| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
psykiller
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
   |
Posted - 2007.06.06 14:42:00 -
[91]
Edited by: psykiller on 06/06/2007 14:44:08
It has been mentioned, the number of pos a corp/aaliance can anchor per system will be reduced
what im trying to get at is are teh restriction of number of pos allowed going to be a total allowed per corp, or per allaince per system
so for example corp A has, 10 pos in 1 system, is that their enitre quota, for the corp or just that system, then can corp B from same allaince can anchor 10 more. or will there be system wide restriction on how many alliance pos allowed per system ?
===============================================
Strenght and Honour. Heart of one, strenght of many.
Proud to be RAWR!! |
Gaogan
Gallente
Solar Storm
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 16:51:00 -
[92]
Whoa, pos quotas? What idiot came up with this bull**** idea? It needs to go right back into the trash.
You want fewer pos per system then get rid of the 75 moons with no minerals in a lot of systems.
|
Marvel Master
Asgard Schiffswerften
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.06.07 08:35:00 -
[93]
Hello TomB,
If you want to reduce lag and POS Warfare, then remove the
sovereignty attribute from the POS. Use another, better system
to get sovereignty.
A POS should only be a safespot or something for industry.
Why? The main problem in eve is lag. If the POS comes out of
reinforce 500 guys try to destroy or defense a POS. Thats a real
problem for the servers and cannot be solved. The game dictated
when you have to
play eve-online with the reinforce mode. But i want to play
a game, and not, that the game play me.
Thanks. I hope you change this soon.
Marvel
|
Kvarium Ki
legion of qui
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.08 16:55:00 -
[94]
So, small gangs of battleships can now incapacitate the guns on a POS. What do they do afterwards? They sit there for 2 days shooting the large tower? Why should the POS owner care?
If you really want to give tactical options for smaller ships, put the assembly arrays outside the shields make them targettable only after all the POS guns are incapacitated or make them immune to capital size weapons (I prefere the second option).
I can just imagine a small gang sneaking in and halting a titan or mothership build job while avoid fire from the tower guns. That would just rock.
KK.
|
MotherMoon
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 05:46:00 -
[95]
well this is only step one :)
maybe someday we can fire torps into the airduct :P
BOOM!
j/k
|
Col Short
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 23:07:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Col Short on 10/06/2007 23:06:24
Edited by: Col Short on 10/06/2007 23:06:01
Hello TomB
POSs: Flogging the Dead Horse
Can I get you to comment on this thread and idea. I would like to know if CCP is
taking it into Heavy consideration during your POS Warfare Revamp.
\
|
G Dabak
Magellanic Itg
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 06:15:00 -
[97]
I think the locking times for POS modules are a little too long. 60 seconds for a carrier is ok I guess, but 95 for a battleship, and 3 minutes for a frigate? It's impractically long when you consider using these against a non-sieging strike force made up of smaller ships.
|
Domosan
Caldari
Incoherent Inc
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 23:07:00 -
[98]
TomB
You do realize that not all POS are owned by alliances with 1,000 people right?
These changes will force all Lowsec and 0.0 POS owners who cannot cover 23/7 with high skilled players (the new starbase skills won't be worth training corpmates with only 4 million total skillpoints) to put up large spongestars. I forsee the following: large minnie tower, ship maint array, hangar, 17 shield hardners and 32 ewar batteries.
I know this is what I will be putting up. Your changes are focused entirely on large alliance scales with no thought to the effects on the small scale. Please re-think what you are doing. Please....
|
aaron 619
Gallente
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 06:24:00 -
[99]
Edited by: aaron 619 on 12/06/2007 06:32:23
Edited by: aaron 619 on 12/06/2007 06:30:35
 Originally by: Domosan
TomB
You do realize that not all POS are owned by alliances with 1,000 people right?
These changes will force all Lowsec and 0.0 POS owners who cannot cover 23/7 with high skilled players (the new starbase skills won't be worth training corpmates with only 4 million total skillpoints) to put up large spongestars. I forsee the following: large minnie tower, ship maint array, hangar, 17 shield hardners and 32 ewar batteries.
I know this is what I will be putting up. Your changes are focused entirely on large alliance scales with no thought to the effects on the small scale. Please re-think what you are doing. Please....
I tend to agree with you, this is going to make it almost impossible to kill control towers with the nos and new ew / cap jamming mods. I can all ready see people getting ready for this exact set up.
No one is going to risk losing 3 bil in a Dread for just one control towner or losing 20 BS trying to kill there 15 nos battery's that they can't shoot at because the cap is gone no matter what setup they have.
Also spamming will never die, there is really no way to balance this prob that I can see other then cutting the number of moons down to odd numbers of moons [MAX = 9] depending on the system, then there will aways be a top of the hill, never tied.
like 3 / 5 / 7 / 9 .
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr
Solarflare Heavy Industries
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 23:21:00 -
[100]
Just forget the rest of your changes and reduce the number of moons (or moons that can be anchored at) to an odd number below 10.
Please devs, this still doesnt seem like any fun, and theres still no reason to kill pos guns. Maybe after they're killed you can stare at each other through the forcefield for a while. Big deal. Later they come and rep the guns at no cost. WHY BOTHER ATTACKING THEM?
The new changes sound boring at best. My phoenix with the max 2 targets has just been reduced to the most boring ship in the game. It used to be considered good at non-structure targets, but now dreads will have less reason to fight outside of structures than ever.
- - -
Originally by: CCP Garthagk
While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Menina
|
Posted - 2007.06.13 20:39:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Menina on 13/06/2007 20:39:29
I read through the thread and didnt see this mentioned, if it has been, sorry for the repost. My concern is resupplying ammo to POS guns. If you POS is under siege and your turret runs out of ammo, how do you propose one reloads without being instantly poped? Making the trip 5k out of the shields with resupply in a hauler or something large enough to carry ammo is a suicide trip. (Possible solution would be to make it possible to reload say 7k from the turret)
Another suggestion, Could you please put a tactical overlay on the turrets for anchoring? With the increased importance of turret placement, it would help greatly if I could see the range of affect of a weapon before/while/or after setting it up. If I could see a max targeting and weapon range bubble, like on a ship, It would assist in figuring out where to position the weapons for optimal coverage. It would also assist in figuring out which type of ammo to load during a siege (Assuming you can get ammo to and from the turret) and if a given target is within your turret's range.
|
Kvarium Ki
legion of qui
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.14 03:27:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Kvarium Ki on 14/06/2007 03:27:20
edit. ment to quote this.
Originally by: Synapse
Just forget the rest of your changes and reduce the number of moons (or moons that can be anchored at) to an odd number below 10.
This would only work if they came up with a second class of POS that are only useable for industrial purpose and can not claim sov. Those would obviously not count towards the limit.
KK.
|
Nagelbrett
Caldari
Reign in Blood
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.14 17:31:00 -
[103]
hello
the restocking with ammo was already mentioned
but there is another thing, you have to anchor the guns and ewar outside the FF, by doing that, you cant online the mods anymore thru the tower, because theyre too far away, kinda stupid in my view, looks like someone had the idea "lets put the guns outside the FF" but noone thought it all thru
|
psykiller
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 09:04:00 -
[104]
Edited by: psykiller on 15/06/2007 09:06:33
tested before mirror with sov lvl 3
atm u cant anchor a new outpost in the same constellation as a conquerable station,
also conqerable stations are not upgradeable, is this issue a bug, or intended ?
===============================================
Strenght and Honour. Heart of one, strenght of many.
Proud to be RAWR!! |
Vanye Inovske
Two Brothers Mining Corp.
The Sundering
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:43:00 -
[105]
It looks like battery ranges have been nerfed, but activation proximities are unchanged.
Small Blaster Battery
Activation Proximity: 90km
Optimal Range: 10km
Accuracy Falloff: 17km
Optimal + 2x falloff: 44km
So if someone parks a ship between 45km and 90km from a small blaster battery, it will empty all its ammo into space in a futile effort to shoot beyond its range?
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 17:06:00 -
[106]
Originally by: aaron 619
OK, I don't know if any one has said this yet, but do we know if the pos cap drain mod is filed under EW so as to not affect dreads or any cap for that matter.
If yes, then it dose not affect the current tactics employed to take down a pos seeing as they would be not affected.
If no, and they are filed under NOS, then cap fleets are screwed. one NOS platform can do -100 cap per sec and effectively wreck the tank of any cap ship within its kill zone.
sadly I can't see any balance one way or the other. one makes pos untouchable. the other makes them grate at keeping BS away, but Dreads can still just jump in , kill guns, pop POS and jump out with little worry of losing there ships.
Also, can more then one person control guns at the same POS, like I have four, and my corp m8 has four? this would be nice and I have not tested it yet.
I read NOS will change too, so that for example a LARGE NOS won't nullify a frigs/cruiser cap in one cycle. I also read somewhere that it might not just affect the amount drained, but the percentage to wich your cap can be drained!
If either of this is true, and the towers sport a large enaugh SIG, then they won't nececarily do max drain on dreads, and especialy not on a small fleet of battleships/cruisers. And if the NOS are in fact super deadly on capitals, then focused use in combination with guns will make sending in a fleet of smaller ships to take out the NOS before engagement a requirement.
The devel is kind of in the details in all of this, making the whole dicussion rather pointless. Since NOS changed are undisclosed, and most of us have no clue hos it realy will work after deployment, everything here is pure speculation.
|
Inspiration
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 17:24:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Inspiration on 18/06/2007 17:26:48
My advice to small time POS owners::
1. Beef up the shield resists now (if you can)!
2. Put in a few cruise launchers so that you are guaranteed hits at any range!
3. Fill up remaining powergrid with a few close range turrets, space far apart.
Temporary offline some things if need be. Its better to have a half functional POS left after logging on, then none at all!
|
Domosan
Caldari
Incoherent Inc
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 23:28:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Inspiration
Edited by: Inspiration on 18/06/2007 17:26:48
My advice to small time POS owners::
1. Beef up the shield resists now (if you can)!
2. Put in a few cruise launchers so that you are guaranteed hits at any range!
3. Fill up remaining powergrid with a few close range turrets, space far apart.
Temporary offline some things if need be. Its better to have a half functional POS left after logging on, then none at all!
I think this is bad advice.
Small POS corps can't be on 23/7. Putting stuff outside the shields is just begging to have someone come and blow it up. The only answer to small corps problems is loading up the boat on shield hardners since this is the only item not moved outside the force field. The guns/ewar/NOS AI did not get upgraded (nothing in the patch notes) so there is no way to focus fire or stop the cycling of targets after 30 seconds or do anything else unless you actually man the pos guns. My large minnie tower is going to have 17 hardners and nothing else. If a pirate corp can man 10 battelships non-stop for 8 hours in low sec without getting ganked they deserve to put my tower into reinforced.
|
Cadiz
Caldari
No Quarter.
Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.06.19 07:44:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Cadiz on 19/06/2007 07:44:21
Ordering fighters to attack does not count as aggression to POSes. Currently have a corpmate siccing fighters on some of our weapon batteries on Sisi, and the rest of the guns don't acknowledge this as a hostile act against the POS. Took multiple batteries down to low shields and we didn't even get any "POS is under attack!" mails.
Might want to look at that; bug report is filed.
------
Director, No Quarter
"There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Marcus Tedric
Gallente
Tedric Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.06.20 09:21:00 -
[110]
Any chance of some feedback on the question of whether offensive structures can be controlled in Empire (High or Low Sec)? ie Starbase Defense?
Or is this a missing piece of information?
|
Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 10:54:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Tzesaeia on 21/06/2007 10:56:14
|
Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 10:57:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Tzesaeia on 21/06/2007 10:57:14
dunno if it matches this thread if not please show me the matching thread. Thank you very mutch.
But what is with the new scanning features and jump gate features? I didn't get it. Are they made for POSs or for Outposts and in what ever case: I'm worried that this will make it to easy for alliances to find and kill enemies in their space.
They see enemies in local a few seconds later they scan for their position while they call in massive backup from everywhere in their space. This backup can be spread it just has to be near to some jump gate and it will be there in a minute or so using the new jump gates.
I'm realy concerned about this plz tell me that won't be possible not even for Allainces that claim very high sovereignity. Could you not balance that somehow again? I thought about removing local in 0.0 but this is no new idea and was never accepted by CCP. Maybe change the cyo field generation so cyos are no more automatically seen but this wont help since a scan by pos makes it easy to find them. If it stays like it is wont that just lead to some kind of static warfar that only relies on who has the bigger fleet in one place wins and won't that lead to laggy boring battle?
If you like to look into the idea of removing local from 0.0 again look here.
Replacing forced 0.0 local channel with open Alliance local channel; An old Idea disscussed
Even if you say no again it might fortify your oppinion even more.
Sry for double post couldn't edit the first one Bug saying: this thread doesn't exist. Plz earase the first reply.
|
Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 11:00:00 -
[113]
Here is a bug all the time saying this thread doesn't exist than i want to edit it. Sry my mistake now my post is doubled here read only the second plz and earase the first. Sry i don-t wanted to ake it twice just wanted to edit
|
Small Blue
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 16:35:00 -
[114]
I have trained now the relevant skill (at least I thought all relevant) and can now control the structures. Fine. What I figured out is that I have almost no locking range. What has influence on this (the structures I am using, the skill longe range targeting)?
Thx
Small Blue
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |