EVE Search - The 1337 tower block: How to kill 6 moons in 24 hours

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

The 1337 tower block: How to kill 6 moons in 24 hours

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 00:09:00 - [1] Tired of paying for fuel for your deathstars? Have 6 moons that you don't want anyone to use ever again? Have control of a system for one day? Have the capacity run a cumulative 6 freighter runs (3x2, 2x3 or 1x6 acceptable)? Have two people with a lot of patience willing to put in an 8-10 hour shift each? Load up 1200 sensor dampening batteries, 6 small control towers, 6 medium artilleries, and 24 hours of fuel each. This should cost you about 1675 million isk - the cost of one or two really nicely fitted deathstar full of fuel. Bring these ingredients to the target system. Set up the towers, anchor online and load the medium artilleries, and begin launching 200 sensor dampeners for corp at each POS, starting a 10 hour shift. The person designated will then warp from tower to tower anchoring the sensor dampeners, one after another, going down the list until he starts over at the top. Mental stability is required here - the job is beyond tedious. When you're finished anchoring, congratulations - you're done. Noone will ever use those six moons again without shooting down 1337 million hitpoints at each and every one. You never have to worry about refueling, strontium management, or gun control again. To clear out what you've just done, it will take a 20 capital fleet doing 2000 DPS each about 56 hours of siege mode.
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 00:18:00 - [2] 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. Sometimes, it's better to post a really game-breakingly exploitative (ISD: THIS HAS BEEN LABELLED NOT AN EXPLOIT) tactic, rather than merely demand that it be considered an exploit. Fix it please. Reduce structure HP (currently fixed at 50x shield, while armor is at 15x shield) at the very least down to the same level as armor, preferably even lower. You can even pump the online-POS resistance bonus up (it's currently at a hidden 90%, which doesn't show up in logs) if you like.
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.22 00:20:00 - [3] Why settle for 200 per pos? Make it 1200 per pos if youve got a few weeks and some and nobody will even be able to enter the grid. Welcome to tech level 2 pos warfare. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 00:20:00 - [4] If hauling is a problem - You can get the same amount of hitpoints with half the hauling, but twice the onlining time + 4x the isk, if you use two medium weapons batteries in place of every sensor dampener.
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 00:21:00 - [5] Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Why settle for 200 per pos? Make it 1200 per pos if youve got a few weeks and some and nobody will even be able to enter the grid. Welcome to tech level 2 pos warfare. Because it fits in 24 hours, it brings it up to a literal 1337 million hitpoints, and it's not very expensive.
Goonie Alt	Posted - 2007.08.22 02:41:00 - [6] I love you.
Masu'di Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.08.22 03:10:00 - [7] hah, i was just rethinking our POS defence setup come the new changes, and this was exactly where my line of thinking was going. guess was not the only person Es and Whizz is recruiting
Su'r	Posted - 2007.08.22 04:19:00 - [8] Not to mention that once the sig radius/targeting time of these mods gets nerfed... nothing will ever be able to lock anything else at your POS ever.... EVER!
Eldon Rosen	Posted - 2007.08.22 08:45:00 - [9] As mentioned before the simple fix for this issue would be to unanchor all structures once a tower has been downed, allowing the aggressor to collect the "loot" - Maybe make it so a random amount of structures get blown up as part of the tower kill.
Fun Bunny	Posted - 2007.08.22 09:41:00 - [10] Edited by: Fun Bunny on 22/08/2007 09:41:56 This is already being done on a large scale in the south when killing towers, just leave the destroyed pos modules and you don't have to worry about POS spamming again. Funny example, yesterday I saw 23 dreadnaughts, 20 carriers and 3 motherships struggle to kill 4 small ac/arty batteries for around 15 mins. Eventually they just gave up and left. Let's just say POS modules outside shields needs some adjustment. Personally I'd like it if they became scoopable by whoever is sieging when the tower is down so there would be some loot at least. Rape without pillaging is so unsatisfying.

Gefex	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:20:00 - [11] Edited by: Gefex on 22/08/2007 10:20:49 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
Kagar	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:26:00 - [12] Edited by: Kagar on 22/08/2007 10:26:53 .
Avant Garde Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:34:00 - [13] Signed.
Tazikh Abrek Ordo Executus	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:36:00 - [14] ******* SIGNED!
Constable Detritus PURE Legion Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:40:00 - [15] /signed, shamelessly ______________________________________ Goberth Ludwig: Joshua has a pillow with molle printed on it.
Zirator Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:40:00 - [16] Yesterday when I came back from work I just missed the destruction of a tower of the alliance that Vishnej is talking about. I helped with taking out guns for about 1 / 1.5 hours. After that I had to go to a birthday with my girlfriend. When I came back from the birthday 3 / 3.5 hours later we were still cleaning up the grid were the pos used to be. I saw our pos shield go up about 6 or 7 hours after our enemies pos went down. Thank you CCP for revisiting poswarfare in this wonderfull way. So a big /SIGNED by me.
Price checker2k	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:42:00 - [17] What a load of crap. CCP, Acknowledge the problem and come up with a fast soultion to this bul1sh1t or I will come up with a solution to something taking around 60 euro from my VISA card each month. SIGNED.
Gun Rush	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:45:00 - [18] That's about 336,000 units of stront. Or 1,008,000 m3. Which will cost around 400,000,000 ISK. Not too pricey I suppose. Getting 20 dreads online for 56 hours? Good luck with that. In what way isn't this griefing?
Gallente Filth	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:47:00 - [19] This thread delivers. And a big happy thank you to the GMs that realise that expensive modules SHOULD be allowed to live forever. I wonder if one of the senior GMs can state the exact isk value at which POS immortality can be achieved? Precisely how expensive must these doodads be to not be an exploit, but rather, a bona fide game mechanic? Time to acquire a sensor damping array BPO, methinks. GG GMs.
Scifa Caldari FireTech Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:49:00 - [20] Edited by: Scifa on 22/08/2007 10:51:43 i wonder how many cruise launchers i could get on an empire pos before the node crashed. 2bil would buy like 5000 cruise launchers...... if you leave these mods in space for long enough, will they despawn? unanchored mods do usually and pos modules are special, so maybe without a tower they disappear after dt?

Blue Dreamu	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:54:00 - [21] POS Structures are more expensive u say? Screw you CCP. A can costs like 300k and has like a million hp or how much was it? and is considered an exploit if u anchor them close to a moon. A medium artillery costs 3 million and has ten times that number right? Is not considered an exploit. Where is the goddamn logic in this. BD
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 10:56:00 - [22] Originally by: Blue Dreamu POS Structures are more expensive u say? Screw you CCP. A can costs like 300k and has like a million hp or how much was it? and is considered an exploit if u anchor them close to a moon. A medium artillery costs 3 million and has ten times that number right? Is not considered an exploit. Where is the goddamn logic in this. BD A sensor dampening battery has 6.6 million hitpoints before resists, costs 1.125m isk in empire, and is about the same volume as a GSC. They're worse.
Scifa Caldari FireTech Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 11:00:00 - [23] e.g. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0708/spam.jpg
Pretepac Target Practice Inc. Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 11:15:00 - [24] I have to sign this (as I'm sure most of pure eventually will, if this isn't salved soon) because it is way to much of a time sink for it to be "ok". I have a few ideas of how to solve this "issue" (some/many/all of the ideas below might already be typed somewhere. If that is the case, I am sorry): * Spoils of war : The modules left behind after destruction of the tower are now no ones property and everyone can take them, destroy them or do with them whatever he wants to. * Random destruction : The impact of the tower explosion destroys most of the anchored modules, the rest are heavily damaged and there for easily removed. * Lower HP after the destruction of the tower. Again that makes them easily removable. There might be more good ideas, however any of the above would solve the problem without changing the pos warfare (while pos is still present that is) Cheers, Pretepac
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 11:40:00 - [25] Edited by: Vishnej on 22/08/2007 11:41:24 Originally by: Pretepac * Lower HP after the destruction of the tower. Again that makes them easily removable. This is true now. Structures basically get a 900% bonus to hull hitpoints while the tower is online, and when it transitions, the percentage damage stays the same. (in effect, tower online = 90% hull resists that don't show in your combat logs) The problem is even without the resists, there is enough structure HP to be a huge deal. And with the resists, it's damn near impossible to take down a structure at an online pos - it shouldn't be more difficult than taking down an entire tower.
Constantine Arcanum PURE Legion Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 11:42:00 - [26] Originally by: Pretepac I have to sign this (as I'm sure most of pure eventually will, if this isn't salved soon) because it is way to much of a time sink for it to be "ok". I have a few ideas of how to solve this "issue" (some/many/all of the ideas below might already be typed somewhere. If that is the case, I am sorry): * Spoils of war : The modules left behind after destruction of the tower are now no ones property and everyone can take them, destroy them or do with them whatever he wants to. * Random destruction : The impact of the tower explosion destroys most of the anchored modules, the rest are heavily damaged and there for easily removed. * Lower HP after the destruction of the tower. Again that makes them easily removable. There might be more good ideas, however any of the above would solve the problem without changing the pos warfare (while pos is still present that is) Cheers, Pretepac I think this is a good and balanced idea, and I'm not just saying that because he's in my alliance.
Midfrost Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 11:57:00 - [27] I will sign this thread, with all the weight that includes. No, but seriously... if this is all it takes to effectively kill a moon. Jolly, I now know what to do when anyone DARES to put one of my POS's into reinforced; put on like 50 cups of coffe, get 89712983791 medium artilleries/sensor dampeners there, and start my 12-hour shift. Thank you CCP! --- Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels -Sah Pah... -Mid
karumba	Posted - 2007.08.22 12:16:00 - [28] WTF This is nuts, Fix this now, POS war is BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING BORING You just made it 100 times more BORING than it already was. FIX IT NOW!
Braaage Laborius Chapter	Posted - 2007.08.22 12:59:00 - [29] Sensible solution would be to make the max number of anchorable objects around a control tower to say 20? If it's not anchored it's not a problem. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- eve-guides.com POS, Outpost and Sovereignty info
Fun Bunny	Posted - 2007.08.22 13:10:00 - [30] Oh and 1000 isk on CCP's solution to this will be doubling anchoring time or something similarly backwards.

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	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 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 210h 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	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	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 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	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	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 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	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 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 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 Gallente FireTech Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 17:03:00 - [42] /Signed
Lui Kai Viper Intel Squad Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.22 17:19:00 - [43] /signed ----------------
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 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 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	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 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 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 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! ~ Sigs are lame ~

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.
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 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. Funny, looks to me like you can't even finish the towers off.
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	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 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. 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	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 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 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	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?

Minnow maught Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.23 11:48:00 - [61] There is of course a catch to this tactic. If you only have 6 moons and you use this tactic to hold the moons then the attacker only needs to clear 1 moon, anchor a POS and let YOU the defender tidy up the other moons to recontest sov.
Nairb Ecrep	Posted - 2007.08.23 13:15:00 - [62] It seems to me that having a control tower up is key to allowing structures to remain 'anchored'. I was always under the impression that in the game, you were somehow anchoring strucutres to the control tower (because you can't just anchor guns/etc anywhere). It would make sense to me that if the thing gets destroyed that you anchored a gun to, the gun becomes unanchored...
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.23 22:08:00 - [63] Edited by: Vishnej on 23/08/2007 22:10:15 Originally by: Minnow maught There is of course a catch to this tactic. If you only have 6 moons and you use this tactic to hold the moons then the attacker only needs to clear 1 moon, anchor a POS and let YOU the defender tidy up the other moons to recontest sov. It's not intended to replace having deathstars. It's intended to replace having more deathstars, or for chipping away at enemy defenses without ever dropping deathstars. Do it on every moon, and you can turn the station back to pre-sovereignty days. An alliance can plop down in a 60 moon system with this after picking 8 moons to set up with heavily armed domination defensive POSes, and after their initial outlay, pay for sovereignty with a single 100-day GTC per week.
Voculus E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.08.24 04:25:00 - [64] Well if you're in BoB, you can convo your dev buddies on MSN, and they'll just unanchor them all at once for you. _________________________________________________________
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.24 08:36:00 - [65] I can confirm that GMs will, at least in some situations, destroy structures left behind that prevent the anchoring of a new POS. We had some 20 cruiser missile batteries that we were destroying all simultaneously pop in front of our eyes in response to a petition regarding a blocked moon. I would think twice before spending my time anchoring 200 sensor dampeners. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.08.24 16:10:00 - [66] Originally by: Mr Krosis I can confirm that GMs will, at least in some situations, destroy structures left behind that prevent the anchoring of a new POS. We had some 20 cruiser missile batteries that we were destroying all simultaneously pop in front of our eyes in response to a petition regarding a blocked moon. I would think twice before spending my time anchoring 200 sensor dampeners. In what situations? What was your petition?
Arwen Ariniel Gallente Shaolin Legacy	Posted - 2007.08.26 11:27:00 - [67] 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. Sour grapes indeed, the big alliances crying 25 billion tears about the smaller ones using scorched earth tactics and running of to the gm's to cry like a backward child 'mommy, he doesn't let me win'. Don't change a thing CCP, at least this way there is a better balance of power.
javer 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.30 18:23:00 - [68] /signed -------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience.
Johnny Blademan	Posted - 2007.08.31 02:53:00 - [69] Originally by: Price checker2k What a load of crap. CCP, Acknowledge the problem and come up with a fast soultion to this bul1sh1t or I will come up with a solution to something taking around 60 euro from my VISA card each month. SIGNED. Price checker - while I barely understand this discussion I can tell you that there is another chap threatening to quit because the game isn't played the way he'd like it. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=582805 Check out the thread, Desolacer is getting lots of support and encouragement there and I'm sure you'll get some too! JB
Scordaf Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.31 12:00:00 - [70] Originally by: Arwen Ariniel 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. Sour grapes indeed, the big alliances crying 25 billion tears about the smaller ones using scorched earth tactics and running of to the gm's to cry like a backward child 'mommy, he doesn't let me win'. Don't change a thing CCP, at least this way there is a better balance of power. What a load of childish drivel. I know some people can't quite grasp this, but Eve is a game. A F**king game. Last I checked games were about entertainment and enjoyment. Spending 5 hours taking out a single POS is NOT ENTERTAINING OR ENJOYABLE. Hell, my 9 to 5 job is more exciting than POS warfare. I'll also point out that only a masochist would gain enjoyment from anchoring all those bubbles, too. OK, OK. Eve isn't about instant gratification and twitch gameplay... But come on. The whole POS system (anchoring, fueling, sieging, defending) takes everything boring about MMO's, drains any remaining life out of it and delivers up a whithered husk of anything even remotely enjoyable.

Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.09.24 07:07:00 - [71] Edited by: Vishnej on 24/09/2007 07:08:09 UPDATE: In response to a petition someone in our alliance filed a month ago, and miraculously managed to escalate time after time, we got this back today: Quote: Hi. Yes, spamming massive number of anchored structures without having the CPU/Grid to online them is considered to be an exploit. If you need any further assistance on this issue please do not hesitate to contact us. If you would like me to close this petition please let me know. Best regards, GM [redacted] EVE Online Customer Support
Blazing Fire Interstellar Operations Incorporated	Posted - 2007.09.24 08:55:00 - [72] Originally by: Vishnej Edited by: Vishnej on 24/09/2007 07:08:09 UPDATE: In response to a petition someone in our alliance filed a month ago, and miraculously managed to escalate time after time, we got this back today: Quote: Hi. Yes, spamming massive number of anchored structures without having the CPU/Grid to online them is considered to be an exploit. If you need any further assistance on this issue please do not hesitate to contact us. If you would like me to close this petition please let me know. Best regards, GM [redacted] EVE Online Customer Support I think it is agains the EULA and/or forum rules to post GM responces. Anyway, something must be done about the POS warfare, and it is not what CCP has done in REV II. Blazing Fire CEO Interstellar Operations Incorporated Corp web site Recruitment Looking for experienced players Looking for new EVE players Services [Service] Killboard hosting [Service] Forum hosting [Service] Web site hosting [Service] Obelisk for rent [Service] Alliance Creation
Vishnej Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.09.24 10:02:00 - [73] Originally by: Blazing Fire I think it is agains the EULA and/or forum rules to post GM responces. Anyway, something must be done about the POS warfare, and it is not what CCP has done in REV II. I'm not publishing the full private correspondance between myself and a GM, which would be against the rules. The petition was not my own, and the person who posted it has redacted the name of the GM he talked with along with their own name, rendering it from a private correspondence to a public statement about CCP Policy on what is an exploit - statements the like of which are necessary in order to avoid being banned from the game or having ones' actions reversed by GMs. The rule is designed to prevent needless whining and prevent (sometimes needed, it appears) attacks on GM consistency from escalating into allegations of corruption and player revolt. Neither of which this quote serves, as apparently they took a month or so to decide what the policy would be, and finally answered, and this petition was informational, not requesting action.
Firkragg Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.24 10:54:00 - [74] increase resist while pos is online to 99% on structure. drop total structure hp on the modules to 10% of current. seems like a simple fix that makes no different when the pos is operational but makes it alot easier to clean up afterwards.
Doxs Roxs White Wolves Defence league The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.24 11:23:00 - [75] Personally I like a combination of the spoils of war idea and the 99% hull resists when tower is online but only 10% of the current hp idea. When the tower blows up about 50% of the anchored structures should go pop as well, the surviving structures should instantly unanchor so that the attacker can scoop them or destroy them. Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead...
Clansworth Point-Zero SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.24 19:22:00 - [76] I agree that the anchored structures hsould have a chance of the tower's boom boom cascading to them, making them go boom boom. How seriously purtified would it be to take out a tower, and just as it's big 'ol explosion was dieing off, some ofthe smaller structures started lighting up the sky. Not all of them, and they hsould have a delay before themselves going up, just so their destructionisn't masked by the explosion from the tower... Completely frapstastic if you ask me. I used to shoot structures in misisons down to low hull, and then set my drones on them sequentially, to watch them go up. Those power generators in some misisons make big booms, and look really cool going up one after the other in their nice clean rows. Prospector Class
Rhaegor Stormborn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.09.26 22:45:00 - [77] I thought of this as well, should of posted this in general discussion then it would get the attention it deserves. Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.10.11 18:48:00 - [78] Mods should take significantly increased damage after the POS itself is dead. Cleanup is a 'safe' job, but mind-numbing in its length and boredom. There's no reason to subject people to that length of unfun.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.