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


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2006.11.11 12:10:00 - [1]
 

EVE is sick. It's syndromes is safe 0.0 security space, untouchable players in what should be prime conflict space, and perfect fully automated fortifications.

The disease is spreading and growing worse.

What is the cause? Player owned Starbases - the reprieve for the weak, the sanctuary for the cowards.

While Starbases cost quite a bit, they have several unwanted and negative effects on EVE, mainly in the enjoyment of the game. EVE started out as an industrial game with severe consequences for those who were willing to take risks and who subsequently failed.
The consequences were the result of player actions against other players, and it created game immersion and excitement for both parties - it created wars. People used several different ship designs to punish each other for injustices, perceived slights, or just for enjoyment.
With the introduction of Starbases, these wars have stagnated. Sovereignty ping-pong has become an accepted concept. However, what is most negative for combat and the development of EVE is that in order to fight you no longer have the option of having Dreadnoughts siege Starbases - Dreadnoughts have become a must in EVE and you can not do without a fleet of such.

More and more this is becoming the rule: in order to harass the enemy's miners you must destroy the Starbases they are hiding inside, in order to exact financial destruction on the enemy you must take their Outposts which means you have to destroy several starbases, and in order to organise a defence of your own space you only need starbases with minimum manpower because it gives you as much as days to organise a defence.

It is time for this to stop

EVE combat needs to turn around. It needs to once more be about defending yourself, your ship, and not about waiting for Stronthium Clathrates to run dry.

[list=]
  • Remove forcefields from starbases, make them fully navigational by anyone

  • Starbase provides invulnerability only for it's linked modules

  • Electronic countermeasures fully affect starbase modules and ships inside it's radius

  • Severely reduce starbase striking power against battlecruiser sized or smaller by reducing tracking of large batteries to sieged dreadnought grades or worse and by reducing damage of smaller batteries to one tenth of current

  • Introduce linked stargates

  • The most devastating batteries should require a pod-pilot's direct command, as if he was piloting it.
  • [/list=]

    In short, starbases should not be (a) safespots, (b) invincible against roaming fleets, (c) necessary for warfare. They should be primarily industrial installations that are defendable - it should be easy to come to it's rescue (hence the linked stargates) but they must, and I stress must, be severely reduced as military installations.

    You defend your starbase. You defend your outpost. They do not defend you

    If you wish to safely store your ships, do it in the corporate cargobays. If you want to mine safely in 0.0, it has always been doable with safespots and not to mention the newly fangled cloaking devices.

    Taris Arrathan
    Minmatar
    S.A.S
    Pandemic Legion
    Posted - 2006.11.11 12:16:00 - [2]
     

    Agree!!!

    Lord Severenth
    Caldari
    Caldari 4th Division Navy
    Posted - 2006.11.11 12:34:00 - [3]
     

    /Signed

    I know im new an all, but yea, you build an outpost, you should have to defend it

    Zarch AlDain
    GK inc.
    Posted - 2006.11.11 14:15:00 - [4]
     

    I don't completely agree, but I know where you are coming from and something along those lines would be nice.

    Kharakan
    Amarr
    Veto.
    Veto Corp
    Posted - 2006.11.11 14:50:00 - [5]
     

    I agree completely with all those points. Maybe it'll stop people using the inside of a pos shield as a parking bay for the ships they're too lazy to store _

    joefishy
    North Eastern Swat
    Pandemic Legion
    Posted - 2006.11.11 17:38:00 - [6]
     

    ith 4tw !

    Ruze
    Amarr
    Next Stage Initiative
    Posted - 2006.11.11 19:42:00 - [7]
     

    A better solution.

    Remove local as an intel tool. Then they won't have notice that your warping in, unless they're doing it the right way and posting guards at the gate and such.

    Ellaine TashMurkon
    CBC Interstellar
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    Posted - 2006.11.11 21:20:00 - [8]
     

    Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 11/11/2006 21:40:25
    If You think of alternatives, safe heaven for people who can controll a system with POS is not a bad thing.

    Alternative 1:
    Miners and ratters go cycle between safespots till raiders get bored. Chances of fining and killing them are very slim if they constantly warp from one place to another. No adantage for "controlling" space. Cot much counterable. Boring.

    Alternative 2:
    Miners and ratters log off. Lame, sad, ugly, no counter, no advantage for controling space.

    Alternative 3:
    By some changes in mechanics, mining/ratting solo or in small group ends in insta death if enemy arrives, because all ways to get safe are removed. People mine with big escort fleet? No, people run lvl 4 missions in empire.
    Normaly, people have teamwork time and "free" time. In team time, corp has enough active and willing players, leaders and stuff, to gather a group. What sane people do? Go pvp.
    When and (almost) only when its not a team time - corp activity is low, people are scattered and want to go after their own stuff - its gathering time. People go gather resources mining and ratting. "Get a big group to secure mining op" is generaly not a good idea. When we can get a big group, I join raiding squad, going mining wuld be wasting potential. Maybe its diffrent in 300+ people corps, I dont know.
    A world where noone wants to farm 0.0 and every alliance is fueled mainly from empire, wuld be quite sad.

    Now, that evil hiding in POS:
    They hide in POS. They pay in fuel for that additional security (risk versus reward is ok). You can destroy the POS so then cant do that anymore (so, counter exists).

    ---

    For dreads importance -
    Is not true, You can eliminate enemy by sitting all the time on his belts, gates and station, till he dies of frustrations, wich usually takes a few months for average alliance, it they are totally unable to farm or haul anything.

    If You want to conquer and keep sovereignity, dreads are quite right in place. Dreads simply express Your groups commitment to sov warfare. Nber of pilots who dedicated tons of skillpoints and lots of isk only (almost only) to defend and destroy POSes. This gives more strategic decisions - You want more sniper BSes to win big flet battles, or You want more capital pilots to win in POS warfare or You want more smaller T2 ship pilots for mobile mid-sized gang warfare, raids and defense.
    Winning everything only in small gang warfare wuld be bad. Winning everything only by big fleet battles wuld be bad. Winning everything only in capital battles wuld be bad.
    Luckily, there are wars when we can experience all sizes of combat.

    If You dont like that and wuld prefer wars to be only clashes of willpower - "who will resist more months of being constantly poped by raids", just live in space with NPC stations.

    Finaly, yes, POS warfare needs to be remaped, but not in that direction IMHO.

    Reggie Stoneloader
    Poofdinkles
    Posted - 2006.11.11 21:22:00 - [9]
     

    I guess speculation is the theme of this thread, so I'll spout a little brimstone.

    Step 1: POSes cease to be useful as staging areas and "safe zones" and buffers against station loss.

    Step 2: Large-scale conflicts, like the current one between BoB and ASCN, becomes impossible, since fleet formation must be done at a location many jumps from the "front", causing reduced fun and participation.

    Step 3: A large gang can storm an entire region, conquering stations and mopping up resistance.

    Step 4: Nobody can hold territory, so mining in 0.0 becomes suicide and anything except mindless raging against one another becomes futile.

    Step 5: 0.0 is tenuously held by dozens of tiny feudal states, and any attempt to actually use the resources of 0.0 is enough to weaken your military to the point where you are vulnerable to your neighbors.

    Step 6: 0.0 is just an extension of low-sec empire, where ganking and griefing are the only feasible activities.

    Miners need to be safe in 0.0 space, or else no mining will get done. Every time you buy morphite, think about what it takes to get that stuff into your hands. Ninja miners don't do it.

    Ecnav
    Gallente
    Unknown-Entity
    Black Star Alliance
    Posted - 2006.11.11 21:58:00 - [10]
     

    I agree

    Rotag
    Amarr
    Posted - 2006.11.11 22:21:00 - [11]
     

    Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
    I guess speculation is the theme of this thread, so I'll spout a little brimstone.

    Step 4: Nobody can hold territory, so mining in 0.0 becomes suicide and anything except mindless raging against one another becomes futile.

    Step 5: 0.0 is tenuously held by dozens of tiny feudal states, and any attempt to actually use the resources of 0.0 is enough to weaken your military to the point where you are vulnerable to your neighbors.

    Step 6: 0.0 is just an extension of low-sec empire, where ganking and griefing are the only feasible activities.

    Miners need to be safe in 0.0 space, or else no mining will get done. Every time you buy morphite, think about what it takes to get that stuff into your hands. Ninja miners don't do it.


    I disaggree with this. I have mined and ratted in 0.0 in systems "held" by different parties, all of them extremly powerful, without being bothered by anyone.. all you have to do is plan a bit.. use your map ffs.. hmm, if no jumping occurs, and no docked or in-flight pilots in whatever the map is set up on, then the sys is usually safe.. just mine either that system, or the system next to it, with instas. Although you may not have the convience of jet-can mining, you can always have a buddy/alt to help, and the payout is great.. and oh no, if someone comes in system, either dock or ss it.. jeez, you need some risk.

    And for the poster.. if I have the isk, manpower, and time to set up a POS or outpost, why not? And if another corp/alliance wants to threaten me, they must also have the time, manpower, isk, and tactics (must be a scary thought for ya eh?). Hmm.. and if the threatening alliance/corp don't have all those factors, guess they are SOL until they build up some, eh? So why should ASCN have to commit a great deal of time with some players to defend a POS against, lets say me and a corp of rather inexperienced players, with a lot less resources.. it'd kind of be like.. Poland (sorry all ya Polish players.. but history speaks for itself) wanting to take over the US.. kinda like Poland saying, hey Buddy, I think you should diminish your military, pay less attention to us, and give us a.. month head start on a war against you.

    Jeez, either realize your potential, or take on corps/alliances that you have a fighting chance against instead of complaining about POS's. And if it's worth it to take out a corps financial lifelines, then it must be worth it to have a fleet of dreads come in and whipe them out, right?

    Lienzo
    Minmatar
    Amanuensis
    Posted - 2006.11.11 22:34:00 - [12]
     

    Much as I dislike that POS are designed to intensify lag, I must disagree.

    POS were built on the premise of introducing more extended conflict by attrition, and bringing more people to 0.0 space. I think they have succeeded in this despite other failings.

    I played EVE before POS. I do not feel that it was "better." It was entertaining, and it remains a fun pastime. There are more targets now, and just as many of them are carebears. Local is used just as often to evade interaction. The only shift is that more people are npcing, and fewer are mining. All but an elite minority blobbed then, and now all but a few determined fools do so.

    I think EVE is still in an adjustment phase since the implementation of capital warfare. More and more players are building and flying dreadnaughts every day. Pretty soon, there will be more corporations with entire fleets of them. Become a target of the MC if you don't believe me.

    TBH, I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. CCP are certainly making it fairly simple to get dreads. Good thing: More risk for POS. Bad thing: Lagarific engagement model focused onto one single point of offense and defense. Bad thing #2: Not enough difference between capital ships and little operating costs compared to POS.

    Given CCP's track record, I'm guessing they'll throw up their hands at some point, and put out T2 towers, and the T2 Dreads that can kill them as soon as a sizable chunk of the playerbase is able to participate in the actual current game so that they can continue to play catch-up.

    Reggie Stoneloader
    Poofdinkles
    Posted - 2006.11.12 04:07:00 - [13]
     

    Originally by: Lienzo
    Given CCP's track record, I'm guessing they'll throw up their hands at some point, and put out T2 towers, and the T2 Dreads that can kill them as soon as a sizable chunk of the playerbase is able to participate in the actual current game so that they can continue to play catch-up.

    Why do they do that? They keep expanding the game instead of stabilizing it.

    Vex Seraphim
    Gallente
    Aliastra
    Posted - 2006.11.12 10:41:00 - [14]
     

    Fully agreed.

    Ithildin
    Gallente
    The Corporation
    Cruel Intentions
    Posted - 2006.11.12 10:41:00 - [15]
     

    The importance dreads play in the degeneration of EVE is not in their actual necessity in killing/punishing the enemy as such, but that the game mechanic that makes them so essential is pushing the game to a stiff and boring gaming style where sitting still, camping gates is a necessity.

    It is important to bring EVE combat to a higher pace, maybe not a higher tonnage (to use a WWII phrase), but to a higher pace. Skirmishes, smaller clashes, etc - all this is needed to stop EVE from stagnating completely. Currently it is the Big Blob more and more that is dominating the game.
    In all honesty, forming alliances and getting along with lots of people should give you an advantage, but there comes a point when diminishing returns must really kick in and kick the nuts. If it does not, what you get is a game without content because there aren't anyone to play it against because the smaller side decides to go somewhere else.

    Fixing the critical situation with starbases is the first step in the right direction.

    Words for the wise:
    Time and cost in EVE has proven on several occasions to limit nothing. Cost translates to time and it is only a matter of time before something costly becomes everyday food.
    The first example of this was how battleships went from rare in the beginning to, during September or October the first year become a standard ship that everyone had. In modern EVE we have starbases and Dreadnoughts - everyone has them, even I do and I have little to no use for them.

    Ellaine TashMurkon
    CBC Interstellar
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    Posted - 2006.11.12 11:46:00 - [16]
     

    Strange, I see all sized fights all the time, in many diffrent alliances and parts of space - including small gangs.

    King Cheetah
    Aliastra
    Posted - 2006.11.12 16:31:00 - [17]
     

    New starbase structures in Kali. ^-^
    Lets hope some better utilities come from this in order to starve out enemy bases.

    Old Geeza
    The Retirement Home
    Posted - 2006.11.12 16:49:00 - [18]
     

    Better yet, remove forcefields and turrets around standard POS and introduce Capital POS which have the forcefields and guns. Those towers will be unable to use any moon mining and reaction equipment, so their only use would be in keeping/taking stations.

    I am tired of 0.0 being littered with fully armoured safespots that you can't enter.

    Ryo Jang
    Central Defiance
    Insurgency
    Posted - 2006.11.12 17:09:00 - [19]
     

    fully disagree. not everyone plays the game 23/7 guys, so having a base with which to operate out of is ideal. we pay for it, we should be able to have a dependable safe place. if you dont like it, dread it, so long as you dont fear losing them. simple really.

    King Cheetah
    Aliastra
    Posted - 2006.11.12 17:22:00 - [20]
     

    Originally by: Old Geeza
    Better yet, remove forcefields and turrets around standard POS and introduce Capital POS which have the forcefields and guns. Those towers will be unable to use any moon mining and reaction equipment, so their only use would be in keeping/taking stations.

    I am tired of 0.0 being littered with fully armoured safespots that you can't enter.


    Every one of those towers has somebody maintaining it.
    The idea of having guns removed from towers is frankly not very well thought out. If you're going to dump 170M+ ISK on a well outfitted POS, and you're going to maintain it... you should be entitled to hide out in it as well.

    People don't seem to grasp the idea that if you expect your enemy to suffer loses by being able to blow up their POS, you should expect to have equal or greater losses for your efforts.

    Destroying a well outfitted POS through force should not be some simple task and if you don't like that you can't go hide out in somebody else's 0.0 space because they have a POS set up, then go somewhere else.

    0.0 space takes work to survive in. If you think that you have the right to just wander into someone else's turf (with sovereignty or not) you should expect to be blown up if you try randomly warping to a moon with a POS on it. It's called not being dumb and actually using your scanner. Buy a cloak if you're going to cruise in somebody else's turf so you can float wherever you please.

    Go take your pills, grandpa. YARRRR!!

    Protunia
    Gallente
    Posted - 2006.11.12 17:39:00 - [21]
     

    MAybe they need to go and make you a harsh pvp server ;)

    anyways eve is fine some people just dont get it.

    Kunming
    Amarr
    T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
    Xenon-Empire
    Posted - 2006.11.12 18:39:00 - [22]
     

    Originally by: Ithildin
    EVE is sick...

    You defend your starbase. You defend your outpost. They do not defend you

    ...


    QTF, POS warfare came in to replace station ping-pong, and not limit an alliance too much to its time zone, but the implementation of it totally killed the fun in alliance vs alliance warfare!

    PLS CCP give EVE its medicine, nerf the mobile safespots which you can only kill with a whole fleet of dreadnought, even the small ones... Why do you think spamming POS' is a viable tactic to conqure (oxymoron?) space?

    Ithildin
    Gallente
    The Corporation
    Cruel Intentions
    Posted - 2006.11.12 18:59:00 - [23]
     

    To repeat, money means nothing. These industrial installations will make their worth many times over, in most cases, before someone actually gather enough people to attack them, so 170 million or even 1.7 billion means absolutely nothing in the circumstances.

    The problem is that they provide a perfectly safe place. You don't need to move, you don't need to bother having starbase modules online to keep your unused ships safe, etc

    At the same time, in order to combat the owners of these installations, you need to bring your own mobile POSes (in terms of cost). These don't make money for you, but at the same time they don't require daily maintenance effort.
    What they do require is a lot of time, effort, and most of all patience to move and attack the industrial installations. And while there, you place yourself in an extremely vulnerable position where your only defence is making sure the installation owner doesn't show up in the same grid to defend it.
    For everyone who has attacked sieged dreads know that the biggest challenge is beating it's tank, the starbase may be inept at fending off dreadnoughts but it is very efficient at providing fire support against fleets of smaller ships.

    Essentially, what I'd like to see is combats taking place near or around these installations. That they provide a measure of tactical advantage for the owner is of course granted. But it would be a step in the right direction for EVE: it would be more fun, provide more challenge, and look awesome - everything a computer game is meant to provide.
    Building starbases and destroying starbases aren't challenging in EVE - this is wrong.

    I think a key note to examine while debating against me here is to ask yourself "how many people does it take to maintain a starbase and how many people does it take to attack a starbase?". Without having a clear view on the relative time, effort, risk and reward it is rather pointless voicing opinions.
    This isn't a poll, it's not a democratic process, it's a discussion. I want you to refute my claims that starbases a) drastically reduces risk and increases reward in low secure space and b) requires the attacking party of an armed conflict in EVE to spend several hours in absolute boredom in order to destroy someone else' assets in low secure space.

    In the end, if you want safe ways of making money - stay in high secure space. Low secure space risk is not about investing money, it's not about daily efforts, what it is about is risking having your ass handed to you by another player. That risk is what starbases are most efficient at removing.

    Protunia
    Gallente
    Posted - 2006.11.12 19:10:00 - [24]
     

    So whats wrong with someone having a secure station after all they took the time to go out there and risk being in low sec in the first place.

    I think some are just looking for more glory in killing things.

    It should take along time to even kill a POS because in most cases it took A LONG time for the person to get one.

    Just wait till kali ;) your gonna love it.

    Nerf Caldari
    Posted - 2006.11.12 21:07:00 - [25]
     

    Beautiful. I love it. Makes space really player owned again.

    Ithildin
    Gallente
    The Corporation
    Cruel Intentions
    Posted - 2006.11.12 23:20:00 - [26]
     

    Originally by: Protunia
    So whats wrong with someone having a secure station after all they took the time to go out there and risk being in low sec in the first place.

    I think some are just looking for more glory in killing things.

    It should take along time to even kill a POS because in most cases it took A LONG time for the person to get one.

    Just wait till kali ;) your gonna love it.

    It took a person maybe a day setting it up. It takes about a day or two (depending on strontium) to take it down. That's not balance, that's equilibrium or mirrored times.

    He shouldn't have a safe haven because he's still out there. THAT is the point.

    At the same time, really, it is bad for the game. The game's combat pace is coming to a halt. There's an artificial boundary protecting the enemy, allowing him to wait until they have moved away or until the tables have turned. When the tables turn? They have gone to their own starbase to do the same.
    To get anything accomplished, to drive either side away, you need dreadnoughts. To use dreadnoughts you need to make sure that the other side is sitting inside their bubbles waiting for you to move away. Then you sit there. And wait. And wait. And reactivate your guns when they've reloaded. It's mind numbing.

    All it ever accomplishes is to encurage people to get... no, it forces people to get huge fleets together for one purpose alone - that the enemy will not dare (or be able to) show up.

    Who win? The largest group.
    Who lose? The vision the game creators had when they made EVE.

    Kali isn't looking to bring change to this. There's talk about locking entire systems down! Nearly making forcefields around the system. Where will it end?
    Combat in EVE is dead. All that matters is strontium induced boredom.

    Tasty Burger
    Posted - 2006.11.13 00:13:00 - [27]
     

    I agree completely with the OP.

    POSes completely kill smaller corps because they cant do anything against them without large dreadnaught fleets.

    James Duar
    Merch Industrial
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2006.11.13 08:17:00 - [28]
     

    This idea breaks down because of timezones, which are the source of the problem to start with.

    If POSs are easy to pull down, then stations will change sovereignty on a 12-hour cycle as the different timezones go active.

    But why do we have POS warfare now? Same issue - timezones. People end up spamming POSs when they're on, and shooting some other ones down. Goto bed/work whatever and then the other group goes and does the same.

    If two alliances could field equivalent numbers at the same time, POS warfare would die because fleet battles over deployments and ganking the haulers would become all the more important.

    So let's not make them easy to kill. Let's think about what needs to happen to make them more tactical.

    One proposal I would make, is to give POS a much higher fuel burn rate (or greatly reduced storage, since I wouldn't want to up the ISK cost in fuel) and then allow them to be refueled by NPC haulers which are hired to do it. In this fashion, you don't need to shoot a POS into reinforced, you can just gank the haulers and let them go offline. And the haulers then need to be either replaced by player flown haulers or the ganking party attacked by the POS owning party.

    Essentially, nerfs are the worst way to effect change. You need to offer people an incentive (easy POS mantainance) coupled with a curse (faster burn rate on fuel, meaning quicker to offline if the NPCs are blown away).

    Letheeth Kayl
    Amarr
    Ammatar Free Corps
    Curatores Veritatis Alliance
    Posted - 2006.11.13 09:53:00 - [29]
     

    I have a sick, twisted idea.
    This removes all safety of being in a station:
    You can be killed/stuff destroyed in the station (while docked).
    Obviously, it'd need to be more complicated than my meager words can explain, but the idea would be the same. You get a load of marines (or similar trade good things), and use them to storm a station.
    Basically, if those industrials full of marines dock, the station is stormed by the marines.
    In taking the station, you can make them do specific tasks, such as "attack (ship hangars, item hangars, people, etc.)" or attempt to take over the entire station.
    Some people might do suicide runs, sending ships full of marines specifically to destroy whatever they find inside (but not to control the station).
    Doesn't really do much for the POS thing, but it makes those industrial complexes alot less safe. You never know, you just might log back into to find 8 of your ships gone, half your belongings damaged refuse, and all of your clones destroyed, along with most of the station services gone.
    Oh yeah, and alot of corpses everywhere.

    ~Miss Kayl
    "I like corpses"Twisted Evil

    Malachon Draco
    eXceeded
    Posted - 2006.11.13 11:34:00 - [30]
     

    The real problem with POSses is not their strength or their cost. The problem is that the servers can't handle the conflicts that include POSses. 200 people fighting in a system + POS shooting leads to huge lag, which ruins the game. Without lag, POS warfare would be fine.

    And also note that POSses are getting weaker and weaker as time progresses. The skills to anchor a POS and set it up are minimal. The skills to fly a dreadnaught are hugely timeconsuming in comparison. In a years time, the dreadnaught will have replaced the battleship as the weapon of choice for fleetbattles.

    Kali 1 is already making dreads much more viable outside of siege mode. Its just a matter of time before people will start fielding fleets of 50 dreads supported by carriers to wipe out enemies.


    Pages: [1] 2

    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