open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked POS Overhaul.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.02 18:19:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 15/09/2006 15:08:24
Under current mechanism POS Warfare is BORING because you are forced to grind POS's. To change that I am proposing the following systems.

a) Different kinds of POS
Make 3 'specific' kinds of POS. Each with their own meaning, just like we have Industrials, Capitals and Battleships.

Industrial POS
Used for industrial stuff like Moon Harvesting and Capital building.

Battle POS
Used as a Base of Operation for Military activities. This POS should give bonuses to defense/offense. Also add new POS modules to fitt the new Battle POS;

1) Deep Space Scanner.
Scans the system for logged off players, showing each and every pilot that is logged off. This gives tactical intel to the system holder. This should only work if you have sovereignity in system.

2) Deep Space 'Intercom' Scanner. (IF local is removed ONLY)
Scans the system to show active pilots in system.

Logistic POS, or Outpost POS
This POS is used as a defense mechanism, just like the moon of Endor in Star Wars. Each Logistic POS adds 1 day to the Outposts 'reinforcement mode'.

b) How to get an Outpost under my system is like this.

1) You simply attack the Outpost. Once the Outpost has its shields down to 25%, the Outpost goes into 'reinforcement mode'.

1a) Tho it is adviced to take down all hostile Logistic POS to lower the waiting time.

2) Once the Outpost is in 'reinforcement mode' you have to wait 1 day per Logistic POS that is still fully operational. Meaning if a system has 20 Logistic POS, you will have to wait 20 days before you can finish the last 25% of the shields to get the Outpost.

c) How to defend your Outpost from invaders.

1) The more Logistic POS you have, the more time you have to fight back the enemy.

2) To remove 'reinforcement mode' from your Outpost you will have to recharge its shields back to 100% and stop the enemy from taking it down back to 25% percent. You will have to keep the Outpost over 25% percent for 24 hours to remove the 'reinforcement mode'. When this is done the enemy has to do b) 1) all over again.

This is just a simple and short draft of the idea I had in mind. There might be some problems that I have not forseen yet, but generally I think this system would be a good one. The idea is of course open for tweaks and discussion to make it better.

Sovereiginity should still be achieved by having POS. The Battle POS should give most points while the other ones should give a lot less.

When it comes to a systems infrastructure I feel that to make that happen you would need 'some' kind of industrial force. Thats why I think POS should still be attached to sovereiginity.

EDIT;

Remove the length of sovereignity, currently it takes 5 days for the system to register a new POS into the equation. A POS should take 24 hours to get into the system.

When you online a POS, 24 hours for it to be registered. If there are no other POS you get sovreignity. If there is hostiles POS and you got more you have to wait another 24 hours to switch sovereignity. In these 24 hours the system will be "Contested".

When you kill a POS it should take 24 hours from the POS kill for the POS points to be removed.

Please post constructive comments under. Smile

Manus Ghostface
Caldari
Oberon Incorporated
Prime Orbital Systems
Posted - 2006.09.02 23:14:00 - [2]
 

I like the direction your're taking, of divorcing production from sovereignity, but I think it needs to be even more extreme.

Give me your opinion of this admirial.

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=388240&page=1


Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.03 09:14:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Manus Ghostface
I like the direction your're taking, of divorcing production from sovereignity, but I think it needs to be even more extreme.

Give me your opinion of this admirial.

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=388240&page=1



Posted my opinion. ;)


Audrea
Evolution
IT Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.03 12:49:00 - [4]
 

The idea is very good, I love it!

Although the thing with holding it charged for 24 hours wont work.. it will make defenders too strong, as the attacker will need to control the system for 20 days 23/7, which is impossible to to timezones.

Something else needs to be done.
Perhaps the defenders need to take it out of reinforced for at least half the days (not neccesarily in raw?)

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.03 12:55:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 03/09/2006 12:59:43
Quote:
Although the thing with holding it charged for 24 hours wont work.. it will make defenders too strong, as the attacker will need to control the system for 20 days 23/7, which is impossible to to timezones.

Well you as the attacker has to keep the system under siege for 20 days to get the Outpost OR you could start shooting down Logistic POS to decrease the waiting time.

But I get your point that it will be easier to defend as all you need to do is keep the system for 24 hours. But the timezone issue will be an issue for both sides. So when the invading force logs on again they will have to destroy the defending force before the 24 hour count-time ends.

EDIT;
A dedicated invasion force would take down most of the Logistic POS and then attack the Outpost and wait x days (depending on how many Logistic POS left) for it to turn over, and would most likely have a strong fleet at one of the timezones, so it should not be a problem to get the Outpost.

Infact the defender is the one that has to be online 23 hours to get the Outpost back to normal state, so its really not an advantage afterall.

Kehmor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2006.09.03 13:01:00 - [6]
 

I fully support Admiral Iceblock with his:
Idea
/policy/opinion

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.03 18:54:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 03/09/2006 18:56:14
I like this idea, but I think I see a serious issue, in that the industrial POS is going to be, by default, highly vulnerable to attackers; if one has some serious investment going there, like a carrier or dreadnought under construction, it would make it extremely difficult to keep it defended from enemy attack, and make it exceptionally easy to break the industrial might of any alliance.

Unless I missed something this would be disasterous for the smaller alliances or the corporations within them who are dependant on their industrial output; it would hurt the big guys too.

So... except as a final cleanup step, what point would there be in attacking a battle POS?

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.03 19:16:00 - [8]
 

Say that Battle POS gave 4, Logistics 2 and Industrial 1 points. You as the invading alliance must have sovereignity else your Logistic POS wont work. That is why one would have to take a Battle POS.

But I see your point about Industrial POS being vulnerable, but the Industrial POS can still fitt weapons, just that it gets bonuses to Industrial stuff instead of Battle.

In terms of HP a Battle POS would be 100% like a Large POS today, a Industrial POS would be 75% of a Large POS and Logistic POS would be 50% of a Large POS. This setting may also be applied to price?

Normal rules will still apply to POS tho, they can also be put down into 'reinforcement mode', and time is dependent on stronthium.

I'm just throwing out ideas here, it might not fitt 'perfectly' into EVE but what does anyway and besides, it is a good alternative to current mechanism nevertheless. Smile

Clorthos
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
Posted - 2006.09.04 08:25:00 - [9]
 

they need to make pos skills to lower the ammount of time needed to offline and online structures and anchoring .. jeez that alone would save hours of game play a week.

Nicole KholdStare
Gallente
Northstar Syndicate
Posted - 2006.09.04 15:41:00 - [10]
 

Sounds good to me...although if I don't say I like it Ice will whip me again Crying or Very sadVery Happy
But yeah good idea there.

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.08 10:16:00 - [11]
 

More comments?

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.15 15:09:00 - [12]
 

Remove the length of sovereignity, currently it takes 5 days for the system to register a new POS into the equation. A POS should take 24 hours to get into the system.

When you online a POS, 24 hours for it to be registered. If there are no other POS you get sovreignity. If there is hostiles POS and you got more you have to wait another 24 hours to switch sovereignity. In these 24 hours the system will be "Contested".

When you kill a POS it should take 24 hours from the POS kill for the POS points to be removed.

Tyleritus
Mortis Angelus
Posted - 2006.09.15 18:04:00 - [13]
 

The way things have gone with POS spammage atm i think your idea is great and no doubt the sout coalition agree with this.

VCBee 756
Posted - 2006.09.17 01:52:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: VCBee 756 on 17/09/2006 01:52:31
Your idea intrigues me. The one thing I'd like to suggest is not reducing the time needed for switching sov. to 24 hours, but maybe 48 or 72 hours. I mean, it would suck pretty badly if some corp came two hours before downtime, onlined a bunch of towers and took sov without the other corp being able to respond at all. 48-72 hours gives the defending corp enough time to deal with the hostile POS's, as well as reinforce their own.

Another thing that really bugs me about POS's is the fact that only the corp who anchors the POS can use any of the POS modules. This means any corp that is a part of a particular alliance can't use ship maintenance arrays if it wasn't launched by their particular corp. This should be changed so that the executor corporation of an alliance (or the corp that anchored the POS) can pick and choose which modules can be used by what corps (for instance, allowing an ally to use the Ship Maintenance Array, but not access a Capital Shipyard Array for security reasons).

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.17 04:18:00 - [15]
 

Idea sounds like something that would work. The major problem with completely changing the POS system is what would happen to the current towers??? If the current towers were to be deleted/erased there would be billions of isk just dissapearing.(Not to mention the entire loss of sovereignty everywhere but empire. And the destruction of the entire T2 component production market in the process.) And then comes the problem of reimbursing every player who currently has a current tower with the isk and or other towers. Unfortunately i dont see CCP completely redoing the current POS system, but instead ammending the current system with something else.

(Sorry if i totally missed the point and this is an addon to the current system.)

Shaikar
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.09.17 04:42:00 - [16]
 

Well they could use the brute force approach.
Say they took this idea and used it as it is, CCP could just make all towers invulnerable and disable the anchoring of new towers for say a week when the change happened (making sure to give plenty of notice before hand).
Then allow the owners of existing towers to choose what they what their tower to be - battle, industrial or logistic, and have some sort of funky temporary interface for setting u the details on your new POS.

Aftr the week (or chosen time period) is up, any unchanged, presumably abandoned starbases can be removed. (They fell prey to the local pirate gangs, sanshsa, gurista, whatever.)

The they pretend in game that the new pos system was the way pos-es have aways worked and everyone walks off whistling. Wink


doesn't mean it is likely to happen of course, just an option..

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.17 05:12:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Shaikar
Well they could use the brute force approach.
Say they took this idea and used it as it is, CCP could just make all towers invulnerable and disable the anchoring of new towers for say a week when the change happened (making sure to give plenty of notice before hand).
Then allow the owners of existing towers to choose what they what their tower to be - battle, industrial or logistic, and have some sort of funky temporary interface for setting u the details on your new POS.

Aftr the week (or chosen time period) is up, any unchanged, presumably abandoned starbases can be removed. (They fell prey to the local pirate gangs, sanshsa, gurista, whatever.)

The they pretend in game that the new pos system was the way pos-es have aways worked and everyone walks off whistling. Wink


doesn't mean it is likely to happen of course, just an option..


Thats one of the solutions i had thought up as well. Then i thought about how much work it would be for CCP. ugh

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2006.09.17 11:21:00 - [18]
 

Could just make Medium POS industrial, Large POS battle and Small POS logistic.

OR

Make just one size POS and make POS module x not work with POS module y.

I have been thinking a lot about it but can't really get an easy answer for it. :P

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.18 02:59:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 18/09/2006 03:00:10
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Could just make Medium POS industrial, Large POS battle and Small POS logistic.

OR

Make just one size POS and make POS module x not work with POS module y.

I have been thinking a lot about it but can't really get an easy answer for it. :P


I know the feeling there isnt going to be an easy solution to the problem but probably the better way to do things is to add new POS modules to the game. Allowing special added bonus like those 3 you listed except allowing that special module to reduce the PG and CPU requirements of the offenses for battle, the PG + CPU for the construction arrays and moon mining equipement for industrial, and giving the other logistics module a reduction in fitting for the sheild hardeners or reduceing fuel requirements for those fitted with it and only allowing that module to account for sovereignty.

Thinking more along those lines ill come up with somenames and some more concrete examples after i finish up some stuff tomorrow.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.18 04:00:00 - [20]
 

Call the current POS's for Tech 1 POS's and introduce Tech 2 POS'es..

That said i'll explain my views.
I commented on Manus Ghostface's Thread regarding other nice ideas that would imporove the game here.

Now T2 POS's.. ??
Lets say that today's POS's fulfill a multipurpose (like they do today). They are safe havens, thay are industrial and they are DeathStars. :)

Lets also say they give you sovereignity points for their size. 1point for small, 2 for medium and 3 for a large one.

So in order to get rid of those lets say that the Tech 2 POS'es give you more points and there are 3 diffrent (or more) types and with a difference in cost.

Admiral IceBlock have a GREAT idea here. Lets devide the use for POS'es:

-Industrial POS give you 1 sovereignity point, it can mine, build, research ect. and it can take a real beating for instance 2 times the hitpoints the large T1 POS got today. But it can only deal with lone BS's and other small ships on it's own, and maybe make it conquerable after the system sovereignity is lost. So: It's poorly armed with heavy shields and it's a asset to be taked not destroyed in most cases.
-Logistics POS give you 2 sovereignity points, it can store ships and TONS of loot and equipment and you can repair stuff and refitt. (Conquerable or not? dunno.) :D It's moderaly armed and moderatly shilded.
-Battle POS give you 5 (or whatever CCP thinks is fair) sovereignity points, it can dish out damage and take hell of a beating, and it should cost you lots to maintain, and buy. No other function, no refitting and no industrial, it's a pure System Holder (Not conquerable). It's got heavy guns and heavy shields + a few other combat bonuses maybe for friendly gangs?). Lets make the Dread/Carrier Fleets really fight for this one.

So there you have it. A new use for POS'es without deleting the old.
/me prepares to be spammed with the flaws i can't see atm ugh

Pedo Fortis
Gallente
Posted - 2006.09.18 12:49:00 - [21]
 

I like the Idea of T2 pos as described above.

If you also included the modular POS idea (very cool) http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=391410

and the trade goods POS farm idea http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=323516

that would be a great basis for a T2 Pos setup

Pedo Fortis

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.19 18:20:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Toriatrix
Call the current POS's for Tech 1 POS's and introduce Tech 2 POS'es..

That said i'll explain my views.
I commented on Manus Ghostface's Thread regarding other nice ideas that would imporove the game here.

Now T2 POS's.. ??
Lets say that today's POS's fulfill a multipurpose (like they do today). They are safe havens, thay are industrial and they are DeathStars. :)

Lets also say they give you sovereignity points for their size. 1point for small, 2 for medium and 3 for a large one.

So in order to get rid of those lets say that the Tech 2 POS'es give you more points and there are 3 diffrent (or more) types and with a difference in cost.

Admiral IceBlock have a GREAT idea here. Lets devide the use for POS'es:

-Industrial POS give you 1 sovereignity point, it can mine, build, research ect. and it can take a real beating for instance 2 times the hitpoints the large T1 POS got today. But it can only deal with lone BS's and other small ships on it's own, and maybe make it conquerable after the system sovereignity is lost. So: It's poorly armed with heavy shields and it's a asset to be taked not destroyed in most cases.
-Logistics POS give you 2 sovereignity points, it can store ships and TONS of loot and equipment and you can repair stuff and refitt. (Conquerable or not? dunno.) :D It's moderaly armed and moderatly shilded.
-Battle POS give you 5 (or whatever CCP thinks is fair) sovereignity points, it can dish out damage and take hell of a beating, and it should cost you lots to maintain, and buy. No other function, no refitting and no industrial, it's a pure System Holder (Not conquerable). It's got heavy guns and heavy shields + a few other combat bonuses maybe for friendly gangs?). Lets make the Dread/Carrier Fleets really fight for this one.

So there you have it. A new use for POS'es without deleting the old.
/me prepares to be spammed with the flaws i can't see atm ugh


Love the idea of T2 POS. Alliances can buy the BPOs for these towers and then the specific parts to convert them over from the NPCs and then take them down to their outposts and build the new towers without having to waste isk buying new towers. Would take a little while to convert the current towers over but it would save a decent amount of isk. However each race of towers would have its own bpos so you can covert each tower to like a T2 minmatar industrial POS with some added industrial bonus. This way you could convert even the small towers.

However the biggest draw back atm even with this idea is the current sovereignty system. Its not so much the towers that need the reworking its the fact that people put so many towers up to make sure that they cant be POS spammed and lose sovereignty. So in reality if you set a maximum number of towers to claim soveriegnty you wouldnt need to slap up 40 towers in your 79 moon system just to ensure that the station would be protected from a POS spam. Because we all know that a lot of the towers are just put up for this reason. Its not like someones only gonna put up 7 when theres 50 some odd moons. Because they know 7 isnt going to secure the sovereignty of their station.

What needs to be done is to hard cap the number of POS that claim sovereignty at a set number with the current sovereignty rules. Even though there may be 150 moons in a system only 10 POS can count for sovereignty. However the enemy cant out POS spam you by placing up 11 because only 10 of those 11 would count. So it would fall to a stalemate and you would be forced to put up a fight if you really wanted the station. And the defender would also beforced to put up a fight to defend his home. OF course the current rules would still apply if you have a system with less than 19 moons and you put up the majority of POS over the moons and have them all claim sovereignty then you would still be safe.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.19 19:23:00 - [23]
 

EmbarassedSorry for the long reply but read on and look at what we have and what we need in 0.0 to make our POS'es work like they should.
Originally by: Agent Kenshin
What needs to be done is to hard cap the number of POS that claim sovereignty at a set number with the current sovereignty rules.
SadTo hard cap the number of POS's that controll sov of the system is not the way to go imo.

IdeaOne should consider the real assets in a system and let the POS'es interact and in a way controll the sov this way.

ArrowCandidates for assets are:
Jumpgates, asterod-/ice-belts, complexes, planets/moons, stations/outposts and eventually gas clouds and comets. But the most important assets are stations and complexes.
If a POS is to interact and/or control these it should be explained by some logic and one should encourage the players to protect the assets by putting up POS'es and thus improving their "Empire".ugh

As far as i see it EVE's corporations and alliances is going to build their own "empires" more or less. So the POS'es should have form and function, they do to some extent atm but not enough imo.ugh
So if one are to overhaul the POS system one needs to look at the reason for it and do it properly and logicaly.Cool

QuestionRadical Example:
It dont help me to put up ten Norwegian flags in Alabama USA and claim it for Norway. I need to controll the land and it's resources to be able to claim Alabama for Norway, I need to be able to protect my assets and population. I need to be able to build a fortress to keep my stuff safe.

Look at the means to take my stuff away.
USA would roll over my little flags (POS's) with tanks and bomb me to pieces if they had botherd to move them there and spend the money.
So in EVE the Dreads are litteraly tanks. They cost to operate, and so they should.

YARRRR!!I would say that todays fortreses (POS'es) are not strong enough, and not usefull enough to make your Empire last.

ExclamationIn Short: Custom module based POS'es and more uses for the POS'es is in order. Tech 2 POS'es next in line after Kali.

So the threads about POS haulover and POSs: Flogging the Dead Horse should contain most of the means to make all of the above happend.

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.20 03:33:00 - [24]
 

Tori like the ideas a lot. However i have to argue the points where you say that the POS are not strong enough. A well setup POS with a defender who knows a little about what he needs to do is dangerous to any dread fleet trying to break the POS. However its getting that defending fleet together or lack there of that kills POS. With enough dreads however you could accomplish your goal. But i think the POS are decently strong now if you set them up properly. But they could use a little pick me up in terms of actual defense of a system along with interacting with each other.

However my biggest fear is the more done to the POS the greater the lag around the POS becomes. There just like the old manufacturing system. Taking up supplies after the current run is done which is every houer. However add on to the fact that it needs to calculate how much fuel based upon each online module and then the guns have to be caculated out as to how much ammo they have left in them and then take all of that and work it into whats going on when the POS is being seiged. Now combine that with however many other POS are in the same system then tack on whatever other systems with POS on the same node and now your started to see a very large chunk of cpu going to calculating this out. And thats before you even take into account whatever activities are going on in the system.

Thats one of the current things i see wrong with the POS. The more of them you put into a system the laggier that system becomes especially with 200+ people in local trying to seige a POS. And more than once ive seen this happen. Its just one of the many problems because the current mechanics state the more POS the better but the servers go the less POS the better. Whether or not its completely accurate depends on how well the POS were coded but the more POS the more things the server has to caculate.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.20 11:23:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Agent Kenshin
... Its just one of the many problems because the current mechanics state the more POS the better but the servers go the less POS the better. Whether or not its completely accurate depends on how well the POS were coded but the more POS the more things the server has to caculate.


So if the new POS systems are made scaleable and more versatile you would infact need less POS'es.. Depending on what solution you go for. The inital idea was to have diffrent POS types but as far as i see it should be enough to give players the option to choose diffrent modules. And make "Battle-POS'es" along with "Industrial-POS'es".. afterall it's a starbase and there should not be a "rule" to what modules go well together. Logic would be to have you decide what modules (guns/miners/powercores/CPU's/scanners/logistics) you want on your POS. Really there should be no limmit to how large you could make them. Reason for that: there are no limmit to how large a fleet can be.

So why limmit one and not the other?
IMO POS'es should be more skill heavy (when larger) than today (as with Dreads, and motherships). Today it's alot easyer to train for a large POS than a mothership. YARRRR!!

The POS'es my be strong enough, but they are not nearly filling their role imo. Many other areas of the game have evolved but i think the POS'es have been left behind.

As for the computing calculation-requirements you could do well to take the static calculations like fuel consumption, production and all none-action/combat based calculations out of the main computers and run them on a diffrent computer with less priority. It's only the guns/shields and combat based things that need CPU priority (close to realtime) on the POS'es.

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.20 16:47:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Toriatrix
So if the new POS systems are made scaleable and more versatile you would infact need less POS'es.. Depending on what solution you go for. The inital idea was to have diffrent POS types but as far as i see it should be enough to give players the option to choose diffrent modules. And make "Battle-POS'es" along with "Industrial-POS'es".. afterall it's a starbase and there should not be a "rule" to what modules go well together. Logic would be to have you decide what modules (guns/miners/powercores/CPU's/scanners/logistics) you want on your POS. Really there should be no limmit to how large you could make them. Reason for that: there are no limmit to how large a fleet can be.

So why limmit one and not the other?
IMO POS'es should be more skill heavy (when larger) than today (as with Dreads, and motherships). Today it's alot easyer to train for a large POS than a mothership. YARRRR!!

The POS'es my be strong enough, but they are not nearly filling their role imo. Many other areas of the game have evolved but i think the POS'es have been left behind.


Well if they were to do specific things but all could still claim sovereignty the same way that you do now. If you were to setup 3-5 nasty deathstar new battle POS for defense of your outpost but had 30 moons and didnt put anything else up and the current system still was in place whats going to stop a attacker from spamming up 7 POS just to out sovereignty you. The problem is with the current system if there are enough moons and enough isk the attacker never needs to fire a shot at a POS if they just spam up more. While the defender has to shoot down the new POS the attacker is putting up and to top that off it now makes the defender the attacker while the attacker becomes the defender of his POS. Thats where the current system falls apart. The whole sovereignty system is based around total number of large towers. That was a quick fix to the original system which was desperately needed.

The problem now is that POS are easy to come by and it doesnt matter if you have spent a billion per deathstar and have 5/10/20/30 if the attacker can put up more towers your going to lose soveriegnty. Thats why POS are flawed. Unfortunately the POS will never fullfil their role if the aggressor never has to attack them. Thats why placing some sort of restriction on POS in the system and changing the current system to something like the attackers POS can not gain sovereignty until ALL of the defenders POS have been destroyed. Not just put into reinforced mode but completely destroyed.

The POS themselves are ok. However the current sovereignty system taht goes with them just uses them as pawns like a simple true/false equation. Who ever has more whether they are deathstars or just towers will always prevail.

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.20 16:52:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 20/09/2006 16:55:22
Or even to add on to my idea of having the attacker to destroy all the POS before they can claim sovereignty if it was based on a points system. For each week the POS remain operation added sovereignty points would be added to their claim. That would most definately be advantageous to the defender especially if theyve held the system for months.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.20 17:46:00 - [28]
 

The current sovereignity system is a load of bull.. It dont make sense that who ever has sovereignity get reduced fuel consumption. Thats a fact.

So instead make the sovereignity a trivial thing that only affects the Map, to see who has the major pressence. And if thats the only advantage of sovereignity the current system works.

While the real benefit of strategical POS'es should not be how many you have, but where you have them and what they actually do or protect.

So as I have said, remake the POS'es to "DO" more interesting stuff, make them modular and totally customized with no limmit to how large they can be (only skill limmits the POS size and modules).

Screw sovereignity, it's only a trivial map issue imo.

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.21 00:12:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Toriatrix
The current sovereignity system is a load of bull.. It dont make sense that who ever has sovereignity get reduced fuel consumption. Thats a fact.

So instead make the sovereignity a trivial thing that only affects the Map, to see who has the major pressence. And if thats the only advantage of sovereignity the current system works.

While the real benefit of strategical POS'es should not be how many you have, but where you have them and what they actually do or protect.

So as I have said, remake the POS'es to "DO" more interesting stuff, make them modular and totally customized with no limmit to how large they can be (only skill limmits the POS size and modules).

Screw sovereignity, it's only a trivial map issue imo.


Except that trivial map issue is the basis for everything that allows an alliance to build their own home. You have to have it to anchor the outpost egg. You have to have it to anchor a capital ship assembly array. You have to have it to anchor a capital ship maintenance array. You have to have it to keep your station invunerable. You will have to have it over all the systems in your constellation to gain constellational sovereignty to allow you to add the new content that will be eventually make its way in.

It is the basis for what is going to happen in the future. In reality if there was no sovereignty the only thing the POS would be used for is mining and production. Hell there would be no combat at POS because the only reason it occurs now is because of sovereignty. If you can shoot the station why shoot the POS??? It came about to end the station ping pong which was, show up in system with numbers shoot the station gain control and then your done till the original owners get numbers shoot the station and regain and it continues like this for several days.

There may not be anything wrong with that but more stuff is coming that is going to be based off of that map issue. Its what says this space is owned by XXXX aliance.

Nothing wrong with making POS more functional but the current system needs to be adjusted to work with a new system.


Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.21 01:20:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Toriatrix on 21/09/2006 01:21:41
Plz read the rest of the thread (yeah the current system needs adjustment to the new system, tought that was explained earlyer), if the POS where there to do MORE than function as a map holder, mining/production/reserach-base, like for instance: Station security.. or even remove the stations all together.. and make the new large T2 pos'es act as stations. Then the map would be a trivial thing..

I have ideas on how to change all of the 0.0 empires and POS stuff and make it locical but i'm not sure it's all in one post here atm.. Embarassed

POS'es would be the key to everything. All the resourses, all the production and mining and combat, and they would even function as stations do today.. if they are built large enough in my little fantasy future of EVE.. Confused


Pages: [1] 2 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only