 ISK on this topic:
First you need to define the problems
1. POSes are meaningless currently, all they are is a target they can't defend themselves against any kind of force, they can be scouted with impunity by pods and cloakers, and they cant be fueled for long periods of time (10days is about the upper limit).
2. Sov is meaningless. Does it give you npc'd system defense fleets that engage hostiles in system or at gate or even if they agress like empire? no.. it works nothing like 'real' sov...
Alright... Those are some of the biggest gripes i've seen.
Here are specific problems, most of which the solutions are obvious for.
1. POSes cant defend themselves effectively because their grid/cpu and fuel-capacity are so limited you cant put enough firepower on them nor can you put enough ammo in the defenses, and the shields are waaay to small in the era of 100 dread siege gangs. I think all POSes should have shield/armor/fuel/ammo capacities quadroupled at least, and weapon multipliers doubled. Also POSes shouldnt turn off all CPU-using devices in siege mode thats just silly... Siege mode was to slow down blitzing of poses... 50% of the time it just screws the POS owners who now cant remove anything from the POS... how about dont allow unanchoring alone.. this means missile defense are actually worth a damn. How about let ships inside the bubble target ships outside if static defenses are objectionable? How about the POS fires on PODs?
2. POSes have too limited an array of modules.. stealth module = garbage how about actually have it cloak the damn POS and everything inside/around the shield? Make people have to fly to all the moons to find it... Refiners only work on ore, can't reprocess junk.. big failure... also can only do one specific ore at a shot... cant even do 2 sub-types of the same ore... uses massive CPU. How about Energy-Neuts, ECM Bursts, Fighter Bays, clone bays, just mix it up.
3. Sov is clownshoes (absurd). It gains you nothing but minor fuel savings.. whopdedoo! Actually it usually makes you more of a target How about gate-access logs with ship types which are remote viewable. How about remote-viewable reports on who is in system. How about defense modules deployable w/o a POS at gates, moons, belts, planets, minefields (which deploy like a bubble and there is a % of taking a hit every x seconds in the bubble and you cant overlap them). How about gate-alarms when non-positive standing people jump into a sov-held system? Something other than a stupid fuel bonus... how about 'concord charters' that are like dues to concord and they then patrol your space for you or 'sov charters' that let you raise your own system-navy or merc-navy (NPC) that attack hostiles in your Sov? They dont have to be cheap..... How about if I have Sov I can deploy a POS at any point in space I choose (ok not the 1000au off grid crap... keep it inside the ring of planets/gates) so I can put a large battle POS 100km off the gate and use it to support my defensive camps.. Hell i'd settle for if you have Sov you can view your poses fuel, hangers, silos, maint-arrays, whatever and manage them remote..
4. Outposts.... if POSes are going to be module-outposts basically then Outposts need a bump... I always though 20 mfg slots and a big corp-hanger for 26 billion was a bit of a ripoff.... Outposts should a) have direct defenses that are brutal, b) shouldnt require POSes at all c) should have capabilities tripled or more from where they are... d) should get 1/2 the transaction tax from transactions there and 1/2 the broker fees as well.
Again its early, I haven't had my coffee and im rambling. I'm just throwing out ideas.. no flames please this is just brain dump.
|
Kitsune Possession
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 12:02:00 -
[199]
Oh... yeah and I agree..
CCP what is the VISION for Starbases, Outposts, and Player Sovreignity? What is the goal here? You have to start with an objective before you get into 'this module is killah dude!' stuff.
Also Fix at least the following...
1. Permissions on POS structures... they are all kinds of screwed up they are in the game now. Make them work properly. If alliance 'hanger' access is problematic due to it being a 'corp hanger array' fine.. add a 'supply depot' module thats just a big 25km3 can that pos permissions works properly with in addition.
2. You should allow at least 3 people to use a maint array at once... and you should be able to store ships with cargo in them (i dont even understand the logic on this one since they arn't repacked...)
3. Remote Manufacturing at assembles should work... beign with 1500 is just goofy, if my BPCs and minerals are in the damn array when cant I use my supply chain mgmt skill to start the job from remote? Thats just dumb. Also why not remove the hanger space on those arrays and just link them to a Corp-Hanger array.. having to keep multiple stocks of minerals in multiple arrays and move outputs from those arrays to a corp-hanger 1000m array is just tedius and serves no real purpose. Link assembles to corp-hangers and be done with it. Increase storage on corp-hangers if nescessary for ship-outputs etc.
4) remote-viewing of a POS sotred by the POS not just a spam 'asset list' like we have now, remote-viewing of fuel levels and silo-levels, remote-config of access roles/security/forcefield settings would be nice and actually useful. Even online/offline of mods. Maybe make this a skill if you must.. trainable with a corp-mgmt pre-req whatever.
5) Raise the damn fuel storage space... if you want a seperate can for stront so people dont put 7 days of reinforced mode fine.. but any pos should be able to hold 2 weeks of fuel, maybe add a new module a 'fuel module' that can hold a cache of fuel linked to the tower for additional fuel load... again limit stront to a seperate container if its a problem.
|
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 12:49:00 -
[200]
Here are my ideas:
Leave the POS as a poor manÆs base, for manufacturing capitals and moon mining, or whatever. Make the POS a base, not a gun platform used to annoy ppl.
Make it a bit stronger (by giving more power on focus fire, when guns are controlled by a pilot), so it poses a threat. This way small corps can have a foothold in 0.0 and make it thrive. The small gang will have plenty of targets this way and they will find valuable items in the destroyed POSÆs leftovers. But donÆt make the POS an easy pray, the big one should be able to take a few dread if they donÆt have appropriate backup. Make them strong enough to provide cover to the small corps in deep 0.0.
So what is the deal with the Sovereignty and the Outposts? First it is stupid to shoot at something couple of AU away, before you can shoot the Outpost. If you have come to claim the system, go and shoot the damn Outpost, no tents of POSes. It is stupid. Make the Outpost like the current POSes, i.e. modular. Add defenses or logistic and manufacturing array to have variety of the Outpost setups. And to give the small gangs a job, introduce new types of small space structures û Remote Outpost Modules. Those should be shield hardeners, shield recharges, tracking arrays, or whatever. Make them anchorable at SS so they can be found only by probing. Give them defenses, but not so big, so a a gang of 10-20 BS can take them at reasonable time, like 20, 30 minutes. The purpose of those Remote Outpost Modules is to reinforce the Outpost defenses. If they got killed, the Outpost is easier to take out. Of course their number should be limited, by using fixed count or PG/CPU on the Outpost, or whatever.
Or give the POSes ability to mount such modules, which boost the Outpost defenses. So taking a POS become a matter of choice. You can go directly for the Outpost and face the sequences or first take down couple of POSes to weaken the Outpost defenses.
The Sovereignty looks a stupid idea to me in general. It is a free space, you should be able to build whatever you want, wherever you need it, without any artificial limitations. I want to see multiple Outposts in one system and why not belonging to different alliances?
As for the POS Jump Bridge, I prefer for it to be able to transfer just cargo, no pilots. This way you could move ships, ammo and any other kind of resources, but you will have to actually travel to go to where you want. Make it to use fuel and have limited range, so ppl donÆt start to chain from deep 0.0 to Empire space for all of their useless junk. Make them able to transfer cargo from the POS the Outpost in the same or nearby system, se we can get those moons mined finally.
And finally I hate the current POS setups as they are so spread out. Make them modular (many ideas in this thread and in sticky at the Features and Ideas Discussion forum) and leave the guns INSIDE!!!
Blazing Fire CEO
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Recruting |
|
galadran
Caldari The Power of 3
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 15:29:00 -
[201]
In another thread which I can no longer find someone posted that stats of a new item which CCP have added. It is and I quote this:
Cynusral field jammer:
Jams all Cynusral fields inside a system. [Capital ships can no longer enter the system] Requires soviegnty.
Meaning small gangs will have to go in and take this module out before the Dreads can come in. Meaning dreads will no longer be able to shoot the guns with such impunity because the defenders will see it coming.
Probably would be better if CCP told us about it officialy though.
|
Lorrothmos
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 15:44:00 -
[202]
I am not sure whether I like the new POS idea or not. I can see many positive and negative aspects to the whole thing. I have to say, I think a lot of people are over-reacting to this whole thing. Look at it this way and see what yah think.
Yall keep saying that the POS defenses will be taken out quickly, I don't think so. An HP boost clearly states that CCP doesn't want something like that happening. In any case, remember that your turrets and defensive structures now have shields of their own, which are hardened by your hardeners. I have yet to see the numbers on hp values, but I doubt it's anything small.
Because defensive structures can now be controlled by players, destroying POSs is going to become a little bit harder to accomplish assuming there is a little bit of organization involved in it. Turrets can now pick their targets so now primaries can be called for the turrets. So lets put a small battle simulation together here.
The enemy warps in on your POS to knock it into reinforced with a dread fleet. You in turn, warp in your own fleet, have people who can control what the turrets are shooting at, and warp in your support fleet. Good bye dreads that cannot do jack because they are in siege mode. Say for instance that the enemy warps in their own support fleet. Well that would be hells stupid move. Why? Because here come to the turrets targeting the small dude and blowing them off the face of the earth one by one, while our friendly dreads and support fleet are doing the same. That support fleet isn't going to last very long at that rate.
The new changes appear to serve two obvious purposes. One, to speed up the production of any kind of ship. Two, to make war harder to declare, more costly to both sides, and harder to win. Once again it appears that eve is going to turn into a battle of industrial power and diplomacy.
|
Nox Solaris
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 17:25:00 -
[203]
Putting your defensive modules outside the shield?
Okay, cool... then give the control tower the ability to repair them at a phenominal rate before it goes into reinforced mode. Once in reinforced mode the shield is extended to cover those defensive modules (rendering them unable to engage further targets but repairing them while the tower is reinforced). When the POS comes out of reinforced mode the shield bubble releases the defensive modules and the fun resumes.
|
Zoltar Torzoid
Gallente Swag Co. Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 17:42:00 -
[204]
here's the problem I see with puting guns outside of the bubble. It's flat out not neccessary. Not to mention it completely cripples the defensive side of the POS fight. Not because you can shoot the guns and disable them. That's not a big deal in and of itself. The problem lies with WHEN you can shoot the guns and disable them. When is the fight for a POS? Is it the first encounter with the POS in a fleet to put it into reinforced, or is it after the POS has come out of reinforced and both sides are there to fight for it? I tend to believe that the latter is the case "most" of the time. If you allow a fleet to engage and disable guns on their first attack on the POS then you remove the POS as a defensive structure in the second fight, the fight that really counts. I still believe it is best to leave the gun INSIDE the bubble. If not, then do away with the bubble, it's not needed. Allow the initial battle for the POS to go on as it normally would. Fleet attacks POS and brings it into reinforced. Owners of the POS get the mail that ttheir tower has been devistated and build their fleet to defend their tower just as we would normally. Now, once the tower returns to normal operation from reinforced, all offensive structures are targettable from the fleet outside the bubble. (Guns, EW, Missile Batteries) The POS Bubble gives all the guns a natural defense making them difficult to kill, but not impossible. Guns are controllable and can give a single dread a problem if focusfired. The attacking fleet now has the choice of attacking the guns, or attacking the tower. Attacking the tower results in the destruction of the POS and all parts inside are forfiet to the attacking team. Attacking the guns disables the defesive power of the POS, once all guns are disabled or destroyed and all defensive ships are out of the grid the tower is released from control and is forfiet to the attacking team.
One thing i've never figured out is why in hell someone wishing to claim territory would ever want to completely destroy enemy structures. It doesn't make sense. If you intend to move in you would want to leave as much of the enemy infrastructure intact as possible. It makes life easier on you once they are gone.
I've got a "vision" as well. unfortunately it's too long for here, so I posted it in it's own thread. Read if you like, don't if you don't.
My Vision
We Build the Stuff You Steal |
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 18:04:00 -
[205]
First, I'd like to address the Soverignty issue.
Soverignty needs to be hard to get and hard to remove. The move to multiple POS's for better Soverignty was a good one. Before that, Station Ping-Pong was the rule of thumb, and it sucked more than POS wars does. If you implement any scheme that allows a single item to determine Soverignty, you're back to Station Ping-Pong. So I cannot support any of the 'XL Soverignty POS' or 'Soverignty Module' proposals.
Be aware that an Outpost system is different from a frontier system. While the enemy may be able to burn my crops, they should face a greater challenge when attacking my Castle. Therefore Soverignty should be a bulit-up process dependant on the amount of defenses installed, and that is exactly what POS's are all about.
I admit that some systems are easier to control than others due to moon count. So what? You get to pick how/what you claim, so its a personal choice. But one POS per moon is both expensive and impractical.
I'd say implement some sort of Soverignty Bonus for time that the POS has been active. Perhaps 1 extra point per week of activity, with a max of 5 or so. This will reduce the number of POS's needed, while giveing a bonus to those towers that have been up the longest. POS spamming will still work, but you'll need X times the number of POS's to counter an entrenched enemy quickly.
This approach would allow attackers to try to overwhelm a system with POS's, but not eliminate the need to attack POS's that are defending. Because entrenched POS's would be worth several new POS's, the enemy will still want to attack POS's. Defenders have time to fight back.
Second, let's address the new modules/rules:
Moon Mining, Hangars, Production, Labs, and Hardners should remain inside the shields. They are the goodies you get when you finally defeat a POS. Guns, web/scram, new Cyno Dampners, etc go outside and can be controlled by a player. Controlled guns can focus fire, which will cause attacking Dreads to be popped.
Killing attacking Dreads is a necessity. At present, no one will attack a POS unless they know they can distribute the incomming firepower enough to tank it. That means that all POS defenses are simply speedbumps which are overcome when you get enough Capitals together. Once the critical tanking threshold is passed, the attacker takes no losses and the defender is completely impotent.
As most battles occur when Reinforced mode ends, guns outside the shields are going to be dead/offline. The only way to prevent this is to make the initial POS attack have a better defense.
Production MUST remain inside the shields! Otherwise, a simple BS fleet can sneak in and waste a Capital Ship Array and blow up a baby Titan with no fight at all. One of my Corp Mates fitted a Dread for damage and blew up a Capital Array in a single volley. Do you really think that any buff would prevent that? All production and passive defenses need to be inside the Shields.
Jump Bridges are a great idea, and much needed. Yes, they should be expensive to use. Having Soverignty to use is also a good idea. Same for Cyno Dampener arrays. Honestly, people will be using Jump-capable ships for logistics to get around gate camps anyway. Might as well make it easier.
Many other ideas listed have value. Bigger Fuel bays on POS's. Drone arrays would be good, but automated Fighter arrays would just mean people would lure Fighters to their doom. Too bad on that one: I like the idea of having fighters from other POS's in system respond to one under attack, but I just can't see how to avoid people lureing 20 mill isk Fighters into Smartbombing killzones.
|
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.05.11 21:34:00 -
[206]
Every one is talking about dreads, Carrier and MS taking out POS.
My corp is small and is a light years away from owning Cap ships. But we need a safe place to stay in 0.0, where we can moon mine and run T2 prduction.
How we are supposed to do this if all the POS is not able to kill couple of dreads and a small support fleet?
The POS is not just an necessary item for gaining Sov, it has many use, but whit the current design it is defenceless.
And whit the new idea to put the guns outside the shield every small ramoing gang can ruin a billion of ISK in materials and production in not time whit a almost no loses.
What is the point of that?
Blazing Fire CEO
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Recruting |
Tokuji Hayakawa
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 00:38:00 -
[207]
As has already been said. Give us a choice to place the guns inside of outside the shields. Guns inside the shield=Auto Targeting lower damage. Guns Outside the shield=Selective Targeting and ROF boost. You can see what the result of this will be,mega alliances coming through knocking POS's down for fun with their capital blobs.
|
Marcus Tedric
Gallente Tedric Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 10:31:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Blazing Fire Edited by: Blazing Fire on 11/05/2007 21:40:36
......Oh yes!!!......
What is the point of that?
Some of the changes look interesting....
But how about for the small Corp? Will they be unable to have a POS in Low-Sec or 0.0?
POS must be able to defend themselves when their owners aren't on. Not to a determined, well organised attack, but at least to random attacks.
I'm all for supporting smaller-scale actions - but at the complete nerfing of the 'normal' person's ability to play - we can't all be here 23/7.....
|
Varrakk
Chosen Path FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 11:46:00 -
[209]
I miss a POS Stealth Array. POS and contents hidden from directional scanners.
|
Jeronica
Minmatar Incarnation of Evil
|
Posted - 2007.05.12 19:18:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Dianabolic
Originally by: Hllaxiu That will almost certainly cause an increase in super capital production...
I have no issue with increased production, my current issue is that (ms / titans) cannot be held down. We need capital warp scramblers, this will result in alot more dieing to counter the easier production.
I agree completely.
That may be why they may be producing t2 battleships, built to hold down larger capitals.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Conuion Meow ([email protected]) |
|
Siege Archer
|
Posted - 2007.05.13 01:10:00 -
[211]
There are some good and bad points but tbh after reading all above im not sure i like these changes mostly and only to the POS defense changes.
Now when something happens in the game regarding a change i like how as the customers of EVE-O we don't get a say into what should be implemented into the game. I mean when stuff gets nerfed do we get a say ? Or when something gets introduced we just get told not asked as a whole community. I think there needs to be more involvement from the Game Developers and the community.
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.05.13 10:14:00 -
[212]
CCP Nerfed WarpCoreStabs, as they "wanted people to commit to a fight"
Now we see the potential for a similar thing to happen with supercapitals and POSs. Though the stakes are in the billions, not a few million.
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Alois Hammer
Minmatar Hammers Slammers Slammer's Republic
|
Posted - 2007.05.13 12:09:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Alois Hammer on 13/05/2007 12:09:42 Edited by: Alois Hammer on 13/05/2007 12:08:31 1.)make the ability to dock only with a pod in your POS. once docked , you have a tactical overview based on your skills of gunz available to use on targets. 2.) increase weapons damage output per size of weapons. it will give the smaller alliances at least a fighting chance of owning a piece of their own space. 3.) the ability to have multiple players involved in the defence of their POS.Smal pos can handle 5 players fer an egzample , med 10 , large 15 , that ways there will be a need for the defenders to coordinate their fire. just allow multiple pod docking within the POS.would make defence more interesting. 4.) if your gonna kick the modules outside of the POS , fine but their shields are supplemented by the attacked POS. they go down accordingly with the POS. my 2 cents as a small independent ALOIS HAMMER
|
Lobo Solitario
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 17:17:00 -
[214]
Perhaps a good approach to the single POS for sovereignty would be having a single POS define who has sovereignty over the system, being deployed at the star of the system(this way, everyone knows where it is and what is needed to be taken). The trick is, this POS have bonus resists or natural recharge rate, plus a huge sized shield by itself, depending on the number of POS deployed on the system. Each POS deployed adds, through a special module, some of these bonuses to the STAR POS. This way, if someone wants to take sovereignty, either they jump in an amazing number of dreads, or they go after each POS in system. Make it like these devices take a few days to become active, so POS spamming can't be used for either attack nor defense.(you want the system, you have to take down all support POSes until the STAR pos of the opposite alliance is soft enough to be killed)
Lobo
|
Xtro 2
Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 17:38:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Xtro 2 on 14/05/2007 17:35:42 the solution to "owning" a system/sov etc is an easy one, to avoid POS spamming systems, simply use a method whereby one POS determines sov status, how? simple....
POS at the SUN, each system has one single sun/star, whoever controls a POS at the sun, has sov rights over the system, wanna claim sov over someone else? just siege that POS then.
Problem solved.
Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder. |
Mistae
Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 21:50:00 -
[216]
No matter what changes are made to the defense of POS nothing will stop a large powerful Alliance from pushing out a smaller Alliance.
What I would like to see is a plan where by a corp which contains say 50 active pilots gets irrevocable soverniety to at least one system once it builds the requisite structures and keeps them fueled or in some way meets a standard of investment. This might scale up with corp size, to a total of 3 systems. CCP would have to fine tune it and make other requirements to prevent a large corp from splitting into several smaller pseudo corps.
I guess the thing I hate to see is a group of players work hard to establish themselves in 0.0 invest an incredible amount of time and effort to build a little home in space and then be bulldozed by a big alliance and lose everything. In the past the small alliance could align itself with a stable larger alliance and exist in relative safety. Now things are in such flux that is less and less an option.
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 22:27:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Mistae I guess the thing I hate to see is a group of players work hard to establish themselves in 0.0 invest an incredible amount of time and effort to build a little home in space and then be bulldozed by a big alliance and lose everything. In the past the small alliance could align itself with a stable larger alliance and exist in relative safety. Now things are in such flux that is less and less an option.
Isn't that very risk the same reason that you would get such satisfaction from building it? That gives you your anchor in the game and makes you play it with such passion?
That should never be taken away. Reikoku Diplomatic Forums |
Dal Thrax
Caldari Multiverse Corporation The Core Collective
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 02:56:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Dianabolic
Originally by: Mistae I guess the thing I hate to see is a group of players work hard to establish themselves in 0.0 invest an incredible amount of time and effort to build a little home in space and then be bulldozed by a big alliance and lose everything. In the past the small alliance could align itself with a stable larger alliance and exist in relative safety. Now things are in such flux that is less and less an option.
Isn't that very risk the same reason that you would get such satisfaction from building it? That gives you your anchor in the game and makes you play it with such passion?
That should never be taken away.
Well if I'm going to build a "little home" out in 0.0 it'd be nice if myself and my friends could put our collective geek power together to litterally design something that would give the attacker nightmares. Forlorn hope I know.
Dal
Originally by: CCP Sharkbait we are screwed. delaying startup again. soon as i have time i will fill you in on the details
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 16:03:00 -
[219]
Many posters are advocating a 'Soverignty POS' idea. Please stop considering this as an answer.
Before POS's, a station could be shot by any passer-by, who would take over the station if they were able to take the shields down. The 'Soverignty POS' ideas are exactly the same idea as we had before: Shoot one thing and you own the station.
Given fleets of 100+ Capitals that are being fielded now, any form of 'Soverignty POS' will die in a flash.
It seems people have degenerated into how to stop POS warfare, not how to better control Soverignty in a system. POS warfare, while flawed, is much better than Station Ping-Pong. And the real question is how to determine Soverignty, not how many/few POS's should be up.
I dont pretend to have ALL the answers, but the whole 'Soverignty POS' idea is flawed because it defines ownership as a single item that controls all. This is no different thatn having a Station shield that, once shot down, determines who ownes that Station. Its just a bigger shield with a few guns instead.
|
Xtro 2
Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 17:03:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Princess Jodi Many posters are advocating a 'Soverignty POS' idea. Please stop considering this as an answer.
Before POS's, a station could be shot by any passer-by, who would take over the station if they were able to take the shields down. The 'Soverignty POS' ideas are exactly the same idea as we had before: Shoot one thing and you own the station.
Given fleets of 100+ Capitals that are being fielded now, any form of 'Soverignty POS' will die in a flash.
It seems people have degenerated into how to stop POS warfare, not how to better control Soverignty in a system. POS warfare, while flawed, is much better than Station Ping-Pong. And the real question is how to determine Soverignty, not how many/few POS's should be up.
I dont pretend to have ALL the answers, but the whole 'Soverignty POS' idea is flawed because it defines ownership as a single item that controls all. This is no different thatn having a Station shield that, once shot down, determines who ownes that Station. Its just a bigger shield with a few guns instead.
The ultimate solution would have to be something more then who can lagup a system by spamming POS allround, surely a method of keeping resources trimmed and simple would be a more favourable solution, in the end with massive alliances, the lag issue will still come back and kick us in the face.
Provided POS weapon systems are beefed up with some killer punches then i like my previously mentioned idea of sov being gained by holding a POS at the SUN, perhaps adjoining owned systems would be influenced by sov status in another system.
example: Systems A,B,C are next to each other, however systems A,B have a sun based POS in them, claiming sov status for an alliance, system C has no POS's of any kind, and as systems A and B are next to system C, then the sov extends to the unclaimed neighbouring system.
Adjoining systems with POS's claiming sov, could give an accumalative bonus to the surrounding POS's to make them tougher to attack or something similarly useful to the claiming alliance.
Either way a simple method of sov should be used, im sure many could think of a way to implement this in a better way than my example, but using existing game systems/methods avoiding the need for a massive rewrite of the current system.
Lag is bad, No Lag is good, these points should be kept in mind if someone suggests mass POS ownership as a "better" system.
Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder. |
|
Lobo Noturno
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 18:23:00 -
[221]
Jodi,
The reasoning for the STAR/SUN POS for sovereignty is not to end POS-war. The sole objective is to make pos-spamming irrelevant. If an enemy alliance can jump in 100 dreads, and you can't match it's firepower, your alliance is gonna lose the system anyway. The idea for the STAR/SUN POS being reinforced by friendly POS in system is that to create secondary targets that are relevant to combat, that can be taken by smaller groups along more conflict time, allowing for smaller alliances to fight each other on even terms. The super-big alliances can't be stopped, except by each other or by crumbling under their own weight. If i remember correctly, this topic and the objective of the new sovereignty system and POS changes are to make secondary objectives for smaller gangs, to break-up BLOBs and make each pilot more relevant. A STAR/SUN POS would be accompained by the support POSes, each one with some defense structures not directly protected by the POS shield that can be shot down by smaller gangs. Once enough secondary objectives have been destroyed, the main STAR/SUN POS is vulnerable to attack for even a smaller fleet. If you have a super-100man-capital-fleet, screw the secondary objectives...(the super-fleet can kill any amount of POSes in little time anyway, even under the current system.)
Lobo
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 19:21:00 -
[222]
Edited by: Bein Glorious on 15/05/2007 19:19:39 Thinking about the ideas behind these new starbase mechanics, I think I'm actually pretty comfortable with the ideas behind putting stuff outside of shields where it can be attacked, things like that. However, that is only as long as supercapitals are rebalanced before or at the same time as these new mechanics are introduced. I would also like it if dreads did proportionally less damage, towers had less HP, and cap ships in general had a little less HP in addition to that, but that might just be personal preference. |
Alpha Prime
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 14:45:00 -
[223]
Here¦s a hint. How much does it cost to put up a "deathstar". And how much does it cost to kill it ?.
Current POS-system is a ******* joke and needs to be sorted, it needed to be sorted 1 year ago. Taking down a pos takes hours of work and bilions in assets. But putting them up takes much less assets and time.
Imo, an alliance should only be able to put 3 POSs into any system. And any system should only be able to have 6 POSs in total. So if both contending alliances has 3 POSs, the system will gain neutral sov. And if one of the alliances wants Sov, they have to kill alteast 1 of the enemy towers.
Bob farted, ASCN burped. And then there was a Nodecrash
|
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 15:13:00 -
[224]
Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 16/05/2007 15:14:37
Originally by: Alpha Prime
Here¦s a hint. How much does it cost to put up a "deathstar". And how much does it cost to kill it ?.
Current POS-system is a ******* joke and needs to be sorted, it needed to be sorted 1 year ago. Taking down a pos takes hours of work and bilions in assets. But putting them up takes much less assets and time.
Imo, an alliance should only be able to put 3 POSs into any system. And any system should only be able to have 6 POSs in total. So if both contending alliances has 3 POSs, the system will gain neutral sov. And if one of the alliances wants Sov, they have to kill alteast 1 of the enemy towers.
That opinion is biased as some people are strong ecnomically and others are strong militarily -- others are strong in both. It is a hudge on-going logistical burden to manage umpteen pos's in a system. Where as for the attacker it is a short term logisitcal operation to kill those pos's with staggering firepower.
However the short of it is yes, POS system is screwed up - it needs fixing to some extent and these changes to the defensive structures going outside the POS are a step in the wrong direction.
CCP for a long time has had the genious approuch with reinforced mode allowing for defender/attacker harmony so to speak, so people could not engage in time zone wars. Each side has roughly an equal opportunity to do something thanks to reinforced mode.
Now the problem is that since defensive structures are outside a POS, the power has yet again shifted forward to the attacker allowing them to disarm a POS all together before it enters reinforced mode. There is also the problem that a MOM can simply warp in and have fighters attack the pos defensive structures with no fear of it fighters being attacked and watch as structures are pounded into an incapacitated state - or just warp in/out as each structure falls. Furthermore defenders must now not only recharge a POS forcefield but the shields, armor and structures of every defensive weapon!
It is not like POS management was not already time consuming enough as-is.... It has now become beyond a joke with these changes and we are turning to a time zone dominated, reinforced mode negated, super capital favored, pos-warefare system. Oh the joy of the coming months....
|
Avicenna
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 15:30:00 -
[225]
I know most of the focus here is on non-empire space and the impact these changes will have there. So I will comment on that first.
I am very happy to see jump bridges, cyno arrays and so on added. Because of the sov requirement, random pvp will not be affected in npc pirate regions. In true player space, people who put the effort in will have real advantages, and that is cool.
I am more concered with empire POS operators like myself. There are many of us with POS's in low sec that are there for manufacturing, reactions or moon mining. Whats our fate in all of this? In my situation there is a pirate in a Nyx (yes, in empire space) visits frequently. Under current circumstances I accepted the risk and bought lots of guns so that if someone wanted to take it down, they would need dreads. With these changes, looks like a single Mom can drive me to bankruptcy within a week by taking down my guns, and then perhaps having a large bs gang then come in and take down the tower.
I'm not a small alliance looking to carve something out in 0.0, I'm just a POS operator in empire. I hope the devs remember us when they make these changes.
|
Githtakai
Gallente Crab and Krawdad Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 16:16:00 -
[226]
Suggestion:
Please implement a way for the user of the jump bridge to pay the isotope cost either by taking it from their hold (meh), or by implementing owner-settable jump fees. The second one is probably better (and the wallet already has a category for that), and would allows NRDS 0.0 alliances to offer a new service: transport!
I could see amicable alliances setting up 0.0 "railroads" to allow paying customers relatively safe travel in their space. Since patrols aren't really practical in this game, and since nobody likes gatecamps, this seems like a good thing
|
Pronqueen
|
Posted - 2007.05.16 20:47:00 -
[227]
Well, I think if people know they are going to loose the POS they should be able to use a sort jump bridge and get out. But then the jump would use pos fuel/stront depending on the amount of ships being jumped out thus weakening the POS's reinforcement mode. Once its out of it you cant jump stuff out while being sieged. So either you jump your fleet in and cant go back, your supposed to know how your going to defend. Once you know your going to loose the pos you can Jump a few things out and "abandon" the pos.
I think the fact that you cant jump back while sieged would make it more fair towards the attacking force, because if they are to be scrambled even MS and titans therefore stuck at the POS its a sort of one way ticket for the agressor and should be the same for the defender
And well placing it all outside is a crappy idea Imho, but if guns r to be controlled by players then why not ad a sort of turret inside view like a shooter game. You get ur pod inside the gun and shoot!! yarr!! lol
|
Nines Tslaruk
Minmatar North Face Force Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 01:17:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Murukan The jump bridges on pos are an absolute horrible horrible idea. This will really kill small gangs even more.
Enemies will be able to completely bypass roaming gangs now through pos that a small gang can't hope to take out (since pos warfare is the suck no thx). So now we will be forced to just camp 0.0 entrance points, and frankly that gets boring after about 30 minutes.
Also it will allow the enemy to quickly bring a blob to the general area of your gang to blob you away. This will make it even harder to avoid blobs as they can jump around quickly cutting you off.
Please please please don't do this. Small gangs already are hard enough and take more skill than noob alliance blob warfare, and you guys are trying to kill it off completely. WTF!!!!
Agreed. As one who has left alliance warfare completely, it is hard to find good fights (occasional carebear gank sure, but it's easy to get blobbed when roaming 0.0) in 0.0 outside the entrance points; this will make it that much more difficult.
A possible solution to this might be constellation sovereignty, as someone mentioned earlier, though I would have to see this in action. ------------------- NFF Recruitment
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=465085
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 13:52:00 -
[229]
I hope you can go from a Jump Bridge with one sov to an allies jump bridge, otherwise there's probably going to be about 1 alliance that can really use them for travel.
|
Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 13:57:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jessie Arr Additionally, I really like the idea of the POS Jump Portals, since I hate the way stargates bottleneck your forces twice in every system, but the concerns about freighters moving through 0.0 too easily are valid. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
At the moment I can move about 85k in a carrier, but I have to put it all into all the arrays / ships etc. Then pay jump fuel etc.
I'd be happy with paying 10x the jump fuel, or even a little more to move a freighter carrying 850k the same distance...
Don't really see how this gives any more power it just saves a lot of f***ing around.
Obviously it has to cost alot more to move a freighter than a hauler or frigate.
|
|
Aidelon
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 03:00:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Aidelon on 18/05/2007 03:01:12 /Sign in support of the 1-sov-pos-per-system method.
It's the only real way to:
1) Eliminate POS spam 2) Simplify System Soverignty 3) Make system control more fun and less daunting to alliance/corp leadership, and provide more satisfaction to players.
Current (military) posses can be used for strategic defense points for players to safely operate out of (in addition to the bonuses of jump gates/etc)
|
Will Stronghold
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 07:48:00 -
[232]
Well I think the 10k shield and 15k armor on the Cyno system jammer will not hold over couple of minutes max when the support fleet gets in to attack it. And since it is at least 5k outside the shield and only 1 per system it will always be the primary target, after which the support fleet BS-s warp to safety and capitals cyno in. So those can be discarded mostly, because they last only a minute or two while tanked BS-s kill them and the rest of the battle will go as if those were never there. Not sure what was their intended purpose and if they fulfill that purpose this way. |
aaron 619
Gallente RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 10:47:00 -
[233]
OK, for starters, im liking the one SOV POS thing, much simpler, but when it comes to the limiting to pos in a system i don't like. If i want to put a pos up at a moon for production , then im going to no matter how many pos are in the system's.
And for the guns, well , if we are going to go with the ONE POS SOV, thing, then the guns need to be in the shield, and for the controlling skill...
Large - 25 guns max control at lvl 5 Med - 15 guns max control at lvl 5 Small - 5 guns max control at lvl 5
If 100 dreads jump in to take my system i sure as hel want to take 6 or 7 of them with me. Dreads need to FEAR the POS , not just go afk for coffee
|
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 13:30:00 -
[234]
I hope CCP does not listen to people who arbitrarily condemn jump bridges without trying it or even knowing what kind of effort goes into reaching the Sov level needed to anchor one. A line needs to be drawn between people who actually tested something and knee-jerk reactions. This happens every single time stuff is added to the servers.
Ok, with regards to what I have tested so far. I don't like the new sov timer levels. I agree with requirements for Province and Capital, but the Territory requirement needs to be tweaked. Gaining Sovreignty over a system by requiring 7 days of POS sov points superiority is not practical. Fights over individual starbase systems will last much longer and drag out. Invading corporations will have to now endure 7 extra days of Outpost ping-pong than they do on Tranquility now. ------------------- 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
Jacque Custeau
Knights of the Minmatar Republic
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 13:35:00 -
[235]
Edited by: Jacque Custeau on 18/05/2007 13:33:39
Originally by: Admiral Nova
Originally by: Jessie Arr Additionally, I really like the idea of the POS Jump Portals, since I hate the way stargates bottleneck your forces twice in every system, but the concerns about freighters moving through 0.0 too easily are valid. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
At the moment I can move about 85k in a carrier, but I have to put it all into all the arrays / ships etc. Then pay jump fuel etc.
I'd be happy with paying 10x the jump fuel, or even a little more to move a freighter carrying 850k the same distance...
Don't really see how this gives any more power it just saves a lot of f***ing around.
Obviously it has to cost alot more to move a freighter than a hauler or frigate.
And what about to the fuel being consumed to maintain Sov so the jump bridge does not go offline? And the 100 billion for 4 outposts to gain consetllation sov? Why are are these costs not being included? (tbh cant remember if jump bridge needed sov level 3 or 4, but iirc its 4) ------------------- 09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0 |
Mainreh Rhonaki
Jazz Associates R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 13:54:00 -
[236]
Edited by: Mainreh Rhonaki on 18/05/2007 13:55:08 Assumptions: 1) you require sov lvl 2 ot erect jump bridges, which means you don't need a station there. 2) jump bridges can be used by non-capital ships.
As far as I can understand, jump bridges will have 3 major combat applications:
Operational surprise Alliances will establish jump bridges in systems surrounding their core areas in order to do pincer operations and interception.
I don't really have a problem with these scenarios. Pilots already react to negative surprises with logging off, and this will likely create many more loggoffskis. However, it is probably worth the price for getting a lot of interesting gameplay.
Dangerouser POSes Important POSes will have jump bridges installed in them for deterrent purposes. Attacking such a POS (or indeed any POS in that system) will require major effort, because you have to assume that a large defense fleet will jump in any second. This is a natural extension to the Deathstar POS setup model.
I think this should allow wider usage of POSes, which will prolly have a positive net effect.
Note, however, that this is a strong impetus that works at cross with the current development ambition to give smaller gangs intermediate goals. Most attacks on POSes in systems with a jump bridge will be met by at least some resistance, which will likely result in classic standoff-and-blob-size races.
Rapid reaction Meta-alliances will establish networks of jump bridges in order to come to each others' assistance. When the invasion comes to 9-9, RAGOON allies will stream in from all over the north to help deflect the BoB & pets menace.
This would be ubercool and epic, except for one thing. Many more major null-sec operations will likely end in node death. Nodes can barely take the kind of engagements that are now occuring frequently in null-sec. Jump bridges only need to add some 15-30% more pilots to major battles for them to go from lag-fest to nodekill. This would likely recreate the JV1V debacle on a regular basis. That is not going to help the null-sec situation.
Some current reasons for not joining in the fray that will be addressed by the jump bridge:
*) hostile interdiction: you have to travel thru hostile territory to get to the fight, but most of your mates are already there, so you don't brave the trip. Well, not with the jump bridge.
*) don't have the time to participate: social life, spouse aggro, beddytime or other RL factors means you can't participate the whole evening. The jump bridge will take you there quicker, but more importantly, there is also a POS at the far end that can keep you safe in case you can't stay long enough to join your gang going back. And, in an emergency, you can always go back thru the jump bridge.
*) it's to far away for us to get there in time. Well, not anymore.
Please do not underestimate the frustration caused by unexpected intervention into a dramatic situation. At its worst, this could place much of null-sec action in a limbo.
P.S: There are many logistic applications of jump bridges of which I wholehartedly approve. For example, the ability to send ordinary haulers on refuel operations will mean less seasoned and industrial characters can play a larger role.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 17:16:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Lobo Noturno Jodi,
The reasoning for the STAR/SUN POS for sovereignty is not to end POS-war. The sole objective is to make pos-spamming irrelevant. If an enemy alliance can jump in 100 dreads, and you can't match it's firepower, your alliance is gonna lose the system anyway. The idea for the STAR/SUN POS being reinforced by friendly POS in system is that to create secondary targets that are relevant to combat, that can be taken by smaller groups along more conflict time, allowing for smaller alliances to fight each other on even terms. The super-big alliances can't be stopped, except by each other or by crumbling under their own weight. If i remember correctly, this topic and the objective of the new sovereignty system and POS changes are to make secondary objectives for smaller gangs, to break-up BLOBs and make each pilot more relevant. A STAR/SUN POS would be accompained by the support POSes, each one with some defense structures not directly protected by the POS shield that can be shot down by smaller gangs. Once enough secondary objectives have been destroyed, the main STAR/SUN POS is vulnerable to attack for even a smaller fleet. If you have a super-100man-capital-fleet, screw the secondary objectives...(the super-fleet can kill any amount of POSes in little time anyway, even under the current system.)
Lobo
Ok, with some sort of reinforcement based on other systems in the Constellation or Alliance or Region, I can support your idea of a single Soverignty Pos. I'll continue to read and look for other solutions.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 17:47:00 -
[238]
I've been thiking about some sort of Passification or Loyalty setting regarding Soverignty. I've played games before where you need to control a territory for a lot of time to truly 'Pacify' the area and assimilate it into your empire. During the Passification period, revolts occur and must be put down.
Now...I don't know if this would work in EVE, but....
Say I take over a piece of Angel space. Angels becomes the Rebels. As time goes on, Angels would come to accept my rule as the resistance diminishes. When a Rebellion Event happens, Angels would muster up a decent fleet and attack a Soverignty Pos. Things like Alliance standings to the Angels and the amount of time the system has been controlled would moderate the Rebellion chance.
Lets say Alliance A and Alliance B have areas of space that they have owned for some time. They have mitigated the Revolt Risk to zero by the long-term ownership. Then the two alliances go to war, and Alliance A attacks B.
B would have Pos's destroyed and A would put up new Pos's. But A would not have a reduced Revolt Risk, which means that Revolts would spring up in their territory. Alliance A would have to commit resources to putting down rebellions, while B could capitalize on those rebellions by finishing off Pos's put into reinforced by the Rebels or by simply having an 'NPC Ally'.
This makes taking and holding new territory harder, and defending easier. So 100+ Capital fleets could steamroller over an alliance, only to find that the territory behind them was now NPC hostile. The Rebel Fleets need to be of sufficient power to take out a Pos, and would move on to another target until destroyed.
Perhaps this idea could be incorporated into the new Faction Warfare.
Note: Try to withhold your Flamethrowers. I know there are details to hash out to make this idea viable. But what do others think?
|
zacuis
Darkest Knights
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 21:29:00 -
[239]
Edited by: zacuis on 18/05/2007 21:30:48 Edited by: zacuis on 18/05/2007 21:30:37 i really dont see what putting the pos guns out side the ff is ment to achieve other than giving the dread pilots something to do during the seige and frankly switching targets every couple of minutes isnt the most fun i can imagine for them ( i am one btw so i know how boring pos seiges can be ).
i dont love the idea of an xl tower either cos it encourages a massive blob round one tower and also means that the defending allience only get one ***** of the whip once that tower is lost its game over for them not really a good thing concidering the defenders should have the advantage.
TIN FOIL HAT ON : i find it funny that so many bob like this idea mind cos they can field a massive blob and 1 xl sov claiming tower would be an advantage for them.
i dont see any problem with pos spammage. throwing money at a problem should solve your problems it does in real life why should it be different in eve. besides if u have the larger force u will win in the end. u are saying that pos are too cheap i disagree having been the poor sucker that went out and bought a pos spam kit for d2 i can tell u a system of 30 odd moons with fuel and mods will set u back about 30 -40 billion so sorry but no its not to cheap at all.
i also like the fact that its mean u need a very good logistics arm to take a station not just guys in ships. 0.0`s not just about the pvpers any more and i love that fact.
MY FIX:
the problem that i see with pos warfare is mainly its laggy cos everyones in the same system. what i would like to see is perhaps a system where by u have to place a module of some type in each connecting system or system in a certain distance that all need to be hacked at the same time to allow u to attack a tower. this would split up the blob as each hacker would have to be attacked and defended. also it wont fix the massive blob at the tower to seige it but at least it will make for some small gang warfare before the dreads come out. i would suggest that towers in sov claiming systems are invincable before any of the modules are hacked but u dont need to hack them all to attack the tower but the more u manage to hack at once the easier killing the towers would be. say 10 modules per tower spread over the surrounding system also the defender could then fix the hacked modules if he can get to them and put the tower back into its invunerable state
plz commence ripping this idea to shreads now
any way i like it i can see small gangs running about all over the place trying to take modules
|
Bartlebee
Artemis Instruction Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 00:17:00 -
[240]
so what was the intention for this?
? get aride of blobs ? ? make POS warfare more interessting ?
well ... mission not accomplished and new concept flaws introduced
1.) by pushing the offensives out of the FF nothing, repeat NOTHING is achieved in terms of avoiding blobs
Well, sort off ... you can send the caps home, once the POS has been stripped off the weapons ^^ Beside that, what happens to the weapons once the POS is in RF ?? What happens to them, when the POS gets out of RF ? RF mode is a good concept for syncronizing fleets and fleetfights. If you spoil this, then POS defending is just a sick arbitrary joke.
2.) giving POS player-controlled defense (which we have not tested yet) makes only sense when these weapons are usable when the POS comes out of RF. from what i have read in this thread little is known about this. If POS is without weapons during RF mode, the defenders cannot gather in this POS because they will be subject to lame Titan-bowling-exploits
3.) you do not avoid blobs, all of the stuff occurs in very same grid. So since this is new fancy stuff, all i would expect is more lag, because the code has not been opitized.
If CCP really wanted to avoid blobs, then they should have thought about action, that does not take place within the very same grid. for example deadspaces, which contain some hardware stiring the POS or linked POS networks.
a.) deadspaces
The deadspace idea facilitates the use of gates which allows to control the ship population whithin a DeadSpace. Each POS has a set of 5 acc. gates which lead to DS pockets containing hardware that maintains the RF mode. Gates can be used during the POS being in RF mode. If a defender (within the POS owning alliance or within a gang that contains an alliance member) enters the gate he will get into pocket A, if an oppenent (all others) enters the gate he will get into B. Both pockets are limted to 40 ships that have to wait there until RF ends. The moment POS gets out of RF, gates in A & B can be activated to reach pocket C from opposite directions, where a last man standing match decides the outcome or a capture the flag or even more complex endgame (requiring components carried in an indu or hacking skill, etc.)
Lets have 5 of this 3-pocketed DS spaces, 2 for all ships including supercaps (remember 40 each side), 2 for BS and smaller, 1 for frigates. Bingo, 400 people have fun, without the bad lag of POS warfare.
Depending on the outcome of this scenario the reaction of POS varies from changing ownership to the opponent over loosing shields but being boostable and refillable to getting a huge shield boost, which makes it rather invunerable for a reasonable amount of time. So if its a 5:0 or 4:1 POS goes to the enemy with all the stuff inside, if its 3:2 the POS has weak shields, but can be boosted and eventually refueled, if its 2:3 the POS has quite high shields and can be immedeately refueled. 4:1 POS shields are fully loaded , 5:0 POS shield overloaded (= 3 higher base value and regen rate slow decreasing to normal values within 7 days - for the sake of 9 fold higher fuel consumption. So you will only use it, if there is an urgent need for defense ...).
b.) POS network If POS is under attack, the other POS support each other with shield energy. This way you have to concurrently attack the network at more than one POS in order to siege a POS.
But the way changes on SiSi read POS warefare becomes just worse
|
|
Aramith
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 03:38:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Bartlebee
1.) by pushing the offensives out of the FF nothing, repeat NOTHING is achieved in terms of avoiding blobs
Well, sort off ... you can send the caps home, once the POS has been stripped off the weapons ^^ Beside that, what happens to the weapons once the POS is in RF ?? What happens to them, when the POS gets out of RF ? RF mode is a good concept for syncronizing fleets and fleetfights. If you spoil this, then POS defending is just a sick arbitrary joke.
well in RF mode, anything that needs CPU goes offline. gun do NOT use cpu so they should remain online. That means they should remain controllable as well.
Originally by: Bartlebee
2.) giving POS player-controlled defense (which we have not tested yet) makes only sense when these weapons are usable when the POS comes out of RF. from what i have read in this thread little is known about this. If POS is without weapons during RF mode, the defenders cannot gather in this POS because they will be subject to lame Titan-bowling-exploits
these have been partly tested. I have seen Bug hunters controlling turrets and it seems that each person can control up to 5 offensive batteries (this includes e-war and the energy nuetralizer arrays i have seen). Not sure how this affects things, i guess we will have to see what happens once players can control turrets.
|
Richard Masterson
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate Terror In The System
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 06:45:00 -
[242]
In addition to what the changes are, I'd like to see supplied:
What is the current problem with POS warfare? How are the changes proposed going to affect the current problems?
From what I can see (please read these constructively):
1. There is an argument that a dedicated anti-POS fleet can put defenses offline with concentrated or prolonged fire. There is a counter argument that the defending forces will be able to keep those defenses up with a concerted effort, i.e. remote shield/armor/structure reps. Since I am assuming that these will be ship mounted, and not actual starbase structures or functions, the ship would have to travel beyond the starbase force field to activate it's defensive modules, rendering it INSTANT fodder for the attacking fleet.
2. As the point has been made, a dread fleet can incapacitate the POS defenses, and the supporting battleship fleet* can warp in and continue to pound the shield/defenses/defenders. One of the points to keeping the defenses 100% until reinforced mode is to allow the defender the ability to place his fleet between the bubble and the dread fleet, thereby increasing the risk to the assaulting fleet while minimizing his own. What you are suggesting is that the attacker gains a distinct advantage over the defender.
3. "Massive HP boost." On what order? To me, this means that the attacking fleet will need to bring 2-3 more dreadnoughts to accomplish something in the same amount of time. considering the number of pilots daily (weekly? monthly?) that are gaining the ability to fly dreads, this is NOT a substantial countermeasure for POS protection.
*Although CCP has stated on numerous occasions that they are anti-blob, this seems to be going in the opposite direction. In this case, whoever can bring the most battleships after the defenses are down will win the battle. (A very pro-blob ideology). In addition, if fighters and drones can target the defenses, the fleet that can bring the most carriers/motherships/fighters to the battle will win. While the battleship blob may have been reduced in numbers, it seems that you have promoted the evolution of the capital ship blob. We seem to have gone back in time to the introduction of the HAS, in the face of the battleship solopwnmobile. Something needs to be introduced for balance, because a 1-1 ratio of BS to carriers is a very lopsided fight. Not only is is a lopsided fight, but those who COULD expand into 0.0 but do not have resources for cap fleets, can not hope to compete with current alliances. I'm very sorry for the tangent, but I have to question where you are going sometimes. In your struggle to give players "new content," you have managed to elevate current players to god-like status, while limiting new players to old content.
|
Redback911
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 09:57:00 -
[243]
I always thought it was a much about dimplomacy getting a small corp into 0.0 as much a guns?
Silly me.
|
Juggernot
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 12:38:00 -
[244]
I will try to be constructive, but my opinions are very high about poses and soverenty that my frustration might 'leak' through. I understand the changes made, POS guns outside the shield and hp boost and the ability to take control turns them into ships to defend the pos, interesting but ultimatly doomed in the present universe. outside shield >> die quickly regardless of hp boost (attacker brings more ships) taking control of guns = usable by very few = usless >> *warining frustration leak* nice idea, poses should be controllable more like ships with enough skills, but limiting the ability to jump in 'help' to a pos ONLY to soverenty ruins it. SO many, many corps in eve are NOT in one of the soverenty owners. and exist in empire/<.5 space. Cutting them out is unacceptable. Why does every post,patch,suggestion revolve around soverenty owning corps controlled by very few??ahhhh!
The problem if you put in jump bridges in sov gate camper get mad. Nerf what the can move in non-sov. ex no industrials V suggestions: --Most stations have MANY guns, basing the ability to control multiple guns in skills would be excellent. --jump range needs to be longer, nooone spends there eve time next to a pos cuz moon mins are so scattered. --def structures IN the shield so that by the time ppl get to the pos there are guns left to defend it --catering only to the sov owning corps is useless to a very large majority of pos runners
|
fred102
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 22:47:00 -
[245]
ok taking the second part first. the jump bridges sound very nice. no concenrs or omplaints there.
As for the forst aprt about placing offensive structures outside the pos force fields i can only say one thing,NO
let me repaet that again, NO NO NO. a pos is a hostile environment structure, its designed to be shot at, it is a fort. to my knowledge no one builds a fort and then puts all the guns outside the fortified area. this is comparable to building a snow fort in your back yard and putting all your snow balls ten feet from the perimeter.
then running out to the pile, throwing a snow ball, and running back to your fort and hoping that some one from the other side doesnt tag you with one on the way. :)
if they do this they need to also make it so that all ship offesive weapons be mounted on pylons that extend outside the ships shield. as its the exact same principle, since the idea is that now weapon should be able to fire thru a forcefield(not sure aobut this but seems to be the reasoning in some of the previous postings)
the way i understood the forcefields to work was that they were not one solid sphere but many overlapping plates that could be individually taken down to create a "firing port" that your weapons could be fired out of, this seems to be supported by the idea of bleed thru damage that is decreased by the skill tactical shield manipulation. the higher the skill the "tighter" the plates fit together and the less damage that leaks thru. also that the firing ports that you open up are more insync with your weapons and thus are open less time allowing less chance for the badguys to get a lucky shot thru.
and as for the people who say a pos should not be able to take out a dread, fixed defenses have almost always been stronger and cheaper then any one mobile platform, you can do this because you can build in purely offensive capabilities to your weapons and protect them with massive quatities of armor that just sits there and soaks up the enemies fire while you pot shot them with your guns.
mobile platforms have to be just that, mobile, they have to be able to get from here to there in a timely manner and then do their job, this means that the space taken up by engines, armor, cargo space, magazine space all cuts into the amount of and size of weapons you can place on said platform. where with a purely defensive structure all that space used on a mobile platform can be used to install larger, more effective weaponry.
now i do own a pos, so i do have a some what biased opinion here, but when i set up my pos in high sec to do research it was safe to do so with out having to have any fixed defenses as concord would protect it for me. lots of people seem to have complained about this and rumour has it that ccp is going to change this sometime so that if my corp gets wardecced that my pos becomes a valid target.
i was prepared to put up with that, i took some turrets and missle batteries out and anchored them there so if this does go into affect and i get war decced i just have to go out and clean out all my importatnt stuff and online all the offensive capibilites and still be fairly sure that when i come back i will still have a pos there and maybe some interesting wrecks to salvage. if this change with moving all offesive weapons out side the forcefield happens i`ll just give it up, unanchor everything and go back to waiting months on end for my stuff to cycle thru the research ques in stations.
anyways first post at the tail end of a long thread this probably wont get looked at, but thats my 2 cents worth have a good day
|
Jouni Kalmar
Gallente The Tidemark Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 23:44:00 -
[246]
Originally by: BH Reechani ok for those complaining about targeting players controling guns.
for the moment (and this is only a temp method as the final interface is not finished) all targeting and ording to fire is managed through the tower itself. if you look at the dev blog on corp changes, there is a screen shot of the ability to set structures so a "caretaker" can fuel them but can not offline them or remove fuel from them. there is a new tab called "control" that is where you take control of guns. you go there and you take the gun, you tell it to target something and the gun gives you a list of everything it can target (even if out of gun range). once targeted you can tell it to attack (this does not do anything yet). You can be inside the shield the entire time you do this for them moment but as long as you are controling the gun you can not move and you can not warp. if you release control (so you can add ammo to a gun or something) the gun immediately reverts to ai control.
Again this is subject to change, and there are some players that have seen this and can verify what i have said because they were present when we started trying to test this feature and discovered it is not fully functional yet. If you want to see it yourself, log into the test server make your way to FD- and watch for requests from devs/BH in local to help with testing or join the channel "starbase-warfare" on the test server and ask if there is any testing going at the moment.
Even as a 'caretaker' whats to stop you letting all the fuel run down, as it happens now and rush out to fuel it and load it up on stront or isotopes so there is no room for other fuel?
There needs to be some ability to remove fuel, but perhaps set a limit as to what must be left in the tower: Ie say a caretaker drops in 2 months supply of one fuel and fills up the tower, they need to be able to take some out, perhaps limit it so there has to be x days left in the tower.
my 2 cents
|
Corphus
ShaK Scientific
|
Posted - 2007.05.20 15:58:00 -
[247]
this is a fantastic change !
for reducing the capital fleet use as it is today its an good idea to place turrets outside the pos shields. imo those guns should have a sig radius of max. 200m.
why?
simply because dreads will need a propper support fleet in future for clearing the field for em before hitting the tower with all they got. today the solution for all ur problems is the capital blob. i think this is just wrong. if u want someone to loose his space u have to bring it. u have to plan the different stages of ur assualt. if pos are too dangerous for a plain assault tru dread blob u have to kill its defences first thus giving the enemy the opportunity to fight u off. if this happens in smaller scale pvp its awsome and encourages ppl to fight with 30 vs 30 first and reduce lag in the process.
bs fleets will have to strike fast and hard in order to prepare the landing of the capital siege machinery. the enemy meanwhile can make a stand and trying to fight u off with his forces, even if they are not consisting of large amouts of carriers and motherships. its a situation where the defender has the ability to fend of an attack even before the capitals sit in his backyard.
big alliances should not be able to kill off the basement of ur soverenity just because they got 50 dreads more than u. they should actually be very cautious using em and risk their destruction if they assault a pos with active defences.
dont let the sentries outside of pos shields be hittable by dread weapons. also dont let large towers hit smaller ships than dreads. imo the sentries of a pos are a defencive measure vs. siege weapons. there are small and medium sized sentries for fighting off smaller craft which should do less dmg to make an assault possible at all.
pos must be harder to kill and the current "blob with ur capital fleet" tactic must vanish aswell. i think that this changes can be a very good addition making eve more fun for everyone. make quality and tactics rule the battlefield. not numbers or monetary wealth of large entities.
|
Stellar Vix
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 05:10:00 -
[248]
Why not give the POS bomb launchers that will kill blobs.
|
Brain Gehirn
The Network Corporation United Corporations of Eve
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 08:24:00 -
[249]
Some things:
- A POS is a POS or a new kind of ship? - Why I will put my isk, my time, my resources, my m8¦s itens and other things into a "small gang killable" object? - "POS spam sucks!". Of course. POS destruction spam sucks too. - "I¦m a small corp with a new low sec POS! Hurra!!" - 1 week later - "OMG, 1 capital pirate pilot! run with your things m8¦s!" - Is my POS an "Attack-me please" object? - Is small corps unable to use low sec? Is low sec only for giants? - "OMG! sell the small and medium towers!! We need a giant new deathstar of horror to live!"
Are the ppl thinking on those things?
My vision: Heavy alliances will be more heavy and own more territory. Smaller corps/alliances will be removed from low-sec.
I see a POS like I see my home: - You can kill me at the streets. Can steal my house or put fire on it. - You can demolish my house, but will be much more harder.
In "starbase warfare 2.0" will be more easy to demolish my house than to kill me, lol.
-----------------------
< my sig here > |
Blood Poison
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 12:47:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Alpha Prime
Here¦s a hint. How much does it cost to put up a "deathstar". And how much does it cost to kill it ?.
Current POS-system is a ******* joke and needs to be sorted, it needed to be sorted 1 year ago. Taking down a pos takes hours of work and bilions in assets. But putting them up takes much less assets and time.
So how much of the "billions in assets" is lost while taking a POS?? Zero, that is. And the whole POS is lost.
|
|
Blazing Fire
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 13:34:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Brain Gehirn Some things:
- A POS is a POS or a new kind of ship? - Why I will put my isk, my time, my resources, my m8¦s itens and other things into a "small gang killable" object? - "POS spam sucks!". Of course. POS destruction spam sucks too. - "I¦m a small corp with a new low sec POS! Hurra!!" - 1 week later - "OMG, 1 capital pirate pilot! run with your things m8¦s!" - Is my POS an "Attack-me please" object? - Is small corps unable to use low sec? Is low sec only for giants? - "OMG! sell the small and medium towers!! We need a giant new deathstar of horror to live!"
Are the ppl thinking on those things?
My vision: Heavy alliances will be more heavy and own more territory. Smaller corps/alliances will be removed from low-sec.
I see a POS like I see my home: - You can kill me at the streets. Can steal my house or put fire on it. - You can demolish my house, but will be much more harder.
In "starbase warfare 2.0" will be more easy to demolish my house than to kill me, lol.
Listen to the man!
Blazing Fire CEO
Interstellar Operations Incorporated Recruting |
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 16:48:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 21/05/2007 16:53:04 Bottom line - 10 dreads can incapaciate a large pos of it biggest damage dealing weapons in under 2 minutes. In the subsiqent 3-5 minutes they can incapaciate every other offensive structures of significance. Then it is weapons free on the tower for the capitals and any smaller ships that want to join in. Here-in you can then simply camp the POS to prevent defenders forming up, any who do inside the forcefield you can bump out (since CCP condones POS bowling). When the POS comes out of reinforced mode it just a big stick in the vastness of space waiting to be killed.
These changes have in short made the concept of Reinforced Mode a mute point and turned POS warfare into a war of time zones. Where-as now it is a case where both the aggressor and defender have relative equal opportunity presented by reinforced mode to defender their POS with it defences in-tact. If for nothing else the defences in reinforced mode counter hostiles setting up camps at the POS and bowling people out during a form-up for defence.
At the end of the day the changes fail to acomplish what they were intended for; POS warfare will continue as a blob fest, POS defences will now be stripped in the first 5-10 minutes of an inital attack on a tower and the defenders will be at an even greater disadvantage than ever before.
P.S: Since POS' do not engage fighter drones, it is also an opportunity for motherships to dive into a pos, engage fighters out to structures then simply warp off - doing so from a safe range of 100km+ (which presumably the POS nos will not reach out that far?).
|
IHaveTenFingers
Caldari ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 18:25:00 -
[253]
Today i relized i was incredibly bored and idecided to start claiming constellation sovereignty in the Wyvern Const., and all of the tower i have anchored so far have finished anchoring at 100% shield, but end up at 50% shield when they finish onlining. And yes, its doing the annoying double DED mail to the CEO. Fix that devs plz.
Anyways back to the shield jackage. Luckily, the sheild is a fraction above 50% so fuel can still be added at this point. It might just be a wacky bug, but i have a feeling its part of the new starbase warfare. This is a great idea for starbases being anchored in a system where someone else claims sovereignty, but im not sure its the best idea for towers achored in a system where there is no claiming entity or an NPC claims sov. ------------------------------------
Your signature has exceeded the maximum allowed 2x1 pixel size and 4 byte file size limit, and has been removed. |
Lobo Noturno
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 18:26:00 -
[254]
I think that, besides having increased shield and armor, the weapons outside the POS should have active shield regen/armor repair. Once they get into structure, they're disabled, and need manual repairs to become active again.(full armor repair for reactivation, for example) If you give it enough regen, and given the small size vs the dread weapons huge signature, it is possible to find a ballance where dread weapons in siege mode can't kill the POS defenses(the dread can kill the POS itself, but have to take fire while doing it) In this case, only way to disable defenses is with a support fleet of smaller ships, that can actually hit the defenses with DPS enough given the signature factor...
Lobo
|
IHaveTenFingers
Caldari ADVANCED Combat and Engineering Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 18:52:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Lobo Noturno I think that, besides having increased shield and armor, the weapons outside the POS should have active shield regen/armor repair. Once they get into structure, they're disabled, and need manual repairs to become active again.(full armor repair for reactivation, for example) If you give it enough regen, and given the small size vs the dread weapons huge signature, it is possible to find a ballance where dread weapons in siege mode can't kill the POS defenses(the dread can kill the POS itself, but have to take fire while doing it) In this case, only way to disable defenses is with a support fleet of smaller ships, that can actually hit the defenses with DPS enough given the signature factor...
Lobo
Genius... honestly thats a perfect idea and it elegant in its simplicity. /signed ------------------------------------
Your signature has exceeded the maximum allowed 2x1 pixel size and 4 byte file size limit, and has been removed. |
Daelin Blackleaf
No Joy Corp Pride - Honor - Duty
|
Posted - 2007.05.22 03:25:00 -
[256]
I have the distinct feeling this decision has been made since a lot of work has already been done on it before it's announcement.
POS spamming was the main issue here... not really the time or resources it took to take down any single POS. I beleive the "sovereignty module" previously metioned would have solved this problem far better.
Also where does this leave the small independant corps who have been happily running their POS in lo-sec for quite some time now? Since any larger organsiation is going to be able to pick apart their POS in shorter time than before and small gangs are now able to harass the POS at great cost to owners this is going to effect them in a big way... with no pay-off in return at all (since odds are a small corp has large periods of time when no one is on-line at all).
Lastly the skill reqs and extra costs likely to be incurred seem rather prohibative for the newer corps looking to set up their first POS.
Possible Solution: Put the guns back in, add the sov module, allow a limited form of AI for the turrets. Meaning they will attack targets relevant to their size first and switch to any such targets that appear later, and allow the user to specify cycle time or have it set to some reasonable ammount (so that a single remote repped ship doesn't hold the POS's attention allowing the others to go unmolested). If this leaves POS too powerful then the DPS of the turrets can be reduced to compensate.
If POS spamming is still an issue you could simply restrict the number of active POS in a system to 3 (or 1/10 the number of moons whichever is higher). Thats 3 total, not 3 per alliance since that is far too easily abused.
On a final note the jump bridge will be a welcome addition for the larger alliances allowing them to finaly benefit from their POS's weaponry and assault attacking dreads at the site of battle instead of at the camped entry gates.
|
Blaque Shue
|
Posted - 2007.05.22 17:51:00 -
[257]
Since this thread has largely turned into "these new ideas are mostly not going to be very good or effective, and here's alternatives" here's a few ideas I've had while reading other people's posts.
1) Someone mentioned specialized tower types. I think that's brilliant. It seems like as in RL, any useful technology (i.e., POS towers) immediately are specialized to find new niches. The idea of having towers optimized for combat / R&D / mining / refining / whatever is a most logical and natural idea, and fits well in the Eve world.
2) Sovereignty is apparently still broken, and POS spamming is pretty widely acknowledged as a problem. I think one reason this might be the case is a POS is a relatively cheap thing, which is relatively easy to deploy for what it gets you. It seems like this problem could be combined with the idea in (1) to provide a range of POS tower types that make it more difficult to meaninglessly POS spam. One way this could be done is to make the anchor time on combat oriented or sovereignty oriented towers very very long (spanning days, perhaps, longest case) so that sovereignty can only be claimed by someone who clearly has the power to control the space involved. Alternatively, having baby towers with light weapons that can be deployed and last for just a period of a few hours or a night's combat could allow for interesting game mechanics.
3) As one tower type, a special sovereignty tower, which comes in the planet, system, and constellation types (costing a few hundred million, to a billion, to tens of billions). The idea being that a sovereignty tower is a special e-war tower whose only capability is to emit a special encoded signal that makes it impossible to erect another sovereignty tower of that type within the same sphere of influence (although guns, etc. can be anchored to defend it, no arrays / mining / labs / etc). The point of such a tower is that it provides varying fuel bonuses to towers erected within its range; that is, a planetary tower provides a small fuel bonus to other towers at moons for the same planet; a system for all moons in a system, and a constellation tower for all systems in the constellation, with stacking (but not stacking penalized) fuel bonuses of, say, 10/20/30%, so a tower in a claimed planet / system / constellation setup gets a 60% bonus. I would expect that the hitpoints and resists of such towers would be commensurate with their costs (a planetary sovereignty tower might have 25/25/25/25 resists and large tower shield size; system perhaps 35/35/35/35 resists and 50-100 million shield points, and a constellation tower 50/50/50/50 with 500M+ shield points, something truly ridiculous and difficult to destroy). The lag and blobs would be ridiculous, but at least sovereignty would be easily defined and mean something, and not something that even a small dread fleet can beat.
4) Why are we still only anchoring POSes and structures at moons? Can't we have a technological breakthrough allowing anchoring all over the place? With the current state of scan probes and the like, finding a POS that isn't at a moon isn't going to be hard, so why keep this limitation?
The numbers need tweaking, but I think the base ideas aren't bad.
|
Derran
Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.05.22 23:18:00 -
[258]
Would it be possible to increase CPU and powergrid on the POSs at all? With the new modules on the horizon and being able to place guns outside the shields to be able to manually control them, I can see guns needing to be on the inside too for extra defense. Not asking for a huge increase however. A modest one at best.
|
Aaron Min
|
Posted - 2007.05.23 16:17:00 -
[259]
ya know this might not be so bad. I just think it requires defenders to think a little differently. Instead of always having guns onlined you should have them stored in the pos. Someone mounts the initial offensive and puts your pos into reinforced. They leave and now you go about preparing for the attack. Thats when you deploy all your guns and defense modules. Now with the cyno stopper you can cyno in your dreads and carriers and camp the gates into the system, then block any other dreads from coming in. This will make it nearly impossible for a bs fleet to get through and take down your cyno stopper. That of course assumes that all defense modules work while the pos is in reinforced. Which they should imo. If something like I described will work then the advantage will be for the defenders, however it certainly doesn't reduce blobbing.
|
Mahrin Skel
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 06:38:00 -
[260]
Here are the basic problems with POS:
1) Nobody really likes maintaining them, especially strictly system defense POS that produce no income.
2) They're woefully inadequate defensively, a well set up carrier or dreadnought can tank a POS *solo* unless it's loaded strictly with guns. If it is, it's even more vulnerable to the kinds of attacks it's really going to see (20, 30, even 50 dreadnoughts).
3) The attacker always has the initiative, and he'll attack when and where he has the least chance of defeat. That means that when a POS is hit, it's hit by huge fleets and if there isn't a huge fleet defending, it goes down fast.
4) Logistically, they're a nightmare. Not as bad now, if you can get a freighter to them reliably at least you can stock their hangars with a month's worth of fuel. But you're still going to have to count on someone to log in every week to move that fuel. And if you're 30 jumps deep in 0.0, that means a lot of vulnerable (and expensive) freighters flying an awful long way.
The useful properties of a POS in territorial warfare are:
1) It takes time and lots of dread fuel to take down a decently set up POS (defined as one with just enough guns to keep the support away, and as many hardeners as it can hold). This is the only opportunity an outnumbered defender is going to have to inflict significant losses on their attackers (by attacking the dreads away from their support). Each POS the enemy must attack increases the opportunities for the defenders, and buys time.
2) The interior of friendly POS shields are the only safe places in the entire system for an outnumbered force (barring Titan Bowling). Since defenders are always outnumbered (if they aren't, the attackers wouldn't engage) this usually works in favor of the defenders.
3) The sheer amount of material and time required to spam a hostile system with POS gives the defender an advantage. But the attacker has the initiative, and can plan for that. If he chooses, he can simply jump in 40 carriers, all loaded with 1 POS each.
Making the guns vulnerable to small gangs won't get them attacked by small gangs. It will get them *hammered* by dread blobs. As things stand now, here's how warfare would change:
A) Gang of battleships (or possibly Stealth Bombers loaded with bombs) enter the target system.
B) They destroy/deactivate the Cynosural System Jammer.
C) Capital blob cynos in.
D) Capital blob runs around system destroying any Jump Portals.
E) Capital blob proceeds to take system defense POS down as normal, except that they also destroy/deactivate all the guns on the POS they attack. They also destroy (regardless of how beefed up) any Jump Portals in the system.
F) XX hours later, the capital blob returns and finishes off the POS they put in Reinforced, now with their support fleets in attendance making it difficult to impossible for the defenders to resist.
Nothing will change this equation unless POS have enough firepower to ensure that there will be significant losses among the attacking forces. At least 5 times the firepower they now have, *as well* as being able to focus that fire. If every system defense POS you hit means the loss of a few capital ships, then attacking forces are not unstoppable juggernauts. Mounting losses will *demand* that they moderate their speed of advance.
It's really that simple, either POS can kill capitals, or they can't. If they can't, no amount of "tweaking" is going to change the fundamentals much, if at all. It will still be about putting together enough dreads to kill a POS in a single Siege cycle, and enough carriers/supercaps/support to keep the defenders from being able to stop them. Nobody is going to attack POS with normal ships if they have *any* other choice (as in the example of the Cyno Jammer), because POS can kill standard ships, and they can't kill dreads unless the pilot screws up.
--Dave
|
|
Marvel Master
Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 07:14:00 -
[261]
Hello Devs,
its simple. If you want to reduce lag and POS Warfare, then remove the Soveranity solution from the POS.
A POS with soveranity is a very bad solution. A POS should only be a safespot or something for industry.
Why? The main problem in eve is the lag. If the POS comes out of reinforce 500 guys try to destroy or defense a POS. Thats a real problem for the servers.
I would prefer another solution. Devide the strike force into several systems to get soveranity. Perhaps you get soveranity if you won 70% of the fights or you deliver the planets with humans on it with food, luxery goods, and other items like a power station, infrastructure or something like that. If the people on the planet like you, they give you soveranity.
After that, this crappy POS Soveranity lag system is history. ..
Marvel
|
Tira Grey
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 11:11:00 -
[262]
Why has all Turret based POS weapons recieved a Rate of fire bonus and new Damage modifier and Launchers based POS weapons has not?? So this means Launcher based Weapons are going to be forgotten stuff collecting dust in Corp hangars all over Eve????
|
Juggernot
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 11:45:00 -
[263]
why not a siege mode for module for a POS??
|
DeadWeight
Minmatar Botox Bandits
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 13:26:00 -
[264]
What does everyone think about sov levels and the days they take? I think its a bit excessive, but the real question I have is will we get credit for 'time served'. What I mean is, if I already had 4 outposts and sovereignty for all the days needed for level 4 Sov, will I get level 4 sov when Revelations 2.0 is introduced or does the timer re-start?
|
Soyemia
Minmatar Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 13:49:00 -
[265]
Just out of intrest, is there a way to kill POS taht has a cyno jammer? Doesnt it make the system invulnerable if you dont want to POS spam? If you ahve a systen where you cant POS spam the systmem becomes invulnerable? Is that fun? Bye bye for starting alliances I guess then. http://images.filecloud.com/225198/WCS.jpg Please reduce the file size to less than 24000 bytes. -Cyrano
Proud member of FI |
Aeleva
Caldari Hegemonic Core
|
Posted - 2007.05.24 14:03:00 -
[266]
Thoughts id say would be keep force field (its gone atm?!)
All offensive mods go outside and get a biiiig buff in damage potential. as well as/or having specific anti capital devices. Hardeners etc all go inside force field which is a "safe" area for ships to stay in holding or for people to rearm/repair. Cyno jammers are also outside pos shield.
As such if you want to siege a system that is well locked down you first have to take out the cyno jammer at the POS before you can bring your cap ships in. One cyno jammer per system or something.
So far ive found cap arrays only work when outside force field, and thats now vanished?
I think the changes mentioned are good, just my 2 cents on how defence could work better. I think cyno jammers are good though as it means you get a 2 stage attack at least to hit the POS.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.05.25 17:49:00 -
[267]
I'm a fan of POS's being easier to fuel and capable of defending better. Just so you know where I'm comming from.
At present, POS's are only attacked if the Attacker knows he can tank the guns. No one ever loses Capitals to POS's by themselves. Hence, when the Attacking Blob get above the Defender's ability to counter, all POS's are simply speed bumps. Look at what MC is doing with 60+ Capitals right now. There is absolutely no way to counter that except to have 60+ Capitals of your own. And if you don't have them, then you're gonna be slowly steamrolled.
Therefore Focused Fire and a Damage buff is needed. I think that a POS should be able to kill a Capital ship solo - even without being controlled. If a POS cannot kill a Capital, then these 60+ Capital fleets have already won EVE, and will never be stopped.
All the other toys will certainly be fun. Jump Portals in particular are my favorite, but if Interbus would simply deliver fuel and Trit to 0.0 I'd be happy to do without them.
I very much like the tiered-levels of Soverignty, which I think should be hard to get and hard to take away. The amount of time a system is controlled should play a very large role in Soverignty. For example, even if Castro were somehow able to eliminate the Military presence in Florida, it would not immeadiately become a loyal provence of Cuba.
Note: I was gonna use Texas as an example, but I must admit we'd probably revolt and form our own Republic.
Just give me the ability to blow up one Dread per tower attacked, and I'll be happy.
|
Franconis
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.05.25 21:32:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
yada yada...
Just give me the ability to blow up one Dread per tower attacked, and I'll be happy.
I totally agree with you, but that may be harder than it seems. With capital fleets come carriers/moms. The carriers are renowned for their ability to repair other ships quite quickly. Even if a POS had enough firepower to take down a dread, it would need to overcome the incredible repairing that the carriers would provide to it as well. This makes it easy for a capital fleet to tank a POS if the AI of the guns focus fire on one target. In order for a deathstar POS to even be a threat to a capital fleet, it needs the capability to apply enough damage to break the tanks of multiple capital ships at a time. Luckily, there is a balancing factor. Dreads need to be immobile while in siege mode, so any sort of weapon(s) that can do enough damage to threaten a dreadnaught should have pitiful tracking at best. Another way POSes can defend against capital fleets is to disrupt their supply lines. Supplies can come by hauler or by another capital ship, so standard warp scrambling won't prevent a mothership from moving the supplies. POSes should be able to use modules that can prevent motherships and titans from warping. With these abilities combined, a deathstar POS should be able to at least fight back against a capital fleet.
AI imo should be able to use the guns to do some considerable damage and to kill fighter drones, but not to decimate a capital fleet. A POS weapon operator should be present at the very least in order for the POS to really do damage to an attacking fleet. It's been mentioned before that the real fight happens after the POS goes into reinforced mode, where (with the new model) any guns outside the shield would have been destroyed. The guns need to be either inside the shield, or they need some way to survive the time until the POS comes out of reinforced. Perhaps they could have their own reinforced mode? Mabye there could be a mobile force field array that would protect them, and that could have a reinforced mode. _________ Gallente FTW |
Mahrin Skel
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.26 10:26:00 -
[269]
Hey, that's an idea: Siege Mode for POS guns. Only for controlled guns, they get the same massive tanking and DPS buffs that Dreads do, but they burn some of the tower's Stront.
--Dave
|
William Hamilton
Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.05.27 06:34:00 -
[270]
Adding a special sovereignty pos or structure would over complicate things, it's better to elegantly use the new sovereignty system
Sov 1 and if the enemy makes more towers they can take the system. - So pos spam still works here, that's okay, because the system is newly claimed anyways.
Sov 2 and if the enemy makes more towers they can force the system to "lock" into a contested mode, which acts like sov 0, though the system cannot be claimed until only one alliance holds POSes there. - POS spam can still be used, but is effectively futile. All you're doing is forcing the enemy to spend more fuel, maybe off lining a few structures, you still need to kill their towers to take the system.
Sov 3 and whoever holds sovereignty holds it until all their towers are killed
Sov 4 and no hostile towers can be placed at all
Or something to that effect, making the system so it naturally does stuff itself is better than forcing every alliance to buy tonnes of sovereignty "things" and place them around their systems before they lose SOV.
|
|
MotherMoon
|
Posted - 2007.05.27 08:14:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Juggernot why not a siege mode for module for a POS??
OMG that's it!
|
Imiarr Timshae
Roid Vandals Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.05.28 14:47:00 -
[272]
So.
1. Place defensive structures outside field, i.e. vulnerable. 2. Make them a lot stronger so that they take longer to kill. 3. Make smaller ships able to take them out by reducing tracking speeds and increasing lock times. 4. Forcing capital and supercapital fleets to rethink POS warfare?
As TomB said, it would take 6x doomsdays to take out defensive structures, then how the heel would smaller ships cope?
-Imiarr- |
caio
|
Posted - 2007.05.28 19:34:00 -
[273]
CCP could change that, i puting all modules and ship bays/corp hangar and other things except hards out of the pos?? put back the ship bay and corp hangar/miners/silos/arrays and logistics-production mods inside POS. if this is going to be like a ship like brain said, try putting the target painting/Nos battery/cyno battery and jump bridge inside the POS (incluiding the scan system), tha could be a idea too, so only ofensive modules wll be outside the POS defending it.
|
Mahrin Skel
Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.05.28 23:38:00 -
[274]
Energy Neutralizing Arrays are a little weak. They're not much more effective than a BS loaded with 8 Heavy Nosferatu II's (100 energy per second for the array vs. 80 for the BS).
Guns in general are still *far* too weak against Capitals, a well-fitted dread or carrier is going to be able to tank all the guns of a totally damage-loaded POS if he's being boosted/repaired by another capital, even without Siege or Triage mode. All of this POS refactoring will come to naught if the firepower of a POS isn't enough to threaten a capital ship whose pilot isn't AFK.
--Dave
|
Stellar Vix
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.05.29 04:44:00 -
[275]
I got a quick good fix for the POS guns two of them actually.
First off, Make the guns Orbit the POS, You heard me Orbit the POS, make them move fast enough to outfly a dreads tracking in reinforced mode. Reduce thier sig radius so citadels wont hurt them as much as a cruise missile will. Increase Large POS gun damage vs Capitols, truely make them sweat it if they attack ones of these pos without sending in a gang to knock it out. This will force the offenders to actually send the smaller folks in or rist getting nailed harder during thier seige, mabey the pos can generate a capitol kill for once.
Also equip the Guns with a Smart Bomb that has to be deployed by the player control, this will be strong enough to kill drones and discourage fighters, the range will be about equal to the drone/fighter orbit
Guns shouldnt be immune to warfare (cept for nos and nuet) but should be resistant, have like warfare done aginst them cut down effectiveness or have a special defense structor that managesthis concept.
Make the Small guns stats more for anti frigate/cruiser, Make mediums anti battleship/battlecruiser Make the large AntiCap. Although they should be perfect killers they still should have a good chance of killing the intended classes or force them to retrate/repair. Have a slight nerf for an unmanned gun not being as accurate as a manned gun. This will make manning guns a desireable thing to do.
Give the repair towers an ammo option "Rapidly" Boost the amount repair of armor hull and shields siginficantly, these repair boosts (1-10 mil a pop?) shouldnt come cheap wont be easy to transport but it will allow the defenders who man thier pos to online the guns rapidly to continue the fight despite the seige.
Also HP balance the towers mabey? Who knows mabey nerf lvl 0 sovern towers by penalizing them with bp loss. and as sonvern goes up make them get stronger until the reach current tranquility levels at max level sorvernty.
============================================ SWA Qualified Instructor and Mascot or sorts Ensign Stellar Vixen.
Fight the Bunnies! <^-^> |
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.05.29 08:13:00 -
[276]
Isn't the obvious answer really to give the POS guns and other external modules sub-systems with exceptionally tiny sig radius' and low hit points that once destroyed cause the turret to go offline, but are impractical to lock and destroy for something like a dread. Ideally, make it so the subsystems have an implicit motion and just cannot be hit by a dread.
|
|
Tanis.
|
Posted - 2007.05.29 08:27:00 -
[277]
Unstickified.. please refer to this thread: HERE for testing feedback about the starbase warfare changes coming with Revelations 2. ____________________________ I break things.
GM Voodoo > That plan really straddles the fine line between genius and idiocy. Tanis. > And that differs from everything else I say how?
[Bug Report Here][How to write a good bug report][Test server rules] |
|
Slykette
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 23:26:00 -
[278]
Originally by: CCP Nozh Starbase Warfare 2.0
We've been doing some changes to starbase warfare, these changes are already on Singularity for you to try out:
- All defensive structures are being placed outside the starbase forcefield
- Defensive structures are getting a massive HP boost
- Defensive structures become incapacitated when they've taken a certain amount of damage (atm 1% structure)
- Defensive structures get reactivated once their shield reaches 50% (they need full structure/armor also, remote structure repairers are being made available)
- Improved defensive structure targeting AI
EVE Online
I see this idea for 0.0 POS operations as making sense. With the use of the cyno field jammer you can limit capitol fleets from tearing you apart. However in a 0.3-0.1 systems you can not hold sovereignty so your POS is a sitting duck. Is it the intent of CCP to make it so the only people that can have a POS are the ones in 0.0 or in empire 0.5+ systems if your corp has the standings to do so??
|
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar FSK23
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 00:14:00 -
[279]
Edited by: El''essar Viocragh on 08/06/2007 00:21:36
Originally by: Imiarr Timshae So.
1. Place defensive structures outside field, i.e. vulnerable. 2. Make them a lot stronger so that they take longer to kill. 3. Make smaller ships able to take them out by reducing tracking speeds and increasing lock times. 4. Forcing capital and supercapital fleets to rethink POS warfare?
As TomB said, it would take 6x doomsdays to take out defensive structures, then how the heel would smaller ships cope?
Small ACs have around 400k shield/armor hp without any resistances (medium 800k). So it takes about the number of doomsday ignitions TomB mentioned. Get a few battleships that can do 4k dps (together!) and the gun is down in under two minutes (under 4min for a medium one). Once the gun is in its 99% omnitank hull, it goes incapacitated until a player inside the POS remote structure repairs it. Once the majority of small/med guns are down, bring close range bs that take the xlarge guns with their rather suboptimal tracking. Then bring dreads and shoot the tower. Once the tower is gone, the guns lose their hull resistances and you blow them up too.
Of course a single rifter can't disable guns on its own, but three or four sniping bs groups (4-5 each) all around the pos will give the defenders something to do. If staged right one logistics ship could probably get two of those in range while staying outside range (or at least close to the edge) themselves.
Uneducated guess of course.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |