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

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.21 03:48:00 - [31]
 

I doubt very much CCP are going to completely redo the entire system. They may change the sovereignty rules and how the POS act but beyond that i doubt very much they are going to change everything. Im sure there will be T2 towers and other new POS things but for the most part CCP probably wont redo the entire POS system. As for getting rid of stations having been in the game for quite a long time now and getting the ability to control outpost is still a great thing. I cant wait till the time comes to turn those outposts into the full fledged stations like empire. As much as i would love to see the POS changed completely the most we can hope for is modifactions on the current system. There are just far to many of them to have them completely redone.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2006.09.21 09:26:00 - [32]
 

POSses should be stronger when its quiet, and weaker when there is an attack.

I think cap/cpu use of POS-guns should be increased to make Deathstar POSses a bit less deadly when laggy. In effect, forcing the defender to do more himself and rely less on the POS in a fleetfight.

Second change I would make is make it impossible to change the level of fuel in a POS once its below 99% shields. This way defenders can't really fiddle with the reinforcement times to an extent they can now. Thus it would still be possible to set strontium levels before the attack, for example by putting enough strontium in for 12 or 36 hours, but once the attack starts, no more changes.

Last change I would make is make POSses consume less fuel over time. If a POS is anchored for a week, its fuel consumption should drop by 1%. Each week thereafter, consumption should continue to drop by 1% to a minimum of 10% of current cost. Basically this means that as a corp/alliance holds a POS longer, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate, enabling the POS owners to spend less time and money on fuel, thus enabling them to put up more POSses.

I think this would be balanced since in actual combat POSses would be less strong, and it would enable a longterm occupant of a system to defend it properly against POS spamming without insurmountable costs, but he would need to be stronger to defend it in an actual siege, since the individual POS are less strong. It also reduces tedium for defenders from the game, which is one of the main problems for playing the game as a 'defender' atm I think.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.21 09:52:00 - [33]
 

Defenders shuld be able to set a prefered hour for coming out of reinforced.
For example - defenders are most active from 17:00 eve time (cause they are Europeans). They set out-of-reinforced time to 17:00. If there is more stront then needed till 17, some is not used and POS comes out at 17 precisely, not depending on when it was hit.

This way the primary reason for reinforced mode is realised and only legitimate reason for stront micromanagement after attack is absolete.

With this function, CCP culd remove ability to micromanage fuel below 99% shield and noone shuld whine. Naturally, editing time settings below 99% shield shuld be denied too.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.21 17:51:00 - [34]
 

What if the POS is attacked at 1600..? YARRRR!!

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.21 18:35:00 - [35]
 

Attackers have to wait w hours till it comes out of reinforced :)

Dutarro
Matari Munitions
The Fendahlian Collective
Posted - 2006.09.21 19:30:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Dutarro on 21/09/2006 19:32:32
The OP's proposal of new POS categories is interesting. However, it should be changed a bit so that existing investment in POSs does not become obsolete.

How about this? Existing POS types would be interpreted as the Industrial POS category. The Battle POS and Logistics POS categories are rolled into one, completely new type of control tower:

Citadel Control Tower

Base Price: 1.5 billion ISK
Fuel Consumption: (same as 2 large control towers)
Power/CPU: (50% higher than large control tower)
Shields: (100% higher than large control tower)
Bonus: 75% reduction in power cost of Logistics Array (see below)

Use: with only 50% more CPU and twice the fuel requirements of a large POS, citadel POS are not a good choice for industry. They are only likely to be used for military purposes.

Anchoring: only one citadel POS may be anchored at a time in each planetary system, i.e. of all the POS on moons of a planet, only one of those may be a citadel POS.

Sovereignty: citadel POSs outrank large POS for purposes of sovereignty. This makes POS spamming less workable, since you can only put one citadel POS per planet in the system, rather than one large POS per moon as we have today. Sovereignty is still required to build an outpost, and to make an outpost conquerable.

Logistics Arrays: a logistics array is an enormous, anchored shield transporter located at a POS. The array's range is about 10 million km, enough to reach other starbases or outposts near the same planet, but not enough to cover the entire system. The logistics array's target is selected from a menu before it is onlined, much like the mineral for a moon harvester is selected.

So to conquer an outpost the attacking force must:

1) acquire more citadel POS in the system than the defender, by building them and destroying defending citadels

2) hold a majority of citadel POS in system for 5 days to gain sovereignty.

3) destroy any defending citadel POS around the outpost planet, so that it can't boost the outpost shields

4) take down the outpost shields and conquer the outpost


Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.21 20:37:00 - [37]
 

No, you just elevate the spamming to a whole new catagory, Duraro, with an even MORE broken POS. And given a reasonable defensive fleet, whichever one you attack will have n-1 (where n is the number of planets) boosting it. So basically, 23 hour sieges to not scatch shields, anyone?


Malachon, 99%? I can think of several ways to use 2-3 BS to prevent you from ever being able to recharge a POS's shields with that.

"Basically this means that as a corp/alliance holds a POS longer, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate"

Yes, of course you would. *looks at the alliance ticker*. Completely disagree - the incumbent allready has all the advantages. Allowing you to work up massively greater POS holdings and get an even greater one is negative-sum for the long term viability of thr smaller alliances. And they, collectively, outnumber the big ones.


Ellaine's right. Except I'd set time per corp/alliance, NOT individually. And moveable only with a vote.


You can START by moving the guns out the shield and making them only fire on the same "size" as they are.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2006.09.21 20:45:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
No, you just elevate the spamming to a whole new catagory, Duraro, with an even MORE broken POS. And given a reasonable defensive fleet, whichever one you attack will have n-1 (where n is the number of planets) boosting it. So basically, 23 hour sieges to not scatch shields, anyone?


Malachon, 99%? I can think of several ways to use 2-3 BS to prevent you from ever being able to recharge a POS's shields with that.

"Basically this means that as a corp/alliance holds a POS longer, it becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate"

Yes, of course you would. *looks at the alliance ticker*. Completely disagree - the incumbent allready has all the advantages. Allowing you to work up massively greater POS holdings and get an even greater one is negative-sum for the long term viability of thr smaller alliances. And they, collectively, outnumber the big ones.


Ellaine's right. Except I'd set time per corp/alliance, NOT individually. And moveable only with a vote.


You can START by moving the guns out the shield and making them only fire on the same "size" as they are.


A proper deathstar POS will currently vaporize a BS in a shot or two. You said yourself in earlier discussions POS guns were ridiculously overpowered.

Secondly, defenders are NOT at an advantage against POS spamming. A defender can put up 20 POS for a year, and all an attacker has to do is put up 21 POS for 6 days to take the station without ever firing a shot. The current system puts the burden on the defender.

With POSses that are a bit weaker in defense, but cheaper to maintain, the defender can actually DEFEND a system, rather than be forced to ATTACK the enemy POS spam to keep his station. And note that POSses are not cheap. A deathstar POS costs a billion+. You may think Alliances are invincible monstrosities with our own isk printing presses, but really, we're not.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.21 20:49:00 - [39]
 

Then pick a system with 39 - or less - moons. Simple, neh? You just elevated POS spamming, cost and complexity another level, you did not address a single fundermental issue. And the industrial side will be cheaper yes. Which is the point of the suggestion of course.

And I know all about ASCN's POS network and bills, thanks. Probly more than most ASCN members do (yes, a spy again. What fun!)

Dutarro
Matari Munitions
The Fendahlian Collective
Posted - 2006.09.21 23:06:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
No, you just elevate the spamming to a whole new catagory, Duraro, with an even MORE broken POS. And given a reasonable defensive fleet, whichever one you attack will have n-1 (where n is the number of planets) boosting it. So basically, 23 hour sieges to not scatch shields, anyone?


Incorrect, each citadel POS will have exactly zero other citadels boosting it. Boost range is within the same planetary system, only one citadel POS is allowed per planetary system, and the citadel cannot boost itself.

The logistics arrays would, however, make siege of smaller POSs difficult. To break into a planetary system, an attacker must first destroy its citadel POS, then he can take out the smaller, industrial POSs nearby more easily. For that matter, the attacker can just anchor his own citadel POS in place of the one destroyed, and ignore the industrial POSs, since they are trumped by citadels for sovereignty count.

So I must disagree with your statement that the citadel POS makes spamming worse. Lets say I have a system with 7 planets and 70+ moons like, oh, TDE4-H just as a random example. Wink Under the current rules, the defender must anchor 36 large POSs to make the system unspammable. Under my proposal, the defender only needs to anchor 4 citadel POSs to counter spamming, since the system can hold at most 7 citadels (one per planet). That's 9 times fewer POSs to deal with.

Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.22 03:45:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Dutarro
Originally by: Maya Rkell
No, you just elevate the spamming to a whole new catagory, Duraro, with an even MORE broken POS. And given a reasonable defensive fleet, whichever one you attack will have n-1 (where n is the number of planets) boosting it. So basically, 23 hour sieges to not scatch shields, anyone?


Incorrect, each citadel POS will have exactly zero other citadels boosting it. Boost range is within the same planetary system, only one citadel POS is allowed per planetary system, and the citadel cannot boost itself.

The logistics arrays would, however, make siege of smaller POSs difficult. To break into a planetary system, an attacker must first destroy its citadel POS, then he can take out the smaller, industrial POSs nearby more easily. For that matter, the attacker can just anchor his own citadel POS in place of the one destroyed, and ignore the industrial POSs, since they are trumped by citadels for sovereignty count.

So I must disagree with your statement that the citadel POS makes spamming worse. Lets say I have a system with 7 planets and 70+ moons like, oh, TDE4-H just as a random example. Wink Under the current rules, the defender must anchor 36 large POSs to make the system unspammable. Under my proposal, the defender only needs to anchor 4 citadel POSs to counter spamming, since the system can hold at most 7 citadels (one per planet). That's 9 times fewer POSs to deal with.



I hear by submit to a greater thought. That is by far the best solution i have seen yet to the current system. Although since we wanna keep some of the laws of physics the same, we should give them a boost to sheild recharge. I dont konw there are a variety of bonus that could be given to the POS. Who knows. I actually like this idea more. However there is always just one flaw in your idea. Not every planet in the system has a moon. Not that its a probem or anything. Cool

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2006.09.22 05:27:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Then pick a system with 39 - or less - moons. Simple, neh? You just elevated POS spamming, cost and complexity another level, you did not address a single fundermental issue. And the industrial side will be cheaper yes. Which is the point of the suggestion of course.

And I know all about ASCN's POS network and bills, thanks. Probly more than most ASCN members do (yes, a spy again. What fun!)


*snip*- Tirg And you didn't address the first point. How can a couple of battleships keep a POS shields below 99% if you complain in other threads that POS guns are extremely overpowered and vaporize BS in seconds.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.22 13:09:00 - [43]
 

Dutarro,

Ah, so only every other POS at the planet then. PS, what range do you mean by "planetary system?" Because in some systems, planets are closer to each other than moons are from their primary in others. This WON'T be clean and neat, and some systems will have near-invincible POS clusters.


"The logistics arrays would, however, make siege of smaller POSs difficult."

yes, it makes it pointless to bother fighting POSwars unless you're a HUGE alliance. How is this progress?

"an attacker must first destroy its citadel POS"

Eh? you destroy the other, easier-to-kill POS first. You need to get rid of their remote shield boosters.


"Under my proposal, the defender only needs to anchor 4 citadel POSs to counter spamming, since the system can hold at most 7 citadels (one per planet). That's 9 times fewer POSs to deal with."

Incorrect. You need other POS's with shield boosters for protection, ON TOP of the industrial POS network.

You're fiddling with an allready broken system, which need sa fundermental review. You're drasticaly *increasing* the time and boredom factor of taking POS. How is this even remotely desireable?


Malevolent Draco,

No, I'm dead on. Your "dismissal" clearly shows your agenda in this thread, for the PURE benefit of ASCN.

"How can a couple of battleships keep a POS shields below 99% if you complain in other threads that POS guns are extremely overpowered and vaporize BS in seconds."

Because you can do a LITTLE damage without taking return fire. It's tricky, and you'd NEVER beat the shield recharge rate below ~95%. But 99% is entirely possible.

This is not an exploit - it's been asked - because it simply dosn't do enough damage to have a worthwhile effect. *Today*. You'd make it significant.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2006.09.22 13:58:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell

Malevolent Draco,

No, I'm dead on. Your "dismissal" clearly shows your agenda in this thread, for the PURE benefit of ASCN.

"How can a couple of battleships keep a POS shields below 99% if you complain in other threads that POS guns are extremely overpowered and vaporize BS in seconds."

Because you can do a LITTLE damage without taking return fire. It's tricky, and you'd NEVER beat the shield recharge rate below ~95%. But 99% is entirely possible.

This is not an exploit - it's been asked - because it simply dosn't do enough damage to have a worthwhile effect. *Today*. You'd make it significant.


Your agenda is simply that of crippling large alliances until they cannot exist anymore, *snip*- Tirg
And if 99% is a problem, make it 95% then, not a fundamental change from the concept I was proposing.

Furthermore, I have fought at a number of POSses in the last months. The amount of POSses in a system is not relevant, its their strength combined with lag.

Reduce the strength, make it possible for the defender to deploy more of these weaker POSses over time and you will end both the POS spam attack and make it better possible for a real attacker to take down a system. If you don't think POS spam attack is a problem think again. It completely turns around the concept of attacker and defender. A defender has to hold a station 23/7, and under the current system a quick POS spam attack at off-hours makes systems far more vulnerable than they should be.

*snip*-Tirg that this has anything to do with large alliances vs small corps. Small corps that can pull off a succesful POS spam against one of the big alliances do not exist. Its a maneuver requiring tens of billions of isk, and is only within the realm of big alliances, or medium alliances who are willing to exploit complexes to the point where they can afford to spam POSses at will.

Guess thats your real point here, not only protect complex-exploiters from banning, but also trying to make sure they can continue the proceeds of their exploitation to fund their POSspamming elsewhere.



Agent Kenshin
Bath and Body Works
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2006.09.22 17:07:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 22/09/2006 17:07:58
Taking POS and forcing someone to fight them is a better option than having them outspammed. Even with this option the smaller POS would be insignifcant compared to the citadel POS. So instead of having to shoot 15-60 towers you only need to take out the citadels and to this day i have never seen a system that has more than 12-13 planets. So thats a much better solution than currently having to:

A) Out spam your enemys POS to gain territory
OR
B) Take on the process of grinding more than 10 POS.

Personally the idea of having a much larger POS that would only allow one of these POS to be achored around each planet would be an great idea. This would also be a great idea to allow alliances to claim constellational sovereignty. Placing 3 of these citadels in each system of the constellation would secure the constellation until an enemy decided to come in and remove those citadels. Also the new modules that require constellational sovereignty could be anchored at these POS instead of the current POS.

It doesnt mean the old POS would be out of date they would still be useful for smaller entities and moon mining but yes, these larger POS would favor the alliances, who have the isk to secure and defend their own homes. And besides having fewer POS to fall back on for sovereignty would force the defender to fight a little more.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.22 17:25:00 - [46]
 

Then I'll promote my concept with POS warfare by playing dots;
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=381757

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.22 17:27:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 22/09/2006 17:31:20
Ok, so lets review everyone's current complaints of POSs.

1. Deathstar POSs, while expensive, are indestructable to all but the most extended and ludicrously ISK and time and manpower intensive forces
2. POSs are spammed out the wazoo on places with moons and stations to prevent people from getting that one extra critical amount needed to seize a station
3. The warfare is incredibly lag intensive
4. All current situations and solutions only help the rich
5. No effective combat mechanism exists for anything but Dreadnought wielders for taking down another alliance's system sovereignty.

Help me adjust this list for ALL SIDES grievances and we can go from there.

Dutarro
Matari Munitions
The Fendahlian Collective
Posted - 2006.09.22 17:46:00 - [48]
 

Maya, there is a key element of the citadel POS idea that I failed to emphasize. The logistics array should require so much power that it is not feasible to deploy anywhere except at a citadel POS. A planet will not then have a cluster of POSs that can all boost each others' shields, only the citadel POS would be capable of boosting the smaller POSs, not the other way around.

Also, planetary systems are perfectly well defined. All starbases are located at planet X moon Y, and all outposts located at planet X. Both are part of planetary system X, there is no ambiguity whatsoever.




Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.22 23:06:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Evelgrivion
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 22/09/2006 17:31:20
Ok, so lets review everyone's current complaints of POSs.

1. Deathstar POSs, while expensive, are indestructable to all but the most extended and ludicrously ISK and time and manpower intensive forces
2. POSs are spammed out the wazoo on places with moons and stations to prevent people from getting that one extra critical amount needed to seize a station
3. The warfare is incredibly lag intensive
4. All current situations and solutions only help the rich
5. No effective combat mechanism exists for anything but Dreadnought wielders for taking down another alliance's system sovereignty.

Help me adjust this list for ALL SIDES grievances and we can go from there.


1. The Large POS'es are easy to take down, all you need is a few good dreads and pilots. They beat any POS setting today. 1 Large POS no matter what fitting can only stand alone against 2- possibly 3 dreads without asistance.
Solution (IMO) is to re-do the POS'es (or make T2 POS'es) and make them module based with no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be. Or maybe a skill based limmit, say POS Design lvl 1-5 and Advanced POS Design 1-5 for really large super POS'es.

2. POS spamming is silly. There is no natural logic that says "IF i have 2 POS'es you cant kill my station, you need 3 to do it". IT MAKES NO SENSE IN THE WORLD PHYSICS.
Solution: There should be a system that linkes 1 or more POS'es to the station if you want to keep the Station invincable. If you consider this a game instead of a space sim we probably want to have the stations invincable untill a few "buffers" like POS'es are dealt with.

3. Lag is a difficult thing to counter when you have lots of objects and ships, no matter if it's POS war or just Fleet combat.
Solution: Better game engine is on the drawingboard.

4. The rich are able to spam out POS'es and build lots of dreads with good weapons, it's life. It's logical.
Solution: No solution, the rich will allways have the avantage.

5. Dreads are huge they are the means to take down huge POS'es.
Solution: No solution, it would be silly to let a hacker or lots of small ships to take down or incapacitate a POS.

There should be realism and balance to what goes and what not. Limmits is something that i don't like. If you want limmits you should really limmit how rich alliances are allowed to get. If some alliance is to become super rich and buy all the T2 BPO's in the game, it would make the game unbalanced. That alliance can mount 100 or even 500 Dreads and take down ALL the POS'es in EVE. Because no other alliance can counter that many dreads and no POS'es can stand against it. But it's not a limmit there, so why should there be limmits to how big a POS can be? If you have a SUPER huge POS thats able to stand alone against 100 dreads. It would be nice, costly but realistic in the end.

-It may be radiacal but it's how i see it.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.22 23:31:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Maya Rkell on 22/09/2006 23:31:41
Malachon Draco, point to one suggested nerf for alliances I've made recently? Here's a hint: there are none. Your counter falls flat on its face and your desperate resorting to it shows your agenda for the cynical manipulation that it is.

Opposing the abusive expansion of capacity is NOT the same as nerfing. *deleted reference to snipped content*- Tirg
"And if 99% is a problem, make it 95% then, not a fundamental change from the concept I was proposing."

Your figure was wrong, and you argued in a confrontational way. Regardless, 90% would be safer. A serious attack is going to hit 90% pretty quickly (do remember shield recharge works on a curve.. 90% is still well off the optimal slope)


"deploy more of these weaker POSses"
"end the POS spam attack"

Make your mind up!


"A defender has to hold a station 23/7"

Yes, and whats the problem there?

"a quick POS spam attack at off-hours makes systems far more vulnerable than they should be"

So in a STATION system, you're holding the minority of the moon with a POS? Well, I don't think much of your defence then.

"this has anything to do with large alliances vs small corps"

Of course not, it's large alliances vs small alliance. And industrial POS networks.


Dutarro, then it is utterly useless.

Because if it requires that much fitting and the citadel has no more than 50% more fitting than a large, you'll not be able to fit a citadel with enough firepower, less than a large battlestar today even.


"not only protect complex-exploiters from banning"

You will either retract this accusation or I will report your post for harrassment and ask CCP to ban you for said harrassment. I am FULLY confident that a full invesigation will discover no links - as they do not exist - between myself and any claimed breach of the EULA.



*snip*-Tirg

"The logistics array should require so much power that it is not feasible to deploy anywhere except at a citadel POS."

Then it's utterly useless. Because the citadel only has 50% more fitting than a large POS. A citadel with one of these logistics arrays has LESS fitting avaliable than a large deathstar if it works as you say (can't be used feasibly by a large POS).


Toriatrix, making invulnrable POS which insta-pop dreads is NOT a soloution. It dosn't matter HOW many you bring, if it can pop them unassisted.

"Better game engine is on the drawingboard."

For the Vista client only.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.23 01:52:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Toriatrix on 23/09/2006 01:52:46
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Toriatrix, making invulnrable POS which insta-pop dreads is NOT a soloution. It dosn't matter HOW many you bring, if it can pop them unassisted.

"Better game engine is on the drawingboard."

For the Vista client only.


I'm not suggesting an invoulnerable POS.. (read the post), i'm saying that the stations today are infact invulnrable, and it makes no sense unless you have a reason like a POS next to it giving it shields or something clever.

I'm sure i read notes/devblogs/EON-mag that a new game engine is planned. And i'm sure it will come eventually. They have come as far as they want with this one, and a new engine could help Lag. Even with better graphics. As one have nothing to do with the other.

And btw Maya, lighten up.. I'm sure the reason ppl are bad-mouthing you are just because they are feed-up with your negative attitude.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.23 02:50:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 23/09/2006 02:51:21
Reading through these posts BOTH of you need to get a grip and drop your stupid agenda.

Theres nothing against complex camping in the EULA. Arguing about them is not what we're trying to address.

Both of you are harassing each other, and should just shut up and get on topic. We're trying to figure out solutions to POS mechanics, not argue about why it wont work to support either of your agendas.

Both of you, next time you "contribute" to one of these threads I expect it to be on topic. Keep your stupid alliance squabbles where they belong - out of features and ideas.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2006.09.23 03:02:00 - [53]
 

Toriatrix, yes you are.

To quote you in this thread;
"no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be"

"a new game engine is planned"

Yes, for Vista. Then whatever they can will be backported into the old client.

(And no, I won't stop pointing out the flaws until they fix em. Their attitude is their problem)


Evelgrivion, I'm not in an alliance, and I'M not pushing anything.

Tirg


ISD YARR
Interstellar Services Department
Posted - 2006.09.23 10:56:00 - [54]
 

Thread cleaned. Keep it civil, m'kay? You may attack an idea- even forcefully; You may not attack the person. If you have any questions, please email us at [email protected]

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2006.09.23 11:53:00 - [55]
 

Inherently, POS mechanics are not bad. Problem is lag, the ease of POS spamming by attackers and the high grind cost of keeping POSses online for defenders.

Solution is easy:
- to mitigate the lag problem, reduce the strength of large POSses.
- To reduce POS spamming, make defensive POSses cheaper by reducing fuel cost over time, enabling defenders to entrench themselves. This also reduces the grind associated with keeping large numbers of POSses online and thus benefitting industrial minded corps and alliances.

Dutarro
Matari Munitions
The Fendahlian Collective
Posted - 2006.09.23 14:12:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
...

"The logistics array should require so much power that it is not feasible to deploy anywhere except at a citadel POS."

Then it's utterly useless. Because the citadel only has 50% more fitting than a large POS. A citadel with one of these logistics arrays has LESS fitting avaliable than a large deathstar if it works as you say (can't be used feasibly by a large POS)...


The proposal includes a 75% power cost reduction for logistics arrays, on a citadel control tower only. Therefore it should be capable of a full 'deathstar' setup in addition to one or two logistics arrays.



Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.23 23:44:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Maya Rkell
Toriatrix, yes you are.

To quote you in this thread;
"no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be"

"a new game engine is planned"

Yes, for Vista. Then whatever they can will be backported into the old client.

(And no, I won't stop pointing out the flaws until they fix em. Their attitude is their problem)


Evelgrivion, I'm not in an alliance, and I'M not pushing anything.


It's not invoulnerable...

Compare a large starbase to a large fleet of Dreads, motherships, and carriers. There is no limmit to how many you can put together in a system for an attack.

Ofcourse thats theory...

So what one should realize is that if you are actually putting up a super-huge-deathstar-pos it will cost you in terms of skill, isk and maintenance.

So it can only become so-so big as to weather or not you make it bigger is just going to cost you more than it would benefit you. But in theory.. there should not be any limits to ho many power generators or computers you can link together with one starbase structure.. same as with guns.. (as long as you have power and CPU, AND fuel to run it all).

See the Shield resistnace.. no matter how many shield hardners you slap on your ship, it's not 100% ... same as a super-huge-POS.. it will never be invincable.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2006.09.24 06:08:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Toriatrix
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Toriatrix, yes you are.

To quote you in this thread;
"no limmit to how large and powerfull they might be"

"a new game engine is planned"

Yes, for Vista. Then whatever they can will be backported into the old client.

(And no, I won't stop pointing out the flaws until they fix em. Their attitude is their problem)


Evelgrivion, I'm not in an alliance, and I'M not pushing anything.


It's not invoulnerable...

Compare a large starbase to a large fleet of Dreads, motherships, and carriers. There is no limmit to how many you can put together in a system for an attack.

Ofcourse thats theory...

So what one should realize is that if you are actually putting up a super-huge-deathstar-pos it will cost you in terms of skill, isk and maintenance.

So it can only become so-so big as to weather or not you make it bigger is just going to cost you more than it would benefit you. But in theory.. there should not be any limits to ho many power generators or computers you can link together with one starbase structure.. same as with guns.. (as long as you have power and CPU, AND fuel to run it all).

See the Shield resistnace.. no matter how many shield hardners you slap on your ship, it's not 100% ... same as a super-huge-POS.. it will never be invincable.


Unfortunately, you are not taking lag into account here. With lag, a deathstar POS is a very tough nut to crack. Put a defender fleet of 60-80 ships there, and its invincible for all intents and purposes.

Toriatrix
The Blackwater Brigade
Posted - 2006.09.24 17:14:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Toriatrix on 24/09/2006 17:14:55
Lag should be sorted out by new game engine or POS coding. Fear of lag should not be used as an argument to prevent making the game better. That is maybe an oxymoron to some of you, but i believe that the POS system will be re-done in some fasion to reduce lag (think i read a dev blog about it somewhere).

So when you re-do some of the POS related code, you might aswell make some changes to how POS warfare and system sovereignity is at the moment.

Je'hira Osiris
Minmatar
2plus2isfive
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2006.10.19 14:57:00 - [60]
 

I like well errr the idea of having differnt types of poses.. though tbh to can just equip the pos with differnt mods.. ie hardeners and more guns would make it a battle pos. As for the whole "Logistical" pos affecting the reinforced mod i think is a really bad idea. I have done alot of poses assults and they can be hard enuf if ppl set them up correctly. it should be on the stront it makes you have to wait X amount of time and then reform and give the defenders time to regroup. if you have 24 hours stront then you have 24 hours to make get a froce / cap ships in to defend. making it so you can wait more that 2 days is silly it just leaves nothing to the attackers. if you dont want to loose a small pos then but up a medium or a large .. most ppl think twice before attacking a large pos. to have a pos up means you need to be able to defend it as well and this is easy enuf if you are organised and have the cap ships.. if you dont try not to **** off ppl with them :-)


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