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 - 2007.06.04 14:37:00 - [31] Making a new "sovereignty tower" defeats the entire purpose of a system designed so as to require as little work on the part of the players or on the part of the developers as possible. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.06.04 14:47:00 - [32] only issue I can think of is some planets don't have moons. but if ccp just ran a script on those systems to randomly redisribute some moons to those planets it shouldn't be an issue.
Imhothar Xarodit Minmatar Wolverine Solutions Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:09:00 - [33] As long as there are any moons that can contribute to planet sov it doesn't really matter if some planets don't have moons. They simply cannot be claimed, that' is. A very interesting and convincing idea including planets into the sov system.

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:10:00 - [34] /emote bookmarks this thread. "Tux did it!"

Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:19:00 - [35] Originally by: Darpz only issue I can think of is some planets don't have moons. but if ccp just ran a script on those systems to randomly redisribute some moons to those planets it shouldn't be an issue. You need to be the alliance which owns the most planets to have sovereignty, no one can own this planet, then it no more counts. If anything can be build around a planet (outpost?), then it takes the planet. Those few planets with no moons means even less POS spamming! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Slayton Ford Vindicate and Deliverance ASGARDIAN EMPIRE	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:37:00 - [36] /signed A simple common sense solution. --------------- This sig has been censored in fear of recieving the ban hammer...
Gihgehls Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.04 15:40:00 - [37] I'll sign this too. It sounds like a great idea.
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.04 16:15:00 - [38] I also think it should be harder to 'ninja' anchor a pos. It sucks to defend a system all day, to only have a single carrier come along right before/after dt and start anchoring poses. After they've started anchoring their almost impossible to kill before they can be onlined. They should have a very low hp amount while anchoring, and a slightly higher amount of hp after its anchored. Also, I think that it should take longer to anchor a pos in a hostile system. But take less time to anchor a pos in a system you already have sov in. Make Mining Better
Tavus Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.06.04 16:24:00 - [39] I love this idea -- not only does it help the gameplay mechanics a good deal, but it's very natural from a lore perspective. One assumes that controlling the planets would be more important, as it implies controlling, to some degree, the native populations of those planets. Also, a planet with fewer moons, and thus fewer avenues through which enemies could advance on a planet you control, would be easier to hold. The concept is elegant in terms of both gameplay and lore.
Rhaegor Stormborn Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.04 16:27:00 - [40] Originally by: CCP Abathur /emote bookmarks this thread. That makes me happy, at the very least it is another idea to compile into all the others. Something really FUN and cool can be put together out of the POS/Sovereignty system, but CCP just has to work it all out. =D

Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.04 16:55:00 - [41] The problem with requiring POSes on moons (even if the goal is to get the majority of moons per planet to get sov), and I can tell you this from personal experience, it doesn't matter how many moons are minimum to ensure sov, the defending alliance tends to spam the entire list of moons to prevent enemies from getting a foothold in your key systems. Hence, when you have 76 moons in the system...76 POSes. That's a lot of load on a system where 90% of the moons prolly wouldn't be used anyway. Reducing it to planets only, would limit it to, in most cases, < 15 POSes per system. A much more manageable amount for both defending and for sieging a system. Personally, I would like to see it so that only one POS could claim Sov in the system, and you had to take it out before you could claim Sov in the system (and no, not the wimpy towers of today). -------------------
Kakita Jalaan Viriette Commerce and Holding	Posted - 2007.06.04 17:01:00 - [42] Great great idea. It also makes sense, moons aren't that far apart (on an astrological scale), while planets are a fair bit wider apart. ______________ Join the Family
Usul78 Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.06.04 17:29:00 - [43] This idea sounds really good as it adds a strategic element to the POS deployment instead of the old spam method. It should be easy to implement, involves limited database changes and reduces the number of items which have to be 'tracked' by the server, which would hopefully reduce lag. In addition though, I would suggest a 'Sovereignity' Tab in the alliance section so you can manage which moons/planets/systems/constelations/regions have sovereignity and will allow CEO/Directors to have an overview of what 'space' is claimed and controlled. You will only be able to see the information for the areas of space which you claim so you can't use it to 'spy' on other alliances' assets ;) for example: -> Alliance ----> Sovereignity -------> Moons, Plantes, Systems, Constelations, Regions ----------> Claimed, Unclaimed, Challenged Filters: [Region], [Constelation], [System] At the moment people use 3rd part software to manage these things and involves a lot of updating and distribution. If it could be dealt with in game then that would certainly be a bonus. Maybe, far, far off into the future of eve, this could be graphically introduced into the map to show where you are strong and where you need to consetrate more resources. (I dont mean the current feature on the stas section of the map as its too basic for the above suggestion)
Farrellus Cameron Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.06.04 22:12:00 - [44] Normally I am pretty skeptical about attempts at solving some of EVE's more problematic areas, but I actually do kinda like this idea. Adds a more strategic elements to POSs in terms of deployment. I think the issue with production POSs could be addressed with allowing unlimited non-sovereignty claiming POS deployment though. ----------------------------------------------------
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.04 23:11:00 - [45] Originally by: Laendra 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? Goum already covered this further up, the reason not to do this is because then everyone has suddenly got a whole bunch of POS towers that are worthless, and there'll be a mad dash to get them all moved. Originally by: Laendra 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). Again, the issue is you suddenly invalidate the purpose of most POS's in existence, and people are unlikely to recoup that loss because outside sovereignty, no one wants to deploy as many towers as there are currently out there and thus no one is going to buy the huge surplus of left over towers.
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.04 23:19:00 - [46] Originally by: Farrellus Cameron Normally I am pretty skeptical about attempts at solving some of EVE's more problematic areas, but I actually do kinda like this idea. Adds a more strategic elements to POSs in terms of deployment. I think the issue with production POSs could be addressed with allowing unlimited non-sovereignty claiming POS deployment though. The problem with that is that there's no distinction between sov-claiming and non-sov claiming, it's just a checkbox on the config screen. The new method of spamming would just become to put up the same number of towers and then set to sov claiming X number per day.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.04 23:22:00 - [47] Originally by: Darpz only issue I can think of is some planets don't have moons. but if ccp just ran a script on those systems to randomly redisribute some moons to those planets it shouldn't be an issue. Just like currently, where only the majority of moons neeeds to be held, would the majority of planets need to be held. Currently in a system with 100 moons, if alliance A holds 1 moon and alliance B holds 2. Then Alliance B holds the entire system. With the same mechanism in place, planets that didnt have moons arent important, since they arent capturable, they would never figure into the sov equation, since the sov equation depends not on someone having >50% of the moons/planets, but on someone having the most. The purpose of talking about holding >50% of the planets was to show how such a system reduces the total number of POSs nessesary to ensure a siege and/or hold a system against any amount of POS spam. The increased value of moons on low count planets makes spamming much harder. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.05 11:15:00 - [48] Sometimes, to fix something, you have to make hard choices. CCP has done it before, and it wouldn't stop them for this if it fixed the issue at hand. Complain about a special Sov POS as you will, it would solve a lot of problems. Hell, I'd even be willing to concede that CCP could offer a way to upgrade regular POSes to Sov POSes in a factory, or even a special sovereignty module for Large POSes (in lieu of making a special POS for Sov) to increase the usefulness of existing POSes to the owners of systems. And, I'd go one further, to prevent POS spam altogether. That would be to make non-sov POSes in a system that you claim and maintain Sov, be immune to attacks (much like outposts), whereas the opposite is true if your alliance isn't the one that maintains Sov in a system where Sov is claimed, your non-Sov POSes are significantly weaker (fewer hitpoints) with no reinforced mode, making them vulnerable to attacks by much smaller forces...so there wouldn't be any of this "let's pop up a POS in the system we are laying siege to so we can sit AFK in the force field all day"...would make the aggressors truly have to defend their forward non-Sov POS on a constant basis. Sov POSes would still have all the benefits they do today, including strong shields, reinforced mode, etc., regardless of whether or not you actually held Sov. This would bring the focus of the attackers directly on the Sov POSes to get and take at least one Sov POS in order to gain a strong foothold in the system. -------------------
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.06.05 11:28:00 - [49] would be great if this idea made it to the test server and into rev 2.0 ... I know it's in feature freeze, but this is one of the ideas that actualy make the game much better for a lot of players and do not require that much of changes. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.05 12:13:00 - [50] Originally by: Laendra Stuff Your idea is less then compelling. It's uncompelling from the perspective of breaking existing mechanics and investments (very game wide investments, this is not minor). It's uncompelling from a logistics of space holding perspective - POS spam works if only because it's a fiscally massive investment and few entities are capable of dedicatedly doing it. And, it's uncompelling from a simple "feel" perspective - I much prefer the idea of conquering the moons of a planet to seize the planet then just ditching a tower at the planet. And finally, people use planet warp ins to escape in combat - this would wreck that, while reducing the number of 'safe' locations in a system you can warp to that aren't safespots.

Sqalevon Masuat'aa Matari	Posted - 2007.06.05 13:20:00 - [51] I'm happy to find this thread / idea so i can support it ! /signed
Blazing Fire Interstellar Operations Incorporated Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.06.05 13:21:00 - [52] No need of new items. Just make the towers to claim sov only when anchored near planets. Blazing Fire CEO Interstellar Operations Incorporated Recruting
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.05 14:11:00 - [53] Originally by: Blazing Fire No need of new items. Just make the towers to claim sov only when anchored near planets. Sometimes the simple answer eludes me. -------------------
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.05 14:17:00 - [54] Originally by: James Duar Originally by: Laendra Stuff Your idea is less then compelling. It's uncompelling from the perspective of breaking existing mechanics and investments (very game wide investments, this is not minor). Think of how many POSes it would free up for something, I don't know, more usefull and productive...like, um, production (manufacturing goods and/or moon products)...making them actually pay for themselves, instead of being a cost only. Originally by: James Duar It's uncompelling from a logistics of space holding perspective - POS spam works if only because it's a fiscally massive investment and few entities are capable of dedicatedly doing it. Have you actually participated in a 0.0 based alliance? Originally by: James Duar And, it's uncompelling from a simple "feel" perspective - I much prefer the idea of conquering the moons of a planet to seize the planet then just ditching a tower at the planet. Dunno about you, but it makes more sense to me to conquer the main bodies of a stellar system than the satellites of those main bodies. I mean, think of it this way...would conquering our moon mean that the Earth was under control of an alien species? Originally by: James Duar And finally, people use planet warp ins to escape in combat - this would wreck that, while reducing the number of 'safe' locations in a system you can warp to that aren't safespots. Oh noes, people actually have to think about where they warp to in combat? No different than when they first introduced POSes and moons were no longer safe. -------------------
Taters Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:07:00 - [55] Good idea: simple, effective.
galadran Caldari Death to us	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:12:00 - [56] Edited by: galadran on 05/06/2007 16:11:55 Sounds very good and shouldn't be hard to implement. Now get to work on the rest of eve's problems Brilliant. simple, effective and therefore beautiful
Artthana Minmatar Acme Technologies Incorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:53:00 - [57] Make it so.
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:44:00 - [58] Good idea, but then please increase the cost of large towers and defensive modules on them by about 100%. Because just about the only part of the current pos warfare game is teh fact that it put attrition back into the equasion: POS cost alot, if you lose alot, which you do when there's alot fo them around to be destroyed. Ive said it elsewhere too. Sometimes it's not just about taking over sovereignty. Sometimes it's also about costing the defender so much isk he can't repeat the trick again in the next system, and the next, and the next... [center] Old blog
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.05 20:20:00 - [59] Originally by: Rod Blaine Good idea, but then please increase the cost of large towers and defensive modules on them by about 100%. Because just about the only part of the current pos warfare game is teh fact that it put attrition back into the equasion: POS cost alot, if you lose alot, which you do when there's alot fo them around to be destroyed. Ive said it elsewhere too. Sometimes it's not just about taking over sovereignty. Sometimes it's also about costing the defender so much isk he can't repeat the trick again in the next system, and the next, and the next... tbh, that was the reason behind the Sov Tower or Sov Module suggestion, to make claiming Sov COST something. Make it cost at least 1b to claim Sov in a system before defenses are added. -------------------
arrgonout	Posted - 2007.06.05 21:14:00 - [60] Originally by: Laendra Dunno about you, but it makes more sense to me to conquer the main bodies of a stellar system than the satellites of those main bodies. I mean, think of it this way...would conquering our moon mean that the Earth was under control of an alien species? No but from a strategic standpoint capturing the moon before the earth would be a logical battle plan if they inhabitants on the planet where capable of putting up a fight. Look at current warfare on this planet and you will see that forward bases are always established as close to the front line as possible while still being out of reach of the enemy. The moon would be such a place, if we where capable of space flight ourselves, for an alien invasion force. I simply like this idea from the standpoint that it takes on both a strategic element, picking out which planets to control, along with the possibility of multiple battlefronts with in a contested system. With all the proposed solutions to establishing sov with in a given system this one seems the simplistic working well with in the preexisting game.



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.