EVE Search - Simple POS Spam Solution

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Simple POS Spam Solution

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.02 20:51:00 - [1] Edited by: Goumindong on 02/06/2007 20:50:40 Recently, the developers have have made it clear that they do not like the current state of soveriegnty warfare. All too much, sieging POSs can be avoided by simply throwing POSs up in the system and avoiding the sieges. This has happened many times over many battles, and a solution to sovereignty is needed that will balance the two competing forms of combat over more systems. As well, there is a third competing interest that interfers with the current POS mechanics. This is production. POS purposes: Why "limiting" solutions are bad There are two primary purposes of POS's. These are claiming sovereignty, and production. Production in Eve is largly dependant on high liquidity, and low barriers to entry, that is, the ability to change from one production to another at very low cost. One of the primary ways in which this occurs is POSs fit for production. There is currently one primary limitation to this, which is the number of moons in a system. Production in systems with low moon counts is difficult since all of the moons are nessesary to keep sovereignty. As well, due to POS spam, even in high moon systems, every moon counts. Currently, the developers are looking at arbitrary limits on POS placement. This will damage production by making it more difficult to quickly shift POSs for different purposes. For where a production POS needs to come down and a deathstar put in when expecting a siege, or when moons become spammed with many POSs and production POSs need to come down in order to allow deathstars to be put in their place. If POS liquidity wasnt enough of a legitimate reason to keep from limiting pos placement, limiting POS placement is hard on logistics directors who already have much work to do, forcing them to spread their already time consuming work out farther is just plain sadistic Sovereignty Shifting Since limiting POS placement has been found to be a less than desireable solution to POS spamming, that leaves, aside from completly scrapping the way that sovereignty is calculated, to shifting the way that sovereignty is calculated. This can be difficult, as many systems may have stations belonging to organizations that are not the sovereignty holding alliance. Currently, sovereighty is calculated by whomever has the most number of the largest towers anchored in the system and nothing else. Because of this, in systems with high numbers of moons, it is possible to run large numbers of POSs in in order to take sovereignty and avoiding sieging. This, fundamentally has to change. Preferably in a manner that reduces the incidents of sovereignty shifting as the system rolls over. Which means we minimal POS movement should take place and no new placement should be nessesary. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.02 20:52:00 - [2] Planets: The New Sovereignty Mechanic All moons are tied to planets. You cannot have a moon without one. However, planets are not tied to sovereignty and the number of moons they have have no effect on the game. This gives us an easy way to expand sovereignty simply without nessesitating the movement or new placement of POSs. What would be done is to move the tally from "controlled moons" to "controlled planets" and instead of POSs adding a tally if they of the largest type in the system, adding a tally to the planet they surround if they are the largest type on the planet. Whomever controlled the most planets would have sovereignty over the system. This would effectivly lower the number of places to put POSs for sovereignty, as planets with large numbers of moons would just make them less desireable for taking space, and as the number of moons taken doesnt nessesarly correlate to sovereignty. E.G. Lets say we have a system with 8 planets and 40 moons. This, typically would be a pain to hold, since you would need to maintain 21 Large POSs in order to ensure someone couldnt just spam towers and take the system from you. However, even if all the 8 planets had 5 moons each[where the least moon reduction would take place], you would only need to hold 15 moons to ensure the system couldnt be taken without a siege[3 moons at 5 planets]. This type of situation is uncommon. More common are systems where the moons have wildly different numbers of moons. This makes moons around planets with low moon counts more valuable to sovereignty, and moons on planets with large numbers of moons largly invaluable with respect to holding sovereignty. For instance, in that same 40 moon system with 6 planets that have moons, with counts of 10, 5, 1, 4, 6, and 14 you would only need to hold 10 moons in order to ensure sovereignty. Because of that, strategic POS placement can be set to ensure a siege, and any POS spam that occurs will be limited to a smaller number of moons. As once those basic 10 are filled, the other 30 dont matter and sieges have to take place. TL:DR With the above system, we can reduce the number of moons needed to lock down a system without impeding production, POS liquidity, or any other legitimate reason to put up many POSs in a short amount of time, without having any serious change to the basic mechanics of sovereignty that would cause sovereignty to be lost. This creates incentive to siege and a disincentive to spaming POSs. This may not be a final solution, but it is a solution that should easy enough to implement[at least as easy as limiting the number of POSs you can deploy per system per day] and good enough to be a stop-gap until a new mechanic could be introduced. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.03 00:32:00 - [3] This is actually a really really great idea.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.06.03 01:31:00 - [4] I like it. //Maya
Jurgen Cartis	Posted - 2007.06.03 07:31:00 - [5] It's just crazy enough to work. Still doesn't fix some of the other underlying problems with POS/Blob warfare but it could definitely help with spam problems. The fights over the tower on that planet with 1 moon are gonna be absolutely nuts though. They are going to have to work on the fleet warfare mechanics if this happens.
Dagrin RDM Caldari The Knights of the New Republic	Posted - 2007.06.03 09:13:00 - [6] A very interesting idea, sounds quite workable, and seems to be a nice alternative to the current method.
roBurky StateCorp The State	Posted - 2007.06.03 14:26:00 - [7] I really like that. It makes some moons more valuable for defense than others, which gives an advantage to the alliance established in that system. ---
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.03 15:32:00 - [8] Great idea.
Blutreiter Pelennor Swarm R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.03 16:19:00 - [9] Very nice idea. I hope it's simple to implement too. Two thumbs up! Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up*
Dr Shameless Skull Soft Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.03 17:12:00 - [10] why not make special sovereignity poses which need to be placed near planets and leave moons only for industrial poses without any influence on sovereignity ?

B Glorious Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.06.03 17:56:00 - [11] Just to make sure I understand this, lets say you've got a system with three planets. Planet I has 3 moons, planet II has 5 moons, and planet III has 20 moons. The minimum number of POSes you would need to have the sov majority in this system would be 5, right? (2 POS on planet I, 3 POS on planet II, giving you sov over 2/3 of the planets) Am I getting this right? Originally by: Dr Shameless why not make special sovereignity poses which need to be placed near planets and leave moons only for industrial poses without any influence on sovereignity ? This is even easier.
Frabala Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.06.03 18:54:00 - [12] Brilliant. The simplest solutions are always the best.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.03 19:18:00 - [13] Originally by: B Glorious Just to make sure I understand this, lets say you've got a system with three planets. Planet I has 3 moons, planet II has 5 moons, and planet III has 20 moons. The minimum number of POSes you would need to have the sov majority in this system would be 5, right? (2 POS on planet I, 3 POS on planet II, giving you sov over 2/3 of the planets) Am I getting this right? 100% right Originally by: Dr Shameless why not make special sovereignity poses which need to be placed near planets and leave moons only for industrial poses without any influence on sovereignity ? Because special sovereignty POSs which need to be placed near planets[or only 1 per system at a star] would require a whole bunch of work[new database entries et all]. All that needs to be done[or rather should] to make this change would be to change the POS tally. As well, new items in the database would require a bunch of logistic work for alliances in order to hold sovereignty on systems they already own[buy new towers, move towers into every system you hold sovereignty, and place them]. This wouldnt require any of that, though in some instances POSs might want to be moved. The idea is to have a solution, that while it might not be perfect, reduces the strength of POS spam, as quickly and easily as possible, and with as few hickups as possible. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
B Glorious Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:09:00 - [14] Well, honestly I can approve of this wholeheartedly. - It doesn't necessitate the creation of new "sov specific" POSes - If it was implemented overnight, it wouldn't necessarily screw up everything and make everyone have to scramble and get new stuff to ensure that they can keep their stations - It doesn't change game mechanics that already work fine the way they are now I really can't see any downside to this and I hope the devs take a look, because its just pure gold.
Nilder Shadowfiyah Caldari Teeth Of The Hydra R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.04 00:31:00 - [15] here here for a good way to take/control system sovereignty.
Cadiz Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.06.04 02:08:00 - [16] There is a certain simple elegance to this system. I like the sound of it. ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence."
Polysynchronicity Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.04 05:57:00 - [17] A pretty damn awesome idea. ----- That glorious ship is a Templar-class fighter, the sword of light and purity which our carriers shall drive into the hearts of the Minmatar heretics!
Karanth Gallente Cirrius Technologies O X I D E	Posted - 2007.06.04 06:28:00 - [18] Support. Nothing says "pain" like POS wars. Free beer for those who mod my sig! There is only one sig hijack that matters, the orginal and only member of the hijack squad. me. -Eris. ps Black russians are better then beer. I'll see your beer, and raise you a goat kebab -Tirg I'll take that pint and raise you two -Timmeh I bet 2 goats, 1 pint and a bag of slugs -Lordharold I grab it all, cook it/eat and drink it all and say thank you. -Pirlouit I'll call your bluff, and go all in on 3 locks of Hutch's hair. -Incognus I'll see that bet, depending on where the hair came from. -Rauth pushes the other mods out of the way Mmmm, bree - Karass
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Frontier Trade League	Posted - 2007.06.04 07:26:00 - [19] This seems like a good system. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.06.04 09:41:00 - [20] Great idea. I was looking for something like this. Simple, elegant, working. And finaly one idea that does not promote death-star POSes over industrial ones. Industrial POSes have usualy none or low defenses and that makes them the easiest targets in current system. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....

Ryo Jang Central Defiance Terror In The System	Posted - 2007.06.04 10:08:00 - [21] wonderful, wonderful idea, this is how it should have been. makes perfect sense to control planets, not moons.
Dr Aryandi Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2007.06.04 10:46:00 - [22] A truly excellent suggestion. Well thought out and well presented. Good work that man. Blueprint Research Service Available See thread for details.
Ling Xiao Prism Project Technologies	Posted - 2007.06.04 11:34:00 - [23] Beautifully simple. Thumbs up __________ If you think the game is rigged, why are you still playing?

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2007.06.04 11:37:00 - [24] Interesting...

Valandril Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2007.06.04 11:49:00 - [25] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Interesting... Woot dev post \o/ --- I swear to god, ccp choose changes in game via lottery system.
Noluck Ned FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.04 11:59:00 - [26] Goum, this time you managed to have a good idea.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.04 12:14:00 - [27] Originally by: Noluck Ned Goum, this time you managed to have a good idea. Actualy, it was Zarimax Mishka. I just typed it up in a more presentable manner(with premission). He posted it here a while ago, but it never really got seen. I hadnt given sovereignty holding mechanics much thought before he proposed it. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Rosalina Sarinna KHM Corporation	Posted - 2007.06.04 12:18:00 - [28] 100% agree /signed
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.04 12:26:00 - [29] Originally by: Noluck Ned Goum, this time you managed to have a good idea. Ho ho! It's on now!
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.04 14:28:00 - [30] Why not expand on that mechanic a little bit more. Move sovereignty completely to the planets and away from the moons. I mean whoever in their right mind would think "Gee, I control more than 50% of the moons in this system, so I am the supreme ruler here.". Now, contrast this with "Gee, I control more than 50% of the planets in this system, so I am the supreme ruler here." Makes more sense that way, no? So, my proposal would be to create a new type of tower, the Sovereignty tower. It would be similar to a Large tower, perhaps a little bigger, but would cost, say 1b ISK each, and they would be the only towers that could anchor the jump portals, cap ship assembly arrays and shipyards...and the only ones that could claim or count towards sov in a system. This would prevent the Sov POS spam (at least past the number of planets required to ensure sov in a system). As a possible extension to this, you would anchor an outpost egg at the Sov POS (outside the shield, where it can still be blown up by a coordinated attack), and after downtime, the tower merges with the egg to deploy an outpost, and the guns deploy to a set interval around the outpost as station sentries that can be disabled much like the guns at the POSes will be. The outpost, in this case, would contribute to system sov the same as a Sov tower for the alliance that currently holds the outpost. -------------------



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: 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.