| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
joshmorris
Ravenous Inc.
SMASH Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.12.02 12:45:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Shiken Kan
I don't like that idea much, though it does have it merits. But what it will come down to is that you need international corporations to even think about holding a system. Then you'll get ninjaing a lot and you can't even blame the people for it. If one ally has like 80% american and 20% european players and the other vice versa this will just lead to a change in sovereignity every 12 hours. I'm all for removing the blob and improving medium gang warfare but i don't think that's the way to go.
Hmm the corperations / alliances with mostly 1 player base will be at a disadvantage. Alliances will start to recruit more players in different timezones to be a more whole alliance as 1 so they can be effective in assaulting a system. So yeah it will be much less like you have stated as swapping every 12 hours instead it will be a battle constantly 24 hours a day instead of the moment 2-3 hours of lag and desinc, (another 4 hours before that of massive a force)
Please explain what you mean by the ninja term ...
Im still thinking of a idea to stop the swapping of sov as you have mentioned .... i was thinking of after a alliance controls a certain percentage another percentage of there watchtowers becomes invunerable and/or decreases sov timer down to 6 hours (something like that not exactly).
Anyway thanks for your comments, this is to solve pos warfare atm , only blobs which are related to pos warfare which im trying to solve aswell not blobs on the full scale (imo blobs arnt bad at all 20-30 max ive seen just roaming about which have nothing to do with pos's.)
Uber idea solves all !! |
Morlana Syketh
|
Posted - 2007.12.09 15:59:00 -
[32]
I'm a for breaking up blob warfare, and these ideas are very well thought out. As other people have picked up on, there are improvments that can be made to original ideas.
Another question would be though, would this not give the possibility of attacking in bigger fleets of even smaller ships?
This could be either a good or bad thing.
Also it could give the same sorts of lag problems.
You must excuse me, my experience of POS warfare is very limited.
/signed
|
joshmorris
Ravenous Inc.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.10 11:25:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Morlana Syketh
I'm a for breaking up blob warfare, and these ideas are very well thought out. As other people have picked up on, there are improvments that can be made to original ideas.
Another question would be though, would this not give the possibility of attacking in bigger fleets of even smaller ships?
This could be either a good or bad thing.
Also it could give the same sorts of lag problems.
You must excuse me, my experience of POS warfare is very limited.
/signed
Well CCP nerfed sniper ships so i suppose they want the player base to fly more smaller ships.
And normally these systems that are being attacked are only very laggy when all the players mass for 1 big attack or defense. The defending force normally times the stront so that its all near 1 time so the attacking force can only take down 1 while the defender reps the others, BUT because of this both alliances tell all there players to log on at this time and go to this 1 place which makes the game unplayable.
This idea just stops the mass grouping of players at 1 time and spreads it out over a 24 hour period over a few days/weeks because of instead of 1 target coming out at 1 time .. there will be multiple targets coming out(reinforced) all the time.
But yeah thanks.
Uber idea solves all !! |
LostSoul120
Caldari
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 03:13:00 -
[34]
I assume what people mean by ninja is putting up a bunch of pos' in one night in order to gain sovereignty after downtime. SMASH (not trying to single out your alliance) did it out in Geminate 6 months back or so when I was a member. SMASH had like 13 pos' and Ratel had somewhere around 19 I think. SMASH put up 40 some pos' over night, taking sovereignty after DT.
Your idea does have some merit as it would allow smaller alliances and possibly even corps to gain sovereignty in a system without having the isk of a larger corp or alliance. The flip side to this is the fact that they would need to actively defend otherwise those towers could get wiped fairly easily.
However the problem, as others have already pointed out, is that a large corp or alliance with the proper funds and resources can easily wipe those out with a dread fleet and put up large towers in place. Which would make it next to impossible for the smaller corp to defend against or attack.
A possible solution could be to have the 0.0 systems that border lowsec only allow the proposed towers. This would give fledgling alliances a place to setup shop before moving deeper into 0.0. It would be a halfway point between npc controlled 0.0 and full on 0.0, not only from the tactics side of things, but also the profitability.
Not saying my idea is the best solution, but a different angle perhaps.
Also sorry if I ripped off someone's idea that they already posted, I read about 2/3 of the thread and decided to post.
|
joshmorris
Ravenous Inc.
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.15 23:12:00 -
[35]
Originally by: LostSoul120
I assume what people mean by ninja is putting up a bunch of pos' in one night in order to gain sovereignty after downtime. SMASH (not trying to single out your alliance) did it out in Geminate 6 months back or so when I was a member. SMASH had like 13 pos' and Ratel had somewhere around 19 I think. SMASH put up 40 some pos' over night, taking sovereignty after DT.
However the problem, as others have already pointed out, is that a large corp or alliance with the proper funds and resources can easily wipe those out with a dread fleet and put up large towers in place. Which would make it next to impossible for the smaller corp to defend against or attack.
Well what is stupid that your judging my idea because i am in smash alliance which by the way i joined only a few days ago.
And if at the moment alliances can ninja then you cant really use that as a argument against this.
Also if a larger alliance in the current mechanics attacked a smaller corp they would wipe them out far easier than if this was implemented, AT least smaller corps without a dread fleet will be able to take part in 0.0 warfare with this method WITHOUT having to have a 30 man dread fleet, so at the moment a smaller corp with 1 or 2 dreads against a larger force stands less of a chance than at the moment.
I disagree about dreads for attacking these. I hope that the signature radious and the time / effort to deploy the dreads would make dreads useless in this situation. I will say again but why use dreads when u can use smaller ships like bs / hacs to take the pos into reinforced in relatively the same time due to the dreads hitting low damage and missing.
Quote:
Your idea does have some merit as it would allow smaller alliances and possibly even corps to gain sovereignty in a system without having the isk of a larger corp or alliance. The flip side to this is the fact that they would need to actively defend otherwise those towers could get wiped fairly easily.
Yes but it gives them a chance. Remember that these arnt a permanent structure they are for assaulting a system and/or defending it when it needs it. Pos's are the permanent structures for systems these are just for defensive/offensive.
Thanks for your feedback but most of it has already been discussed and answered in previous posts of mine, and quite frankly basing opinions because ive been in an alliance for 3 days is wrong.
Uber idea solves all !! |
chao226
Deadly Addiction
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 01:17:00 -
[36]
I like this Idea and after our discusstion in game have been thinking things over.
personaly I would like to see sovrentry completely taken away from POS's
I am not going to go into depth atm on this topic but leave a few points.
currently POS warfare is not good its boring for sevral reasons.
1. when u seige a POS it takes ages to kill
2. genraly a lot of waiting around to get the numbers to start a seige
3. logisticly fuealing POS's on an aliance or even corp lvl can be costly and time consumeing.
I think the problem is that POS's wernt relly ment for sovrentry as its used now. a POS is relly jsut a step below a station relly ment for deployment by small corps/aliance that dont have station acess or in a system far from a station but is a good location.
I think seprateing POS's completely from sovrentry would be a good move and deploying something similar to joshmorris's watchtower idea but with some tweaks would be good.
currently to claim sovrentry thers a big isk investment for the towers as well as running costs. this makes it harder for smaller groups to make a real attempt to claim an area even if its only a few systems.
What i would suggest as changes for the watchower is:
1. no fuel requirements (explanation onto why later)
2. limit on how many can be deployed in any system
3. create a network (explanation will come)
essentialy what is in place atm is an aliance capital is invunrable one needs to take down other points in a constalation to attak it. I cant remeber exactly but I think u need to take all outposts in a constalation over then u can take the capital correct me if i'm wrong please.
What i'd like to do is change this
basicly the goal would be to have watchtowerd permintly deployed in every aliance claimed system createing a network. the deeper into the network you go the stronger the watchtowers become.
on aliance outskirt space watchtowers would be much like josh stated in his first post quite week and easy to kill and would most likely be destryed regularly (this would balanced out the loss of a massive isk sink in fualing the POSes) as the watchtowers would need replced becuse if one system lost its sovrentry the systems its connected to would become weaker and easyer to kill.
essentily for one to keep core systems safe they would need to maintain there borders.
so essentualy the further up a network you go the more powerful the watchtowers get. giveing you a choice. you could attack fisrst systems take them over then move up. alternatively you could try to attack a few systems in an break the chain though this would be much harder and require a fair amount of capital ships.
basicly the goal is to make sov warfare fun and more achvable without huge gangs.
I will draw up some diagrams to help illostrate this later but dont have the time atm.
|
Mark Amarr
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.09 20:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: joshmorris
The problem.
At the moment the only way to take systems and defend them is to have pos's. These require massive capital blobs to take them out....
Not true, Rzr, Iron, Vae and friends are midway through liberating Querious from FIX, and not a capital has been deployed (from our side anyway)
|
Mr Twinkie
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 21:50:00 -
[38]
so basically its a pos size below small.
/signed
even if it doesnt work in 0.0, it provides small beginner non carebear corps a cheap pos
-----------------
The Bastards.. Come Visit |
Trevor Warps
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 21:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: joshmorris
gorilla warfare
Nice effort but i stopped considering there tbh.
Wont split fleets much. Fleets warps on 1st tower, instapop, warps on 2nd ...
|
ceyriot
Minmatar
Crimson Rebellion
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 05:46:00 -
[40]
i like this  , it really has promise. The POS, as being a focus of mass blob warfare, should only have one per system, and outpost in youre constellation capital or something. This watchtower is really nice, kudos! 
Sig removed. Political references are not permitted in signatures. If you would like further details please email [email protected]. ~Saint |
joshmorris
AnTi.
Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 23:59:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Trevor Warps
Originally by: joshmorris
gorilla warfare
Nice effort but i stopped considering there tbh.
Wont split fleets much. Fleets warps on 1st tower, instapop, warps on 2nd ...
Not really man, unless the watchtowers dont have stront in.
If you read further into the topic i think some1 pointed your argument out and i replied a solution which actually works really well in theory if you think about it.
The whole reason 300 people are brought to kill a pos is because it needs a massive amount of players to even kill a defended pos.
To kill a watchtower you dont need300 people you only need a small group to put it into reinforced then hold for 10 mins to kill the rest of it, and while that is happening he defending force can chase the attacker off then rep back up and put more stront in.
Therefore there wont even be massive fleets as the giagantic fleet we see today wouldnt even form. There would be alot more smaller groups of players working together to take out watchtowers.
Once again read the whole topic before posting a " oh this is crap " reply, as the idea has had constructive criticisms throughout the topic and i have formed solutions to them.
I have yet to see 1 reply which actually gives reasons that cant be solved to make this idea useless, and to be frank i would like to see more reasons against the idea so i can find more solutions and make it much more solid and viable.
Thx.
Uber idea solves all !! |
Kayla Hawke
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 18:20:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Kayla Hawke on 14/03/2008 18:24:23
This idea is just stupid. Quit whining about POS warfare and suck it up.
This idea has the smell of some lame industrial alliance desperately trying to save their sov being taken by a tactically superior opponent.
Spamming 10mil towers? lol
_______________________
I Support Stargate Change! |
joshmorris
AnTi.
Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.03.22 23:10:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Kayla Hawke
Edited by: Kayla Hawke on 14/03/2008 18:42:00
This idea is just stupid. It has the smell of some lame industrial alliance desperately trying to save their sov being taken by a tactically superior opponent.
Spamming 10mil towers? lol
I dont' like blob-warfare either. But this isn't the answer.
Tactically superior ?
Tell me please how they are superior tactically by spamming 50 dreads 50 carriers and 3x the amount of players, with a huge amount of isk put into towers.
There are no tactics in pos warfare atm.
At least with this idea it combines industrialist pvp'ers, gorilla warfare , superior baiting tactics, Smart fc's , more teamwork and dedication to taking systems instead of what we have now, 1 fc alot of bord pvp'ers waiting inside a pos or camping a gate while capitals destroy pos's at certain times of day.
If anything its better than what we have at the moment.
Uber idea solves all !! |
Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Naval Protection Corp
Carpe Universitas
|
Posted - 2008.05.04 13:14:00 -
[44]
Can't help but point out in the OP's post:
Lol gorilla warfare |
joshmorris
AnTi.
Atrocitas
|
Posted - 2008.05.21 11:27:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Can't help but point out in the OP's post:
Lol gorilla warfare
gorilla, Guerilla ...
I know what i mean and im guessing you do too :P
Uber idea solves all !! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |