| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Halada
Caldari
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
   |
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:07:00 -
[1]
Why? I really want an explanation. I'd demand it, but I know we can't make demands, but I'd like to know the reasons behind it.
It takes about 10 hours of straight anchoring and onlining time to bring a large deathstar to life. For a 0.0 region to be kept safe, you need dozens of them. You seem to care a lot about the sake of balance. We've seen in the past 6 months the ability for many alliances to field 100+ caps easily enough. At that size, it takes about 2.5 minutes (25% of a siege cycle) to put a large tower into RF. About the same to finish it off.
Yet, it takes OVER 10 hours to replace, if you take into account the time to get the tower and mods, bring it on site, fuel it. You force the destruction of POS towers to be a team effort (as explained by the need to have a large cap fleet to make it bearable), but, you make it a choice. If an attacker wanted to, he could try to solo a tower, or risk it with 10 dreads and just support.
When it comes to deploy them, you have to do it solo, there is no skill or ships or anything to make the process less painful. There is also no choice to replace it with something. We are forced, via the game mechanics you created, to deploy endless deathstars that take half a day to deploy and a few minutes to destroy.
Unlike 0.0 fleet fight mechanics you created and that your server cannot handle
Small Parenthesis. Today, a friend of mine got a response to his petition who lost a dread to insane lag, so insane, that when he logged not only did his grid didn't load but his mates could not lock him and repair him since he was invisible, yet the tower still shot him down. You conveniently responded:
 Quote:
IĈm sorry to inform you were involved in a fleet-battle that is known to cause load and those involved need to be aware of this and be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Translation: "We created game mechanics our own server cannot handle properly, and we're sorry we will have to force you to carebear to make that 1.5bil on your own time, but it's jut too bad".
This is a pathetic excuse, but there's not much you can do about it without changing the entire game dramatically. And we do not have many psyches in the alliance that can foresee the future and know 24hrs in advance where a fight might occur. Wish we did, though!
In any case, the two above paragraphs were written to highlight unlike this situation, POS deployment COULD be improved. There is already a limit of 5 towers a day an alliance can deploy, which is fine, however, why can't you halve the time it takes to bring a deathstar to life? What possible bad influence could it have over the current warfare tactics?
Or answer me this...
 Why does it take 30min to anchor a large regular tower and (30min or 20min?) to online yet, yet, takes 2 hours to unanchor?
Why do you make the process of changing a tower even MORE painful than anchoring and onlining it?
Why do you allow to unanchor all mods at once once the tower is destroyed, but you can't create a skill to allow more than one mod to be simultaneously onlined or anchored?
Why are you giving PvPers the chance to make POS warfare less painful by bringing more numbers and quickly getting rid of one, yet, the industrialists who deploy them have no option to make the deployment easier with teamwork?
Why did you make it so disgustingly painful in the first place?
This is much more than a rant, I think this needs to be improved and changed, and I see no reason why it couldn't happen. It's certainly easy enough, won't impact the game in a severe way (compared to say, double the regen rate of roids!) and will just lower the suicide rate.
I'd like answers or at least a discussion on how we could improve this aspect of the game.
★ LSJV now recruiting ★ |
Pwett
Minmatar
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:22:00 -
[2]
I too would like to know why we have to anchor and online each module individually, even allowing multiple people to online a single item would allow corps to save hundreds of hours of waiting.
_______________
Pwett
Founder
<Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Xonox Galatorg
Gallente
Pulsar Combat Supplies
Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 21:39:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Xonox Galatorg on 08/12/2008 21:40:44
/signed
I think you covered any of the major questions. I think overall POS needs some work put into it.
As much as your rant got me going, I'm just going to pretty much say similar things to what you said, so I'l try to refrain from that. When it all comes down to it, you anchor and online the tower then you are pretty safe already, why the heck should you spend hours and hours doing nothing while chosing where to anchor a new structure every few minutes.
I do really like the idea of a skill that allows you to handle more than structure at a time, but at the very least allow multiple people to help put it up. Multiple people can work together to take them down (by destruction), why does 1 person get stuck with watching timers run out for hours on end when anchoring and unanchoring.
I hope we get answers.
-Xonox
Pulsar Combat Supplies, Director of Production and POS |
Kruuna
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 22:16:00 -
[4]
Putting up a tower is bad enough... but it was fun and constructive...
Then I realized I had placed my assembly arrays and corp hanger so I couldn't get to them at the same time... so I decided to move them... UGH!
Talk about a painful experience... then it came time to take the tower down and I realized just how insane this whole tower thing is.
Heck I even just wanted to sell the tower to another corp within the alliance and I still had to unanchor the whole damn thing just so they could put it all back up around the same damn moon.
PLEASE improve this
|
Gridwalker
Amarr
Divine Power.
|
Posted - 2008.12.08 23:07:00 -
[5]
I think the real issue is, alliance warfare has changed over the years, but the role of the POS really hasn't. Unfortunately, when CCP had the opportunity to address the POS issue, instead of making the POS less central to alliance warfare, they actually made it even more central.
Any proposal which makes a POS easier to deploy or replace misses the real point, if you ask me.
The POS needs to be returned to being an industrial resource, and their existence in a system shouldn't have anything to do with sovereignty. PERIOD. If you put a POS somewhere, it should be because you need a small mining outpost, or manufacturing base, or research center... it shouldn't be something you put up that no one visits again.
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
|
Nick Domani
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:01:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Xonox Galatorg
I do really like the idea of a skill that allows you to handle more than structure at a time, but at the very least allow multiple people to help put it up.
Good idea. Maybe the Anchoring skill could be modified to not just determine the complexity of the structure you're trying to anchor, but the number of structures per level as well. Or as you said, a new skill...something like Starbase Multitasking...have it require Anchoring 5 (any serious POS owner is going to have that anyway). Even better, both...Anchoring for the first 5 structures, Starbase Multitasking for the second 5.
Additionally, I'd like to see POS fuel requirements be skill-based, just like they are with jump-capable/cyno ships. Start with the normal fuel requirement for that particular type of tower, then discount it for levels in Starbase Management/Advanced Starbase Management skills. Maybe they could extend this effect to Strontium timers, too...or put in a new skill to go with that as well. Whatever fuel efficiency bonus you get would be determined by the skills of the person who puts the tower online, or use a similar mechanic to the CEO's 'update corp with my skills' option for POS managers.
The point is that running a POS should be at least as skill-intensive as running a ship...and some people should be better at it than others are because they dedicated themselves to the job.
|
RedLion
Caldari
State Constructions
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 00:25:00 -
[7]
Buff POS imo. And make my towers require 0 fuel.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Gallenteans must be destroyed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Braaage
Ministry of Craft
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:08:00 -
[8]
You wont get an explanation, only that CCP know it's an area which requires much overhaul.
Several threads exist on POSs some which have DEV replies but the best and oldest will tell you that you really are flogging a dead horse as the topic title of this thread states.
Then there's this thread which put the fuel brick idea into our heads so CCP know POS fuelling is a PITA.
Then lastly this one which Nozh asks how we can change the sovereignty system.
My point is that you most likely will not get an answer to your questions but it would seem CCP are most aware that the POS system needs changing. It's just how to change it, that's the problem.
--
POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, Boosters, EA EVE Database, Character Generator & more |
Turin
Caldari
Eternity INC.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 01:23:00 -
[9]
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.
|
Bloody Rabbit
Jita Miners
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 03:53:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Turin
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.
I agree that we need to have a target to hit that will flip the system onto the other side. Granted I'm not one to spit in a persons Wheaties but I think that the current system of POS on moons controlling the system is not good enough.
I would like to see systems that have a control base (call it an isk sink) on the planets. This base would cost a good amount of isk to build with NPC sold parts only, something the size that a jump freighter would need to move. With each base taking massive resources and time to build, and so long as the base is standing the system belongs to the defenders.
Let POS do what they do best; staging area for fleet battles, cheap research centers, manufacturing center, moon mining, reactions. These things are what the POS is for, down the second act of using it to hold Sovernty.
Yes I understand that this means that Bob, Goons, TCF, or some other group MM could end up building 3-4-5-6 control bases in a system and lock it up from flipping. To that I say oh well, if an alliance is willing to drop the 100 billion to build a control base to stake a claim to a system then so be it. See if CCP raises the cost to hold space, less titans, less motherships, this will force groups to tighten up their ranks and bring it all in. Currently I can fly around 0.0 and most of it is claimed by a group holding it as sov 1 or 2. That needs to stop, we need to make the groups that want to lay claim to space pay for it with time(as we all know time is money).
|
Zhunya
Xenobytes
Stain Empire
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 07:39:00 -
[11]
Sign, reduce time, give ability to anchor/online 2-3-4-5-6-7 structures at once.
|
Carniflex
Caldari
StarHunt
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 08:38:00 -
[12]
Look it from the perspective of manhours. How many manhours does it take to destroy a large tower vs how many manhours will it take to replace it. In case of 100 capitals look at what will it cost to jump them to your tower + 1 siege cykle vs the cost of your tower.
From that perspective towers are rather uber. I do agree ofc that the current implementation itself is outright crap and POS warfare is as anti fun as it gets. It is boooooring to erect one and it's even more booooring to kill one. Not to mention the pain if you would try to remove it - it's often just easier to let the hostiles kill it than go thru the pain of taking it away.
|
Polly Prissypantz
Dingleberry Appreciation Society
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 09:39:00 -
[13]
/signed
|
Evlyna
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 10:42:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Evlyna on 09/12/2008 10:44:55
/signed
Never understood the logic behind the uselesness of the Anchoring skill.
Takes Anchoring V as a prerequesite to handle guns. (Yea, that looks really related).
Anchoring IV/V gives 0 benefits to anything related to POSes.
Anchoring V = OH WAIT.... STATION WAREHOUSE. Now who the hell use that anyway. Outpost contruction, yea mmk... big deal for the 1000s grumps who don't care.
No time reduction or number change on Un/Anchoring pos/modules.
So when you set up a POS, you usually lose a night because there is no point in doing it as a team: anything is done oooonne byyyyy one.
When you have only a few POSes, it's no big deal. But when you reach a certain level or situations where POS are to be anchored/unanchored...
You know in advance you lost a night of sleep.
|
Lisandraia
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:23:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Bloody Rabbit
I would like to see systems that have a control base (call it an isk sink) on the planets. This base would cost a good amount of isk to build with NPC sold parts only, something the size that a jump freighter would need to move. With each base taking massive resources and time to build, and so long as the base is standing the system belongs to the defenders.
What you're suggesting is basically just a bigger POS.
Shouldn't be stuck to planets though, as that would be very uneconomical. You don't put missile batteries in gravity wells.
|
stiff lips
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:37:00 -
[16]
Edited by: stiff lips on 09/12/2008 12:38:31
/signed
|
Weed Farmer
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 12:38:00 -
[17]
/signed
what can be blown up as a team should be possible to build as a team.
its that simple.
|
Bloody Rabbit
Jita Miners
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 13:24:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Lisandraia
Originally by: Bloody Rabbit
I would like to see systems that have a control base (call it an isk sink) on the planets. This base would cost a good amount of isk to build with NPC sold parts only, something the size that a jump freighter would need to move. With each base taking massive resources and time to build, and so long as the base is standing the system belongs to the defenders.
What you're suggesting is basically just a bigger POS.
Shouldn't be stuck to planets though, as that would be very uneconomical. You don't put missile batteries in gravity wells.
Idea that the base would only be used for sovereignty only. So if the corp or alliance doesn't like that then they don't bother with taking sov at every system in 0.0
|
Dr Sheepbringer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 15:23:00 -
[19]
Point is that it's fleetwar. Not poswar. 10h time to wait means a fleet at that same place for 10h.
Stop whining. |
NeoShocker
Caldari
Foundation
Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:57:00 -
[20]
Edited by: NeoShocker on 09/12/2008 17:57:03
Wouldn't even mind if we have the ability to online/unachore/anchor multitasking for the skill with rank 15+ and train that **** to V for the sake of balance.
Oh, and /signed
-----------------------------------
Peace through power! |
Seragon
Caldari
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:14:00 -
[21]
The big problem I see would be having people at a POS under attack onlining a tonne more mods than they already do. I think a fair compromise would be to allow multiple mods to be onlined so long as there's no aggression flag on the POS. Either that or change anchoring to give a % per level time reduction in anchoring and onlining mods. If you buff this too much, then you make it near impossible for a small gang to take out a hostile POS.
|
Leana Darkrider
Daedalus industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:20:00 -
[22]
/signed
Onlining and / or offlining a pos and (un)anchoring modules take way too long imo.
Hopefully CCP sees this and takes actions 
|
Apul MadeekAoud
Black Opz
Phoenix Rising Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:49:00 -
[23]
I like alot of the ideas stated here, but I see one vital flaw with the "skill to anchor/online more structures at a time" idea. You are anchoring the POS for the CORP, not the INDIVIDUAL. How do skills factor in when it is an item owned by an entire corp? If you could anchor for self, like cans, then I could see skills coming into affect. I also agree, fueling sux, period. I don't know how the big alliances keep up with all of their towers. But anyway, just my comments on this subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
ingenting
20th Legion
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:00:00 -
[24]
Edited by: ingenting on 09/12/2008 19:02:31
It takes YEARS to build a skysc****r, and only seconds to bring it down.
But i guess it's a bit too much for eve.
_________________
- "Welcome to EVE, remember to insu *BAAOOM*... Told you, newb." |
Nick Domani
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:55:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Apul MadeekAoud
I like alot of the ideas stated here, but I see one vital flaw with the "skill to anchor/online more structures at a time" idea. You are anchoring the POS for the CORP, not the INDIVIDUAL. How do skills factor in when it is an item owned by an entire corp? If you could anchor for self, like cans, then I could see skills coming into affect.
Not everybody in the corp has to have any levels in the Anchoring skill to use an anchored structure, just like not everybody in the corp has to have the CFO Training skill for the corp to benefit from someone in the corp using that skill. Heck, put a 'when acting as a Starbase Manager' title requirement on it if you want.
|
Halada
Caldari
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 02:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Braaage
You wont get an explanation, only that CCP know it's an area which requires much overhaul.
Several threads exist on POSs some which have DEV replies but the best and oldest will tell you that you really are flogging a dead horse as the topic title of this thread states.
Then there's this thread which put the fuel brick idea into our heads so CCP know POS fuelling is a PITA.
Then lastly this one which Nozh asks how we can change the sovereignty system.
My point is that you most likely will not get an answer to your questions but it would seem CCP are most aware that the POS system needs changing. It's just how to change it, that's the problem.
I'm not asking for a thorough overhaul of the entire POS system.
Just some additional or new tools to make it easier to deploy towers... that's it.
Is that asking too much?
Plus it's my birthday today so gimme something 
★ LSJV now recruiting ★ |
Halada
Caldari
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 02:24:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Seragon
The big problem I see would be having people at a POS under attack onlining a tonne more mods than they already do. I think a fair compromise would be to allow multiple mods to be onlined so long as there's no aggression flag on the POS.
<
That's more than fine.
I want NOT to spend 15 hours onlining a large deathstar when I'm alone all that time in local or just surrounded by blues. What's the point?
★ LSJV now recruiting ★ |
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp
INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 03:06:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Haradgrim on 10/12/2008 03:07:56
This post is sooooo 2006! 
0.0 warfare is pos warfare, CCP is aware that its not the best option by their own admission and that they want to change it somehow, so your options are tough it out, dec some newbs in empire, or play something else/carebear 
For the record: I support the removal of jump bridges and cyno jammers
Also, the timing and placement stuff is mostly game mechanics and tbqh; its not broken enough to worth risking CCP trying to fix it (see: missiles)
--
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Just donĉt forget the reach-around.
|
Nick Domani
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 04:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Haradgrim
...so your options are tough it out, dec some newbs in empire, or play something else/carebear
The problem here is that there are those of us who have to run one or more of them, so the only real option is to tough it out. We know that...it's not as if we can tell our corps/alliances, "Hyuk, hyuk, I'm not gonna do it anymore, I'm-a goin' newb-huntin!" But the current lack of options doesn't prevent us from thinking about and discussing ways to improve the process so it makes more sense.
Personally, I'd rather not just let the issue sit idle until somebody at CCP finally gets around to it and then be stuck with what they come up with on their own. I didn't see anything in the other referenced threads that we duplicated here, apart from the universal recognition that the current POS mechanics are effed up.
|
ELECTR0FREAK
Carpe Nocte
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 04:13:00 -
[30]
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. I've sieged enemy death stars in a small cap fleet before with a Revelation and it took us a half hour or so (all I can remember is that it was several cycles of siege) and seemed reasonable. I've also watched 4 outposts I helped build and an entire region fall to an alliance half our size because they used log in / out tactics. Life definitely aint fair. One last thing, while I agree that the GM response to your friend's dread loss wasn't fair, I will note that it is against forum policy to post any GM reply to a petition, so beware.
Discoverer of the Original Missile Damage Formula |
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.
|
Vigilant
Gallente
Vigilant's Vigilante's
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 03:17:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Lord Fitz
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.
Yep your right, last night I tried to move a structure and got some "wierd a*s" error message.
.... So, glad you said I was wrong, cause its working now...
Still they could make it work FASTER 
|
Tal Kjelthorne
Kjelthorne Industries
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 04:34:00 -
[62]
Originally by: melonboy
I ask you ...
Linkage
where are you going to play ... sorry EVE I dont think your going to make it all that time wasting and fake promises over the last four years of my gameplay ... about time this hell hole went back to spare internet space.
C Ya morons...!
regrds
MB
I think infinity online has been classified as vaporware...
I'll believe it when I see it honestly.
___________
I reserve the right to be wrong.
We the Unwilling
Lead by the Unknowing... |
Spike Spiegle
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 21:10:00 -
[63]
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. I've sieged enemy death stars in a small cap fleet before with a Revelation and it took us a half hour or so (all I can remember is that it was several cycles of siege) and seemed reasonable. I've also watched 4 outposts I helped build and an entire region fall to an alliance half our size because they used log in / out tactics. Life definitely aint fair. One last thing, while I agree that the GM response to your friend's dread loss wasn't fair, I will note that it is against forum policy to post any GM reply to a petition, so beware.
TBH i dont think the OP cares to much about how fast is killed, its the rediculas online/ offline timers. I can understand why CCP has them and the onlining bit doesnt bother me to much as they should be most vunerable at this point.
The issues i would like to see addressed is;
1/ the rediculas unachor timers on pos and mods
and
2/ the stupid pos mod anchoring green box of despair, that makes placing a gun outside the pos the most complicated procedure involving camara placement, zooming, clicking and dragging. (then ur ship moves and ruins it  )
On a personal note never volunteer to do any pos work unless you have alot of time or alot of patience. Or just do what i do and get plastered 
|
Tandin
The Knights Templar
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 21:56:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Evlyna
Takes Anchoring V as a prerequesite to handle guns. (Yea, that looks really related).
Anchoring IV/V gives 0 benefits to anything related to POSes.
Anchoring V = OH WAIT.... STATION WAREHOUSE. Now who the hell use that anyway. Outpost contruction, yea mmk... big deal for the 1000s grumps who don't care.
Obviously you've never had the fun of sitting in the POS blasting away at the enemy fleet. POS gunnery is almost like a mini-game within eve. |
Vigilant
Gallente
Vigilant's Vigilante's
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 05:14:00 -
[65]
I would be happy with Anchoring increasing the rate of Anchor / Online and a "new" skill that allows multiple Anchor / Onlines per level. Say Level 1 (3 at a time) and each level beyond gains 2 additional. Make the multiplier like 8 X .
|
Artmedis Valben
Gallente
Lobster of Babel
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 11:47:00 -
[66]
5% time reduction per level would be a good simple start.
Brings a 12 hour endeavour down to 9 hours with Anchoring 5.
Starbase Multitasking allowing up to 1 additional POS structure to be anchored, onlined, unanchored per level IF the tower is not aggressed might cause some serious balance issue with Ninja erecting Deathstars.
But can't see any balance issue with making unanchoring go faster. I'd even support one click unanchoring of all empty offline mods in one go... Something akin to strip fitting on a ship.
Allowing more people to anchor, online or unanchor at at a time by increasing the number of concurrent users is probably the best way.
Say 1 concurrent user on a small, 2 on medium and 3 on a large tower?
Selling: PERFECT PRINTS
+ RESEARCH |
Evlyna
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 01:38:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Tandin
Originally by: Evlyna
Takes Anchoring V as a prerequesite to handle guns. (Yea, that looks really related).
Anchoring IV/V gives 0 benefits to anything related to POSes.
Anchoring V = OH WAIT.... STATION WAREHOUSE. Now who the hell use that anyway. Outpost contruction, yea mmk... big deal for the 1000s grumps who don't care.
Obviously you've never had the fun of sitting in the POS blasting away at the enemy fleet. POS gunnery is almost like a mini-game within eve.
Obviously, you're the pos gunner, not the pos manager who had to park all those guns for you (or unanchor them later for whatever reason). Assumptions ftl!
Yes I did had a few good times doing that but it will never be comparable to the timesink the op is talking about.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 10:29:00 -
[68]
just make anchoring and onlining quenable, make quene for all structures in like half hour and tower itself will anchor and online everything. |
Halada
Caldari
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 04:02:00 -
[69]
bump because I can |
Captain Zienna
Caldari
TachyonTubbies
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 14:21:00 -
[70]
/signed |
Stogee
Grog Gluggers
|
Posted - 2009.02.13 18:08:00 -
[71]
Was reading this thread and had a thought I kinda liked, totally off the wall.. Though I know it'll get blown to tiny little pieces.
- Liked the Mility bases/ Cities idea, something that requires a huge investment and built on planets, titanesque. The base would allow the anchoring of POS in that system and neighbouring systems.
- Move the fuel requirements to bases, including food water and number of trade goods etc. with the exception of Ice products, POS's should require them.
POS's = become industrial centres.
- Bases produce alliance npc military forces produced from minerals that patrol the stargates in that system. Allow Alliances to attempt to secure their space and essentially set up borders. Like the empires.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |