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


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Author Topic

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.06.02 20:51:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 02/06/2007 20:50:40
Recently, the developers have have made it clear that they do not like the current state of soveriegnty warfare. All too much, sieging POSs can be avoided by simply throwing POSs up in the system and avoiding the sieges. This has happened many times over many battles, and a solution to sovereignty is needed that will balance the two competing forms of combat over more systems. As well, there is a third competing interest that interfers with the current POS mechanics. This is production.

POS purposes: Why "limiting" solutions are bad

There are two primary purposes of POS's. These are claiming sovereignty, and production. Production in Eve is largly dependant on high liquidity, and low barriers to entry, that is, the ability to change from one production to another at very low cost. One of the primary ways in which this occurs is POSs fit for production.

There is currently one primary limitation to this, which is the number of moons in a system. Production in systems with low moon counts is difficult since all of the moons are nessesary to keep sovereignty. As well, due to POS spam, even in high moon systems, every moon counts. Currently, the developers are looking at arbitrary limits on POS placement. This will damage production by making it more difficult to quickly shift POSs for different purposes. For where a production POS needs to come down and a deathstar put in when expecting a siege, or when moons become spammed with many POSs and production POSs need to come down in order to allow deathstars to be put in their place.

If POS liquidity wasnt enough of a legitimate reason to keep from limiting pos placement, limiting POS placement is hard on logistics directors who already have much work to do, forcing them to spread their already time consuming work out farther is just plain sadistic

Sovereignty Shifting

Since limiting POS placement has been found to be a less than desireable solution to POS spamming, that leaves, aside from completly scrapping the way that sovereignty is calculated, to shifting the way that sovereignty is calculated. This can be difficult, as many systems may have stations belonging to organizations that are not the sovereignty holding alliance.

Currently, sovereighty is calculated by whomever has the most number of the largest towers anchored in the system and nothing else. Because of this, in systems with high numbers of moons, it is possible to run large numbers of POSs in in order to take sovereignty and avoiding sieging. This, fundamentally has to change. Preferably in a manner that reduces the incidents of sovereignty shifting as the system rolls over. Which means we minimal POS movement should take place and no new placement should be nessesary.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.06.02 20:52:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 08/10/2007 14:38:37
Planets: The New Sovereignty Mechanic

All moons are tied to planets. You cannot have a moon without one. However, planets are not tied to sovereignty and the number of moons they have have no effect on the game. This gives us an easy way to expand sovereignty simply without nessesitating the movement or new placement of POSs.

What would be done is to move the tally from "controlled moons" to "controlled planets" and instead of POSs adding a tally if they of the largest type in the system, adding a tally to the planet they surround if they are the largest type on the planet. Whomever controlled the most planets would have sovereignty over the system. This would effectivly lower the number of places to put POSs for sovereignty, as planets with large numbers of moons would just make them less desireable for taking space, and as the number of moons taken doesnt nessesarly correlate to sovereignty.

E.G. Lets say we have a system with 8 planets and 40 moons. This, typically would be a pain to hold, since you would need to maintain 21 Large POSs in order to ensure someone couldnt just spam towers and take the system from you. However, even if all the 8 planets had 5 moons each[where the least moon reduction would take place], you would only need to hold 15 moons to ensure the system couldnt be taken without a siege[3 moons at 5 planets] under the new system.

This type of situation is uncommon. More common are systems where the moons have wildly different numbers of moons. This makes moons around planets with low moon counts more valuable to sovereignty, and moons on planets with large numbers of moons largly not valuable with respect to holding sovereignty. For instance, in that same 40 moon system with 6 planets that have moons, with counts of 10, 5, 1, 4, 6, and 14 you would only need to hold 10 moons in order to ensure sovereignty.

Because of that, strategic POS placement can be set to ensure a siege, and any POS spam that occurs will be limited to a smaller number of moons. As once those basic 10 are filled, the other 30 dont matter and sieges have to take place.

TL:DR

With the above system, we can reduce the number of moons needed to lock down a system without impeding production, POS liquidity, or any other legitimate reason to put up many POSs in a short amount of time, without having any serious change to the basic mechanics of sovereignty that would cause sovereignty to be lost. This creates incentive to siege and a disincentive to spaming POSs.

This may not be a final solution, but it is a solution that should easy enough to implement[at least as easy as limiting the number of POSs you can deploy per system per day] and good enough to be a stop-gap until a new mechanic could be introduced.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.06.03 00:32:00 - [3]
 

This is actually a really really great idea.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics
Posted - 2007.06.03 01:31:00 - [4]
 

I like it.

Jurgen Cartis
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
Posted - 2007.06.03 07:31:00 - [5]
 

It's just crazy enough to work. Still doesn't fix some of the other underlying problems with POS/Blob warfare but it could definitely help with spam problems.

The fights over the tower on that planet with 1 moon are gonna be absolutely nuts though. They are going to have to work on the fleet warfare mechanics if this happens.

Dagrin RDM
Caldari
The Leather Knights
Sev3rance
Posted - 2007.06.03 09:13:00 - [6]
 

A very interesting idea, sounds quite workable, and seems to be a nice alternative to the current method.

roBurky
StateCorp
Huzzah Federation
Posted - 2007.06.03 14:26:00 - [7]
 

I really like that. It makes some moons more valuable for defense than others, which gives an advantage to the alliance established in that system.

Rhaegor Stormborn
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.06.03 15:32:00 - [8]
 

Great idea.

Blutreiter
Amarr
Pelennor Swarm
G00DFELLAS
Posted - 2007.06.03 16:19:00 - [9]
 

Very nice idea. I hope it's simple to implement too. Two thumbs up!

Dr Shameless
2nd Blood Raven Assault Squad
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.06.03 17:12:00 - [10]
 

why not make special sovereignity poses which need to be placed near planets and leave moons only for industrial poses without any influence on sovereignity ?

B Glorious
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2007.06.03 17:56:00 - [11]
 

Just to make sure I understand this, lets say you've got a system with three planets. Planet I has 3 moons, planet II has 5 moons, and planet III has 20 moons. The minimum number of POSes you would need to have the sov majority in this system would be 5, right? (2 POS on planet I, 3 POS on planet II, giving you sov over 2/3 of the planets)

Am I getting this right?


Originally by: Dr Shameless
why not make special sovereignity poses which need to be placed near planets and leave moons only for industrial poses without any influence on sovereignity ?


This is even easier.

Frabala
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2007.06.03 18:54:00 - [12]
 

Brilliant. The simplest solutions are always the best.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.06.03 19:18:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: B Glorious
Just to make sure I understand this, lets say you've got a system with three planets. Planet I has 3 moons, planet II has 5 moons, and planet III has 20 moons. The minimum number of POSes you would need to have the sov majority in this system would be 5, right? (2 POS on planet I, 3 POS on planet II, giving you sov over 2/3 of the planets)

Am I getting this right?



100% right

Originally by: Dr Shameless
why not make special sovereignity poses which need to be placed near planets and leave moons only for industrial poses without any influence on sovereignity ?


Because special sovereignty POSs which need to be placed near planets[or only 1 per system at a star] would require a whole bunch of work[new database entries et all].

All that needs to be done[or rather should] to make this change would be to change the POS tally.

As well, new items in the database would require a bunch of logistic work for alliances in order to hold sovereignty on systems they already own[buy new towers, move towers into every system you hold sovereignty, and place them]. This wouldnt require any of that, though in some instances POSs might want to be moved.

The idea is to have a solution, that while it might not be perfect, reduces the strength of POS spam, as quickly and easily as possible, and with as few hickups as possible.

B Glorious
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2007.06.03 21:09:00 - [14]
 

Well, honestly I can approve of this wholeheartedly.

- It doesn't necessitate the creation of new "sov specific" POSes
- If it was implemented overnight, it wouldn't necessarily screw up everything and make everyone have to scramble and get new stuff to ensure that they can keep their stations
- It doesn't change game mechanics that already work fine the way they are now

I really can't see any downside to this and I hope the devs take a look, because its just pure gold.

Nilder Shadowfiyah
Caldari
3rd Millennium Group
Revival Of The Talocan Empire
Posted - 2007.06.04 00:31:00 - [15]
 

here here for a good way to take/control system sovereignty.

Cadiz
Caldari
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.06.04 02:08:00 - [16]
 

There is a certain simple elegance to this system. I like the sound of it.

Polysynchronicity
Amarr
Posted - 2007.06.04 05:57:00 - [17]
 

A pretty damn awesome idea.

Karanth
Gallente
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2007.06.04 06:28:00 - [18]
 

Support. Nothing says "pain" like POS wars.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.06.04 07:26:00 - [19]
 

This seems like a good system.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2007.06.04 09:41:00 - [20]
 

Great idea. I was looking for something like this.

Simple, elegant, working.

And finaly one idea that does not promote death-star POSes over industrial ones. Industrial POSes have usualy none or low defenses and that makes them the easiest targets in current system.

Ryo Jang
Central Defiance
Insurgency
Posted - 2007.06.04 10:08:00 - [21]
 

wonderful, wonderful idea, this is how it should have been. makes perfect sense to control planets, not moons.

Dr Aryandi
Posted - 2007.06.04 10:46:00 - [22]
 

A truly excellent suggestion. Well thought out and well presented.

Good work that man.

Ling Xiao
Prism Project Technologies
Posted - 2007.06.04 11:34:00 - [23]
 

Beautifully simple. Thumbs up Cool

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2007.06.04 11:37:00 - [24]
 

Interesting...

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2007.06.04 11:49:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Interesting...
Woot dev post \o/

Noluck Ned
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2007.06.04 11:59:00 - [26]
 

Shocked Goum, this time you managed to have a good idea.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.06.04 12:14:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Noluck Ned
Shocked Goum, this time you managed to have a good idea.



Actualy, it was Zarimax Mishka. I just typed it up in a more presentable manner(with premission). He posted it here a while ago, but it never really got seen.

I hadnt given sovereignty holding mechanics much thought before he proposed it.

Rosalina Sarinna
Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Tertius
Posted - 2007.06.04 12:18:00 - [28]
 

100% agree

/signed

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.06.04 12:26:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Noluck Ned
Shocked Goum, this time you managed to have a good idea.


Ho ho! It's on now!

Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Posted - 2007.06.04 14:28:00 - [30]
 

Why not expand on that mechanic a little bit more.

Move sovereignty completely to the planets and away from the moons. I mean whoever in their right mind would think "Gee, I control more than 50% of the moons in this system, so I am the supreme ruler here.". Now, contrast this with "Gee, I control more than 50% of the planets in this system, so I am the supreme ruler here." Makes more sense that way, no?

So, my proposal would be to create a new type of tower, the Sovereignty tower. It would be similar to a Large tower, perhaps a little bigger, but would cost, say 1b ISK each, and they would be the only towers that could anchor the jump portals, cap ship assembly arrays and shipyards...and the only ones that could claim or count towards sov in a system. This would prevent the Sov POS spam (at least past the number of planets required to ensure sov in a system).

As a possible extension to this, you would anchor an outpost egg at the Sov POS (outside the shield, where it can still be blown up by a coordinated attack), and after downtime, the tower merges with the egg to deploy an outpost, and the guns deploy to a set interval around the outpost as station sentries that can be disabled much like the guns at the POSes will be. The outpost, in this case, would contribute to system sov the same as a Sov tower for the alliance that currently holds the outpost.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

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