EVE Search - Simple POS Spam Solution

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. -------------------
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.
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.06 00:14:00 - [61] Edited by: Effei Gloom on 06/06/2007 00:13:32 tactical pos placement lagg reduction pos spam reduction less pos¦s needed for SOV without any changes to existing pos moduls GREAT, signed - next minnie Outpost bpc me:5 available in 25 days -
Maya Rkell Third Grade Ergonomics	Posted - 2007.06.06 00:22:00 - [62] 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. Well, I don't see the issue - they just don't count for competing for sov. Systems with no moons at all might be an issue, but I don't believe they exist. //Maya
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.06 03:18:00 - [63] Originally by: Maya Rkell 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. Well, I don't see the issue - they just don't count for competing for sov. Systems with no moons at all might be an issue, but I don't believe they exist. A system with no moons at all wouldn't be capturable under the current sovereignty system - so it's a non-issue altogether.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.06 05:13:00 - [64] Edited by: Goumindong on 06/06/2007 05:13:37 Originally by: Laendra Have you actually participated in a 0.0 based alliance? Yes. He has. Laendra. I am going to ask you to please stop posting about sovereignty POSs in this thread. Sovereignty POSs are not a bad idea. You could anchor them at the sun and free all other celestial bodies for production. But the purpose of this thread and idea is not to radically overhaul the sovereignty system. The purpose of the thread is to come up with a solution that requires as little work on the part of the players and the developers as possible. It may not be a final sovereignty solution. But that is O.K. A friend of mine whom i have political discussions with used to say "The perfect is the enemy of the good". You are trying to come up with a perfect solution to sovereignty. Notwithstanding all the problems that entails[such as it "making sense" instead of it meeting gameplay design goals], you are diverting attention from the solution that we can implement soon that will provide reasonable results in the right direction towards some perfect solution that is not only not fully idealized, but will also take much more time and effort than can be expended within our expected timeframe. Such, by continuing to lobby for the perfect, you are distracting from the good. And the good is a solution that can be implemented swiftly, that requires as little work as possible from players and developers, and doesnt cause any major sovereignty hickups. If there is a reason that you believe the solution here is not good, if it wont meet the criteria layed out, if there is a criteria you think ought to be included or left out, or, if you have a solution that you think meets the critera better, please let us know in this thread or in another thread. But dont derail the discussion with an un-idealized "perfect" solution. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Johnathan Roark Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.06.06 05:49:00 - [65] I do like this idea. Only thing that I would like to see in addition is neighboring systems play a part in the calculations for sov Corporation Management Improvement
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.06 08:57:00 - [66] Originally by: Johnathan Roark I do like this idea. Only thing that I would like to see in addition is neighboring systems play a part in the calculations for sov That's sort of a tertiary consideration for sovereignty claims (it's a new unrelated change in the mechanics).
Dr Shameless Skull Soft Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.06.06 09:24:00 - [67] do not feed the devs with easy solutions or they will become lazy :)
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.06 15:02:00 - [68] Originally by: Goumindong Laendra. I am going to ask you to please stop posting about sovereignty POSs in this thread. Sovereignty POSs are not a bad idea. You could anchor them at the sun and free all other celestial bodies for production. But the purpose of this thread and idea is not to radically overhaul the sovereignty system. The purpose of the thread is to come up with a solution that requires as little work on the part of the players and the developers as possible. It may not be a final sovereignty solution. But that is O.K. A friend of mine whom i have political discussions with used to say "The perfect is the enemy of the good". You are trying to come up with a perfect solution to sovereignty. Notwithstanding all the problems that entails[such as it "making sense" instead of it meeting gameplay design goals], you are diverting attention from the solution that we can implement soon that will provide reasonable results in the right direction towards some perfect solution that is not only not fully idealized, but will also take much more time and effort than can be expended within our expected timeframe. Such, by continuing to lobby for the perfect, you are distracting from the good. And the good is a solution that can be implemented swiftly, that requires as little work as possible from players and developers, and doesnt cause any major sovereignty hickups. If there is a reason that you believe the solution here is not good, if it wont meet the criteria layed out, if there is a criteria you think ought to be included or left out, or, if you have a solution that you think meets the critera better, please let us know in this thread or in another thread. But dont derail the discussion with an un-idealized "perfect" solution. The problem with your quick and dirty solution, is that without a clear idea of what the perfect solution would be, you could actually be causing more harm than good. A better proposal would include both elements...(i.e. Here is the ideal solution, but here is an interim solution that would be the stepping stone towards the perfect solution, and doesn't involve a lot of difficult changes, as far as we can tell.) Do you agree with that logic? I mean, we have a lot of time until they start working on the next release, since we are in feature freeze for 2.0....we might as well work out the ideal/interim solutions in that timeframe. -------------------
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.06.07 01:20:00 - [69] I support this idea. Currently the biggest problems in POS warfare are that: 1. Systems with high moon counts take huge numbers of POS to defend. There are systems with 100 moons in them - to hold these take 50+ POS. This is just nuts. Alliances should have industrial backbones but the amount of logistics required to do this is so large, and so little fun, that you almost need to hire people to do this. This is because that's what it is, a job, and not fun. 2. Said systems w/ huge numbers of POS then have huge numbers of objects sitting in system, causing lag. I had an alt in big blue while it existed and upon the MC invasion I think there was about 45 POS in BWF. The number 1 thing I remember about the fights there was lag. I couldn't move, shoot or do anything; the entire excercise was pointless. This was due to the large numbers of POS in system mainly. This situation is being repeated in many regions all around eve, and no one is benefiting from it. 3. Because of (1) and (2) the critera for choosing a location of an outpost is now all about moon count in many cases, not strategic location or exploitation of an area (or even convience to an alliance). This is also totally nutty. When this occurs, it's a excellent demonstration that the current game mechanic is frankly highly nonfunctional. Because of these, I believe the idea as proposed would greatly reduce the problems outlined above and therefore I support it without reservation. Raptor and Ares Fix
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 04:55:00 - [70] Originally by: Laendra The problem with your quick and dirty solution, is that without a clear idea of what the perfect solution would be, you could actually be causing more harm than good. A better proposal would include both elements...(i.e. Here is the ideal solution, but here is an interim solution that would be the stepping stone towards the perfect solution, and doesn't involve a lot of difficult changes, as far as we can tell.) Do you agree with that logic? I mean, we have a lot of time until they start working on the next release, since we are in feature freeze for 2.0....we might as well work out the ideal/interim solutions in that timeframe. No. When you completly overhaul a system it doesnt matter what point you started from. No change for the better can suddenly be detrimental to the final solution when the final solution requires a complete overhaul of the system. You want to completly overhaul a system, to do nothing until the perfect solution is idealized. Its bad design and bad management. I wrote this precicely because of "we are in feature freeze for rev 2". This change ought to be easy enough to implement before Rev 2, given the rev 2 time frame, or in a small patch afterwards. If you want to talk about a perfect solution, go somewhere else. If you have a better quickfix post it here. At the moment, the developers are going to quickfix by limiting POS deployment numbers. I think this is a better quickfix and so am supporting it. If you have a better quickfix, or a problem with this quickfix, let us know. If not please go somewhere else. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 05:28:00 - [71] Originally by: Goumindong No. When you completly overhaul a system it doesnt matter what point you started from. No change for the better can suddenly be detrimental to the final solution when the final solution requires a complete overhaul of the system. You want to completly overhaul a system, to do nothing until the perfect solution is idealized. Its bad design and bad management. I wrote this precicely because of "we are in feature freeze for rev 2". This change ought to be easy enough to implement before Rev 2, given the rev 2 time frame, or in a small patch afterwards. If you want to talk about a perfect solution, go somewhere else. If you have a better quickfix post it here. At the moment, the developers are going to quickfix by limiting POS deployment numbers. I think this is a better quickfix and so am supporting it. If you have a better quickfix, or a problem with this quickfix, let us know. If not please go somewhere else. That's just it, if you don't even know what an ideal condition is, how can you make a judgement call on what is a good interim? Why get people all worked up about a change to mechanics, either way you look at it, when it may or may not be the final solution, or at least pointing in that direction? Personally, I'd be pretty ****ed off if CCP came through and said "Okay, here are the new POS mechanics, learn 'em, love 'em or lump 'em" and then 2-3 months later said "Okay, now that we know what we really wanted as our solution, here is what we are going to do...it's a total rewrite, and, since we were so far off with our quick-fix, it's really going to screw you over...sorry, but it can't be helped now....if only we had stopped a moment, brainstormed to figure out what we really needed, we could have provided an interim solution that brought it closer to what we are releasing now." Now, with my way... "Okay guys, we did a brainstorming session on what is really needed, and although this is not the final solution, our quickfix is going to bring it closer inline with what it will finally be. That final solution is going to be XYZ, so make plans for it." Now, as a person that runs numerous POSes, which would you rather see come from CCP???? I know which one I would vote for....it rhymes with "the second one". Oh, and I do have a place to brainstorm these ideas off of these forums...it's in my sig if anyone cares to do true brainstorming and then discuss the results of the brainstorming to come up with a proper solution and interim quickfix. I'm done trying to argue with you guys....you ask for feedback, and when you get feedback you don't like, you try to shoo it away. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Bernardo Guii	Posted - 2007.06.07 05:45:00 - [72] Originally by: Goumindong ... I wrote this precicely because of "we are in feature freeze for rev 2". This change ought to be easy enough to implement before Rev 2, given the rev 2 time frame, or in a small patch afterwards. If you want to talk about a perfect solution, go somewhere else. If you have a better quickfix post it here. ... If you have a better quickfix, or a problem with this quickfix, let us know. If not please go somewhere else. You have a good idea here Goumindong. A very good one. But, I don't think it is right for you to throw an idea like this out into the sandbox for discussion - then try to limit the discussion on it to topics you approve of. Leandra's comments are not a hijack, they are on point - referring to a change (ANY change) to the current (borked) system of sovereignty. Personally, I would like to see more debate on that. Your ideas are good, but so are the points being made by Leandra, IMHO. And no, I am really not an alt of Leandra. I don't even know that player. And yes, this is my alt. I don't post with my main - I don't need the hassle in game.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 05:46:00 - [73] Edited by: Goumindong on 07/06/2007 05:49:37 Originally by: Laendra snip You can troll somewhere else. Please do so. If i were someone who would operate many POSs or place POSs in defense of a system, i would go with the solution that reduced the number of POSs nessesary to operate and not with the idea that does nothing because it doesnt exist. Edit: Bernando. No, they arent on topic. She posted ideas for final sovereignty solutions. She is attacking the entire idea of a quick fix. She doesnt address whether or not the fix will help or not. She doesnt bring up alternate quick fixes that work better. She doesn show why the proposed fix is a bad one. She doesnt show why the proposed quickfix might not work in some perfect solution that doesnt exist yet. She doesnt deal with the proposal, anything resembling the proposal, a counter-proposal that fits the criteria presented as formulated by the constraints of the project. She doesnt even attack the criteria. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.07 07:23:00 - [74] Leeandra - This is a thread about Goumindoug's idea. If you have an idea of your own please post it in another thread. And please only post constructive comments here. Make Mining Better
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 10:50:00 - [75] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 07/06/2007 05:49:37 Originally by: Laendra snip You can troll somewhere else. Please do so. If i were someone who would operate many POSs or place POSs in defense of a system, i would go with the solution that reduced the number of POSs nessesary to operate and not with the idea that does nothing because it doesnt exist. Edit: Bernando. No, they arent on topic. She posted ideas for final sovereignty solutions. She is attacking the entire idea of a quick fix. She doesnt address whether or not the fix will help or not. She doesnt bring up alternate quick fixes that work better. She doesn show why the proposed fix is a bad one. She doesnt show why the proposed quickfix might not work in some perfect solution that doesnt exist yet. She doesnt deal with the proposal, anything resembling the proposal, a counter-proposal that fits the criteria presented as formulated by the constraints of the project. She doesnt even attack the criteria. Originally by: ghosttr Leeandra - This is a thread about Goumindoug's idea. If you have an idea of your own please post it in another thread. And please only post constructive comments here. Originally by: Laendra 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). ghosttr: Funny, it sure looks like I posted constructive and on topic (dealing with POS spam) comments that have been repeatedly smacked by the OP. Goumindong: who's the troll??? ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Ovno ConSyquence Amarr The Plebians	Posted - 2007.06.07 11:22:00 - [76] Goumindong /signed great idea, simple and easy to implement :)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 12:35:00 - [77] Originally by: Laendra ghosttr: Funny, it sure looks like I posted constructive and on topic (dealing with POS spam) comments that have been repeatedly smacked by the OP. Goumindong: who's the troll??? You are, because you dont know what you are talking about. 1. People do not POS spam all moons just because they only POS spam the required moons. This only happens in very low moon count systems, where every moon matters. Typically spam works like this Set up enough large towers to break enemy sovereignty Set up offlined small towers on enough moons to keep enemy from onlining large towers without shooting the small ones down first As enemy onlines more towers or shoots smalls, add more smalls on unoccupied moons, and replace small towers with large towers. People dont just online 76 towers becasue they want to, that is 37 more large towers than they need to online for fuel costs + ~15.2 billion isk in towers. No alliance just sits 15 billion isk in materials around for no good reason. 2. Changing sovereignty to to moons is out of the question regarding a quick fix, such a change is a complete overhaul to the system. Changing it to planets breaks current outpost construction rules[afaik they go at planets, not sure on that though]. Its neither easy, fast, or clean. Its a final sovereignty solution. And proposing it in a thread dealing with a quick solution does not help. ---------- Your previous post you said something that I did not quite respond to well enough. You said(paraphrased) "We shouldnt change if we dont know what the perfect solution is going to be*". A better response, though the other is still applicable is that since we dont know what the perfect solution is going to be, its impossible to make a value judgement on whether or not a quick fix is going in the right direction. But that also means its impossible to make a value judgement on whether or not the original situation is in the right direction either. Such, keeping the situation bad, because you cant make a value judgement is not an optimal solution, the quick fix at least makes things better now, and both are equal in terms of their ability to be moved into some perfect solution since the perfect solution isnt known. For instance, your solution requires a complete overhaul of the system. Such, no code currently used for calculating sovereignty on moons would be applicable to counting it on planets. It doesnt matter where you are regarding POSs on moons, since you need to rewrite the code anyway to deal with them on planets. And you need to deal with new anchoring code, and you need to deal with other resource conflicts. If you dont want to discuss a quick fix that meets the criteria layed out, dont post in the thread. Please, you have derailed this for long enough. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Maya Rkell Third Grade Ergonomics	Posted - 2007.06.07 12:48:00 - [78] Originally by: James Duar Originally by: Maya Rkell 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. Well, I don't see the issue - they just don't count for competing for sov. Systems with no moons at all might be an issue, but I don't believe they exist. A system with no moons at all wouldn't be capturable under the current sovereignty system - so it's a non-issue altogether. Good point! :) //Maya
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.07 12:54:00 - [79] Edited by: Effei Gloom on 07/06/2007 12:54:14 Originally by: Effei Gloom Edited by: Effei Gloom on 06/06/2007 00:13:32 tactical pos placement lagg reduction pos spam reduction less pos¦s needed for SOV without any changes to existing pos moduls GREAT, signed more ideas: V0DF-2 I 1 > 1 II 1 > 1 III 12 > IV 19 > V 17 > VI 3 > 2 VII 4 > 3 VIII 3 > 2 new system = 8 pos instead of old system = 31 pos FY0W-N I - (not applied to SOV or check 1 + 2. alternative II 1 III 1 IV 1 V 22 VI 26 VII 17 new system = 12 pos to take SOV the first time (you can unanchor 9 of them) = 3 pos to hold and stop anyone to take SOV over (3 planets arn¦t enough to take over !! 1. alternative could be, system goes back to neutrality if both sides take 3 planets each to claim sov 2. alternative an outpost near pl 1 claims the planet for SOV = 3 pos + one outpost claim the sov safe old system = 38 - next minnie Outpost bpc me:5 available in 25 days -
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 13:18:00 - [80] Being able to make the system neutral is an important part of fighting over sovereignty. It allows you to ping-pong the outpost[if there is one] and make life harder for residents/aquire resources at the outpost/etc. The way I envisioned the system, it would maintain the current "equal sov count neutralizes sovereignty" Also, the system currently is "majority". Afaik, currently 1 POS will claim sov in any system where there are no POSs. This wouldnt change. If you only hold 1 planet and no one else holds any, you still own the most. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
DarkSim Field Bellum Aeternus The Makhai	Posted - 2007.06.07 14:11:00 - [81] /signed. A great idea :D This should easily fix all the pos spam :D
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 15:52:00 - [82] Originally by: Goumindong You are, because you dont know what you are talking about. OMG, are you still in 3rd grade? Originally by: Goumindong 1. People do not POS spam all moons just because they only POS spam the required moons. This only happens in very low moon count systems, where every moon matters. Typically spam works like this Set up enough large towers to break enemy sovereignty Set up offlined small towers on enough moons to keep enemy from onlining large towers without shooting the small ones down first As enemy onlines more towers or shoots smalls, add more smalls on unoccupied moons, and replace small towers with large towers. Let me enlighten you with the way I have seen it work, in numerous systems. -Assumption: 76 moons in system, 12 planets Setup at least 39 Large Control Towers and online. On each of the remaining 37 moons, setup a Small Control Tower, leaving it offline, with enough fuel and strontium for about 24-48 hours, When hostiles enter system and start actively shooting one of the towers, someone warps to each of the towers and sets them to online, resulting in the enemy having to take down the shields and place the small towers into reinfoced in order to take the moons. In the meantime, the fleet engages the ships shooting at the one tower that didn't make it online (if you are quick and lucky, you can even online that one before it goes down). The goal with POS spam, is to prevent letting your enemy get a foothold into your systems....not just prevent them from getting Sov in your system. Originally by: Goumindong People dont just online 76 towers becasue they want to, that is 37 more large towers than they need to online for fuel costs + ~15.2 billion isk in towers. No alliance just sits 15 billion isk in materials around for no good reason. Who said they were all Large Towers? Originally by: Goumindong 2. Changing sovereignty to to moons is out of the question regarding a quick fix, such a change is a complete overhaul to the system. Changing it to planets breaks current outpost construction rules[afaik they go at planets, not sure on that though]. Its neither easy, fast, or clean. Its a final sovereignty solution. And proposing it in a thread dealing with a quick solution does not help. Either way it is proposed, it requires a recoding of the way Sov is calculated. I don't think (and hope they won't) CCP will just half-ass fix it on a whim without knowing where they are going to go in the meantime. Originally by: Goumindong If you dont want to discuss a quick fix that meets the criteria layed out, dont post in the thread. That's what I have been trying to do, but you refuse to accept differing opinions. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 16:59:00 - [83] Originally by: Laendra Please stop craping on this thread. The problem with POS spam is not that people defend systems easily. Its that people attack systems easily. And why would anyone cover an entire system with even small POSs when they dont have to? If the opponent has enough large towers up to ensure a siege, why are you bothering shooting smalls. You have to jump dreads in anyway for the larges. You arent propsoing anything that comes close to a solution that can be implemented speedily. Recoding how sovereighty is calculated is quite easy. There is a section of the code that adds up the tally. There is a section of the code that compares tallies. There is a section of the code that initiates tallies etc. They ought to all be seperate from each other and written in such a way that you can change the section of the code that adds up the tally without changing anything else. You do this by changing the initial tally code to point to another section that gives tallies on planets[so now the old code counts planets and everything else happens the same way]. The only new code is the tally on the planets and the modification to the original tally. Its all very simply, less than complicated, and fast. It doesnt require a recoding. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 17:37:00 - [84] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Laendra Please stop craping on this thread. The problem with POS spam is not that people defend systems easily. Its that people attack systems easily. And why would anyone cover an entire system with even small POSs when they dont have to? If the opponent has enough large towers up to ensure a siege, why are you bothering shooting smalls. You have to jump dreads in anyway for the larges. You arent propsoing anything that comes close to a solution that can be implemented speedily. Recoding how sovereighty is calculated is quite easy. There is a section of the code that adds up the tally. There is a section of the code that compares tallies. There is a section of the code that initiates tallies etc. They ought to all be seperate from each other and written in such a way that you can change the section of the code that adds up the tally without changing anything else. You do this by changing the initial tally code to point to another section that gives tallies on planets[so now the old code counts planets and everything else happens the same way]. The only new code is the tally on the planets and the modification to the original tally. Its all very simply, less than complicated, and fast. It doesnt require a recoding. Apparently, you don't understand the tactical advantage of having a POS in the system that you are laying siege to. That's okay, based on your previous responses, I didn't expect you to. I would imagine calculating Sov based on POSes at planets would be easier to change than calculating Sov based on percentages of moons "controlled" per planet AND percentages of planets "controlled" in system (as you are suggesting)...which is the simpler calculation? Rhymes with "First one" ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 17:50:00 - [85] a simple > than operator is a lot simpler than rewriting anchoring code for POSs[which is already a mess], and forcing every alliance in the game to replace all their POSs. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 18:18:00 - [86] Originally by: Goumindong a simple > than operator is a lot simpler than rewriting anchoring code for POSs[which is already a mess], and forcing every alliance in the game to replace all their POSs. Hmmm, adding an OR to the anchoring code to check the planetAnchorDistance (attributeID: 865) seems to me to be pretty easy (remember, well if you had ever put an outpost up you would know, anchoring code for anchoring at a planet is already in place). Then it is a simple matter of counting the alliance POSes at PLANETS instead of multitudes of moons. Fixing POS sov calculations to eliminate the need for either side of the conflict to spam POSes is in everyone's interest...attacker and defender alike. But, it has to be a lot more involved than just changing a single calculation and some anchoring code....otherwise neither of our quickfix solutions make a damn bit of difference in the overall scheme of POS warfare and POS spam. Hence, we go back to needing to look at what an ideal solution is so that we can progress there. If for instance, your method is determined to be the best way to calculate Sov, then you still run the problem of the defending alliances spamming POSes in the system to prevent the attacking alliance from getting a foot in the door, unless you make the non-Sov POSes significantly weaker than the ones claiming and holding Sov. You really have to think through what your changes will affect, if anything, before a decision to make a change is made. I really don't see why you are so adverse to brainstorming ideas for a couple of days. We might realize you are on the right path, or you might realize that you are on the wrong path, but if you shut out the opportunity to freely brainstorm ideas and then discuss after the brainstorming is over, then you not only shortchange yourself, but the entire community. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 19:38:00 - [87] Edited by: Goumindong on 07/06/2007 19:38:26 No it really does, because the number of towers you need to maintain drops drastically. Edit: For the sake of arguement, which alliances will defend a 70 moon system by anchoring smalls at every moon and covering 36 moons with deathstars as you so claim? ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 20:00:00 - [88] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 07/06/2007 19:38:26 No it really does, because the number of towers you need to maintain drops drastically. Edit: For the sake of arguement, which alliances will defend a 70 moon system by anchoring smalls at every moon and covering 36 moons with deathstars as you so claim? I know that LV did. For example (listing only the systems in Detorid and Tenerifis): G-D0N3: 91 moons, 46 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest XGH-SH: 80 moons, 41 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest DG-8VJ: 72 moons, 37 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest GB-6X5: 68 moons, 35 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 9-98OU: 66 moons, 34 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest NZW-ZO: 62 moons, 32 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 0-G8NO: 60 moons, 31 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 77S8-E: 60 moons, 31 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest DZ6-I5: 44 moons, 23 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 0-W778: 26 moons, 14 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest JV1V-O: 4 moons, 4 covered with Larges ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 21:06:00 - [89] And now LV is dead. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 21:36:00 - [90] Originally by: Goumindong And now LV is dead. Not going to get into a discussion about that, but not because they ran out of money to operate POSes ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.07 22:37:00 - [91] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Goumindong And now LV is dead. Not going to get into a discussion about that, but not because they ran out of money to operate POSes Their logistics directors burnt out. Money by any other name. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.07 22:57:00 - [92] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Goumindong And now LV is dead. Not going to get into a discussion about that, but not because they ran out of money to operate POSes Their logistics directors burnt out. Money by any other name. No, it had nothing to do with logistics, either. Like I said, not going to go there, because it is not relevant to the topic at hand. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
vinnymcg Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.08 00:20:00 - [93] Excellent Idea But one little addition I would like to make, seeing as sovernety is now going to be judged on how many planets an alliance holds would this not be a good time to bring planetry interaction in on a very very small scale. People have been calling the planet POS's Sovernety POS's lets just call them docking bays and let them pave the way for a future add on. CCP has already said they are looking into it and even made a cool vid, we could build up the planets making them able to defend them selves (over a very long time). well thats my 2 cents Remotely Delete Jump clones tread COMPSOC
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.08 01:20:00 - [94] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 07/06/2007 19:38:26 No it really does, because the number of towers you need to maintain drops drastically. Edit: For the sake of arguement, which alliances will defend a 70 moon system by anchoring smalls at every moon and covering 36 moons with deathstars as you so claim? I know that LV did. For example (listing only the systems in Detorid and Tenerifis): G-D0N3: 91 moons, 46 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest XGH-SH: 80 moons, 41 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest DG-8VJ: 72 moons, 37 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest GB-6X5: 68 moons, 35 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 9-98OU: 66 moons, 34 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest NZW-ZO: 62 moons, 32 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 0-G8NO: 60 moons, 31 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 77S8-E: 60 moons, 31 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest DZ6-I5: 44 moons, 23 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest 0-W778: 26 moons, 14 covered with Larges, smalls on the rest JV1V-O: 4 moons, 4 covered with Larges i feel the lagg in those systems :) - next minnie Outpost bpc me:5 available in 25 days -
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 03:13:00 - [95] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Goumindong And now LV is dead. Not going to get into a discussion about that, but not because they ran out of money to operate POSes Their logistics directors burnt out. Money by any other name. No, it had nothing to do with logistics, either. Like I said, not going to go there, because it is not relevant to the topic at hand. Yea, it really did. They routinly could not time their strontium or keep towers online when defending systems. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.08 03:29:00 - [96] Originally by: Effei Gloom i feel the lagg in those systems :) One of the points that I tried to make at one point. Now, if we only had to have 10-14 POSes in a system to completely lock it up, would be a lot better. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.06.08 07:58:00 - [97] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Effei Gloom i feel the lagg in those systems :) One of the points that I tried to make at one point. Now, if we only had to have 10-14 POSes in a system to completely lock it up, would be a lot better. I watched this for too long ... Laendra, you are not bringing much value into this discussion. 1. Having a safespot (i.e. POS) in a sieged system is always good and no matter what sov system is in place. Neither your nor Goums idea change this, so it's of no meaning. 2. In you proposal, there will be no difference or strategic advantage in choosing a planet to start the siege. In Goums idea, the planets with the lowest moon count are most likely to get sieged first, as that is most resource effective. Truth is that an attacker can do it the other way around, but taking one planet with the most moon count will NOT help him (and he has to keep it). Thus the defender and attacker alike have some reasonable base assumption to start with. 3. As to the "perfect solution" argument. What if your solution is also not the perfect one ? Goums at least requires very little effort to implement so if it turns out not to be the perfect one, there's very little lost. If your idea turns out not to be the perfect one, much work is made redundant. And to the quoted post, you are talking about minimal necesary number of POSes to hold sov, not to operate the system (mining, production etc.). Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.08 11:19:00 - [98] Originally by: Hugh Ruka I watched this for too long ... Laendra, you are not bringing much value into this discussion. 1. Having a safespot (i.e. POS) in a sieged system is always good and no matter what sov system is in place. Neither your nor Goums idea change this, so it's of no meaning. At least my ideas have addressed the fact that a hostile non-Sov POS in a system where someone else claims Sov should be at a severe disadvantage, making the attackers more likely to choose to attack the Sov POS locations in order to claim a more stable foothold. And my ideas have recommended that no-Sov POSes owned by the holding alliance would be immune to attacks ala Outposts of today. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 2. In you proposal, there will be no difference or strategic advantage in choosing a planet to start the siege. In Goums idea, the planets with the lowest moon count are most likely to get sieged first, as that is most resource effective. Truth is that an attacker can do it the other way around, but taking one planet with the most moon count will NOT help him (and he has to keep it). Thus the defender and attacker alike have some reasonable base assumption to start with. Why should there be any tactical advantage to arbitrarily choosing which planetary system's POSes? I could understand it if we actually gained some type of resource advantage based on planetary composition or inhabitants, but there is no such mechanic ingame. At least my idea would limit the choices of attackable POSes to, at maximum, the number of planets in a system...much better IMHO. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 3. As to the "perfect solution" argument. What if your solution is also not the perfect one ? Goums at least requires very little effort to implement so if it turns out not to be the perfect one, there's very little lost. If your idea turns out not to be the perfect one, much work is made redundant. Well, how the fck would anybody know what a perfect solution is without going through the steps to figure it out? You kind of make my point for me...that either his, mine or both of our ideas could be a colossal waste of everyone's time...but you won't know until it is thought through and discussed. Originally by:* Hugh Ruka And to the quoted post, you are talking about minimal necesary number of POSes to hold sov, not to operate the system (mining, production etc.). Aye, but we remove those from consideration until Sov is removed from the system...in most system, prolly 90%+ of the moons would be unused if there was no tactical or resource advantage to them. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 12:10:00 - [99] Except yours is a logistics nightmare for both CCP and alliances that hold sovereignty. And mine isnt. Oh. And the number of moons around a planet directly relate to the quality of attacking a POS on it when the moons hold planets to hold sovereignty. Your solution doesnt address hostile POSs in a system where someone else claims sov being at a disadvantage. If you dissasociate sovereignty with moons it becomes even easier to gain a foothold in a high moon systems. and all ideas dont have unattackable POSs. Where the hell did you get this idea from? The reason is that you are somehow claiming your solution is closer to some perfect system. A perfect system that doesnt exist. The reason to choose a simple solution over a complicated solution, is that its simple Unused moons are not a problem. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 12:14:00 - [100] The other point is there's no definition of a perfect system. Logically there's no particular reason for sovereignty to have the limitations it does now except CCP wanted it that way and everyone likes having a blip on the map. Sovereignty is a mechanic which CCP need to explain how they'd like it to work before anyone can claim to have a monopoly on "the perfect solution" to it. Alternatively, we could have a new thread where we debate how sovereignty should work, but as it is Goum's idea doesn't upset in game mechanics or significantly change POS behavior where as Laedra's idea is only "better" if we define sov as having to be tied to POSs.
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.08 13:35:00 - [101] Originally by: Goumindong Except yours is a logistics nightmare for both CCP and alliances that hold sovereignty. And mine isnt. Your "solution" still requires alliances to rearrange their existing POSes if they don't have the proper percentage of moon coverage per planetary system. Nobody but you and your fanbois are saying that it would be easy or convenient. Originally by: Goumindong Oh. And the number of moons around a planet directly relate to the quality of attacking a POS on it when the moons hold planets to hold sovereignty. Yeah, because that makes so much sense. Originally by: Goumindong Your solution doesnt address hostile POSs in a system where someone else claims sov being at a disadvantage. If you dissasociate sovereignty with moons it becomes even easier to gain a foothold in a high moon systems. and all ideas dont have unattackable POSs. Where the hell did you get this idea from? Someone forget how to read? I'm not going to link you to the post, it'll give you something to do during recess. Originally by: Goumindong The reason is that you are somehow claiming your solution is closer to some perfect system. A perfect system that doesnt exist. The reason to choose a simple solution over a complicated solution, is that its simple I have not claimed to have the perfect solution, or even a better one. I have merely stated my ideas, and why I think your ideas don't address the issue you are trying to address. Originally by: Goumindong Unused moons are not a problem. They are if a hostile POS at that unused moon has the same tactical advantages as a Sov claiming POS in a system that you don't have Sov in. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.08 13:39:00 - [102] Originally by: James Duar The other point is there's no definition of a perfect system. Logically there's no particular reason for sovereignty to have the limitations it does now except CCP wanted it that way and everyone likes having a blip on the map. Sovereignty is a mechanic which CCP need to explain how they'd like it to work before anyone can claim to have a monopoly on "the perfect solution" to it. Nobody has claimed to have a perfect solution to it. Sometimes, players can get their ideas together and present a logical well thought out idea, and CCP uses that idea. Originally by: James Duar Alternatively, we could have a new thread where we debate how sovereignty should work, but as it is Goum's idea doesn't upset in game mechanics or significantly change POS behavior where as Laedra's idea is only "better" if we define sov as having to be tied to POSs. CCP already has declared their definition of Sov as being tied to POSes...otherwise we wouldn't be putting the stupid things up all over the place to claim space....therefore, thanks for pointing out my idea as better ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 13:57:00 - [103] Your idea has hardly been defined as "better". In fact the problem with your idea is it changes too much and that's bad for the playerbase. Goum's idea can be implemented and announced - it will facilitate minor changes in POS placement maybe. Your idea on the other hand, if announced, will mean an army of POS's in motherships logged off in people's station systems on patch night.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 14:19:00 - [104] Originally by: Laendra Your "solution" still requires alliances to rearrange their existing POSes if they don't have the proper percentage of moon coverage per planetary system. Nobody but you and your fanbois are saying that it would be easy or convenient. No it doesnt. You have never needed to hold 51% of the moons to have sovereignty. You have just needed to hold more than anyone else. This doesnt change. References to holding 51% are all refences with respect to forcing a siege Quote: Yeah, because that makes so much sense :roll: Makes sense how? In what way is it supposed to make sense? This is an internet spaceship game where we routinly travel multipule times the speed of light. We are discussing a mechanic involved with holding outposts and allowing super-cap production. Nothing more. But in the propsed systems, moons around low moon count planets are worth more than moons around high moon count planets. Quote: Someone forget how to read? I'm not going to link you to the post, it'll give you something to do during recess. You are making claims that dont make sense. You seem to say that POSs at moons under your system wont allow thresholds into the system, but do say that under my system you have to hold all the moons to keep people from putting up POSs. This is a logical contradiction, since the standard you apply to one, produces the opposite result as claimed when applied to the other. You also mention something about "unattackable POS". What the hell does that mean? Quote: I have not claimed to have the perfect solution, or even a better one. I have merely stated my ideas, and why I think your ideas don't address the issue you are trying to address. No, you have stated that you want to overhaul sovereignty, you have stated many logical contradictions. You have never addressed why the propsed system doesnt fit the requirements, nor why any other fits the requirements better. Quote: They are if a hostile POS at that unused moon has the same tactical advantages as a Sov claiming POS in a system that you don't have Sov in. Rolling Eyes Except for the part about claiming sovereignty and such needing to be attacked in order to take the station. Unused moons are not a problem because the system is unequivically better in reducing the number of POSs needed to defend a system and force a siege. The entire problem with POS spam is that you needed so many freaking towers to force a siege that logistics became horribly difficult. Unused moons are no different in any system you propse either. Unless you would get rid of all player owned stations at all moons... ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.08 14:59:00 - [105] Originally by: Goumindong blathering You currently have to maintain 51% of coverage if you want to prevent someone from spamming POSes in your sovreign systems to try and take sovreignty away from you. Your system, unless I misread it, requires 51% of each planetary system's moons to claim that planet, and 51% of the planets must be claimed, again, to prevent someone from spamming POSes in your sovreign systems to try and take sovreignty away from you. With either plan, you almost certainly have to move POSes to prevent someone from coming in and taking Sovreignty away from you. In your suggestion, much like currently exists, there is no disadvantage to the attacker (other than fuel useage) for putting up a POS in a system in which he does not hold sovreignty. My suggestion was to put into place several disadvantages onto POSes that were not claiming Sov in a system. Since you obviously didn't bother reading previous posts: Regarding the "unattackable" POSes, my suggestion for the POSes around the moons in a system in which you maintain Sov, would be that they are immune from attack, much like Outposts are today when you hold Sov in a system in which you own an Outpost. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Digital Anarchist	Posted - 2007.06.08 15:40:00 - [106] Edited by: Digital Anarchist on 08/06/2007 15:40:02 What was wrong with the previous system where you just had to attack the shields of a station to take it? Get your fix today
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 16:06:00 - [107] Originally by: Digital Anarchist Edited by: Digital Anarchist on 08/06/2007 15:40:02 What was wrong with the previous system where you just had to attack the shields of a station to take it? Itw as entirely attacker dependant which makes it basically impossible to defend. I mean, dread fleets today can one cycle POSs into reinforced. It would be near impossible to defend a station. It would be taken in minutes then the dreads would cyno out. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 16:15:00 - [108] Originally by: Laendra snip I read every post in this thread. Were you posting somewhere else? You want to overhaul sovereignty completly. That is 100% outside the purview of this thread. We dont need to talk about disadvantages to putting POSs in opponents space[stupid anyway, since they arent always your opponents, which just penalizes allies for no good reason], we dont need to talk about making moon based POSs like outposts. We dont need to talk about any of that crap in a thread about making a quick fix. If you want to overhaul sovereignty and think you have a good idea or discussion, make a thread laying out the idea and intent. And no, defending a system would not require moving POSs[at least according to you], since these moons are supposedly already covered. And HOLDING sovereignty would definitly not. You could literally implement this during the next downtime and have maybe or or two sov switches in the entirety of the system[friendly non alliance POSs in systems with low numbers of POSs can create this problem]. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Alpine 69 Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.06.08 16:50:00 - [109] Great idea, i hope it gets implemented Sweet love for the ones that mod my sig <3
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.08 17:33:00 - [110] Originally by: Goumindong I read every post in this thread. Were you posting somewhere else? Time to go back to school and learn to read AND comprehend then. Originally by: Goumindong You want to overhaul sovereignty completly. I want sovreignty to end up, after any "quickfix" to be better than it is now. Your idea may or may not do that, personally, I don't think it solves any problems, and would most likely lead to problems for existing installations, something that you finally admit, but still don't see it as a problem. Originally by: Goumindong We dont need to talk about disadvantages to putting POSs in opponents space[stupid anyway, since they arent always your opponents, which just penalizes allies for no good reason] Simple enough, really, I talk about it where I am brainstorming this, so I won't go into it here, unless you want me to. Originally by: Goumindong And HOLDING sovereignty would definitly not. You could literally implement this during the next downtime and have maybe or or two sov switches in the entirety of the system[friendly non alliance POSs in systems with low numbers of POSs can create this problem]. Hmmm, so how many allys do you have claiming Sovreignty in your Sovreign systems? Sounds like an opponent to me, not an ally. again ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Digital Anarchist	Posted - 2007.06.08 18:09:00 - [111] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Digital Anarchist Edited by: Digital Anarchist on 08/06/2007 15:40:02 What was wrong with the previous system where you just had to attack the shields of a station to take it? Itw as entirely attacker dependant which makes it basically impossible to defend. I mean, dread fleets today can one cycle POSs into reinforced. It would be near impossible to defend a station. It would be taken in minutes then the dreads would cyno out. That could have been fixed by adding station guns (like the ones a POS has). The idea of reinforcement also fits there. Get your fix today
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.08 18:35:00 - [112] The problem was timezone wars. That's why reinforcement came in. POS were used as tool to make ti harder to conquer a system, because a single landmark being decisive was probably seen as making it to easy for ownership inpong to ensue, even with sovereignty adn reinforcement timers. So: mutiple items to attack. There's just too many right now, but reduction to a single one wouldn't be right either. [center] Old blog
Spy4Hire	Posted - 2007.06.08 21:11:00 - [113] Cant be arsed to read 4 pages so... Has anyone came up with the idea of Soverignty Points? Each POS module provides a certain number of points to the local powers in a system, with the higher number holding sov. Say... a large tower (50 points) ... mining array (35) Refinery (30) Ship maint array (20) Storage (10) guns/ECM/all other defensive/offensive systems (1 point each). It takes 5 days for an online module to build up to full points provided, but going offline removes those points from the soverignty total. This means that to 'POS spam' a system the invader has to put up more than just a potload of towers & defensive systems, but they have to bring all of the logistical apparatus to increase their point totals beyond the locals already in place. Also, they would have to defend their new emplacements until their soverignty totals have reached peak, while also engaging and reducing their enemy's total.
The Anointed Caldari KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.06.08 23:42:00 - [114] I personally think that although Goumindongs way is quite interesting, and certainly livens up the discussion with a very good suggestion, the way I imagined it to be was that sov claiming POS's would be anchored at planets, perhaps with each planet having a points system based on number of moons etc. Of course this would then require the introduction of soemthing along the lines of an xl tower, which would cost a decent amount to buy, far increased costs of running, but larger storage for the fuel so as to reduce the strain of fueling. Moons should be used for mining and construction, but allowing them to be used to claim sov was a bad idea imo. A quick fix is never the best way to do something, its just delaying the inevitable overhaul that needs to happen.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.08 23:53:00 - [115] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/06/2007 23:53:12 Originally by: The Anointed I personally think that although Goumindongs way is quite interesting, and certainly livens up the discussion with a very good suggestion, the way I imagined it to be was that sov claiming POS's would be anchored at planets, perhaps with each planet having a points system based on number of moons etc. Of course this would then require the introduction of soemthing along the lines of an xl tower, which would cost a decent amount to buy, far increased costs of running, but larger storage for the fuel so as to reduce the strain of fueling. Moons should be used for mining and construction, but allowing them to be used to claim sov was a bad idea imo. A quick fix is never the best way to do something, its just delaying the inevitable overhaul that needs to happen. How would a quick fix matter when the propsed final solution is a complete overhaul of the system? Certianly, that the fix is quick means that we can recieve the benefits of the fix now, and not later. If later is a complete overhaul, then the difference between the two scenarios is whether or not we want to deal with bad sov mechanics or better sov mechanics in the interim. Personally, id go with "better" ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.12 15:13:00 - [116] Originally by: Effei Gloom Edited by: Effei Gloom on 06/06/2007 00:13:32 tactical pos placement lagg reduction pos spam reduction less pos¦s needed for SOV without any changes to existing pos moduls GREAT, signed One of the best pos lagg/pos spam reduction improvement! - next minnie Outpost bpc me:5 available in 25 days -
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.06.12 15:53:00 - [117] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Hugh Ruka I watched this for too long ... Laendra, you are not bringing much value into this discussion. 1. Having a safespot (i.e. POS) in a sieged system is always good and no matter what sov system is in place. Neither your nor Goums idea change this, so it's of no meaning. At least my ideas have addressed the fact that a hostile non-Sov POS in a system where someone else claims Sov should be at a severe disadvantage, making the attackers more likely to choose to attack the Sov POS locations in order to claim a more stable foothold. And my ideas have recommended that no-Sov POSes owned by the holding alliance would be immune to attacks ala Outposts of today. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 2. In you proposal, there will be no difference or strategic advantage in choosing a planet to start the siege. In Goums idea, the planets with the lowest moon count are most likely to get sieged first, as that is most resource effective. Truth is that an attacker can do it the other way around, but taking one planet with the most moon count will NOT help him (and he has to keep it). Thus the defender and attacker alike have some reasonable base assumption to start with. Why should there be any tactical advantage to arbitrarily choosing which planetary system's POSes? I could understand it if we actually gained some type of resource advantage based on planetary composition or inhabitants, but there is no such mechanic ingame. At least my idea would limit the choices of attackable POSes to, at maximum, the number of planets in a system...much better IMHO. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 3. As to the "perfect solution" argument. What if your solution is also not the perfect one ? Goums at least requires very little effort to implement so if it turns out not to be the perfect one, there's very little lost. If your idea turns out not to be the perfect one, much work is made redundant. Well, how the fck would anybody know what a perfect solution is without going through the steps to figure it out? You kind of make my point for me...that either his, mine or both of our ideas could be a colossal waste of everyone's time...but you won't know until it is thought through and discussed. Originally by:* Hugh Ruka And to the quoted post, you are talking about minimal necesary number of POSes to hold sov, not to operate the system (mining, production etc.). Aye, but we remove those from consideration until Sov is removed from the system...in most system, prolly 90%+ of the moons would be unused if there was no tactical or resource advantage to them. 1. Why should a hostile POS be disadvantaged ? There's no logical reason for it. It already is harder to supply and operate and as it is in a hostile system, it can get sieged very easily. 2. There should be a tactical advantage because you choose what system you want to hold and why. In your proposal, the system with most planets is easiest to hold. While in the actual situation (and in Goums idea) it's the moons that matter. Even a 1 planet system with many moons is ok to hold as it requires effort from the attacker to take it. The defender should have the advantages, because he's maintaining the system and wasting resources to maintain it. 3. WTF are you talking about ? You are proving MY point. Your idea requires more effort on behalf of CCP and players to implement than Goums idea. So if yours is also not perfect, MORE effort is wasted. If both ideas are a waste of time and effort, Goums idea is less expensive for implementation. Yes, most are unused, because it's the deathstars that matter now. And there is no point in putting up industrial POSes. They go down fast and aid the attacker rather than the defender. Idealy industrial POSes (i.e. POSes with no defenses) should be attackable ONLY if sov is lost in the system. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.12 19:14:00 - [118] Originally by: Hugh Ruka 1. Why should a hostile POS be disadvantaged ? There's no logical reason for it. It already is harder to supply and operate and as it is in a hostile system, it can get sieged very easily. Hostile POS should be disadvantaged because it is trying to claimjump in a system where you claim and maintain SOVREIGN control...i.e. your laws are THE laws to live by. Definately gives you a reason to neutralize Sov claims ASAP, instead of putting up a POS and waiting for it to get put into Reinforced mode prior to paying any attention to it. Hostile POSes SHOULD be extremely difficult to supply and operate in a system where your enemy claims Sov. A LOT more difficult than it is today. It should require more effort than jumping a carrier in and refueling the POS from the safety of the shields. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 2. There should be a tactical advantage because you choose what system you want to hold and why. In your proposal, the system with most planets is easiest to hold. While in the actual situation (and in Goums idea) it's the moons that matter. Even a 1 planet system with many moons is ok to hold as it requires effort from the attacker to take it. The defender should have the advantages, because he's maintaining the system and wasting resources to maintain it. IMHO, moons shouldn't matter in a tactical situation. Yes, they could provide semi-safespots in a hostile system where you can't place a sov claiming POS due to all locations being taken...but with disadvantages in place, you wouldn't be able to depend on that safespot for very long, probably during the intial siege only. Planets should, IMHO be the governing factor in whether or not you control anything. Take your example to the other extreme, which is much more likely...a system with few moons, but quite a few planets. JV1V-O is but one example, of many, of this. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 3. WTF are you talking about ? You are proving MY point. Your idea requires more effort on behalf of CCP and players to implement than Goums idea. So if yours is also not perfect, MORE effort is wasted. If both ideas are a waste of time and effort, Goums idea is less expensive for implementation. Yes, most are unused, because it's the deathstars that matter now. And there is no point in putting up industrial POSes. They go down fast and aid the attacker rather than the defender. Idealy industrial POSes (i.e. POSes with no defenses) should be attackable ONLY if sov is lost in the system. So, if they both "possibly" could be a waste of time, why would you want to implement one over the other if they don't progress you towards a final solution, just because you feel it "might" make it better than it is now? It's counter productive, which is the point I was making. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.06.13 06:39:00 - [119] Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 13/06/2007 06:39:16 Originally by: Laendra So, if they both "possibly" could be a waste of time, why would you want to implement one over the other if they don't progress you towards a final solution, just because you feel it "might" make it better than it is now? It's counter productive, which is the point I was making. One of Goums premises was, that the interim(sp) solution should take as little effort as possible to implement. He never said his solution is perfect, he just wanted an improvement over the actual situation. He accomplished all of the requirements nicely. The question is, do you want to keep the current status until the "perfect" (or rather best possible) solution is found, or do you want to improve the current situation until that solution is found ? I don't think he disagrees with your solutions as such, just with the viability of it as a quick temporary fix. Anyway you are free to start your own thread on this with more details and look at the responses you get. I did it also before (I did not get many, so my solution was probabyl bad). Also, I do not agree with his solution as the final one. I'd like to see something better and more complex. But as an interim solution, I have found no negative aspects on it, thus I fully support it. It gives us time to work on something better. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Kolloth Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.13 11:03:00 - [120] read the OP and had an even simpler thought. why not just allow POSes at planets and have only those count towards SOV?
James Duar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.06.13 11:36:00 - [121] Originally by: Kolloth read the OP and had an even simpler thought. why not just allow POSes at planets and have only those count towards SOV? No POS's are currently anchored at planets, the anchoring code for POS's currently doesn't allow them to be anchored at planets, and POS's (largely used for sovereignty) would be seriously devalued due to the scale of this reduction (since somewhere like 80% of the POS's anchored would become useless). Basically, a serious amount of stuff would be screwed up, whereas Goum's method quite possibly would be indistinguishable following the DT it was implemented.
Laendra	Posted - 2007.06.13 14:25:00 - [122] Originally by: James Duar Originally by: Kolloth read the OP and had an even simpler thought. why not just allow POSes at planets and have only those count towards SOV? No POS's are currently anchored at planets, the anchoring code for POS's currently doesn't allow them to be anchored at planets, and POS's (largely used for sovereignty) would be seriously devalued due to the scale of this reduction (since somewhere like 80% of the POS's anchored would become useless). Basically, a serious amount of stuff would be screwed up, whereas Goum's method quite possibly would be indistinguishable following the DT it was implemented. You know, I read somewhere where 80% of all quoted statistics are made up. Bottom line is, we, as players, don't know how many this would affect. That is something that CCP would be able to lookup. One way you could look at it is this...if the number of POSes required for Sov were decreased overall (by moving the Sov claiming POSes to planets instead of moons), that would allow you to maintain control over a larger area with the same number of POSes you have today...which would be a good thing. Think about it this way. If you had enough POSes in one or two systems to cover all of the planets in an entire constellation, that's a step towards getting your constellation sovreignty sewn up....which is going to be the goal for every 0.0 alliance out there, unless they are on the decline. Now, I don't know if this is an ideal solution, a portion of the ideal solution, or 180 degrees out of the right solution...it is, however, one that makes sense to me. Take the amount of effort involved out of the question and look at it from a neutral point of view. The only thing I have asked is that we take a couple of days and try to see what it would take to FIX sov and POSes...then take a look at what changes we could make NOW to get us closer to that while we wait for the final solution to be coded, whatever that final solution is. Without looking at the big picture of where we should be in the end, taking a blindfolded step in any direction could drop us off the cliff, or we could get lucky...but do you really want to take that chance? I don't...POSes are too important to the mechanics of the game to just haphazardly make changes without considering the consequences of such changes. BTW, as they are proving with Revelations 2.0, they can move POS items around with the patch...so they could move Sov claiming POSes that don't require moon interaction (i.e. moon harvesters), to the planets until the planets are full, and allow us to warp to objects in the corp assets window that lists corp POSes....so that we wouldn't lose any...so the argument about post-downtime is moot. ------------------- Brainstorm ideas to make EVE better:->http://eve.stormingbrains.org/index.php
Tonto Auri Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2007.06.13 17:08:00 - [123] /signed for this idea with small addition. Ourpost anchored at planet should take presedence over POS'es at moons. So to say, You may get better control on area by anchoring some outposts on key planets, but that also gives You some disadvantage because outposts may be taken out and You may lost Your sovereignity. On other hand, You may catch system by POS'es at key planets and build outpost at planet with huge amount of moons and use it as storage facility for industrial and mining POS'es on it's moons. Hm... looks like real strategical situation... You may get control on outpost (city, regional center, capital - name it as You wish), but that action gives You close to nothing because You cannot control war POS'es (missile batteries and military bases, welcome Jagged Alliance!) holding sovereignity at other planets. -- .
Kaylana Syi The Nest	Posted - 2007.06.13 21:40:00 - [124] /Signed Implement in REV 2.x please. 100% beind this idea. Team Minmatar
solarwinds The Nine Gates Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.13 22:05:00 - [125] Edited by: solarwinds on 13/06/2007 22:04:01 /signed Please end the POS madness! This is simple, yet brilliant. Excellent post.
Andrus Delai Trinity Inc	Posted - 2007.06.13 23:43:00 - [126] Moving to a planet based Sov is a great idea and the OP's idea is easy to implement. I agree that this should be implemented ASAP. In addition, the idea of moving towards planet anchored sovereignty POS is not without merit and should be explored after the OPs proposal is implemented. As this also shifts sovereignty to a planetary basis, it would just be an extension of the OPs proposal.
Adam Weishaupt Minmatar Pyrrhus Sicarii Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.06.14 21:43:00 - [127] Great idea. Must come paired with an ingame tool that tells people which planets they 'control', when towers are coming out of reinforced, how long until Sov 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...make it SIMPLER... Gou's idea is better here not only because it utilizes implemented mechanics, but that changing to planets-only (which I, too, initially thought would be a good idea) ignores the attrition cost of launching an attack or maintaining a defense. So CCP would have to jack up the prices of existing POS or, as Laendra suggested, create an entirely new 'sov POS' which I think is unnecessary. Throwing all the ISK into one POS leaves too much room for the 'weather' of EVE (playtime, server status, node crash) to decide who wins a battle, and with the amount of investment people are going to be putting into upgraded outposts, that isn't a good way to do things. People should still have to anchor multiple towers and fight at different ones, but just not as many. That reduces headaches while still generally giving both sides an effort to prove who is really stronger. That said, it would be nice to see planets have a purpose at some point.
Sapphrine The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.06.16 17:58:00 - [128] I agree with this idea and also with the slight modification where an OP at a planet claims sov for that planet regardless of who controls the moons. The slight adjustment makes taking control of OP systems just that little bit harder which I think is only fair.
Effei Gloom Minmatar eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.06.19 21:03:00 - [129] best idea to cut down pos spam, get this done - next minnie Outpost bpc me:5 available in 25 days -
Angelus Damelon Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.07.22 00:15:00 - [130] Bumping this because it was a great idea that I keep mentioning whenever people complain about POSes, it's almost universally praised as a good change, and it'd be really nice to see it happen.
Draekas Darkwater Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2007.07.22 06:35:00 - [131] Nice idea =D At some point in the future, CCP has said that they want to bring about planetary colonies, development, ect. So if they wanted to move a step in that direction using this idea, you could make it so that only habitable planets count towards sovereignty. Or at least, rocky planets where you could terriform or well, land on, which would exclude gas giants. So if you look at our solar system, this would be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Pluto. This might involve CCP going through all the planets and adding a boolean value to each object. However, its something they'd probably do at some point in the future anyway I assume. In regards to Sov mechanics, this would simply reduce the number of POSes needed even further.
Tolomea Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order	Posted - 2007.07.22 10:55:00 - [132] I'm inclined to call NECRO, but it really is a good simple clean improvement, the only real question is how to manage the change over and simply giving everyone a months warning probably handles that adequately.
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.07.23 11:12:00 - [133] I read the whole thread and re-read the OP, I really like this idea about planets for sov because it could reduce the number of POS' required to hold a system, but I dont think its going to stop alliances spamming a small pos on every moon just to prevent enemy footholds. Feel free to tell me to take my idea to another thread: Maybe a sov claiming pos should lock out other pos around that planets moons, unanchoring present ones and preventing any being placed. So for a system of 10 planets you need 6 pos to force a siege. Naturally you want your 6 sov pos to lock out the most number of moons possible so they get placed on moons at planets with the most moons [you follow?]. The remaining 4 planets you can claim sov too if you only want to manage 10 pos, or spam them up with smalls or manifacturing as you wish, just bear in mind that your enemy needs only to take one down, place a pos, claim sov, and all the others are unanchored. This should act as a deterrent to pos spam because enemies could come in and steal your pos. On the other hand in the event of enemy attack you could tell ready anchored deathstars to claim sov over your remaining [industrial?] planets. Effectively putting your whole system onto a defensive war footing. Now you have every moon in the system locked down by just 10 pos. Pos claiming sov in this case should get a boost to offset the limited number of pos requred to be taken out by enemy cap fleets, possibly at the expense of increased fuel requirements. I know this is the opposite of today, but with significantly fewer pos to manage it should work out the same or cheaper, not to mention be simpler logistically. I know modern Cap fleets can reinforce a pos in one cycle, today the only way of limiting this is to spam pos, giving more shields to sov pos is effectively the same thing but cuts out the spam. I had some more ideas, but might make a new thread actually... ============================================
Zak Kingsman A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.07.23 21:09:00 - [134] Edited by: Zak Kingsman on 23/07/2007 21:12:49 The original poster's Idea would be the optimal do it now solution. It would drastically reduce the amount of poses required to force a siege while making it easy to transition to. If announced a week in advance if your sov claiming poses are somehow all clustered around one planet it would simply be a matter of moving them before the actual change came into effect. If you already have 51% coverage you probably wouldn't even have to move them, just offline the no longer necisary ones when the big day comes. Will spamming of small offline ones still be used to prevent a foothold? Maybe. But the logistics of holding sov would be much improved. And this would still be a problem with sov holding poses, unless you made moon posses unattackable unless the sov holding pos was destroyed. I don't like that solution as a small industrial pos can make a juicy target for raiders(lets not encourage the BLOB too much), and Capital Shipyards need to be vulnerable as well. If you wanted to eventually go to a Sov POS at the planet approach (and I by no means am endorsing that at this time) I would STILL recommend this step. As has been said before this doesn't prevent that solution, and it quite possibly provides a stepping stone. As you could during the transition make it so that Sov Poses could not be deployed unless the planet was nuetral or owned by you. That would prevent the motheships logged off in system waiting to spam pos sovs problems. It wouldn't however prevent the fact that a majority of POSes are used for the sole purpose of claiming sov, and if you had a new special pos would completely devalue the existing poses (maybe not the smalls and mediums as much as the larges). Anyway I've seen two dev responses in this thread and I'd like to encourage them to go ahead and do it. I really see no disadvantage in the OP's proposal unless you consider Large alliances with more money than their opponent can no longer take a system without a fight a disadvantage. The benefits are there, more pew pew, less logistical headaches (logistics are part of the game but tracking fuel for that many POSes is an unreasonable logistics headache), more systems attractive for OP deployment, strategic differences in POS attack choices.
schurem Silver Snake Enterprise Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.07.24 07:31:00 - [135] awesome idea. simple yet elegant. here's to hoping warfare becomes fun again. However, I still think EvE needs more and better tactical warning sounds. <<<< No Boundaries, No Fences, Fly Free* Or Die Trying* >>>>
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.08.24 10:36:00 - [136] Bump for an awesome idea Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
mamolian M. Corp M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.08.24 17:47:00 - [137] Originally by: The Anointed I personally think that although Goumindongs way is quite interesting, and certainly livens up the discussion with a very good suggestion, the way I imagined it to be was that sov claiming POS's would be anchored at planets, perhaps with each planet having a points system based on number of moons etc. Of course this would then require the introduction of soemthing along the lines of an xl tower, which would cost a decent amount to buy, far increased costs of running, but larger storage for the fuel so as to reduce the strain of fueling. Moons should be used for mining and construction, but allowing them to be used to claim sov was a bad idea imo. A quick fix is never the best way to do something, its just delaying the inevitable overhaul that needs to happen. Tend to agree.. this sounds like a quick fix.. I personally don't like this idea, POS mechanics in its current form limit the amount of space an alliance can truly hold.. which is a good thing.. Theres really no issue with POS's currently for alliances who have the numbers to defend their space, and only control one or two stations.. I would wonder why CCP would be interested in making it easier to run these huge freakin empires; Alliances of old have been used to running several regions at once.. So nope no way ! -------------------------------
SigmaPi Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.24 18:28:00 - [138] nice concept. /Siggy New Ship Concept: Picket Ships
Kalkin84 STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.08.25 13:51:00 - [139] This is a pretty good idea, however i think taking it a step farther to just planets would be could, ie moon-anchored POS do not count towards sov period, only planet anchored ones. This of course would mean CCP would have to allow the anchoring of POS at planets. I don't like the special sov tower idea, as its expensive, and if larger, would take more fuel, and what about all those out lying systems being held with one small tower? Either way, much needed, doesn't throw a giant wrench in people's existing plans, and seems (though i'm not a programmer) fairly easy. go go go! Kalkin
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.09.16 12:43:00 - [140] Any news on this? Will it be implemented in Rev.3 ? -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.09.26 17:58:00 - [141] Some bumpage to keep idea on top over flood topics. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Flora Chase	Posted - 2007.09.26 20:22:00 - [142] Such a Good Idea.
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.09.27 12:51:00 - [143] Idea to shift system claiming from direct moon->star to more complex, but more intuitive moon->planet->star system is brilliantly simple and effective, not affecting any of existing claimed systems (or at least not affectind much of them), and have some boost which I don't saw uncovered in topic. Imagine current situation. Each alliance stepping into system, anchoring POS'ses at EVERY moon, powering on most of them and wait for sovereignity to raise. Once that done, only alliance which claimed system can use moons to make profit, but that pins it to designated system/constellation and stopping from blowing stuff, what CCP want to see in game. In this image, we have conflict between intended and expected actions. Imagine proposed situation: Alliance who wish to claim system will anchor and power on only limited, beforehand known amount of POS'es at strategical moons. Say, in system with 50 moons, it may be 10-15 properly guarded large POS, with hangars supplying all everyday needs of fighting corporation. What about rest of that 50 moons? Alliance simply not interest with it and may leave them for civilian corporations for their needs. Civilian corporations now have full advantage of living in system, no restrictions to POS anchoring and ways to operation in space like now. It would increase economical potential of 0.0 space drastically, even to level of empire space. Simple? Yes, it simple, but one more thing. Alliance may build an outpost in system. One outpost allowed per system IIRC. If it will be taken in count over any POS anchored around planet, that may be another way to boost economical ponential of given system. In example, System with 5 planets and 2, 5, 17, 22 and 1 moon at each. Alliance claims system by building POS'ses at I-M1, I-M2 II-M1, II-M2, II-M3, II-M4 V-M1 7 POS total, leaving 40 rest to economical activity. But once it decide to get a Constellation sovereignity, it want to build an outpost. Where? It may be planets III, IV and V by different reasons. But wait. If Outposts also count toward sovereignity, we do not want to guard V that strong, what we want is to build an Outpost at one of "unclaimed" planets. III or IV ? Depends on how close each to guarding POS'ses. After building of Outpost, that system now adds it's bonus to system sovereignity. And even when we loose V-M1, we stil maintain 3 over 5 systems total. 2 by POS defences and 1 by outpost. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Durvien Old Galactic Earth Regiment Fang Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.08 13:37:00 - [144] I'd like to point out something most of you probably overlooked,, The original idea was such a good one thatthe developers took interest within the 1st 2 pages of this thread. Then everyone got off on different paths and the developers haven't replied since. Hopefully the original post sparked enough interest that the devs are still working on it, but all the jumping around may have killed this outstanding idea. Just something to think about when posting in the dev blogs
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.08 14:19:00 - [145] I don't know which is shocking me more. a) A member of GoonSwarm has such high intelligence or b) Such a good idea hasn't been thought of before Fantastic idea, it really is. It might bring some of the politics intra-system, too, planet v. planet. Especially when combined with removal of local, you could spend weeks having fun battling between two corps in a system. ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..."
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.08 14:34:00 - [146] Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban I don't know which is shocking me more. a) A member of GoonSwarm has such high intelligence or b) Such a good idea hasn't been thought of before Fantastic idea, it really is. It might bring some of the politics intra-system, too, planet v. planet. Especially when combined with removal of local, you could spend weeks having fun battling between two corps in a system. I wasnt a member of Goonswarm at the time of the posting. But it was thought up by a member of Goonswarm. I just refined the post so that the idea was readable and easier to understand[with the creators permission]. Related info should be within the first couple pages as i cant remember anymore.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.08 16:55:00 - [147] Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 08/10/2007 16:55:25 op, +1 (-edit- yes i know, i'm consensual there) 2isk
Rosemary Robot Nine Incorporated Holdings We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.10.09 07:09:00 - [148] this is a good idea, implement it soon thanks in advance
Trojanman190 Caldari Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.10.10 18:06:00 - [149] This is a great idea. Planets should be the focus anyways... not moons. /signed
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.10.11 20:48:00 - [150] Bump wtf 3rd page!!?? -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>

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