EVE Search - Oh TomB :(

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Oh 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 - 8 post(s)
Arenis Xemdal Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.29 05:58:00 - [1] From IRC " [@TomB]: limit per alliance/corp of deployable towers per day " Arbitrary caps are a lame way to limit pos spamming, since the problem isn't how much pos are being put up.. its how easy. Atm, all it takes is a few carriers and indy alts to jump into a system and start anchoring a dozen towers within minutes. What are you going to do to stop them? Assemble a fleet that can dish out 60mil+ hp x 12 in an hour? From my experience, you can only kill one or two towers for every half dozen deployed.. even in the enemy's worst case scenario. Limiting it to a set number of pos per day (atm the number is 5?) will just delay the spam, but not allow defenders to prevent it in any meaningful way. The solution is to force the aggressors (pos spammers) to defend their moon and tower while its anchoring, instead of dropping an indi with fuel on it when it finishes and ninja-onlining it. That way, it forces the aggressor to form a proper fleet, and not some downtime ninja-alts. Its a small game of King of The Hill, where the cost of protecting the tower (a strategic asset) is more than the tower itself is actually worth. Gives fleets something to fight over, instead of waiting at nearby POS until the job is done. So.. Unanchored / Anchoring structures should have 10x less hitpoints, and no shields. Numbers: OLD Minmatar Control Tower Large [45,000,000 shields / 6,000,000 armor / 6,000,000 structure] = 57mil HP to destroy in 30 minutes Minmatar Control Tower Medium [22,500,000 shields / 3,000,000 armor / 3,000,000 structure] = 28.5mil HP to destroy in 15 minutes Minmatar Control Tower Small [11,250,000 shields / 1,500,000 armor / 1,500,000 structure] = 14.25mil HP to destroy in 7.5 minutes CURRENT Minmatar Control Tower Large [22,500,000 shields / 6,000,000 armor / 6,000,000 structure] = 34.5mil HP to destroy in 30 minutes Minmatar Control Tower Medium [11,250,000 shields / 3,000,000 armor / 3,000,000 structure] = 17.25mil HP to destroy in 15 minutes Minmatar Control Tower Small [5,625,000 shields / 1,500,000 armor / 1,500,000 structure] = 8.625mil HP to destroy in 7.5 minutes Still quite a lot, for the time given. Not counting resists either. NEW Minmatar Control Tower Large [0 shields / 600,000 armor / 600,000 structure] = 1.2mil HP to destroy in 30 minutes Minmatar Control Tower Medium [0 shields / 300,000 armor / 300,000 structure] = 600k HP to destroy in 15 minutes Minmatar Control Tower Small [0 shields / 150,000 armor / 150,000 structure] = 300k HP to destroy in 7.5 minutes Once the tower is anchored, the hitpoints are boosted and whatever damage was done before then registers on the tower at an equivalent percentage level. Obviously Gallente and Amarr towers will have a significant advantage when it comes to this, with as much as two times the hitpoints to chew through.. but considering that Caldari and Minmatar towers have the most shields and best offensive capabilities it seems like a fair tradeoff. Only reason people don't use Caldari for deathstar configs as much today, is because the missiles go offline when tower enters reinforced and that is being changed. This also gives a pretty good staging ground for logistics carriers and triage. Thoughts?
Andreya	Posted - 2007.05.29 06:09:00 - [2] I think thats a great idea. not only does it help prevent pos spamming, it makes aggresive pos deployment more challenging. but more importantly, making it require teamwork instead of a guy in a carrier with an alt. no more will a guy be able to whack up a pos in hostile space without risking the tower of being popped. now you will have to work together to pos spam. and i think working together is what this MMO should be all about
NTRabbit Caldari Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2007.05.29 06:30:00 - [3] I like it, much better and more effective idea than an arbitrary cap ------
Haffrage Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.05.29 07:09:00 - [4] I'd thought it was this way the whole time. It doesn't make sense for a pos to have shields without even having fuel, considering the force field goes down when the tower is offlined. ----- Tech 2 Tier 2 Battlecruisers
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.05.29 07:47:00 - [5] ^Yeah, that sounds like an effective solution. Very naturalistic! I like it....
RedClaws Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.05.29 08:44:00 - [6] Seems like a reasonable thing yah. The shields being online and the fact that they are indestructible while anchoring is plain wrong.
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar THE R0NIN	Posted - 2007.05.29 10:48:00 - [7] I think we have have a winner. CCP: Please include this with Revelations 2.0. Ignore your feature-freeze or whatever, this has to go in.

CCP TomB	Posted - 2007.05.29 11:06:00 - [8] What is coming in Kali2 is not what we originally planned and sadly to say; we lack the time and resources. This is how ever better than what you are currently experiencing, a better solution will come later. TomB Lead Designer EVE Online .

Lyn Bunnions	Posted - 2007.05.29 11:35:00 - [9] Why is heat a priority over this?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.05.29 11:51:00 - [10] Because new features give you new suscribers, fixing old game issues doesn't

Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.29 12:39:00 - [11] Originally by: Aramendel Because new features give you new suscribers, fixing old game issues doesn't QFT --- Cheap paint ftw
Raem Civrie	Posted - 2007.05.29 12:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Why is heat a priority over this? Yeah, but then again... what do we really know about actual resource allocation within CCP or their detailed strategy? I have not seen any spreadsheets and personnel plans so far. "Apparent" and "actual" are not often the same things, and not everyone in a company is responsible for the same areas. ---- I solemnly vow never to check the date of a topic or post.
Lyn Bunnions	Posted - 2007.05.29 13:08:00 - [13] Tbh, when your game has an average account life-span of 6 months what you need is not to attract new players but to try and keep the ones you already have playing for longer than it takes to get in a Battleship, fly into 0.0, get bored in front of a pos and desubscribe. Who asked for Heat and what exactly does it solve? Why can't there be a patch that just goes from a to z in the game and tries to focus exclusively on balance, performance, bugs and removing boring, useless and annoying "features" or features(ie. pos bowling or pos in general).
Ifni Applied Eugenics	Posted - 2007.05.29 13:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Who asked for Heat and what exactly does it solve? I did, actually. It will work towards solving player vs blob gank scenarios. In unrelated news, as has been stated repeatedly, those bug fixing are not those creating new features. Ok? Once more, bug fixers != new feature coders. You take what is offered. And that must sometimes be enough.
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.05.29 13:45:00 - [15] Edited by: Darpz on 29/05/2007 13:49:57 the proposed change Quote: [@TomB]: limit per alliance/corp of deployable towers per day ". fixes nothing, will just cause more alt crap, every alliance who needs to spam towers will do it with multiple alt corps then spam towers with those corp then have them join the alliance. thus cercumventing this cheap hack. and I agree things like heat should be on the backburner considering the mess that fleet comabat and territorial combat is in,
Raem Civrie	Posted - 2007.05.29 14:12:00 - [16] Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Tbh, when your game has an average account life-span of 6 months what you need is not to attract new players but to try and keep the ones you already have playing for longer than it takes to get in a Battleship, fly into 0.0, get bored in front of a pos and desubscribe. Who asked for Heat and what exactly does it solve? Why can't there be a patch that just goes from a to z in the game and tries to focus exclusively on balance, performance, bugs and removing boring, useless and annoying "features" or features(ie. pos bowling or pos in general). I want to see the values that you're referencing with your "6 month average", and I want to see comparable values for other, current MMO's plz. ---- I solemnly vow never to check the date of a topic or post.
Athena Attom	Posted - 2007.05.29 15:05:00 - [17] Edited by: Athena Attom on 29/05/2007 15:05:04 Originally by: CCP TomB What is coming in Kali2 is not what we originally planned and sadly to say; we lack the time and resources. This is how ever better than what you are currently experiencing, a better solution will come later. Surely it would be much easier just to make a sovereignty tower(s)? Defeat pos spamming as gr8 you put up 40 towers but I still have my 5 sovereignty towers, it will stop all the pathetic look at me I have enough isk to spam all these towers that you cannot afford prevent. Make the game enjoyable rather than spending 6 hours seiging a mass of large towers... then they all come out on a week day during the other alliances prime time so you cant do ****, 6 hours of time wasted, 6 hours that need to be done again on another day.
Elmicker The Phoenix Rising Vigilance Infinitas	Posted - 2007.05.29 15:10:00 - [18] 5 a day? I see much station ping-pong in the future.
Lyn Bunnions	Posted - 2007.05.29 15:18:00 - [19] Edited by: Lyn Bunnions on 29/05/2007 15:19:56 Originally by: Raem Civrie I want to see the values that you're referencing with your "6 month average", and I want to see comparable values for other, current MMO's plz. I hate you for making me spend 10 minutes looking for the damn dev blog. I have no idea which dev posted the last EVE census but that's where it was from. e. As for other MMOs I would say that considering EVE has probably the smallest player base of any half-decent MMO other games have a better retaining rate. Though it must be considered that a lot of games are just crap. If you wanna compare with WoW or CoH/V I really doubt EVE can hold a candle to them in terms of average account life-span. As for other good MMOs there aren't a lot on the market right now

CCP Oveur	Posted - 2007.05.29 15:26:00 - [20] Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Edited by: Lyn Bunnions on 29/05/2007 15:19:56 Originally by: Raem Civrie I want to see the values that you're referencing with your "6 month average", and I want to see comparable values for other, current MMO's plz. I hate you for making me spend 10 minutes looking for the damn dev blog. I have no idea which dev posted the last EVE census but that's where it was from. e. As for other MMOs I would say that considering EVE has probably the smallest player base of any half-decent MMO other games have a better retaining rate. Though it must be considered that a lot of games are just crap. If you wanna compare with WoW or CoH/V I really doubt EVE can hold a candle to them in terms of average account life-span. As for other good MMOs there aren't a lot on the market right now Our average is actually quite high, it's about 17 months. Senior Producer EVE Online


Arenis Xemdal Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.29 15:27:00 - [21] Originally by: CCP TomB What is coming in Kali2 is not what we originally planned and sadly to say; we lack the time and resources. This is how ever better than what you are currently experiencing, a better solution will come later. Ok

CCP Oveur	Posted - 2007.05.29 15:28:00 - [22] Originally by: Raem Civrie Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Why is heat a priority over this? Yeah, but then again... what do we really know about actual resource allocation within CCP or their detailed strategy? I have not seen any spreadsheets and personnel plans so far. "Apparent" and "actual" are not often the same things, and not everyone in a company is responsible for the same areas. Heat is actually lower prioritized internally than the player infrastructure improvements. This specific part simply didn't make the feature freeze date and we had to opt for a simpler solution, otherwise there would have been no change. Senior Producer EVE Online

Iraf Thaiberd GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.29 16:12:00 - [23] Originally by: Arenis Xemdal A few carriers in triage would do it, if the enemy brings his fleet in to gank your carriers or tower, you bring yours. Doomsday does not discriminate. Or simply get your own titan, and block them from attacking the pos without fielding capitals themselves.. either way you will get escalation to capital warfare whenever the titan is present. If you're spamming someone who is fielding a titan against you, you could probably assume you'd need capitals to get anywhere in the first place. What capitals have to do with preventing titans from doing anything I can't imagine, and as you're in BoB you either are a pleasant carebear who doesn't know better or feigning ignorance. Moreover, as has been repeatedly covered in great detail, titans don't counter titans. None of which is really to the point. The point is that CCP is coding in a change that drastically favors game mechanics they've already admitted are broken before fixing the broken mechanics. This is infuriating and innane.
Arenis Xemdal Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.05.29 16:45:00 - [24] Originally by: Iraf Thaiberd Originally by: Arenis Xemdal A few carriers in triage would do it, if the enemy brings his fleet in to gank your carriers or tower, you bring yours. Doomsday does not discriminate. Or simply get your own titan, and block them from attacking the pos without fielding capitals themselves.. either way you will get escalation to capital warfare whenever the titan is present. If you're spamming someone who is fielding a titan against you, you could probably assume you'd need capitals to get anywhere in the first place. What capitals have to do with preventing titans from doing anything I can't imagine, and as you're in BoB you either are a pleasant carebear who doesn't know better or feigning ignorance. Moreover, as has been repeatedly covered in great detail, titans don't counter titans. None of which is really to the point. The point is that CCP is coding in a change that drastically favors game mechanics they've already admitted are broken before fixing the broken mechanics. This is infuriating and innane. You're complaining that the change will boost the power of the Titan, because one has to expose their fleeet at a moon to guard the tower. I'm simply telling you not to expose that fleet unless it can sustain a doomsday hit (carrier doing what it was designed to do, shock, awe), or waiting until they expose theirs before you do the same. Titans don't counter Titans, but they counter fleets. And if you had one too (hows that going btw?), you would cause the fleet trying to destroy the tower just as many problems as their Titan would give the fleet trying to defend it. I'm still lost as to what your real beef is with. My suggestion for people to spend as much effort putting towers up as they do taking them down, or the arbitrary cap to pos deployment that TomB is introducing? PS: My Revelation has seen more action than all of your ships combined, and multiplied by the square of the epic your whole capital fleet exhibits. Don't call me a carebear.

CCP Oveur	Posted - 2007.05.29 16:51:00 - [25] Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Originally by: Arenis Xemdal Originally by: Iraf Thaiberd Originally by: CCP TomB What is coming in Kali2 is not what we originally planned and sadly to say; we lack the time and resources. This is how ever better than what you are currently experiencing, a better solution will come later. I've had to rewrite this post multiple times to keep from just having a screaming fit in it. The stated goal of the shield level changes is to force a group to defend a POS as it is anchoring and onlining. Please provide even one example of how that is in any way possible in the face of 1 titan. Now provide a scenario of how it's possible with 3+ against that "defending force." Hint: It's not. Making drastic changes to game mechanics that further overpower already obviously broken game mechanics (super caps) before dealing with the broken elements is absurd, short sighted, and frankly, stupid. A few carriers in triage would do it, if the enemy brings his fleet in to gank your carriers or tower, you bring yours. Doomsday does not discriminate. Or simply get your own titan, and block them from attacking the pos without fielding capitals themselves.. either way you will get escalation to capital warfare whenever the titan is present. If you're spamming someone who is fielding a titan against you, you could probably assume you'd need capitals to get anywhere in the first place. So blob? Unless you don't have a titan in which case its more like "Leave 0.0". That's assuming that we don't nerf the Titan, like the remote DDD ability removed, the ability tackle it at your Starbase (since it has to be there) and prevent it from jumpdriving and even another surprise or two. Senior Producer EVE Online

Iraf Thaiberd GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.29 16:56:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Oveur That's assuming that we don't nerf the Titan, like the remote DDD ability removed, the ability tackle it at your Starbase (since it has to be there) and prevent it from jumpdriving and even another surprise or two. The point here is that if you make this change before you do nerf the Titan (which most people I know don't actually believe you will) you're sure going to give it a blaze of invulnerable space taking glory to go out in.
Athena Attom	Posted - 2007.05.29 16:57:00 - [27] Originally by: CCP Oveur Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Originally by: Arenis Xemdal Originally by: Iraf Thaiberd Originally by: CCP TomB What is coming in Kali2 is not what we originally planned and sadly to say; we lack the time and resources. This is how ever better than what you are currently experiencing, a better solution will come later. I've had to rewrite this post multiple times to keep from just having a screaming fit in it. The stated goal of the shield level changes is to force a group to defend a POS as it is anchoring and onlining. Please provide even one example of how that is in any way possible in the face of 1 titan. Now provide a scenario of how it's possible with 3+ against that "defending force." Hint: It's not. Making drastic changes to game mechanics that further overpower already obviously broken game mechanics (super caps) before dealing with the broken elements is absurd, short sighted, and frankly, stupid. A few carriers in triage would do it, if the enemy brings his fleet in to gank your carriers or tower, you bring yours. Doomsday does not discriminate. Or simply get your own titan, and block them from attacking the pos without fielding capitals themselves.. either way you will get escalation to capital warfare whenever the titan is present. If you're spamming someone who is fielding a titan against you, you could probably assume you'd need capitals to get anywhere in the first place. So blob? Unless you don't have a titan in which case its more like "Leave 0.0". That's assuming that we don't nerf the Titan, like the remote DDD ability removed, the ability tackle it at your Starbase (since it has to be there) and prevent it from jumpdriving and even another surprise or two. Making the 120b ship worth 0 :P
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.05.29 17:01:00 - [28] Because helping POS sieges right at the POS is the only thing titans are good for. They cannot efficently block a gate, vastely help your logistics with jump bridges or anything like that.
Iraf Thaiberd GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.05.29 17:08:00 - [29] Edited by: Iraf Thaiberd on 29/05/2007 17:08:02 Originally by: Arenis Xemdal You're complaining that the change will boost the power of the Titan, because one has to expose their fleeet at a moon to guard the tower. I'm simply telling you not to expose that fleet unless it can sustain a doomsday hit (carrier doing what it was designed to do, shock, awe), or waiting until they expose theirs before you do the same. Titans don't counter Titans, but they counter fleets. And if you had one too (hows that going btw?), you would cause the fleet trying to destroy the tower just as many problems as their Titan would give the fleet trying to defend it. I'm still lost as to what your real beef is with. My suggestion for people to spend as much effort putting towers up as they do taking them down, or the arbitrary cap to pos deployment that TomB is introducing? PS: My Revelation has seen more action than all of your ships combined, and multiplied by the square of the epic your whole capital fleet exhibits. Don't call me a carebear. Oh, jeze. First off I wasn't trying to insult your great and honorable career in shooting things on the internet. Secondly, while it's entirely possible that you've been around a while, so have I. The point I'm trying to get through, and about which I am left to assume you're being deliberately obtuse, is that the advantage is always to the attacker when the defender is forced to hold a set position. You'd need to defend that tower for a full hour. How many titans does you alliance have? Four? Five? The defenders would have to warp in and out every 12 minutes. If it wasn't your side with the "hay look we have more of this insanely broken and nerf-needing thing than you do" advantage, you'd be arguing my point for me. Let's assume that it's two sides both with 1 Titan though. You know what's going to determine who wins that POS fight? The side who lags out the least when the other one pops their DD. YAY, FLEET COMBAT SURE IS FUN AND THIS CHANGE IMPROVES IT. As a matter of fact, if I was in that situation, I'd be tempted warp my entire fleet in to the grid (out of DD range) just as I was about to pop that DD on the opposing fleet. Should guarantee they're all too lagged out to escape. I guess if I didn't want to hear complaining about it I'd just bring in 10 MS instead and pop 300 fighters (still outside of the incoming DD range), would have the same affect on the poor SoBs about to get insta-popped. edit: I typo'd insult and it got word filtered, how embarrassing.

CCP Oveur	Posted - 2007.05.29 17:10:00 - [30] Originally by: Iraf Thaiberd Originally by: CCP Oveur That's assuming that we don't nerf the Titan, like the remote DDD ability removed, the ability tackle it at your Starbase (since it has to be there) and prevent it from jumpdriving and even another surprise or two. The point here is that if you make this change before you do nerf the Titan (which most people I know don't actually believe you will) you're sure going to give it a blaze of invulnerable space taking glory to go out in. Singularity should have the disabling of the remote DDD already. The bubble change should be there shortly. Senior Producer EVE Online




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.