EVE Search - CCP: Why did you make POS such a painful requirement in EVE?

All Channels

Science and Industry

CCP: Why did you make POS such a painful requirement in EVE?

» 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)
SnowManson Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2008.12.10 08:08:00 - [31] Without overhauling the entire Sov system the quickest way to address the insane amount of time to anchor and online is POS is to add additional skills that can be trained to speed up the process. Spending half the day putting a POS up is about as boring as it gets. Of course a new ship for doing this faster would really cool but that's probably asking to much. BTW, Happy Birthday Halada. www.lsjv-eve.com/forums Recruit Channel: LSJV-Recruit
Evlyna	Posted - 2008.12.10 09:55:00 - [32] Edited by: Evlyna on 10/12/2008 09:55:25 Originally by: SnowManson Without overhauling the entire Sov system the quickest way to address the insane amount of time to anchor and online is POS is to add additional skills that can be trained to speed up the process. Spending half the day putting a POS up is about as boring as it gets. Of course a new ship for doing this faster would really cool but that's probably asking to much. BTW, Happy Birthday Halada. Reducing by half all the onlining/offlining/anchoring values would also be a nice Christmas gift tbh. ... yea I know... dreamz... Ninja edit: Happy Birthday Halada.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.12.10 10:22:00 - [33] Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK Well, I personally feel that a fleet of cap ships is a big investment by a community of players and should be able to take a large POS down with some rapidity. If lots of players show up to help set up a tower, which can also be a large investment, don't you think they deserve to be able to do it faster than a single unaided player? --- Can't afford that BPO? Look here. 20:1 mineral compression The EVE f@h team
Gridwalker Amarr Divine Power.	Posted - 2008.12.10 22:35:00 - [34] Originally by: Turin Originally by: Gridwalker Sovereignty should be based on active player presence. If there was such a system, fleet warfare would _naturally_ turn into small roaming gangs, to harass and scatter ratters and miners. Sovereignty centers would _naturally_ form, based on where people spend most of their time. Small alliances could actually carve out sovereignty, and large alliances couldn't claim entire unused constellations that are almost completely devoid of visitors. Sure, large fleet battles would still be important. It might be strategically advantageous to take out a POS. But not because taking out that POS is required to remove sovereignty, but because taking out that POS will hurt your enemy's manufacturing capability, do financial harm, cut their transportation network, or even just remove a place where their carebears safe up. -Grid This is a bad idea, and let me tell you why. You could never defeat and drive out an enemy out of a system. Example. Me and my 50 man corp own a station in Delve. You and your 50 man corp want to take it away from me. As long as me and my 50 man corp stay docked in said station..... well. we are present right? So Sov just keeps on ticking. No. Sov MUST remain tied to some type of militarily attackable target. There can be no other option. Otherwise it turns this game into some kind of carebear online crap. Another example. I have 50 pilots with 50+ million skillpoints. You have 100 pilots with say, 10mil+ skillpoints. Odds are, the 50 pilots would smack the crap out of the 100, but if it where based on nothing but habitation, then those 50 pilots could never win, even though they are clearly the better force. Your solution leaves no room to ruin someones day, spit in their wheaties, and force someone out of their space. It MUST be a option to take space by FORCE. by winning on the battlefield. Tying sov to people in said sector would be a carabears wet dream. You make some excellent points, but I think you missed a key phrase in my argument: active player presence. Someone sitting in an outpost isn't really active. Sure, they may be doing carebear related stuff, but like you said--this shouldn't be about carebears. It should be about active pilots, in space, flying their ships. If you're docked, you're not active, so you don't count for sovereignty. And while your fleet flies into the system, sieges the outpost, disables the services and eventually--after sovereignty flips, ultimately takes over the outpost. That definitely ruins everyone's day! I'm sure the details can be worked out, number wise, to have it all make sense. The key is, alliance warfare actually is carebear based right now, when you think about it. It should be about military victories, and I don't think that popping a POS in three minutes with a 100 ship dread fleet really counts as a military victory. It's just a continuation of a carebear activity. You say sovereignty must be associated with a militarily attackable target. I say you're absolutely correct, but that target should be PEOPLE in their SHIPS. Destroying a POS should be a means to an ends, not the ends itself. In the Real World (tm) military victories aren't about blowing about buildings. They are about denying land to people. You blow up buildings as a means of chasing people out, or killing them outright. You blow up buildings to destroy their infrastructure so they have a more difficult time fighting back. But in the end, it's who remains standing on top of that hill who owns that land. In EVE, military victories should be about blowing up ships and keeping people out of their land. Victory should be about blowing up and chasing out people. Not blowing up and building POS's. Does my idea make more sense in this context? Or am I just stubbornly supporting a bad idea? ;-) -Grid
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.11 02:19:00 - [35] I like complicated systems. POS anchoring takes a long time because it takes a long time. Although, I do wish there was better defense in the face of attack by siege mode ships and I wish there was some way to salvage abandoned pos's. I still like the quirky roughting it feel to pos' ...kind of like camping out.. but there are ways to do almost anything there. =====
Polly Prissypantz Dingleberry Appreciation Society	Posted - 2008.12.11 10:31:00 - [36] Originally by: Barbara Nichole I like complicated systems. POS anchoring takes a long time because it takes a long time. POS are not complicated systems. They take some getting used to, but once the basics are grasped they're quite straightforward. The time-sink to POSes are the arbitrary and unnecessary timers that CCP put on anchoring and onlining, and the single-player limit for setting one up (in a multi-player game!). Obviously the idea was to limit how many POSes could be set up in a period of time, but the end result is that it's the most monotonous and boring 'gameplay' I have ever encountered. ****, even my Epic Quest in EverQuest (yes there were MMO's before WoW) was more exciting than Eve's POS system.
Halada Caldari Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2008.12.11 16:50:00 - [37] Edited by: Halada on 11/12/2008 16:51:56 Originally by: Polly Prissypantz POS are not complicated systems. They take some getting used to, but once the basics are grasped they're quite straightforward. The time-sink to POSes are the arbitrary and unnecessary timers that CCP put on anchoring and onlining, and the single-player limit for setting one up (in a multi-player game!). Obviously the idea was to limit how many POSes could be set up in a period of time, but the end result is that it's the most monotonous and boring 'gameplay' I have ever encountered. **, even my Epic Quest in EverQuest (yes there were MMO's before WoW) was more exciting than Eve's POS system. There is ALREADY a limit of 5 POS a corp or Alliance can deploy per day, and it resets at DT. In light of this, why the FRAK should it take me 15 hours to online one ANYWAY??? Originally by:** Barbara Nichole POS anchoring takes a long time because it takes a long time. Sh!t, you must have a phD or something? ★ LSJV now recruiting ★
Evlyna	Posted - 2008.12.11 16:53:00 - [38] Edited by: Evlyna on 11/12/2008 16:53:08 Originally by: Barbara Nichole I like complicated systems. POS anchoring takes a long time because it takes a long time. Gotta keep that one somewhere... "X takes a long time... because X takes a long time." Ok... WHAT ABOUT Y NOW?
Stonie Bandit Caldari 8lack Wing	Posted - 2008.12.11 19:44:00 - [39] I think it schould be possible for corp members to help building the POS. I have anchoring lvl 5, but could not help in building the POS. I do think it should have some heavy skill requirements, so it is not possible to have a fleet of POS builders alts log on for insta replacement. ===== * Your signature is too large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 400x120 - Fallout
voidvim Minmatar Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.22 16:09:00 - [40] I've had to swap a full fitting large pos and I know your pain ccp really should do some thing about pos setup time while being a where of the fact that pos are part of 0.0 war fair. Salvaging guide:moon materials guide
Arnold Kruger Superior Systems	Posted - 2008.12.22 17:53:00 - [41] Yeah, it takes a while, but it's really not that bad. It was meant to be a team endeavor, with support fleets, etc. The bugs are bad though. Would be a lot better if it weren't sometimes an unpredictable experience. But it's really not THAT bad. I wish fuel took less space though. - - SUPERIOR SYSTEMS: BPO sales, research, copying, and delivery!
Evlyna	Posted - 2008.12.23 09:55:00 - [42] Originally by: Arnold Kruger Yeah, it takes a while, but it's really not that bad. It was meant to be a team endeavor, with support fleets, etc. The bugs are bad though. Would be a lot better if it weren't sometimes an unpredictable experience. But it's really not THAT bad. I wish fuel took less space though. Nothing related to team work when only ONE player can do anything on the un/anchoring/onlining stuff.
Arnold Kruger Superior Systems	Posted - 2008.12.23 11:52:00 - [43] Edited by: Arnold Kruger on 23/12/2008 11:52:51 Originally by: Evlyna Originally by: Arnold Kruger Yeah, it takes a while, but it's really not that bad. It was meant to be a team endeavor, with support fleets, etc. The bugs are bad though. Would be a lot better if it weren't sometimes an unpredictable experience. But it's really not THAT bad. I wish fuel took less space though. Nothing related to team work when only ONE player can do anything on the un/anchoring/onlining stuff. Yeah, it does have to do with teamwork. Go to 0.0 and you'll see why. One person can online... but if that one person is all you've got, you're up the creek without a paddle when the locals come calling :) - - SUPERIOR SYSTEMS: BPO sales, research, copying, and delivery!
Darwin's Market	Posted - 2008.12.23 14:23:00 - [44] To control POS SPAM ?
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2008.12.23 16:18:00 - [45] hummmm i'd rather not have some pos gunner online multiple (spare) batteries while we're busy shooting the tower. but i am with the crowd when it comes to unanchoring. half the time would be troublesome enough. and anchoring doing -5% per level sounds reasonable. be that POS, bubbles or shrug containers - putting the gist back into logistics
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.12.23 16:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Halada There is ALREADY a limit of 5 POS a corp or Alliance can deploy per day, and it resets at DT. In light of this, why the FRAK should it take me 15 hours to online one ANYWAY??? Originally by: Barbara Nichole POS anchoring takes a long time because it takes a long time. Sh!t, you must have a phD or something? Well there wasn't when such times were set. But a just onlined unarmed POS with 51% shield is a heap easier to siege than a fully fitted deathstar. They mentioned one of the tools in one of the fanfest videos, that may let people just set all the mods to anchor and walk away. This would be better IMO. Because there are balance issues with making them go faster, but none to speak of with letting people set it up while not being interrupted every 3-10 minutes.
Juggernot	Posted - 2008.12.23 16:57:00 - [47] /signed oh wait /SIGNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with the OP but would add one thing. There should be something like 'entrenchment' a value that boosts the offence and defence of a POS based on how long it has been online. With a time frame of 3 months or so to get max benefit. And the max benefit should at least hold up a large force of dreads. I say again this would be based on how long a POS is onlined. So, choaking a pos to death would reset this when it goes off line. I think this might force attacking corps to maintain a presence in a system to keep the poses from being refueled, instead of just showing up with 100 dreads and moving to the next system.
Deus Letus Chooch Inc.	Posted - 2008.12.23 19:35:00 - [48] I like to look at it this way. It takes many hours to put up a POS but minutes to bring down, just like in life. It takes many months sometimes years to put up a structure, but, with the right team and firepower just moments to bring down. It always takes a fraction of the time to destroy then to create. Now I know this is EVE not RL. I understand it is a virtual world. However I do like the continuity of longer time to create then to destroy.
Evlyna	Posted - 2008.12.24 01:05:00 - [49] Edited by: Evlyna on 24/12/2008 01:09:19 Originally by: Arnold Kruger Edited by: Arnold Kruger on 23/12/2008 11:52:51 Originally by: Evlyna Nothing related to team work when only ONE player can do anything on the un/anchoring/onlining stuff. Yeah, it does have to do with teamwork. Go to 0.0 and you'll see why. One person can online... but if that one person is all you've got, you're up the creek without a paddle when the locals come calling :) I manage 60 POSes in 0.0 and I really doubt I am in any way near a record. Once in awhile, yes, the invasion/bail out situation comes in. Most of the time? You're alone doing the work while the others are sleeping. Delegate you'll say? No difference for the poor sob putting your shoes. Previous poster is right though. A certain Build/Destruction balance must be kept but it still needs some luv in terms of time sink.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.12.24 09:28:00 - [50] It's fine with me that it takes as long as it does to set up a POS because I can see how it might be a problem on the pew- pew end if you could just excrete one in a couple of minutes. What I'm not fine is having to spend hours manipulating the game once every 5- 10 minutes. Couldn't they just let us dump all our toys out on the grid and queue the online/ anchor commands?
Dark Thor	Posted - 2008.12.24 15:13:00 - [51] all ive got to say is.... Tech 2
Pwett Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.12.24 16:29:00 - [52] Originally by: Dave Davies It's fine with me that it takes as long as it does to set up a POS because I can see how it might be a problem on the pew- pew end if you could just excrete one in a couple of minutes. What I'm not fine is having to spend hours manipulating the game once every 5- 10 minutes. Couldn't they just let us dump all our toys out on the grid and queue the online/ anchor commands? I have to agree with this sentiment. I wouldn't mind the time it took if I didn't have to sit there and wait 5-10-20 minutes to click two buttons only to wait again. We can train skills without being logged in; why make POS onlining any different? _______________ Pwett Founder <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Evlyna	Posted - 2008.12.26 18:26:00 - [53] The way you word it, it's like asking for the skill queue
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.27 08:12:00 - [54] Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 27/12/2008 08:12:59 Quote: The time-sink to POSes are the arbitrary and unnecessary timers that CCP put on anchoring and onlining I kind of disgree. They are arbitrary like a speed limit is arbitrary... like skill training time is arbitrary. It's part of the game and changing it would be making a different game. If we change this we might as well change stations so you can insta dock and insta change ships.. and jet as many cans into space as you want as fast as you like... etc.
voidvim Minmatar Genco Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.27 17:19:00 - [55] Originally by: Barbara Nichole Edited by: Barbara Nichole on 27/12/2008 08:12:59 Quote: The time-sink to POSes are the arbitrary and unnecessary timers that CCP put on anchoring and onlining I kind of disgree. They are arbitrary like a speed limit is arbitrary... like skill training time is arbitrary. It's part of the game and changing it would be making a different game. If we change this we might as well change stations so you can insta dock and insta change ships.. and jet as many cans into space as you want as fast as you like... etc. Honestly do you know how many parts of this game have been change since beta Most that's what, eve has and all ways will be - changing and evolving, not all way for the best of course but over all eve has come a long way. Due in part to the player base being Very vocal about their opinions and ideas. Any part of eve many be change at some point in the future. Simple because it's been done one in the past is not a good enough reason for it to be done that way in future. If you want some aspect of eve not to change you need logical reason that keeps it that way. Salvaging guide:moon materials guide
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.12.28 06:47:00 - [56] Originally by: voidvim Any part of eve many be change at some point in the future. Simple because it's been done one in the past is not a good enough reason for it to be done that way in future. If you want some aspect of eve not to change you need logical reason that keeps it that way. There are plenty of logical reasons given above why the total setup time should remain the same. This isn't a 'because it's done that way before'. It's because it was done that way before due to balance concerns. So if you want some aspect of eve to change, you must address those balance concerns that would arise from the change.
Ivan Zhuk	Posted - 2008.12.28 08:03:00 - [57] I would like to know why there is no cancelation of anchoring, unanchoring, or onlining of structures ,... I have accidentally onlined a Tower when i meant to click unanchor and i could not cancel the whole process.. there are cancelation for other things.... also why does taking down a POS take so much time? i understand the onlining times but take down took my about 5 hours for my last POS thats my RL time i have to sit by the POS and waste time that honestly sucked about the game. I agree once the structure is on it should be more than one person can online more than one thing atleast or else onlinging all the structures takes 4 hours or so honestly this is my biggest peeve about this game
melonboy	Posted - 2008.12.28 22:50:00 - [58] Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: voidvim Any part of eve many be change at some point in the future. Simple because it's been done one in the past is not a good enough reason for it to be done that way in future. If you want some aspect of eve not to change you need logical reason that keeps it that way. There are plenty of logical reasons given above why the total setup time should remain the same. This isn't a 'because it's done that way before'. It's because it was done that way before due to balance concerns. So if you want some aspect of eve to change, you must address those balance concerns that would arise from the change. this is a really ridiculous post ... Its simple .. loose the time on setting up and dismantling a pos or lose the players and I mean all the players to Infinity Online. C Ya morons...! regrds MB
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2008.12.29 02:13:00 - [59] Part I don't get it is, why you have to Off Line / Un Anchor the Tower to Un Anchor any other structure. But you can off line any time you want..... WTF OVER Annoying as hell I say ... Anchoring skill should shorten time for anchoring and online.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.12.29 02:40:00 - [60] Originally by: Vigilant Part I don't get it is, why you have to Off Line / Un Anchor the Tower to Un Anchor any other structure. But you can off line any time you want..... WTF OVER Annoying as hell I say ... Anchoring skill should shorten time for anchoring and online. What ? You don't have to offline the tower to unanchor other structures, the reverse in-fact, the tower must be online and anchored to unanchor a structure.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.