EVE Search - In Da Starbase, a new Blog from TomB

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

In Da Starbase, a new Blog from TomB

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Evelgrivion Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.05.27 03:17:00 - [31] Originally by: 50 Isk Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 26/05/2007 19:13:36 Originally by: Dal Thrax Will structures outside of the forcefield be able to survive 2+ DDD blasts without going offline? I'm thinking some groups with multiple Titan's could use one or two the nuke the POS defenses and still have two in reserve to drive off any support fleet that might come. This is particularly important as I believe that hardeners on the POS our now outside the FF and that they don't boost the structures shields so, hit the thing with an EM DDD follow up with Explosive and bye bye guns. Dal 50 ISK says CCP hasn't decided what they're going to do to deal with the present "issues" with Titans yet But on topic, good blog, TomB. I'm glad to see a POS tower spam limiter is in the works - otherwise, with these changes, nobody would be able to take any system I know it's off topic, but I never said anything of the sort! This isn't the signature you're looking for.
Serilla The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.05.27 03:54:00 - [32] Limiting the number of ships a dread can target is a bad idea. If you're concerned about structures going down too fast just add a new stat, max targetted structures, or something like that. Then it would just like with weapons where ships have x ammount of turret points, y ammount of missile but only z ammount of slots to fit both types in. __________________
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.05.27 04:26:00 - [33] Originally by: Serilla Limiting the number of ships a dread can target is a bad idea. If you're concerned about structures going down too fast just add a new stat, max targetted structures, or something like that. Then it would just like with weapons where ships have x ammount of turret points, y ammount of missile but only z ammount of slots to fit both types in. I think 2 max tragets for a ship that is meant to focus tons of fire power is a great idea! I however have a better one. sry CCP but I do. Only reduce this max locked tragets number to 2 when in seigh mode. I like it :P oh and 2 targets will cut down on focused fire and 2 mean while one is being fired on you can start locking a new one then when the targets you killed is done you can lock another one whie firing at the target your now hitting the only thing this will do is make what your fleet of dreads should target more interesting plus you'll be able to use battleships again! because with only 2 targets a dread is not going to go for the guns anyways. waste of time. have another group focus on the guns.
Bienurdau Hywoaf Minmatar Matari Holo News Network	Posted - 2007.05.27 04:47:00 - [34] The way I read it it isn't 2 targets, its 2 targets less than what you can target now. No mention of the removal of the remote doomsday.... No mention of allowing cynofields to stop jumpdrives.... The changes to the carriers sounds good. I believe the changes to the POS will make it harder to hold sovereignty. I do not believe it will encourage small ship use. I mean if you can take down the shields/armor and do .1% to the structure in say 20 volleys from small ships or 5 volleys from capitals which would you use? After all the towers not going anywhere, so you can easily wait to fire on it after the defenses are offline. I'm assuming that as it is now you will not be able to sit inside the POS shield and target things outside it. Some suggested here using a Logistics cruiser inside the shield however given that you can't target things outside the shield don't see how that is possible. In redoing the ranges for the defenses you also run the risk of someone just deciding to sit in a capital ship outside of range and take out the defenses without having to risk anything. In all I do not think these changes will make POS warfare more fun. It will make POS defense more tedious. Wasn't there also already a skill seeded where you could anchor weapons outside the pos shield and operate them? Idea: Treaties Idea: Jump Rigs
killmc Gallente The Black Guards Solaris Consortium	Posted - 2007.05.27 07:00:00 - [35] Edited by: killmc on 27/05/2007 07:01:01 i just see this as a bad idea form the start 1 pos gun are week even with contoling so many guns they not going to be able to kill a dredknot 2 all that going to happen from this is alince send in 30 dredkntot kill the guns than tower 3 what happens when no from your corp/allince is online at the time some group take on your pos best way to fix pos is to have all gun by size or class work on same target one at time from in side shelds 2 pos been bug for years how about fixing the bugs in them before change them 3 at this point all i can seee is when this come out i take my pos down as it stands i run a lab pos in .2 now you just maid it even easy for some to kill it shame on you ccp CEO
Tzrailasa Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.27 08:13:00 - [36] Edited by: Tzrailasa on 27/05/2007 08:16:46 Edited by: Tzrailasa on 27/05/2007 08:12:33 While it is always nice that you add new content, I can't help but think that you're seriously missing the real problem here..... Originally by: CCP TomB Starbase combat is not fun.. You seem to think that POS combat is not fun because small ships can't participate??? I'd like to hear other peoples opinion on this, but the reason POS combat is not fun is completely different (imho).... POS combat is not fun because shooting at fixed structures is not fun... ...and you want to bring in MORE fixed structures???? The FUN in EVE combat is when you meet up ship(s) against ship(s), but currently POS combat by its implementation actively discourages this (and adding new structures doesn't change it).... There are currently two ways to attack/defend a star system.... a) You gather a dread fleet and a support fleet (maybe 100+ players). You spend hours attacking/defending POS, and then have to do it again over and over..... b) One of your players in a carrier puts up some POS in low-activity hours. ...Guess which one is chosen 95% of the time.... That is the current state of POS warfare, and it's not going to change just because you add a few extra structures. The 'not fun' part is not that small ships can't participate in the POS assault, but that the current DESIGN of POS warfare actively discourages that people actually FIGHT to attack/defend systems, because it is 100 times easier just to put up some POS. Control of star systems are thus determined by who has the most money to spend, or who gets bored first. Wow... If the POS warfare design encouraged actual fights instead of discouraging them as it does at present, then the small ships would have plenty to do even without having POS structures to shoot at, because the enemy would be forced to deploy ships.... Several possible solutions for this have been talked about intensively among the player base in plenty of other threads, but there has afaik been absolutely no reply from CCP to any of them. You claim you want to do something about the boredom, but the glaringly obvious problem with POS warfare (at least to the playersbase) you ignore, while adding what I would term as 'fluff'.... The solution to this problem that I prefer is a new type of POS, of which only a fixed (low) number can be deployed in any star system (1/2/3 total in system, NOT per corp/alliance...). This new POS type is the only one which can generate sovereignty. This would force people to actively FIGHT to take/keep a solar system, since you couldn't deploy more sov-claiming POS when the system was at capacity. My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance.
MasterDecoy Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.05.27 10:03:00 - [37] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 26/05/2007 23:25:06 Implement something that makes POS spamming a non-working tactic, then worry about new features!!! this alt speaks the truth.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2007.05.27 11:10:00 - [38] When you say "smaller ships", just how smaller are we talking? Battleship size? Battlecruise Size? Cruiser Size? If you're talking about a small tactical group of HACs and Command Ships then this will be a major improvement upon the game but if you're talking BS, then we're still going to see the major blobbing tactics that we've seen increase over the last two years. Make a Difference
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2007.05.27 11:35:00 - [39] Originally by: Tzrailasa Edited by: Tzrailasa on 27/05/2007 08:16:46 Edited by: Tzrailasa on 27/05/2007 08:12:33 While it is always nice that you add new content, I can't help but think that you're seriously missing the real problem here..... Originally by: CCP TomB Starbase combat is not fun.. You seem to think that POS combat is not fun because small ships can't participate??? I'd like to hear other peoples opinion on this, but the reason POS combat is not fun is completely different (imho).... I'm not against more structures per se, rather I'm more concerned, as is the quoted poster, that you seem to believe that us Alliance members seem to dislike POS combat because Small ships can't get involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. POS Combat is not fun simply because you need a blob to conduct this type of warfare which is inherrintly laggy, leads to client/node crashes, ships lost without firing a shot and frustration levels shooting through the roof. It may be presumptious but I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say the lag is the single biggest fun-killer in Eve. As an idea for your consideration, rather than giving us more structures to sit there and shoot at, what (at least in my opinion) would be more fun is a more tactical element to POS. For example, by all means move guns outside of the shield but make it so that whilst there are guns up, you cannot target the tower. Change the way sig radius works so that once you go over a certain number of ships, their signature radius becomes cumulative and thus increases making it easier to kill. Make small and medium guns killable by non-BS and large guns only killable by BS. What this would do is encourage small squads of ships like HACs, Recons and Command Ships to take on a more tactical role and introduce a whole new layer of strategic warfare with the progression being Cruiser/Battlecruiser size at stage one, then BS at stage two before finally brining in Capital Ships for stage three. By adding a cumulative effect to Sig Radius, you're also discourging the use of Blobs. The way you appear to be going will just increase the already high boredom levels, not enhancing players fun. Make a Difference
One Percent Caldari Applied Eugenics	Posted - 2007.05.27 13:37:00 - [40] Quote: the maximum number a dreadnought can target is reduced to two - this is to prevent avoiding the long locking time of smaller sentries by locking 10 at a time. Yeah, this is pretty much the worst idea for a fix I've heard in a long time. Some people do use Dreads to shoot at things besides a tower and this change totally nerfs that. If you don't want small guns to get owned by Dreads then change something about said guns, don't totally nerf the usefulness of Dreads in every other situation. You're effectively reducing the biggest and most powerful starship most players can hope to pilot in this game to a boredom machine.
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.05.27 14:27:00 - [41] Originally by: Tzrailasa Edited by: Tzrailasa on 27/05/2007 08:16:46 Edited by: Tzrailasa on 27/05/2007 08:12:33 While it is always nice that you add new content, I can't help but think that you're seriously missing the real problem here..... Originally by: CCP TomB Starbase combat is not fun.. You seem to think that POS combat is not fun because small ships can't participate??? I'd like to hear other peoples opinion on this, but the reason POS combat is not fun is completely different (imho).... POS combat is not fun because shooting at fixed structures is not fun... ...and you want to bring in MORE fixed structures???? The FUN in EVE combat is when you meet up ship(s) against ship(s), but currently POS combat by its implementation actively discourages this (and adding new structures doesn't change it).... There are currently two ways to attack/defend a star system.... a) You gather a dread fleet and a support fleet (maybe 100+ players). You spend hours attacking/defending POS, and then have to do it again over and over..... b) One of your players in a carrier puts up some POS in low-activity hours. ...Guess which one is chosen 95% of the time.... That is the current state of POS warfare, and it's not going to change just because you add a few extra structures. The 'not fun' part is not that small ships can't participate in the POS assault, but that the current DESIGN of POS warfare actively discourages that people actually FIGHT to attack/defend systems, because it is 100 times easier just to put up some POS. Control of star systems are thus determined by who has the most money to spend, or who gets bored first. Wow... If the POS warfare design encouraged actual fights instead of discouraging them as it does at present, then the small ships would have plenty to do even without having POS structures to shoot at, because the enemy would be forced to deploy ships.... Several possible solutions for this have been talked about intensively among the player base in plenty of other threads, but there has afaik been absolutely no reply from CCP to any of them. You claim you want to do something about the boredom, but the glaringly obvious problem with POS warfare (at least to the playersbase) you ignore, while adding what I would term as 'fluff'.... The solution to this problem that I prefer is a new type of POS, of which only a fixed (low) number can be deployed in any star system (1/2/3 total in system, NOT per corp/alliance...). This new POS type is the only one which can generate sovereignty. This would force people to actively FIGHT to take/keep a solar system, since you couldn't deploy more sov-claiming POS when the system was at capacity. Quoted for complete, absolute truth. -
Deren Thaldrel Minmatar Black Watch Legionnaires	Posted - 2007.05.27 16:04:00 - [42] Edited by: Deren Thaldrel on 27/05/2007 16:03:18 "One: the maximum number a dreadnought can target is reduced to two - this is to prevent avoiding the long locking time of smaller sentries by locking 10 at a time." Friends of mine have have been training dreads for Level 5 Missions and this is a pretty significant nerf for them. Targeting time on a dread is bad enough for a PVE encounter, but to now limit them to two targets is pretty ridiculous. Please reconsider this decision given the expansion of non-Pos warfare capital content, level 5s as they've been presented and eventual level 6s and complexes, etc. Thank you, Deren Thaldrel
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari Gallente Federal Bank	Posted - 2007.05.27 18:38:00 - [43] Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 27/05/2007 18:40:38 Quote: One: the maximum number a dreadnought can target is reduced to two - this is to prevent avoiding the long locking time of smaller sentries by locking 10 at a time. A horrible idea, lag warfare you need to be able to target more than one. There has to be a better idea than this. So now dreads will be even more vulnerable to swarms of ships than they already are... great. What about those that use a dread for somthing other than shooting at a pos woooo thanks for the reaming I bet they are saying.
Celebran The Older Gamers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.27 21:57:00 - [44] So now with a dread being able to only lock 2 targets at a time they are being reduced to even more limited use then now. Who would want to take one into ship vs ship combat with that limitation? Not to mention using them on missions due to their obcene lock times. This will make any dread except the moros unused on missions and the moros, with their drone bonuses, only because drones will autoattack even if you don't have lock after they have been told to engage. Sure the others have drones but don't get the nice drone use bonuses.
Counterparty	Posted - 2007.05.28 02:05:00 - [45] I just undocked my Moros on Sisi and promptly locked 7 targets. I guess this only applies to siege mode or isn't implemented.
KIATolon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.28 04:24:00 - [46] I'm interested to know about titan changes. Atm it's impossible to deploy a support fleet against 4 or 5 titans with the size of the gangs needed to match the enemy gangs (up to 500, but more frequently on normal "big ops", 100 or so). The system lag with 10 or so ms and 20 or so carriers deploying fighters makes it impossible to avoid the DD blasts, and removing remote dd's helps. With a caprecharge of approx 15 seconds on the best fitted titans you can warp in, deploy DD, and cyno out before the DD lag has cleared, and certainly before you've been locked by any sieged dreads.
Hugh Ruka Caldari	Posted - 2007.05.28 14:50:00 - [47] I have one little question. If a 30-dread fleet can take down a heavily hardened tower in 30 minutes with all strucrutes INSIDE the shield, what prevents them to do the same with structures OUTSIDE the shield ? I mean they can still ignore the guns and take down the POS in the same time. Killing guns is an unnecessary waste of time. F4T - I do not participate in POS ops, because: a. I have nothing to contribute much in a small ship (at most remote reping the tower) b. it's laging, so my life expectancy in a small ship is even lower than normal c. it is easier to set up a new POS than to defend one Do you think your changes make any difference to those 3 points above ? Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....

CCP TomB	Posted - 2007.05.28 18:07:00 - [48] There is still no reason for defending your starbase... and a problem with Tower Spamming! That's true if you just read this blog, but if you have read something about upgradeable sovereignty then you would have seen a reason. You will want to defend your systems with the new upgradeable sovereignty mechanic, and something has been implemented that will prevent you from spamming towers. But keep your comments on what ever you don't like about it or think how it won't work with out reading / testing it - this thread is purely for starbase warfare. Starbase combat is still not fun... Yes nada has changed for your 30-40 dread army that likes/dislikes doing 20-30 minute AFKs on multiple towers a day. You can still continue taking out the tower rather than shooting some stupid guns, and it will take the same time as before. But the fundamental problem with starbase warfare is that you NEED the dreads or other capital ships to take them down. The goal of this change is not for pilots to start preferring smaller ships, it's to allow them to do something. Today on the test server there are tactics available to a couple of cruisers that makes them capable of avoiding death while taking down the structures that are sitting outside the force field, it's slower than the same amount of dreads, but it is possible. TomB Lead Designer EVE Online .

Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.05.28 18:22:00 - [49] Edited by: Rhaegor Stormborn on 28/05/2007 18:20:51 This is shamelessly stolen from another forum: Originally by: Now to explain: The secret to MMO game design is that **** rolls down hill. Players as a mob will take the path of least resistance. If the easiest way to win an engagement is to throw more people at it then that will happen. Goonfleet is the example that proves the rule. Before people thought that the easiest way to win was to have more SP, but that's not 'easy' if you don't already have the SP. So, you have the scenario of a single target on a single grid. The easiest way to remove that target is to bring as many people as you possibly can as every gun counts. If you make it so the more people shooting the less damage each ship does then you make it so people will only bring the highest DPS ships to a fight. When you add in EWar being able to neutralize much more powerful ships with much less powerful ships then people bring those to a fight. It's all about efficiency and force projection. That's why Mom's and Titans are so deadly. They are massive force in a small package. Now, how to fix this? Well if you make it so the more people firing at something the less damage each gun does you end up with only Cap ships being able to fire on the large targets and carriers being basically useless - I don't think we'll see that fix. Another fix is decentralization of targets (what I think will be happening). This means that there are many targets that have to be hit across multiple systems all at nearly the same time. Lets give some examples of a possible way to do this: Lets rework the game mechanics a little. POS's burn ice products at 10x the rate. Yes this means you can fit maybe a two days of fuel in a Large. Every constellation gets at minimum five ice belts spread over a minimum of three systems. We get new anchored structures that are Remote Ice Processors that can be anchored in Ice Belts. These automatically mine Ice and refine it in a way that can support a POS indefinitely and can automatically send those products to it's mated POS any where in constellation. This is nice as now you only need to haul in the non-ice products, and better you have a new POS module that allows you to feed non-ice products to a POS from any station in the constellation (owning all stations in the constellation, and having at least one, would be the requirement for constellation sovereignty). Now we add new Station Enhancement modules that can be anchored in asteroid belts. Depending on the quality of the Ore in that belt and the type of station you get benefits. You could add new production or research slots, add new kinds of research slots, improve the refining percentage (Outpost only), add offices, hell anything that a station has you could add some of. You may even be able to add refining capability to an existing factory station (since you can add factory slots to a Refining station). There, now you have strategic targets spread all over the damned constellation. They can be hit with small (50ish) gangs of mixed ships and they can be defended as well. They're cheaper than a POS so if you lose a bunch it's not a big deal, you put out more during your prime time. Better now there's a second way to take down a POS than just battering it with Dreads. You can starve them out. Sure they can keep a few online by direct fueling the ice products by carrier jump but that's a pain in the ass and will burn out their logistics whereas your logistics fleet is on the front line fighting because you don't need to be shuttling fuel around to all your POS's. That's how you spread out combat. They can't mount a real defense other than at a Cap yard because there's no one target. Hell you can even make it so cap yards are really more than one piece that have to be anchored in different systems or require special extractors that cannot be in the same system so you can at least halt production of the titan without ever entering the cap yard system.
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.05.28 18:24:00 - [50] Continued: Originally by: So what happens when the defenders actually, you know, defend? I gave that some thought. Why wouldn't you just move belt to belt system to system with your whole fleet? What could replace the reinforced system that allows TZ shifting of the battle to let the defenders actually have a chance? Well here's some random off the cuff thoughts: Some form of reinforced but it's synced. Once the timer starts all resource modules that are going to come out come out at that time regardless of when they were put in reinforced. This does mean that one **up at the station and your entire network could come out in your enemy's prime time but as it'd be controlled from the station it's likely that it will be your prime. It also means that you have to pick and choose what to defend as you can't realistically defend them all. Since the window for final attack would be short, maybe an hour, you also have to pick and choose as the attacker which ones to take out as it's likely you can't hit them all (and if you can your enemy is so ** already it's no contest). The trick here is to make sure that things are synced across multiple systems and keep those systems on separate servers. Each individual resource module isn't worth a full fleet to defend or attack - there's a lot of them - but taking our 8 or 10? That's some real damage and would require simultaneous strikes across multiple grids and multiple systems. Originally by: OK, lets say that you have 30 of these scattered across 5 systems supporting your station (which is the objective after all). They're not all that hard to put into reinforced. Hell call them small POS's as that's about the right power level. A dread fleet can nuke them in one cycle and even small BS fleets can handle them without problems. the trick is that they're quite necessary, and more importantly once you put one into reinforced (the timing is controlled from the station, and lets say they can pick a window not less than 24 and not more than 72 hours out) all modules up until 24 hours before that time sync onto the same timer. once you enter that final 24 hours a new timer starts if you put additional modules into reinforced. Now for the defenses bonuses: They get to choose when these come out of reinforced down to the minute. They can set a time without ***** around with stront so it's a lot less complicated. The downside is that they've got multiple targets to defend. Now once these come out of reinforced they will recharge their own shields in one hour. This means you have one hour to hit as many as you can. That means that while you might get one or two with the current fleets you're not going to get many without dividing the fleet. Since they're not all that tough to begin with you can afford to divide your fleet and still attack them but the defenders have to choose which (or all if they've got the numbers) they're going to defend. If all are in the same system then sure you've got the current problems but when we can take large gangs and reinforce two systems out of their prime time now they've got to divide their forces or lose some of the features on their station. The final battle - the one for the Station itself - would end up being much easier for the attackers if they've taken surrounding systems first. In fact it can be difficult enough to do that you _have_ to take the surrounding systems before you can attack a station system or it's suicide (jump interdiction, XL POS guns on the station, things like that).

Kaemonn Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2007.05.28 20:26:00 - [51] Thread givin a good srubbing. Please keep this on topic and related to the dev blog. If you would like to start another discussion about a different topic, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum. Thanks. forum rules \| [email protected]\| Eve-CCG

Count Rayken Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.05.28 20:46:00 - [52] Excuse me, did you say git er done? Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.05.28 21:35:00 - [53] Originally by: Deren Thaldrel Edited by: Deren Thaldrel on 27/05/2007 16:03:18 "One: the maximum number a dreadnought can target is reduced to two - this is to prevent avoiding the long locking time of smaller sentries by locking 10 at a time." Friends of mine have have been training dreads for Level 5 Missions and this is a pretty significant nerf for them. Targeting time on a dread is bad enough for a PVE encounter, but to now limit them to two targets is pretty ridiculous. Please reconsider this decision given the expansion of non-Pos warfare capital content, level 5s as they've been presented and eventual level 6s and complexes, etc. Thank you, Deren Thaldrel this is why I think they should on;y have max 2 targets when in sigh mode. keep it up there for normal combat or even reduce it to 1 max locked traget. or don't I can understand the reasoning
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.05.28 21:35:00 - [54] Originally by: Kaemonn Thread givin a good srubbing. Please keep this on topic and related to the dev blog. If you would like to start another discussion about a different topic, please start a new thread in the appropriate forum. Thanks. Wasn't a discussion, it was something for the devs to read and learn from. Hope they saw it before you nuked it.
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari Gallente Federal Bank	Posted - 2007.05.28 22:52:00 - [55] Any thoughts on the targetting nerf on dreads? Or should i just train for a carrier instead.
Dufas Amarr Dark-Rising Fallen Souls	Posted - 2007.05.29 03:56:00 - [56] Why try to make ships do something they shouldnt....small ships attacking a pos...no...this smacks of the idea of the smaller the ship the less damage from missles....dumb....how about improving the roles the ships should have...small ships tackling...bigger ships for killing power....pos killing is booooring always will be its a fact no matter how many frigs help to attack.....how about the better your sov is in a system the bigger the tower you can put up...so if you have uber sov you can put up say 1 supertower per system or soemthing like that...so that when those 50 dread fleets come it will actually take them more then 10 mins to put your pos into reinforced
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.05.29 06:10:00 - [57] Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 29/05/2007 06:12:37 Originally by: CCP TomB There is still no reason for defending your starbase... and a problem with Tower Spamming! That's true if you just read this blog, but if you have read something about upgradeable sovereignty then you would have seen a reason. You will want to defend your systems with the new upgradeable sovereignty mechanic, and something has been implemented that will prevent you from spamming towers. But keep your comments on what ever you don't like about it or think how it won't work with out reading / testing it - this thread is purely for starbase warfare. Starbase combat is still not fun... Yes nada has changed for your 30-40 dread army that likes/dislikes doing 20-30 minute AFKs on multiple towers a day, besides that owners can now focus fire. You can still continue taking out the tower rather than shooting some stupid guns, and it will take the same time as before. But the fundamental problem with current starbase warfare is that you NEED the dreads or other capital ships to take them down. The goal of this change is not for pilots to start preferring smaller ships, it's to allow them to do something. Today on the test server there are tactics available to a couple of cruisers that makes them capable of avoiding death while taking down the structures that are sitting outside the force field, it's slower than the same amount of dreads, but it is possible. TomB, while your points make sense, I think there was stated that sovereignity dependent services (like outpost upgrades) are not lost when you lost the sov level required, just halted. This makes no incentive to defend the towers. Just spam new ones and wait for another sov change round. Smaller ships (like your mentioned cruiser gang) can only harass a POS by destroying some structures. They cannot take it down, because they do not have the firepower. And they still need to deal with homeland defenders. So dread blobs again. One suggestion: make damaged POS structures longer to offline when damaged (the more damage the longer the time). This will prevent the defender from recycling structures/replace with new ones. In that case you don't even need tha massive structure, because the attacker has no incentive to destroy them, as leaving them severely damage will cost the defender time to repair, while destroyed structures can be replaced fast. Overall I think the changes are for the better, just do not stop half-way and finish all the aspects. @Dufas: it's ok for small ships to attack a POS. In a logical world, the POS guns would be deadly to large ships (BS and up), because only large ships have the firepower to destroy a POS. While small ships are not a threat to the POS itself, they should be a threat to some of the structures (like guns, webs, ecm arrays, hardeners). Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....

CCP TomB	Posted - 2007.05.29 08:20:00 - [58] Originally by: Hugh Ruka TomB, while your points make sense, I think there was stated that sovereignity dependent services (like outpost upgrades) are not lost when you lost the sov level required, just halted. This makes no incentive to defend the towers. Just spam new ones and wait for another sov change round. Here's more information on sovereignty; It takes a lot of time and effort to get higher sovereignty; you don't want to lose it half-way There are more things than just outpost upgrades that require sovereignty; new structures such as jump gate, scan array, cyno jammer/generator Constellation Sovereignty gives even more benefits; less fuel req for starbases for example Highest level of sovereignty gives temp invulnerability to outpost and starbases; forcing constellation sovereignty to be contested Originally by: Hugh Ruka Smaller ships (like your mentioned cruiser gang) can only harass a POS by destroying some structures. They cannot take it down, because they do not have the firepower. And they still need to deal with homeland defenders. So dread blobs again. We do not want smaller ships to take down the tower itself, but you can still do it quite easily with a big group of non-capitals, which is for many alliances a lot easier to get. Originally by: Hugh Ruka Overall I think the changes are for the better, just do not stop half-way and finish all the aspects. Just believe me when I tell you that we have more ideas than a$$!$#& for starbase warfare at our office, but we have to stop somewhere for now. TomB Lead Designer EVE Online .

Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.05.29 09:30:00 - [59] Might I suggest a few things: 1. Move large POS/sovereignty towers to planets, not moons. Systems have generally FAR fewer planets than moons. Advantages: - A defender can more easily cover all the planets with Sov POSses to protect himself from a sudden hostile takeover by POS spam than with Sov towers at moons. - It also helps determined attackers, by making it harder for the defender to just outspam the attacker. 2. Let only small/medium towers be anchored at moons, and don't let them count for sov. Ideally I think you should reduce the shields on medium and small towers so they become a bit easier/shorter to attack without a dreadfleet. If their guns are outside, making the tower have tons and tons of HP and armor won't help anyway, it just creates boredom for attackers. signature removed - please contact us to find out why (include the URL of your sig) - Jacques([email protected])
fuze Gallente Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency	Posted - 2007.05.29 09:59:00 - [60] This Constellation Sovereignty concerns me deeply. Because as presented now it clearly favours the BoB alliance in maintaining the sovereignty for their vast empire and makes it harder for smaller alliances to maintain their presence in 0.0. (I'm not negative with BoB btw, but I'd hate to see 2 years of uncontested BoB dominance and a lot of boredom.) Besides it will increase the stakes for stategic starbases and thus promote blob warfare. (E.g. Capital arrays anyone?) I wonder if adding some kind of skillpoint mechanism for POS are usefull when it comes for sovereignty could be interesting. The longer that POS is anchored (and fueled) the more benefits it can give to the owners. Like tweaking the pos fuel requirements, cpu output etc.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.