EVE Search - Starbase Warfare

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Starbase Warfare - Testing Feedback

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)

CCP TomB	Posted - 2007.05.26 18:44:00 - [1] This forum thread is for the starbase warfare changes coming in Revelations 2.0, see: this dev blog. Please give feedback only on play testing these changes, speculations should be kept to the comment thread that is attached to the blog. TomB Lead Designer EVE Online .

Adonia Mercs Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.26 20:44:00 - [2] "...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." Nooooooo! I could deal with 3-4 if I had to... but with only 2 locks my remote rep/cap/ect will be slightly difficult to use; I fear useless. (please, I am ok with the bruises, but the broken bones hurt. Watch where your swinging that nerf bat) Everything else seems on the right track. Keep up all the amazing work! Go Eve, Go! Friends With Guns for Hire :: MERCS Inc.
Kaede Frost	Posted - 2007.05.26 20:53:00 - [3] Originally by: Adonia "...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." Nooooooo! I could deal with 3-4 if I had to... but with only 2 locks my remote rep/cap/ect will be slightly difficult to use; I fear useless. (please, I am ok with the bruises, but the broken bones hurt. Watch where your swinging that nerf bat) Everything else seems on the right track. Keep up all the amazing work! Go Eve, Go! looks to me that will only affect dreads, not carriers, so your safe on the remote reps. Looks interesting Join the In-game lottery mailing list: "Kaede Lottery" to keep uptodate on the latest lottery.
Tintifish Roid Terminators	Posted - 2007.05.26 21:01:00 - [4] Starbase Tactical Officer skill, requires Starbase Office V. Unfortunatly starbase officer doesn't exist , so it will be hard to test. That's also a very high skill req, especially if starbase officer is to be a useless skill as it appears: "Skill at setting up POS's". Oh, it had better not mean we need to train something to setup POS though, i thought the pain in the ass and time sink that was actually putting them up was enough!
PastaMadaFaka	Posted - 2007.05.26 21:01:00 - [5] question: what about industrial towers / empire towers what do they get only new guns?
Quintus Archipirata Moon Stone Logistics	Posted - 2007.05.27 00:46:00 - [6] Originally by: Tintifish Starbase Tactical Officer skill, requires Starbase Office V. Unfortunatly starbase officer doesn't exist , so it will be hard to test. That's also a very high skill req, especially if starbase officer is to be a useless skill as it appears: "Skill at setting up POS's". Oh, it had better not mean we need to train something to setup POS though, i thought the pain in the ass and time sink that was actually putting them up was enough! WRONG ! I really hope that CCP does add a skill set to set up POS's as well as skills to use them. As it is there to easy to set up and use. OH my! yes it takes time to set up but no skills. Lets see, you need skills to fly a dread but no skills to kill a dread with a POS? Seems only fair that skills are needed for POS's.
maximus babbarus Freelance Economics Astrological resources	Posted - 2007.05.27 02:21:00 - [7] Originally by: Quintus Archipirata Originally by: Tintifish Starbase Tactical Officer skill, requires Starbase Office V. Unfortunatly starbase officer doesn't exist , so it will be hard to test. That's also a very high skill req, especially if starbase officer is to be a useless skill as it appears: "Skill at setting up POS's". Oh, it had better not mean we need to train something to setup POS though, i thought the pain in the ass and time sink that was actually putting them up was enough! WRONG ! I really hope that CCP does add a skill set to set up POS's as well as skills to use them. As it is there to easy to set up and use. OH my! yes it takes time to set up but no skills. Lets see, you need skills to fly a dread but no skills to kill a dread with a POS? Seems only fair that skills are needed for POS's. well just to nit pick you do need anchoring lvl1 to setup a pos :P but i think a fine balance between skills is needed. Not to many that it makes it impossible for any one to setup but not to easy every one can just buy it and set it up. you could even have easy trainable skills BUT difrent skills for difrent structures Or difrent lvls for difrent structures although that brings in the Q what structure is better than another giving it a high skill requirment? just my 2C on the issue. the rest looks cool the nerfs will be a pain like all nerfs but i think it will lvl out pos warfare a bit, im in 2 minds with this though i like that older players are getting some thing (as usualy its older players in pos warfare due to skills isk ect) but on the other hand i wound like ot se more for newer players (semi new after a year +) but thats for a difrent threads disscussion. back to this liking the look of it hope to see it soon :)
Pah Triac Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.05.27 08:47:00 - [8] Edited by: Pah Triac on 27/05/2007 08:50:29 How about shield/armor repairing structure inside the field that uses starbase fuel? To give the offensive structure a little bit of a chance versus the 20+ dreads shooting it is ok. To compensate, it should use the tower fuels (all of them) to prevent 10 repair structures Your local friendly Ammatar * People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true. *
Martyr 01 Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.27 08:58:00 - [9] Edited by: Martyr 01 on 27/05/2007 09:00:17 Please only limit the targeting of pos structures to 2 for dreads, as opposed to all target types. In cap fleet battles there is a lot of lag involved....it's already bad enough locking the wrong target due to said lag combined with the overview moving.....but limiting the max targets to two is gonna create more headaches as we constantly lock-relock-unlock etc. Also applies to dreads needing to lock smaller ships around them which are trying to tackle etc...dreads have drone bays so they can use them. Again...during combat having a max locked targets of 2 combined with the normal long lock time is gonna be fairly ridiculous. Factor in lag and you're talking nervous breakdown for dread pilots trying to actually shoot anything. Please think of the big picture here.
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.27 09:07:00 - [10] I still don't think I understand what will stop cap ships from very quickly blasting the guns (etc) outside the shields until they are incapacitated. Why would an attacking force choose to bring smaller ships in to attack them when cap ships can still get the job done more quickly? I suppose if it were very difficult for cap ships to hit those emplacements (orbiting gun platforms anyone?) that would be a good reason.
Yarasha Caldari The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation	Posted - 2007.05.27 09:52:00 - [11] I think the same way like Ranger 1. Why should anyone bring small ships, when he can bring in 20 Dreads and a lot of carriers? The 20 Dreads just split up, into teams of 5 Dreads and take out the POS weapons, while the carriers go into Triagemode. From what it sounds to me, i don¦t think that the changes will help, but i hope that i am wrong.
Waragha 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.05.27 10:17:00 - [12] Originally by: Ranger 1 I still don't think I understand what will stop cap ships from very quickly blasting the guns (etc) outside the shields until they are incapacitated. Why would an attacking force choose to bring smaller ships in to attack them when cap ships can still get the job done more quickly? I suppose if it were very difficult for cap ships to hit those emplacements (orbiting gun platforms anyone?) that would be a good reason. As far as i understand it normal ships incapacitate the sentries when they get into 0.1% structure (99.99% structure left). Dreads and caps will have to kill them completely. CCP will then make the structure hp insanely high.
Jeff Anderson Event.Horizon	Posted - 2007.05.27 11:52:00 - [13] Clarification please: Are pos guns now to be anchored only outside the forcefield, or is there new pos guns that can only be anchored outside the forcefield.
Jotan Veer HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2007.05.27 12:28:00 - [14] I would like to have a request regarding starbases, since you are already messing around with them. Could you pretty please add one extra column to the ACCESS tab of the control towers? Namely Online/offline, for each module. This would allow starbase managers to specify which modules can be onlined offlined by ordinary corp members without giving them the ability to offline the whole tower itself. To give an example in order to explain what I mean: The POS manager wishes to save fuel by offlining the corp hangar and the ship maint. array, however he now has a problem because either he has to give every corp member onlining/offlining access to the tower so they can use the arrays when needed or he need to send someone to the POS with POS roles every time an array needs to be onlined/offlined. or The POS manager wishes to put LOTS of BIG GUNS on the tower and he figures that if he offlines the corp hangar and the ship maint. array he can online one more BIG GUN. Now, if no one with POS roles are present then the tower can not be reconfigured. Thus, if you add an extra online/offline column to the access tab that means the POS manager could specify that let's say the corp hangar, the maint. array and one of the guns can be offlined/onlined by anyone in the corp but the rest of the modules are POS role only. Can we pretty please get this functionality? Please with sugar on top.
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.27 13:19:00 - [15] Originally by: Waragha Originally by: Ranger 1 I still don't think I understand what will stop cap ships from very quickly blasting the guns (etc) outside the shields until they are incapacitated. Why would an attacking force choose to bring smaller ships in to attack them when cap ships can still get the job done more quickly? I suppose if it were very difficult for cap ships to hit those emplacements (orbiting gun platforms anyone?) that would be a good reason. As far as i understand it normal ships incapacitate the sentries when they get into 0.1% structure (99.99% structure left). Dreads and caps will have to kill them completely. CCP will then make the structure hp insanely high. I know about the high structure, and that Caps are suppose to be necessary to take them out completely... but why use normal ships to incapacitate it? Rather, since caps are not desired to the be prefered instrument to incapacitate them, what factors will make it desirable to use normal ships to achieve this? Perhaps it will be too dangerous for the cap ships, if POS gun damage is being boosted. Hmmmmmm.
VScorpion Gallente ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.05.27 15:24:00 - [16] If I understood the DevBlog right it dosent make sense for dreads to take the guns out. Its easier to just kill the tower and then clean up the rest. But I cant remember why.... VScorpion
Manina Boat Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.05.27 16:23:00 - [17] What's going to happen to existing POS guns? Are they going to be incapacitated until they are moved outside the shield? Is it only going to apply to new guns put on the POS? Are you going to automatically push all the guns outside the shield? (When are you going to seed the necessary skills on Singularity so we can test it for you?)
Ranger 1 Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.05.27 16:37:00 - [18] Originally by: VScorpion If I understood the DevBlog right it dosent make sense for dreads to take the guns out. Its easier to just kill the tower and then clean up the rest. But I cant remember why.... I know, but I'm talking about incapacitating the guns. What will encourage the use of standard craft to incapacitate them instead of just using caps to incapacitate them and then start to work on the tower? The only thing I can think of would be if Cap ships would be too vulnerable to the POS guns while they were active... which means a SIZABLE increase in effectiveness vs cap sized targets.
Sillmar Drachira	Posted - 2007.05.27 17:08:00 - [19] 2 targets, why not 4...its a little more resonable this kills dreads in anything but sieges in sieges its fine to only have 2 towers locked, but in a battle with 40 ships and you need to lock smaller moving objects before they die or before they kill your friends....you need to have more flexability
Imperius Blackheart Caldari Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.27 17:45:00 - [20] Erm about dreads.... that maximum 2 targets thing, ok cool for structure, but thats not for all types of target right? I would understand reducing the amount of structures a dread can target but in a capital fleet battle that nerf will seriously be a major disadvantage to dread pilots. Any chance of some clarifcation?
Ehrine Ashbark Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.27 18:39:00 - [21] I wanted to have a test of controlling structures (including teh scan array), but I can't train "Starbase Defense Management" (despite already having the skill at 0 from my tranq character) as I have not got Starbase Management 5. Training a rank 7 skill to 5 just to test would take a while, hampered even more by the lack of said skill on the market. Any solution to this or is it just a case of we can't test it yet?
Ehrine Ashbark Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.27 18:56:00 - [22] Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: VScorpion If I understood the DevBlog right it dosent make sense for dreads to take the guns out. Its easier to just kill the tower and then clean up the rest. But I cant remember why.... I know, but I'm talking about incapacitating the guns. What will encourage the use of standard craft to incapacitate them instead of just using caps to incapacitate them and then start to work on the tower? The only thing I can think of would be if Cap ships would be too vulnerable to the POS guns while they were active... which means a SIZABLE increase in effectiveness vs cap sized targets. Ah, but if you use a group of 12 or so BS setup to knock over guns on POS in 6 systems before commiting the dreads, the defenders won't know which system you're after. Also, once those guns are down you can bring in a full support fleet for your dreads without risk to them. In theory this increases your tactical options.
Skraeling Shortbus Caldari Gallente Federal Bank	Posted - 2007.05.27 19:36:00 - [23] Edited by: Skraeling Shortbus on 27/05/2007 19:35:55 ""...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."" I hate this change. Maybe only limit it to 2 for structures for the love of all that is holy. What about the supposed missions that will us capital ships 2 targets is such a bad bad bad change. <<<[edit: a suggestion - instead of reducing max target locks allowed just because of a fear of dreads taking out all defences within a minute....why not make the structures sig radii sufficiently small that while dreads can still hit, they are very inefficient to use, whereas bs and smaller do full damage....thereby encouraging smaller classes to focus on them while the caps focus on the pos shield/anti-cap as is your aim>>>> I <3 this idea. Please dont nerf the dreads they are a boring ship to begin with.
Xtro 2 Caldari Pre-nerfed Tactics	Posted - 2007.05.27 20:00:00 - [24] Originally by: Yarasha I think the same way like Ranger 1. Why should anyone bring small ships, when he can bring in 20 Dreads and a lot of carriers? The 20 Dreads just split up, into teams of 5 Dreads and take out the POS weapons, while the carriers go into Triagemode. From what it sounds to me, i don¦t think that the changes will help, but i hope that i am wrong. If the illusive Cynofield Jammer is present then said dreadnaughts and carriers wont be there untill the jammer is defeated by regular ships first. Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder.
aaron 619 Gallente RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.27 21:15:00 - [25] Originally by: Ranger 1 I still don't think I understand what will stop cap ships from very quickly blasting the guns (etc) outside the shields until they are incapacitated. Why would an attacking force choose to bring smaller ships in to attack them when cap ships can still get the job done more quickly? I suppose if it were very difficult for cap ships to hit those emplacements (orbiting gun platforms anyone?) that would be a good reason. OK, I love this idea, every one in favor say "I" IIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!
Audri Fisher Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.05.27 23:08:00 - [26] why shoot the guns in the first place? You can't shoot the guns now, and POS's still go pop, why not just bring in 30 dreads and pop it anyway? about the cyno jammers.... if they only jam dreads on grid, they are pointless. if they cover the entire system, then they are a pain for the owners of the system, as they prohibit friendly traffic as well.
Ehrine Ashbark Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.27 23:25:00 - [27] Originally by: Audri Fisher why shoot the guns in the first place? You can't shoot the guns now, and POS's still go pop, why not just bring in 30 dreads and pop it anyway? about the cyno jammers.... if they only jam dreads on grid, they are pointless. if they cover the entire system, then they are a pain for the owners of the system, as they prohibit friendly traffic as well. You can't shoot the guns now so _have_ to bring a fleet of Dreads. If you can take the guns out, there are things you can do to someones POS when you _can't_ bring a massive fleet. With the addition of such things as ECM burst towers, target painter towers and neut towers, there are things you might well want to bring a small BS fleet in to try and pop. As for the cyno jammer, I suspect it doesn't stop the cyno generator POS module working. If that's the case, then those that hold sov can still cyno in. Otherwise, it is just a case of on or offlining it as needed. Hell, with the change that you can anchor structures even when reinforced, you can put one up to stop them bring dreads in to finish the job on a tower, after you've already moved your own capitals into place.
Nightwing	Posted - 2007.05.28 00:06:00 - [28] I have a fear that with POS guns being able to be taken out so easily. Someone like BOB will fly in with 1 titan, DDD and offline all the guns, then come in with a fleet and second titan. Can you make the POS guns immune to the DDD weapon?
Ehrine Ashbark Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.28 01:38:00 - [29] One DDD isn't going to stop guns. I checked the states on a large arty earlier. 100,000 shield hp and 1,500,000 armour hitpoints. Not too much that BS can't deal with them, but enough that a DDD can't just pop them.
Alexi Borizkova Caldari New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.05.28 02:09:00 - [30] Originally by: aaron 619 Originally by: Ranger 1 I still don't think I understand what will stop cap ships from very quickly blasting the guns (etc) outside the shields until they are incapacitated. Why would an attacking force choose to bring smaller ships in to attack them when cap ships can still get the job done more quickly? I suppose if it were very difficult for cap ships to hit those emplacements (orbiting gun platforms anyone?) that would be a good reason. OK, I love this idea, every one in favor say "I" IIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!! It's "aye". By the way, ************* AYE!!!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.