Originally by: Serenity Steele

---

At I guess, I'd say there are many who maintain stront at levels of 2-3 days in order to account for the reaction time and notice required by of their alliance/corp.

---

Originally by: DirtyHarry

---

good change imo

---

Originally by: deadtear

---

So your poses only last for a day instead of 3? Isn't this counterintuitive to the way bob has been working lately?

---

Originally by: DirtyHarry

---

good change imo

---

Originally by: Arenis Xemdal

---

I could cool my Dual Giga Beams through many siege cycles with all the carebear tears in this thread.

---

Originally by: Hrin

---

This is a horrible change. Its just not enough time to organize a fight. The stront timers were incorporated so that you wouldn't wake up one morning with all your poses destroyed with no chance to defend them. 22 hours is the max if you have SOV. So, for attackers, they get a max of 17 hours. Honestly, this makes defending a POS much more difficult.

Is this CCP's answer to the server lag in huge fights? Are they trying to eliminate those huge fleet battles by giving each side less time to marshal forces?
This is a poor solution.

---

Originally by: sliver 0xD

---

at 2:00 eve time i go sleep. at that point the pos gets attacked. 8 hours later i wake up and go to work for 8 hours. after i come back there will be 6 hours left if i check my eve. and then we have to start to organize a counter attack ?

---

Originally by: Arenis Xemdal

---

I could cool my Dual Giga Beams through many siege cycles with all the carebear tears in this thread.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

Originally by: StarCommWraith

---

Ifni I think that was the dumbest thing you ever posted because 22 hours is very very hard to organize a defense. I do not see how any rational person could think otherwise but I dunno maybe you should try POS warfare before you make opinions on the matter.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 06/08/2007 15:05:01

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

The main change here is to fuel bay sizes, which are roughly doubling in capacity. In order to accommodate this without making strontium loads ridiculous, we're implementing a separate strontium bay. Due to the need to move all strontium into its own bay during the patch, the strontium bay has to be as big as the current starbase fuel bays. If we get the opportunity to revisit reinforcement timers in future they may be adjusted down slightly, but for now we're constrained by circumstance.

If we do revisit reinforcement timers, it's unlikely right now that we'll use them to swing the balance of starbase warfare massively in favour of the attacking alliance as that doesn't look like it would improve starbase warfare.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

Originally by: Seleene

---

It seems to me that 'independence' is a relative term these days, determined mainly by the size and number of your guns.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The main change here is to fuel bay sizes, which are roughly doubling in capacity.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 06/08/2007 15:05:01

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

The main change here is to fuel bay sizes, which are roughly doubling in capacity. In order to accommodate this without making strontium loads ridiculous, we're implementing a separate strontium bay. Due to the need to move all strontium into its own bay during the patch, the strontium bay has to be as big as the current starbase fuel bays. If we get the opportunity to revisit reinforcement timers in future they may be adjusted down slightly, but for now we're constrained by circumstance.

If we do revisit reinforcement timers, it's unlikely right now that we'll use them to swing the balance of starbase warfare massively in favour of the attacking alliance as that doesn't look like it would improve starbase warfare.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 06/08/2007 15:05:01

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

The main change here is to fuel bay sizes, which are roughly doubling in capacity. In order to accommodate this without making strontium loads ridiculous, we're implementing a separate strontium bay. Due to the need to move all strontium into its own bay during the patch, the strontium bay has to be as big as the current starbase fuel bays. If we get the opportunity to revisit reinforcement timers in future they may be adjusted down slightly, but for now we're constrained by circumstance.

If we do revisit reinforcement timers, it's unlikely right now that we'll use them to swing the balance of starbase warfare massively in favour of the attacking alliance as that doesn't look like it would improve starbase warfare.

---

Originally by: Donathan Slade

---

Whats wrong with the universal 1 Minute un-anchoring time for ALL modules?

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The main change here is to fuel bay sizes, which are roughly doubling in capacity.

---

Originally by: Ifni

---

Shorter POS reinforced times = win.

With higher levels of sovereignty its already hard to get an established alliance into trouble for their space. By reducing the amount of time they can ignore the impending doom for, means the quicker you can get on with conquering them.

Less timesinks = win.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 06/08/2007 15:05:01

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

The authoring changes required to support the code changes here haven't made it onto SiSi yet, so the bay sizes are incorrect.

---

The main change here is to fuel bay sizes, which are roughly doubling in capacity. In order to accommodate this without making strontium loads ridiculous, we're implementing a separate strontium bay. Due to the need to move all strontium into its own bay during the patch, the strontium bay has to be as big as the current starbase fuel bays. If we get the opportunity to revisit reinforcement timers in future they may be adjusted down slightly, but for now we're constrained by circumstance.

If we do revisit reinforcement timers, it's unlikely right now that we'll use them to swing the balance of starbase warfare massively in favour of the attacking alliance as that doesn't look like it would improve starbase warfare.

---

Originally by: Atrisha

---

My take on Strontium Clathrates so far has been the following:

When a POS is put into reinforced, two time periods follow (for the defender):

1. The "rally the troops" period.
2. The "wait until a favorable time of day" period.

...

Either way, I'm happy about the fuel bay size change.

---

Originally by: Neurotic Cat

---

Double the fuel capacity 4tw!!!!! This will cut my pos fueling time in half and give us all more time to *play* the game.

Hurry up and get this onto the production servers!

---

Originally by: Xeliya

---

Edited by: Xeliya on 07/08/2007 00:25:28

Need to allow 48 hours otherwise the attacking force will have a HUGE upper hand of already being assembled.

Otherwise this is a long over due change.

Any news on fixing POS lock times or fixing external mods being a pain in the butt to kill after the tower is gone which has resulted in the most annoying POS spam. Should just make all the mods go pop then the tower dies TBH.

---

Originally by: Murukan

---

22 hours is perfect imo. Ignore the goon tears. With the silly defenses pos can reach nowadays making it easier to kill them is a definate plus.

---

Originally by: WarMongeer

---

Originally by: Ifni

---

Shorter POS reinforced times = win.

With higher levels of sovereignty its already hard to get an established alliance into trouble for their space. By reducing the amount of time they can ignore the impending doom for, means the quicker you can get on with conquering them.

Less timesinks = win.

---

So says the boy with nothing to defend. This change would punish everyone but the attacker. It'd be especially dificult as stated above multiple times to people who work full time and can only play once a day, and who have corpmates with similar situations in the same timezone.

Increase to 36 hours at least.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Boosting the fuel bay size of a large tower to the intended size of 110,000m3 gives you ~19 days fuel without sov, ~25.5 days with sovereignty level 1 and ~27 days with constellation sovereignty. We were aiming at a maximum fuelling interval of four weeks, and these numbers put us in the right area. I'll have a look at the silo situation tomorrow, but that's a purely industrial matter so it'll need to be looked at just from an industry perspective.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Boosting the fuel bay size of a large tower to the intended size of 110,000m3 gives you ~19 days fuel without sov, ~25.5 days with sovereignty level 1 and ~27 days with constellation sovereignty. We were aiming at a maximum fuelling interval of four weeks, and these numbers put us in the right area. I'll have a look at the silo situation tomorrow, but that's a purely industrial matter so it'll need to be looked at just from an industry perspective.

---

Originally by: Mahrin Skel

---

This would hand one hell of an advantage to the agressor in a territorial conflict. Right now the only advantage the defender has is that he can choose the time of the second fight for a POS with a lot of flexibility to create the maximum inconvenience for the attacker. It takes a lot of time to organize a fleet op where capitals are involved, time the attacker is going to have (because he can do it all before the attack) and the defender is not (because he'd have, at most assuming Sov and high-grade Faction towers, 37 hours to get ready). We're going to see a *lot* of stations trading hands in blitz attacks. A day and a half is simply not enough time to organize a defense, call for allies, have them arrive, etc.

Combined with the new Sov rules and the uber-gimp POS guns we have now (a fleet of 40BS should not be able to take out a fully-fitted large POS, no matter how much time they have, in fact with enough time and stront a *single* dread could do it because even a maxed-out POS cannot kill a well-fitted Dread in siege), we're going to see large swaths of no-man's-land, where nobody is allowed to hold space long enough to establish Sov 3 or 4, seperating a comparative handful of alliances (less than a third of the current number of territorial alliances) that have Sov 3-4, jumpgate networks, etc. Those that live in that space will be much like those that live in NPC regions, trying to keep a low profile while living in space they can never actually own.

--Dave

---

Originally by: Lance Mercer

---

Your saying a large maxed out POS cant take out a dread in seige?? does this also include the skill starbase defense operations.. you know the ability to actually operate these guns we spend million on to defend our space...I was thinking that a few 3-4 large AC or artiliry batteries could do the job just fine.. go ahead and let him drop into seige mode that means for 300secs hes stuck, allowing me to focus fire all these guns on his silly bum. 40BS!!! thats alot of fire power 3-4 MED AC's will widdle that down nicelly when controlled by a player. I admit the whole control tower randomelly moving targets is a pain in the ass thats why I spent 2 months training to defend my billion ISK investment. now I understand the that reaction time is critical, SO why is it that a corp or Allaince is stuck to one time zone? My corp or allaince is comprised of about half and half US and EURO players... theres a reason for that.

---

Originally by: Nyphur

---

Edited by: Nyphur on 08/08/2007 16:34:35

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Boosting the fuel bay size of a large tower to the intended size of 110,000m3 gives you ~19 days fuel without sov, ~25.5 days with sovereignty level 1 and ~27 days with constellation sovereignty. We were aiming at a maximum fuelling interval of four weeks, and these numbers put us in the right area. I'll have a look at the silo situation tomorrow, but that's a purely industrial matter so it'll need to be looked at just from an industry perspective.

---

Thanks :D.
4 weeks with max sov is a good idea as it gives benefits to 0.0 and reduces the workload of people running sov-keepers but keep in mind that people run reactors in lowsec and those currently need to be tended to at the very longest weekly, both on fuel and silos. Even on a gallente towers with the silo size bonus, they fill up far too quickly, in my opinion. It's become like a second job for a lot of people :/.

---

Originally by: Verite Rendition

---

Originally by: Nyphur

---

Edited by: Nyphur on 08/08/2007 16:34:35

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Boosting the fuel bay size of a large tower to the intended size of 110,000m3 gives you ~19 days fuel without sov, ~25.5 days with sovereignty level 1 and ~27 days with constellation sovereignty. We were aiming at a maximum fuelling interval of four weeks, and these numbers put us in the right area. I'll have a look at the silo situation tomorrow, but that's a purely industrial matter so it'll need to be looked at just from an industry perspective.

---

Thanks :D.
4 weeks with max sov is a good idea as it gives benefits to 0.0 and reduces the workload of people running sov-keepers but keep in mind that people run reactors in lowsec and those currently need to be tended to at the very longest weekly, both on fuel and silos. Even on a gallente towers with the silo size bonus, they fill up far too quickly, in my opinion. It's become like a second job for a lot of people :/.

---

Just how bad is it with the Gallente bonus? I'm looking at my mining operations right now, and it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to adapt by switching to the Gallente towers or adding another silo here and there.

---

Originally by: Verite Rendition

---

Just how bad is it with the Gallente bonus? I'm looking at my mining operations right now, and it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to adapt by switching to the Gallente towers or adding another silo here and there.

---

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

Silos could certainly benefit from some love. Or even better, change the reactions a bit. If you reduce the size of complex reaction output to a 3rd to a quarter of the current size per unit, you solve the silo-size problem at the same time as you solve the problem that transporting all those complex reactions take a ****ton of logistics.

And while you are at it, could you look into letting the silos be emptied while online? Its an annoyance having to offline 3 silos, empty one, fill the other two with materials, and then have to sit there another 6 mins to start onlining the other 2... Pointless timesink to be honest.

---

Quote:

---

22 hours is too short. 48 hours would seem to be the sweet spot, you get a whole day to plan/move assets, and then however much time you need for the clock to roll around to the time you want to fight at.

---