Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
![Lostshadow Lostshadow](https://images.evetech.net/characters/885013683/portrait?size=64)
Lostshadow
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 13:31:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Vishnej I was going to hold this back until the alliance we're currently sieging was removed from the scene, but apparently they've discovered it themselves, and are already making the post-siege cleanup take much longer than the battle itself. We've petitioned multiple times, and been told multiple times that since the pos modules cost money / require setup time and Giant Secure Containers don't, the GMs will not intervene.
Please get your facts straight before trying to slander other alliances. That was my tower you are talking about. Every single gun I anchored after it went into reinforced was put online and used. How is that in any way an exploit? It did exactly what it was supposed to do, cause major problems for your support fleet. Your ship losses at that POS prove that it did its job well. I did have more guns that I could anchor, but not enough powergrid to turn them all on. So guess what, I didnt anchor them!
|
![Akai dreamu Akai dreamu](https://images.evetech.net/characters/837602102/portrait?size=64)
Akai dreamu
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:01:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Lostshadow
Originally by: Vishnej I was going to hold this back until the alliance we're currently sieging was removed from the scene, but apparently they've discovered it themselves, and are already making the post-siege cleanup take much longer than the battle itself. We've petitioned multiple times, and been told multiple times that since the pos modules cost money / require setup time and Giant Secure Containers don't, the GMs will not intervene.
Please get your facts straight before trying to slander other alliances. That was my tower you are talking about. Every single gun I anchored after it went into reinforced was put online and used. How is that in any way an exploit? It did exactly what it was supposed to do, cause major problems for your support fleet. Your ship losses at that POS prove that it did its job well. I did have more guns that I could anchor, but not enough powergrid to turn them all on. So guess what, I didnt anchor them!
Irrelevant, doesn't stop the current POS system from being broken.
|
![Heikki Heikki](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1519955367/portrait?size=64)
Heikki
Gallente Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:14:00 -
[33]
Or in summary: it's not a free-i-win-card, but a unbalanced way to force the attacker to pay far higher costs than the defender
Originally by: Vishnej A sensor dampening battery has 6.6 million hitpoints before resists, costs 1.125m isk
One would need a Moros for 20 minutes to clean that up, using some 600 AM shots and <=600 units of strontium; costing perhaps 1.5M ISK total in materials. However, the man-hour (opportunity-)cost would be 1 * 20min/60min * 20M/hour = 6.7M, or total 8.2M per dampener.
So although the material costs are about balanced (1.125M vs 1.5M), the defender is heavily favoured by man hours needed. Especially since the fellow anchoring can be mostly afk (while waiting for anchoring to finish), and has little risk of PVP losses. This inbalance is amplified, as the OP shows, by the ability to anchor at multiple POSes at the same time.
If we take OP's numbers granted, one needs 2*10h work to anchor, plus say 6 (freighter pilots) + 12 (escort) * 3h (roundtrip) for logistcs, leading total 74 man hour, or 4 minutes per dampener, resulting to opportunity cost of 1.3M per module.
So, for each 1.125M+1.3M = 2.4M spent (in material/work), the defender can force the attacker to spend 8.2M.
Naturally this works only in systems where the current attacker really needs to clean up the moon; like in systems with only few total moons.
Not that obvious bug, but somewhat inbalanced. Especially if mechanisms start to support boring-grind like gameplay -> worse experience for all parties.
-Lasse crunching
|
![meritorious brown meritorious brown](https://images.evetech.net/characters/813868790/portrait?size=64)
meritorious brown
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:17:00 -
[34]
Do I detect the subtle aroma of sour grapes here?
Alliance X is getting walked over by Alliance Y, therefore Alliance X resorts to the tactics of a backward child?
25 billion tears, I heard.
|
![Akai dreamu Akai dreamu](https://images.evetech.net/characters/837602102/portrait?size=64)
Akai dreamu
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:23:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Akai dreamu on 22/08/2007 14:23:12
Originally by: meritorious brown Do I detect the subtle aroma of sour grapes here?
Alliance X is getting walked over by Alliance Y, therefore Alliance X resorts to the tactics of a backward child?
25 billion tears, I heard.
Very much so.
This reminds me of the end of WWII where H1tler would rather recruit boy soldiers than to surrender, even though defeat was knocking on his door.
This does nothing but prolong the inevitable.
Akai
|
![AsSalaam AsSalaam](https://images.evetech.net/characters/173991486/portrait?size=64)
AsSalaam
FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:33:00 -
[36]
Edited by: AsSalaam on 22/08/2007 14:33:55
Originally by: meritorious brown Do I detect the subtle aroma of sour grapes here?
Alliance X is getting walked over by Alliance Y, therefore Alliance X resorts to the tactics of a backward child?
25 billion tears, I heard.
This is not a political issue.
GMs don't consider this an exploit, (which is presumably why this thread hasn't been deleted yet) and we aren't calling it one. Our enemies are free to use this tactic as much as they want, as are we, and we will just have to live with the consequences of that.
The point of this thread is to bring attention to the issue of POS warfare recently having become an incredibly hardcore grindfest since these changes were made. Even more so than previously ;)
|
![Jubii Jubii](https://images.evetech.net/characters/810652424/portrait?size=64)
Jubii
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:35:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Akai dreamu Edited by: Akai dreamu on 22/08/2007 14:23:12
Originally by: meritorious brown Do I detect the subtle aroma of sour grapes here?
Alliance X is getting walked over by Alliance Y, therefore Alliance X resorts to the tactics of a backward child?
25 billion tears, I heard.
Very much so.
This reminds me of the end of WWII where H1tler would rather recruit boy soldiers than to surrender, even though defeat was knocking on his door.
This does nothing but prolong the inevitable.
Akai
so what ur saying is that WWII should by ur standards have lasted 56 years instead off 5 years, well that's a sane choise.
Are u perhaps sponsored by the weapon industry ?
/J
|
![Lostshadow Lostshadow](https://images.evetech.net/characters/885013683/portrait?size=64)
Lostshadow
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:50:00 -
[38]
Originally by: AsSalaam The point of this thread is to bring attention to the issue of POS warfare recently having become an incredibly hardcore grindfest since these changes were made. Even more so than previously ;)
That I agree with. There does need to be something changed to make finishing off the structures after the tower is gone a lot easier. I just object to people accusing me of using this tactic when I haven't been and never would. I anchored stuff to use it while my POS was still standing, thats all. I'm not trying to turn this thread into any form of political issue, just don't use my POS as an example when I only anchored stuff that I was going to use while it was online.
|
![Rock Lobster Rock Lobster](https://images.evetech.net/characters/938875424/portrait?size=64)
Rock Lobster
Solarflare Heavy Industries Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 14:55:00 -
[39]
I alone have burned through 20k Antimatter L in the system in question over the past few days, not counting Lead and Iron L. That's one single BS with 7 guns. That's some serious ISKies to take down some otherwise dead POS guns.
|
![meritorious brown meritorious brown](https://images.evetech.net/characters/813868790/portrait?size=64)
meritorious brown
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 15:02:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Lostshadow I only anchored stuff that I was going to use while it was online.
Absolute garbage, friend.
|
|
![Kazuo Ishiguro Kazuo Ishiguro](https://images.evetech.net/characters/903230203/portrait?size=64)
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 15:28:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Gefex Having modules outside the shields is a complete waste, the idea was that smaller fleets of bc's/hacs would have something to do in POS warfare. They could scout ahead, kill some guns, take out the warp scrambler etc.
I have been in multiple POS sieges now, where as soon as we take out one gun, some dude in the POS shields gets a new one out of a seemingly ENDLESS supply AND ANCHORS IT WITHOUT EVEN LEAVING THE SHIELD.
So we are back to square one, great addition, really works as intended ![Confused](/images/icon_confused.gif)
Yep, medium batteries only take up a 1000 m^3 each, and an assembly array with 500k m^3 capacity (once assembled) only takes another few thousand. I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this, but I doubt I'd find it funny if I was in your place.
My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
![LoneCold LoneCold](https://images.evetech.net/characters/233231046/portrait?size=64)
LoneCold
Gallente FireTech Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 17:03:00 -
[42]
/Signed
|
![Lui Kai Lui Kai](https://images.evetech.net/characters/858677455/portrait?size=64)
Lui Kai
Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 17:19:00 -
[43]
/signed ----------------
|
![Vishnej Vishnej](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1772127083/portrait?size=64)
Vishnej
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 18:06:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Vishnej on 22/08/2007 18:06:33
Originally by: Lostshadow
Please get your facts straight before trying to slander other alliances. That was my tower you are talking about. Every single gun I anchored after it went into reinforced was put online and used. How is that in any way an exploit? It did exactly what it was supposed to do, cause major problems for your support fleet. Your ship losses at that POS prove that it did its job well. I did have more guns that I could anchor, but not enough powergrid to turn them all on. So guess what, I didnt anchor them!
Um... yeah? That's kind of the point? You've now got another tower with an eve larger proportion of potential powergrid to actual powergrid used. As you should, following current game mechanics.
My alliance has a policy against drama on the public forums, and there's a reason this is not posted in COAD. I will not be discussing this particular issue here at length. I picked a hypothetical, somewhat entertaining example case, rather than the nitty gritty of any actual involvement at the moment, for a reason.
|
![Andre Ricard Andre Ricard](https://images.evetech.net/characters/693535825/portrait?size=64)
Andre Ricard
Gallente Templars of Space Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 18:56:00 -
[45]
Umm i'm confused? Why is this any different than having all the guns and modules inside the shield? What changed? Is it the massive HP boost? or can you anchor a lot more modules than you have powergrid or CPU? Forgive me, i'm a noob to POS warfare.
Also, why do you need to kill each and every module? Can't you just leave them and move on to the next tower?
|
![Vishnej Vishnej](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1772127083/portrait?size=64)
Vishnej
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 19:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Andre Ricard Umm i'm confused? Why is this any different than having all the guns and modules inside the shield? What changed? Is it the massive HP boost? or can you anchor a lot more modules than you have powergrid or CPU? Forgive me, i'm a noob to POS warfare.
Also, why do you need to kill each and every module? Can't you just leave them and move on to the next tower?
You kill the tower on one of these setups, and after that, you're left with around 1320 million hitpoints on the pos modules. Noone can anchor a tower at that moon until those pos modules are removed. GMs won't remove them.
|
![Lostshadow Lostshadow](https://images.evetech.net/characters/885013683/portrait?size=64)
Lostshadow
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 19:13:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Vishnej I was going to hold this back until the alliance we're currently sieging was removed from the scene, but apparently they've discovered it themselves
That's not sticking to a hypothetical situation! I agree that something needs to change. I agree that it's a pain to take down the guns afterwards. Just don't say the reason the guns were there was to cause you guys trouble taking them all down. The guns were anchored to shoot at people. Thats the only reason. I'm not trying to cause any drama here, but that post makes it look like I deliberately anchored structures without onlining them and all to make it difficult and expensive to clean up. That's just plain false. Everything that was anchored was put online, loaded with ammo and used.
Let's just stick to the hypothetical tower with lots of sensor damps and agree how the struture HP on modules is broken :)
|
![Andre Ricard Andre Ricard](https://images.evetech.net/characters/693535825/portrait?size=64)
Andre Ricard
Gallente Templars of Space Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 19:15:00 -
[48]
Why don't they just make the modules have like 100000 structure HP (keep shields and armor the same) but the hull gets 99.99% resist from tower. (that is the same as 10 million hp when the tower is online, if i did my math right)
Then once the tower pops, 5 or 6 dreads can just about 1 volley them.
|
![John McFly John McFly](https://images.evetech.net/characters/916541279/portrait?size=64)
John McFly
Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 20:29:00 -
[49]
Edited by: John McFly on 22/08/2007 20:29:42 Drop HP by 100x, increase structure resistance provided by tower to 99.9%.
Minigin says I'm not allowed to post in limegreen. :-( |
![Asha Vividrin Asha Vividrin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/989489181/portrait?size=64)
Asha Vividrin
Vividrin Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 21:21:00 -
[50]
oh dear - all this whining about POS warfare is boring boring boring - pfffff
I tell you the truth - going into war and defending is sooo boring, I can't believe how many people actually like to go to war. War is so boring. I want to have my pos and do my stuff without some bigwannabe bullies come each time and destroy my sandcastle in my little sandbox.
Lets talk about RL - is it that easy to go into war with another alliance or do they think twice?
stop whining!![Laughing](/images/icon_lol.gif)
~ Sigs are lame ~ |
|
![Rock Lobster Rock Lobster](https://images.evetech.net/characters/938875424/portrait?size=64)
Rock Lobster
Solarflare Heavy Industries Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 22:06:00 -
[51]
It's not a war. It's an eviction. One that's taking all together too long due to one side taking advantage of a quirk in game mechanics. ![Laughing](/images/icon_lol.gif)
|
![Demone Drake Demone Drake](https://images.evetech.net/characters/135710652/portrait?size=64)
Demone Drake
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 22:08:00 -
[52]
This is a sad but not unexpected development and needs to be fixed quickly.
|
![Redback911 Redback911](https://images.evetech.net/characters/894215643/portrait?size=64)
Redback911
Malevolent Intentions Chaos Incarnate.
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 22:47:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Rock Lobster It's not a war. It's an eviction. One that's taking all together too long due to one side taking advantage of a quirk in game mechanics. ![Laughing](/images/icon_lol.gif)
Funny, looks to me like you can't even finish the towers off.
|
![Chmod Hellscream Chmod Hellscream](https://images.evetech.net/characters/892109220/portrait?size=64)
Chmod Hellscream
Demonic Retribution
|
Posted - 2007.08.22 23:51:00 -
[54]
I ask that we keep any comments about the fighting in new regions to the CAOD areas please. Want a Cookie? |
![NCP S2 NCP S2](https://images.evetech.net/characters/464165321/portrait?size=64)
NCP S2
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 02:24:00 -
[55]
All the squabbling hurt my head, but yeah...
I'm new to the POS game, and while I wouldn't want my POS blown up by my enemies, I do understand the need for balance. I also remember when you could get a few BS's together and take out POS's *before dreads existed*
My suggestion would be to keep the HP and etc the same, but when not online, drop their HP in half or so. It seems ridiculous how big of a fleet you need to pop a POS. While it should be hard to kill, taking out the defences shouldn't be this hard. You should be able to go in with a relatively small advance fleet and take out some of the weapons or EWAR before the big guns get in and nuke the tower.
This would make more sense, as when a module is not online, not getting power, especially after the tower is gone, they should be easier to kill. Don't want your offline guns as free kills? unanchor them and bring them inside.
POS warfare shouldn't be an AFK I win situation. Give the power to the defender as it should be, but this is sort of ridiculous.
-S2
|
![Midfrost Midfrost](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1447624416/portrait?size=64)
Midfrost
Demonic Retribution Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 02:33:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Redback911
Originally by: Rock Lobster It's not a war. It's an eviction. One that's taking all together too long due to one side taking advantage of a quirk in game mechanics. ![Laughing](/images/icon_lol.gif)
Funny, looks to me like you can't even finish the towers off.
Looks to me like you're kept in the dark lil' padawan. Seeing as we don't need to take the towers down. *hint* ;) --- Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Sah Pah... -Mid |
![STLEM2 STLEM2](https://images.evetech.net/characters/751679639/portrait?size=64)
STLEM2
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 03:19:00 -
[57]
Don't be silly just pettion them as bugged because I hear a certain alliance can do that and have it all removed fine, even when their allies anchored said offending items. Oh wait, no one else can?
|
![Pretepac Pretepac](https://images.evetech.net/characters/401968678/portrait?size=64)
Pretepac
Target Practice Inc. Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 05:38:00 -
[58]
Quote: Don't be silly just pettion them as bugged because I hear a certain alliance can do that and have it all removed fine, even when their allies anchored said offending items. Oh wait, no one else can?
Petitions have been sent, however they have all been rejected, since this a valid gameplay "feature".
At this point, to me it doesn't even matter if this is our war we are talking about or any other POS assault. It doesn't matter whether all those modules where anchored for use while the tower was present or simply to annoy (better said make the attackers die from boredrom / old age) the attackers. Truth be told, something has to be done, since it doesn't make any sence for cleanup to take longer than actual pos killing.
Cheers, Pretepac
|
![Carniflex Carniflex](https://images.evetech.net/characters/660812563/portrait?size=64)
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 06:24:00 -
[59]
Defenders have been always favored in 'man hours' scale. Perhaps 1:8 might be a bit excessive tho.
But bottom line is defenders need to have advantage. This is their current advantage. You can always kick out their towers, clear up 1 moon and put your tower in there leaving rest of the system wasteland moons wise. After the dust settles get small gang of amarr battleships to spend few weeks on those moons you like to use. You can use alt's for that.
This 'feature' is kinda like barbed wire and minefields. You don't go planting wheat on minefields either before clearing them out. And this is a lot more expencive than lobbing some mines out there.
At the end of day when everyone and his dogs does it perhaps CCP will do something about it. I would not hold my breath about it tho.
|
![Blue Dreamu Blue Dreamu](https://images.evetech.net/characters/900552065/portrait?size=64)
Blue Dreamu
|
Posted - 2007.08.23 10:36:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Blue Dreamu on 23/08/2007 10:36:05 Oh dev response, where art thou?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |