Posted - 2007.05.13 10:14:00 - [212]

 

CCP Nerfed WarpCoreStabs, as they "wanted people to commit to a fight"

Now we see the potential for a similar thing to happen with supercapitals and POSs. Though the stakes are in the billions, not a few million.

Posted - 2007.05.14 17:17:00 - [214]

 

Perhaps a good approach to the single POS for sovereignty would be having a single POS define who has sovereignty over the system, being deployed at the star of the system(this way, everyone knows where it is and what is needed to be taken). The trick is, this POS have bonus resists or natural recharge rate, plus a huge sized shield by itself, depending on the number of POS deployed on the system. Each POS deployed adds, through a special module, some of these bonuses to the STAR POS. This way, if someone wants to take sovereignty, either they jump in an amazing number of dreads, or they go after each POS in system. Make it like these devices take a few days to become active, so POS spamming can't be used for either attack nor defense.(you want the system, you have to take down all support POSes until the STAR pos of the opposite alliance is soft enough to be killed)

Lobo

Posted - 2007.05.14 21:50:00 - [216]

 

No matter what changes are made to the defense of POS nothing will stop a large powerful Alliance from pushing out a smaller Alliance.

What I would like to see is a plan where by a corp which contains say 50 active pilots gets irrevocable soverniety to at least one system once it builds the requisite structures and keeps them fueled or in some way meets a standard of investment.
This might scale up with corp size, to a total of 3 systems. CCP would have to fine tune it and make other requirements to prevent a large corp from splitting into several smaller pseudo corps.

I guess the thing I hate to see is a group of players work hard to establish themselves in 0.0 invest an incredible amount of time and effort to build a little home in space and then be bulldozed by a big alliance and lose everything. In the past the small alliance could align itself with a stable larger alliance and exist in relative safety. Now things are in such flux that is less and less an option.

Posted - 2007.05.15 02:56:00 - [218]

 

Originally by: Dianabolic

---

Originally by: Mistae

---

I guess the thing I hate to see is a group of players work hard to establish themselves in 0.0 invest an incredible amount of time and effort to build a little home in space and then be bulldozed by a big alliance and lose everything. In the past the small alliance could align itself with a stable larger alliance and exist in relative safety. Now things are in such flux that is less and less an option.

---

Isn't that very risk the same reason that you would get such satisfaction from building it? That gives you your anchor in the game and makes you play it with such passion?

That should never be taken away.

---

Well if I'm going to build a "little home" out in 0.0 it'd be nice if myself and my friends could put our collective geek power together to litterally design something that would give the attacker nightmares. Forlorn hope I know.

Dal

Posted - 2007.05.15 17:03:00 - [220]

 

Originally by: Princess Jodi

---

Many posters are advocating a 'Soverignty POS' idea. Please stop considering this as an answer.

Before POS's, a station could be shot by any passer-by, who would take over the station if they were able to take the shields down. The 'Soverignty POS' ideas are exactly the same idea as we had before: Shoot one thing and you own the station.

Given fleets of 100+ Capitals that are being fielded now, any form of 'Soverignty POS' will die in a flash.

It seems people have degenerated into how to stop POS warfare, not how to better control Soverignty in a system. POS warfare, while flawed, is much better than Station Ping-Pong. And the real question is how to determine Soverignty, not how many/few POS's should be up.

I dont pretend to have ALL the answers, but the whole 'Soverignty POS' idea is flawed because it defines ownership as a single item that controls all. This is no different thatn having a Station shield that, once shot down, determines who ownes that Station. Its just a bigger shield with a few guns instead.

---

The ultimate solution would have to be something more then who can lagup a system by spamming POS allround, surely a method of keeping resources trimmed and simple would be a more favourable solution, in the end with massive alliances, the lag issue will still come back and kick us in the face.

Provided POS weapon systems are beefed up with some killer punches then i like my previously mentioned idea of sov being gained by holding a POS at the SUN, perhaps adjoining owned systems would be influenced by sov status in another system.

example: Systems A,B,C are next to each other, however systems A,B have a sun based POS in them, claiming sov status for an alliance, system C has no POS's of any kind, and as systems A and B are next to system C, then the sov extends to the unclaimed neighbouring system.

Adjoining systems with POS's claiming sov, could give an accumalative bonus to the surrounding POS's to make them tougher to attack or something similarly useful to the claiming alliance.

Either way a simple method of sov should be used, im sure many could think of a way to implement this in a better way than my example, but using existing game systems/methods avoiding the need for a massive rewrite of the current system.

Lag is bad, No Lag is good, these points should be kept in mind if someone suggests mass POS ownership as a "better" system.

Posted - 2007.05.15 19:21:00 - [222]

 

Edited by: Bein Glorious on 15/05/2007 19:19:39
Thinking about the ideas behind these new starbase mechanics, I think I'm actually pretty comfortable with the ideas behind putting stuff outside of shields where it can be attacked, things like that. However, that is only as long as supercapitals are rebalanced before or at the same time as these new mechanics are introduced. I would also like it if dreads did proportionally less damage, towers had less HP, and cap ships in general had a little less HP in addition to that, but that might just be personal preference.

Posted - 2007.05.16 15:13:00 - [224]

 

Edited by: Bobby Atlas on 16/05/2007 15:14:37

Originally by: Alpha Prime

---

Here´s a hint. How much does it cost to put up a "deathstar".
And how much does it cost to kill it ?.

Current POS-system is a ****ing joke and needs to be sorted,
it needed to be sorted 1 year ago. Taking down a pos takes
hours of work and bilions in assets. But putting them up
takes much less assets and time.

Imo, an alliance should only be able to put 3 POSs into any
system. And any system should only be able to have 6 POSs
in total. So if both contending alliances has 3 POSs, the
system will gain neutral sov. And if one of the alliances
wants Sov, they have to kill alteast 1 of the enemy towers.

---

That opinion is biased as some people are strong ecnomically and others are strong militarily -- others are strong in both. It is a hudge on-going logistical burden to manage umpteen pos's in a system. Where as for the attacker it is a short term logisitcal operation to kill those pos's with staggering firepower.

However the short of it is yes, POS system is screwed up - it needs fixing to some extent and these changes to the defensive structures going outside the POS are a step in the wrong direction.

CCP for a long time has had the genious approuch with reinforced mode allowing for defender/attacker harmony so to speak, so people could not engage in time zone wars. Each side has roughly an equal opportunity to do something thanks to reinforced mode.

Now the problem is that since defensive structures are outside a POS, the power has yet again shifted forward to the attacker allowing them to disarm a POS all together before it enters reinforced mode. There is also the problem that a MOM can simply warp in and have fighters attack the pos defensive structures with no fear of it fighters being attacked and watch as structures are pounded into an incapacitated state - or just warp in/out as each structure falls. Furthermore defenders must now not only recharge a POS forcefield but the shields, armor and structures of every defensive weapon!

It is not like POS management was not already time consuming enough as-is.... It has now become beyond a joke with these changes and we are turning to a time zone dominated, reinforced mode negated, super capital favored, pos-warefare system. Oh the joy of the coming months....

Posted - 2007.05.16 16:16:00 - [226]

 

Suggestion:

Please implement a way for the user of the jump bridge to pay the isotope cost either by taking it from their hold (meh), or by implementing owner-settable jump fees. The second one is probably better (and the wallet already has a category for that), and would allows NRDS 0.0 alliances to offer a new service: transport!

I could see amicable alliances setting up 0.0 "railroads" to allow paying customers relatively safe travel in their space. Since patrols aren't really practical in this game, and since nobody likes gatecamps, this seems like a good thing

Posted - 2007.05.17 01:17:00 - [228]

 

Originally by: Murukan

---

The jump bridges on pos are an absolute horrible horrible idea. This will really kill small gangs even more.

Enemies will be able to completely bypass roaming gangs now through pos that a small gang can't hope to take out (since pos warfare is the suck no thx). So now we will be forced to just camp 0.0 entrance points, and frankly that gets boring after about 30 minutes.

Also it will allow the enemy to quickly bring a blob to the general area of your gang to blob you away. This will make it even harder to avoid blobs as they can jump around quickly cutting you off.

Please please please don't do this. Small gangs already are hard enough and take more skill than noob alliance blob warfare, and you guys are trying to kill it off completely. WTF!!!!

---

Agreed. As one who has left alliance warfare completely, it is hard to find good fights (occasional carebear gank sure, but it's easy to get blobbed when roaming 0.0) in 0.0 outside the entrance points; this will make it that much more difficult.

A possible solution to this might be constellation sovereignty, as someone mentioned earlier, though I would have to see this in action.

Posted - 2007.05.17 13:57:00 - [230]

 

Originally by: Jessie Arr

---

Additionally, I really like the idea of the POS Jump Portals, since I hate the way stargates bottleneck your forces twice in every system, but the concerns about freighters moving through 0.0 too easily are valid. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

---

At the moment I can move about 85k in a carrier, but I have to put it all into all the arrays / ships etc. Then pay jump fuel etc.

I'd be happy with paying 10x the jump fuel, or even a little more to move a freighter carrying 850k the same distance...

Don't really see how this gives any more power it just saves a lot of f***ing around.

Obviously it has to cost alot more to move a freighter than a hauler or frigate.

Posted - 2007.05.18 07:48:00 - [232]

 

Well I think the 10k shield and 15k armor on the Cyno system jammer will not hold over couple of minutes max when the support fleet gets in to attack it. And since it is at least 5k outside the shield and only 1 per system it will always be the primary target, after which the support fleet BS-s warp to safety and capitals cyno in.
So those can be discarded mostly, because they last only a minute or two while tanked BS-s kill them and the rest of the battle will go as if those were never there. Not sure what was their intended purpose and if they fulfill that purpose this way.

Posted - 2007.05.18 13:30:00 - [234]

 

I hope CCP does not listen to people who arbitrarily condemn jump bridges without trying it or even knowing what kind of effort goes into reaching the Sov level needed to anchor one. A line needs to be drawn between people who actually tested something and knee-jerk reactions. This happens every single time stuff is added to the servers.

Ok, with regards to what I have tested so far. I don't like the new sov timer levels. I agree with requirements for Province and Capital, but the Territory requirement needs to be tweaked. Gaining Sovreignty over a system by requiring 7 days of POS sov points superiority is not practical. Fights over individual starbase systems will last much longer and drag out. Invading corporations will have to now endure 7 extra days of Outpost ping-pong than they do on Tranquility now.

Posted - 2007.05.18 13:54:00 - [236]

 

Edited by: Mainreh Rhonaki on 18/05/2007 13:55:08
Assumptions: 1) you require sov lvl 2 ot erect jump bridges, which means you don't need a station there. 2) jump bridges can be used by non-capital ships.

As far as I can understand, jump bridges will have 3 major combat applications:

Operational surprise
Alliances will establish jump bridges in systems surrounding their core areas in order to do pincer operations and interception.

I don't really have a problem with these scenarios. Pilots already react to negative surprises with logging off, and this will likely create many more loggoffskis. However, it is probably worth the price for getting a lot of interesting gameplay.

Dangerouser POSes
Important POSes will have jump bridges installed in them for deterrent purposes. Attacking such a POS (or indeed any POS in that system) will require major effort, because you have to assume that a large defense fleet will jump in any second. This is a natural extension to the Deathstar POS setup model.

I think this should allow wider usage of POSes, which will prolly have a positive net effect.

Note, however, that this is a strong impetus that works at cross with the current development ambition to give smaller gangs intermediate goals. Most attacks on POSes in systems with a jump bridge will be met by at least some resistance, which will likely result in classic standoff-and-blob-size races.

Rapid reaction
Meta-alliances will establish networks of jump bridges in order to come to each others' assistance. When the invasion comes to 9-9, RAGOON allies will stream in from all over the north to help deflect the BoB & pets menace.

This would be ubercool and epic, except for one thing. Many more major null-sec operations will likely end in node death. Nodes can barely take the kind of engagements that are now occuring frequently in null-sec. Jump bridges only need to add some 15-30% more pilots to major battles for them to go from lag-fest to nodekill. This would likely recreate the JV1V debacle on a regular basis. That is not going to help the null-sec situation.

Some current reasons for not joining in the fray that will be addressed by the jump bridge:

*) hostile interdiction: you have to travel thru hostile territory to get to the fight, but most of your mates are already there, so you don't brave the trip. Well, not with the jump bridge.

*) don't have the time to participate: social life, spouse aggro, beddytime or other RL factors means you can't participate the whole evening. The jump bridge will take you there quicker, but more importantly, there is also a POS at the far end that can keep you safe in case you can't stay long enough to join your gang going back. And, in an emergency, you can always go back thru the jump
bridge.

*) it's to far away for us to get there in time. Well, not anymore.

Please do not underestimate the frustration caused by unexpected intervention into a dramatic situation. At its worst, this could place much of null-sec action in a limbo.

P.S: There are many logistic applications of jump bridges of which I wholehartedly approve. For example, the ability to send ordinary haulers on refuel operations will mean less seasoned and industrial characters can play a larger role.

Posted - 2007.05.18 17:47:00 - [238]

 

I've been thiking about some sort of Passification or Loyalty setting regarding Soverignty. I've played games before where you need to control a territory for a lot of time to truly 'Pacify' the area and assimilate it into your empire. During the Passification period, revolts occur and must be put down.

Now...I don't know if this would work in EVE, but....

Say I take over a piece of Angel space. Angels becomes the Rebels. As time goes on, Angels would come to accept my rule as the resistance diminishes. When a Rebellion Event happens, Angels would muster up a decent fleet and attack a Soverignty Pos. Things like Alliance standings to the Angels and the amount of time the system has been controlled would moderate the Rebellion chance.

Lets say Alliance A and Alliance B have areas of space that they have owned for some time. They have mitigated the Revolt Risk to zero by the long-term ownership. Then the two alliances go to war, and Alliance A attacks B.

B would have Pos's destroyed and A would put up new Pos's. But A would not have a reduced Revolt Risk, which means that Revolts would spring up in their territory. Alliance A would have to commit resources to putting down rebellions, while B could capitalize on those rebellions by finishing off Pos's put into reinforced by the Rebels or by simply having an 'NPC Ally'.

This makes taking and holding new territory harder, and defending easier. So 100+ Capital fleets could steamroller over an alliance, only to find that the territory behind them was now NPC hostile. The Rebel Fleets need to be of sufficient power to take out a Pos, and would move on to another target until destroyed.

Perhaps this idea could be incorporated into the new Faction Warfare.

Note: Try to withhold your Flamethrowers. I know there are details to hash out to make this idea viable. But what do others think?

Posted - 2007.05.19 00:17:00 - [240]

 

so what was the intention for this?

? get aride of blobs ?
? make POS warfare more interessting ?

well ... mission not accomplished and new concept flaws introduced

1.) by pushing the offensives out of the FF nothing, repeat NOTHING is achieved in terms of avoiding blobs

Well, sort off ... you can send the caps home, once the POS has been stripped off the weapons ^^
Beside that, what happens to the weapons once the POS is in RF ?? What happens to them, when the POS gets out of RF ?
RF mode is a good concept for syncronizing fleets and fleetfights. If you spoil this, then POS defending is just a sick arbitrary joke.

2.) giving POS player-controlled defense (which we have not tested yet) makes only sense when these weapons are usable when the POS comes out of RF. from what i have read in this thread little is known about this. If POS is without weapons during RF mode, the defenders cannot gather in this POS because they will be subject to lame Titan-bowling-exploits

3.) you do not avoid blobs, all of the stuff occurs in very same grid. So since this is new fancy stuff, all i would expect is more lag, because the code has not been opitized.

If CCP really wanted to avoid blobs, then they should have thought about action, that does not take place within the very same grid. for example deadspaces, which contain some hardware stiring the POS or linked POS networks.

a.) deadspaces

The deadspace idea facilitates the use of gates which allows to control the ship population whithin a DeadSpace. Each POS has a set of 5 acc. gates which lead to DS pockets containing hardware that maintains the RF mode. Gates can be used during the POS being in RF mode. If a defender (within the POS owning alliance or within a gang that contains an alliance member) enters the gate he will get into pocket A, if an oppenent (all others) enters the gate he will get into B. Both pockets are limted to 40 ships that have to wait there until RF ends. The moment POS gets out of RF, gates in A & B can be activated to reach pocket C from opposite directions, where a last man standing match decides the outcome or a capture the flag or even more complex endgame (requiring components carried in an indu or hacking skill, etc.)

Lets have 5 of this 3-pocketed DS spaces, 2 for all ships including supercaps (remember 40 each side), 2 for BS and smaller, 1 for frigates. Bingo, 400 people have fun, without the bad lag of POS warfare.

Depending on the outcome of this scenario the reaction of POS varies from changing ownership to the opponent over loosing shields but being boostable and refillable to getting a huge shield boost, which makes it rather invunerable for a reasonable amount of time. So if its a 5:0 or 4:1 POS goes to the enemy with all the stuff inside, if its 3:2 the POS has weak shields, but can be boosted and eventually refueled, if its 2:3 the POS has quite high shields and can be immedeately refueled. 4:1 POS shields are fully loaded , 5:0 POS shield overloaded (= 3 higher base value and regen rate slow decreasing to normal values within 7 days - for the sake of 9 fold higher fuel consumption. So you will only use it, if there is an urgent need for defense ...).

b.) POS network
If POS is under attack, the other POS support each other with shield energy. This way you have to concurrently attack the network at more than one POS in order to siege a POS.


But the way changes on SiSi read POS warefare becomes just worse