open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked UPDATE ON PAGE 16, 19: Sovereignty and starbases, the future!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (30)

Author Topic

Cain Calzon
Caldari
Genco
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.17 21:09:00 - [241]
 

can we get an Cancel and Queue system on the POSes? The cancel option is pretty simple. because this happens to me alot, i want to online/offline/anchor/unanchor something and then i accidently selects an array thats next to the real array that i want to interact with. example. i want to online an cyno generator and next to that generator is an offline cyno jammer. i then accidently selects the jammer instead of the generator and selects online. now i have to wait 30m looking at a timer when i could be doing something worth while. a Cancel feature would be good, it cancels what ever its doing and goes back to it previous state.

Queing is another feature to help relief some "grinding of teeth". example, 1 of my towers has gone offline due to i couldnt get to it in time. the current system now is that i have to spend half a day reonlining every god damm arrays. what would be good is an Queue system that i can put on the arrays that i want to online. and also how about an Put Online option that onlines everything that was online previous to when the tower went offline.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 06:32:00 - [242]
 

Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 19:30:20

Ok this is pretty straightforward.
Not much in the game would have to be changed except some stats and creating one module which doesnít have to be balanced.

If an idea like this is put into the game:
Will have less POS spamming.

The Starbase structures are made primary targets along side POSís, giving small corps a fighting chance.

It might even help a little with blobing, because people will probably go for the POS defences/services which are weaker, which means they can use less people at once (per station), which means they may split their fleet up into groups to attack multiple stations.

Now for the Changes: The Idea

Structures cannot be anchored within Station Shields. (Except for Corporate hangers)

Double the base price of all Starbase structures

Sovereignty will be based on the logistics of running a system.

By that I mean, every solar system is given a SSLL grade. That grade is a representation of what the System is currently worth at the current Sovereignty Status. Certain permanent landmarks have been assigned SLL grades to represent the components that make up the Systems worth and logistical ability at its current Sovereignty Level.

System Sovereignty Logistics Limit. [SSLL] (Cannot deploy Starbase Structures if it means going over the SSLL.

Sovereignty Logistics Limit [SLL] is a classification of the systems landmark. The total SLL translates to the systems worth.

Stargate worth 15000 SLL
Planet worth 10000 SLL
Moon worth 5000 SLL
Asteroid Belts 1500 SLL

Example: 8 planets (48000) + 40 moons (180000)+ 10 Asteroid Belts (15000)+ 2 Stargates (16000) = System X has 156,000 SSLL

When you anchor a station structure (excluding Small POS and Corporate Hangers), it uses up a certain amount of SSLL. Each station is assigned an SLU grade

System Logistics Usage [SLU]: is the number or of SSLL a Structure or Item claims.


Large Station worth 38,000 SLU
Medium Station worth 20000 SLU
Small Station worth 0 SLU
Station Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers or Outpost) 2600

The Idea is to maintain control of 51% or more of the worth of the system. Which is 51% of the systems available SSLL.

(A side idea for claiming Sovereignty was: If have a certain percentage of SSLL when you are awarded the next level of Sov. You gain:

75% - 79% SSLL is held when awarded next level of Sov = Your Starbases get 2.5% bonus to their fuel efficiency.

80% - 84% SSLL is held when awarded next level of Sov = Your Starbases get 2.5% bonus to their fuel efficiency.

85% - 89% SSLL is held when awarded next level of Sov = Your Starbases get 5% bonus to their fuel efficiency.

90% - 95% SSLL is held when awarded next level of Sov = Your Starbases get 7.5% bonus to their fuel efficiency.

95% - 100% SSLL is held when awarded next level of Sov = Your Starbases get 10% bonus to their fuel efficiency.)


Sovereignty 1: [Territory] Requierments
30% of the SSLL must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers)
Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.

How to challenge Sov 1:
Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.

Bonus:
20% Bonus to SSLL
2.5% Bonus to SSLL per 100 members in your Alliance
Your alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system
You can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where your alliance holds sovereignty.
Outposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable until you lose sovereignty.
Your Starbases get 25% bonus to their fuel efficiency.
Your alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 06:34:00 - [243]
 

Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 14:46:10
Sovereignty 2: [Protectorate] Requierments
35% of the SSLL must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers)
Territory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days
How to challenge Sov 2:
Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.
Bonus:
25% bonus to SSLL
2.5% Bonus to SSLL per 100 members in your Alliance
Cynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).
Scanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).

Sovereignty 3: [Province] Requierments
40% of the SSLL must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers)
Protectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days

How to challenge Sov 3:
Must hold at least 51% of the Sovereignty Logistics Limit for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.
Bonus:
30% bonus to SSLL
2.5% Bonus to SSLL per 100 members in your Alliance
Twinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system).
Cynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system)

Sovereignty 4 [Constellation Capital] Requirement
45% of the SSLL must be used by Starbase Structures (not including Control Towers or Corporate Hangers)
Province level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days.
Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation.

Bonus:
35% bonus to SSLL
2.5% Bonus to SSLL per 100 members in your Alliance
Sovereignty of the system cannot be contested, and is locked into place until the system is forced to a lower sovereignty level.

Constellation Capital Sovereignty Warfare

If one of the following requirements is met, Constellation Capital sovereignty will change to a contested mode:

The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation.

The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations.

The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station.


The Boarding Module: Allows marines to board a Starbase Structure (not Outpost), offline it and give control of it to your corporation. The boarding ability can only work on a structure when it is in armour.

Bonus: 20% reduction in activation time per Level.

Activation Range 5km
CPU: 35
PG: 20
Activation cost: 65
Activation Time: 30secs
Ammunition: Marines
Capacity: 284m3
Fitting: High Slot

1 unit of marines = 2SLU [to take over a Starbase Structure you must use the relevant number of marines to equal the Structures SLU.

(Maybe you could have 1 unit of Exotic Dancers= 0.1SLU)



Implimentation
As for implementation I donít see that being to hard. Each system receives its SSLL grade. And those systems that already have too many Starbase structures in them and there for are over the SSLL, simply cannot anchor anymore Starbase structures in that system until they eventually drop below the SSLL (which they will because war is like that), at which time that system no longer breaks any rules.

So if you have over built up in some systems you wont lose them, but they will become targets for your enemies, because that system as an advantage over other systems.
That will also mean that they may not want to destroy it Stations, but instead take them over using the boarding modules so they can benefit from the system.
There may be 1000 systems in the universe that can over produce, and that means they will become destructible resources to battle over.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 13:16:00 - [244]
 

I actually cant see any obvious problems to this idea, So I would people to see if they can rip apart the idea. (Devs feel free to join in the bashing)

Or does it actually make as much sense as i think it does?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.18 13:20:00 - [245]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25
It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems.

It is also uselessly complicated.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 13:40:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25
It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems.

It is also uselessly complicated.


Ah yes i see your point.

So i will revise the Landmark SLL

Stargates = 15000
Planets = 10000
Moons = 5000

That should cover it now.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.18 13:48:00 - [247]
 

Originally by: Archivian Specialatus
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25
It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems.

It is also uselessly complicated.


Ah yes i see your point.

So i will revise the Landmark SLL

Stargates = 15000
Planets = 10000
Moons = 5000

That should cover it now.



Didnt fix anything, it still possible to lock systems permanently

And its still uselessly complicated.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 14:04:00 - [248]
 

Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 14:37:53
Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 14:13:37
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Archivian Specialatus
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 13:23:25
It would be impossible to challenge sovereignty in low SLL systems.

It is also uselessly complicated.


Ah yes i see your point.

So i will revise the Landmark SLL

Stargates = 15000
Planets = 10000
Moons = 5000

That should cover it now.



Didnt fix anything, it still possible to lock systems permanently

And its still uselessly complicated.


how can you lock it doen completely?

Lowest system that you can claim SOV in will be: 1 gate 1 planet, 1 moon. = which is 30,000 SSLL. 30% of which you have to use of Starbase Structures (9,000 = 30%)

Thats space for 1 medium tower (20,000 SLU), 4 Starbase Structures (10,400 SLU). Remaining SSLL will be 600.

Or you can put up a small POS and fill it with 11 Starbase Stuctures (28600 SLU)

If you want to take the space then blow up their staition/structures or take them over.

If you plop a station down and nobody attempts to claim sov then you gain sov. Just like normal.

I really dont see how you can lock the system down.

As for complicated, its +-x/, and your trying to take over a solar system, the fact that you have to think about what you put in a system seems to make sense to me. Your already scanning moons for minerals and stuff (so your already thinking about placement)
When waring over SOV and as it goes right now you take out as much of their POS's and then POS spam as much as you can. Well now you cant, now you either Take out their POS, take over their POS, take out their Starbase Stuctures, or if there is space errect your own POS and Starbase Stuctures. Now you have a choice and considering not all alliances are heavy on the member count and CAPS, they may try for another route.

Dread blobing could still be done.

If you wondering about "just take out a few Starbase structures and that will be enough." well thats the point. In a system that small the fighting is focused on that one moon, you should have the ability to defend that system or you shouldnt have the system. In a larger system your not talking about a few structures, your still talking about many. And if you have the logistics to do the damage and they dont have the logistics to defened it then you deserve to contest their SOV. But you still have to claim space for your self so your both in the same boat. And the better team will win.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.18 17:07:00 - [249]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 18/11/2007 18:06:43
You put an outpost down in a system with less than 73000 SSL[35% bonus keeps it under 99000 SSL and impossible to put towers down to challenge it.

Three systems like that in a constellation and you have uncontestable sov 4. Also, its uselessly complex

What i am saying secondarily is the most important point. It is more complicated than it needs to be. You dont need a complicated mechanic to make sov interesting and fun, and simpler mechanics are easier to handle for the players.

There are two types of simple mechanics. There is "simple to implement" and "simple to use". We cant really figure out what "simple to implement", but we can guess. But what we really want is something simple to use.

The current mechanic is simple, which is good. The problem is that there are just too many stations.

So we want to add or change a mechanic to simply limit the number of POS's to take down. Then you run the same simple mechanic of "who has the most large towers anchored and online? They get sovereignty 7 days after their towers anchor" but get past the boring part of "you have to take down 30 towers" or "you have to put up 30 towers".

Dreadllama
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:08:00 - [250]
 

I have a suggestion. It pertains not so much to outpost sieging specifically but to large battles in general. As large battles are synonymous with sovereignty warfare, I think it's related.

All or most of us have had the experience of getting blown up in space. It's one of those things that happens to you and you get used to it. You were there, someone shot you, and you died. Simple as cake.

The problem is, on nearly half those occasions, you were dead before you got there, there was nothing you could do about it, and you didn't even know you were being attacked until you woke up in a brand new alpha clone back in the station of your choice.

How many people have clicked "jump through to XXX" or, "Warp to <gang member>", to see themselves align, (or sit on gate), and then nothing, and nothing, and nothing, and then there's a new mail in your inbox from your insurance company consoling you for the loss of your frigate.

I'm talking about grid loading lag. You warp/jump in, the other guy sees you, and you don't see them. You get popped while your client sits there and tells you you're nowhere near anything that might want to shoot at you.

Lag and grid loading are part and parcel of large fleets, and you're doing all you can to make them better, but I believe there's something you're overlooking that can help out a lot more than hardware improvements.

Since y'all use TCP IP, this should be a familiar concept to you. Send and receive: No lost packets. No dropped data. One dataum says to the other datum, "I see you." and things go on from there.

My suggestion is that you do the same thing for ships in fleet combat. That is, don't make my ship show up on the other guys screen until his ship shows up on my screen. That way I can at least look at the guy who's shooting at me.

I grant you it'd look a bit odd to see a member of your gang shooting at someone you can't see yet, but you'll load him eventually (or he'll get blown up anyway), but he's got some semblance of a fair fight now at least.

I don't know if it's feasible or not, but it'd make my jumping into a gatecamp experience a lot more pleasant than it is under the current system.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:27:00 - [251]
 

Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 19:40:02
Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 18/11/2007 19:29:58
Originally by: Goumindong
You put an outpost down in a system with less than 73000 SSL[35% bonus keeps it under 99000 SSL and impossible to put towers down to challenge it.


The two things about that I think can do are:
Do what i was going to do originally and Not have an Outpost have any SLU. [I will change it to that for the meantime.]
Or
The Outpost has 50,000 SLU, but also gives 25,000 SLL. After all, it is an Outpost.

Originally by: Goumindong
But what we really want is something simple to use.


Originally by: Nozh
Claiming and disputing sovereignty is very time consuming, and some people might even say it's boring *gasp*.


Well yes its a little less simple to use than simply POS spamming. But its certainly nowhere near as complex as properly fitting ship. Infact its nothing more than looking at a ships Powergrid and CPU only, and just trying to fit a module that has a bonus or penalty to its Powergrid and CPU.

its not rocket science.

As a player you'll see: System has X SLL. How many Large/Medium/structures can fit into X SLL.

To gain SOV i need 51% SLL. At least 30% of X SLL needs to be stuctures. Ok i need to build Y amount of structures.

The thing is you are taking over an entire Solar System. And the planning involved in it at the moment seems to amount to:
PLAN A
1.Dread blob
2.Kill enemy fleet (if there is one)
3.Blow up stations
4.Spam stations
5.Do it again.

PLAN B... no plan b

This is more complicated, but a calculater and basic maths will see you through. And you will have more options and more ways of defending/attacking and harrying. If you really want you can always resort to PLAN A, But it wont always be the most efficient means.

Still if you want simple:
Use your Claiming Planet SOV Idea

And to add flavour into how to siege: Create a new structure, call Anit Capital Battery. Make it powerful enough so that a about 5 of them together will deal about 6000dps to 1 capital target. And allow a Large station to be able to fit up to 20 of them.

I mean its a frikkin POS, why would you build a station that cant defend it self against 5 stationary Dreads. At least then you would have to send in the support fleet first to blow the guns up. before you resort to PLAN A as per usual.

Still it I can see that it can be seen as complicated. So I'll look for a simpler solution that provides choices.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:33:00 - [252]
 

You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk.

All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 19:41:00 - [253]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk.

All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.


see end of last edited post above.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 20:35:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk.

All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.


Your right. Your taking Sov of planets Is the best simple idea. So the problem of POS spaming is pretty much solved (Unless they want to cap the POS count even more)

But the other problem is still there:
Originally by: Nozh
Claiming and disputing sovereignty is very time consuming, and some people might even say it's boring *gasp*.


Your idea is so simple that there is no room to make the actual sieging more interesting or vaired. At least not without making your mechanic more complicated.

Alexi Kalashnikov
Posted - 2007.11.18 21:13:00 - [255]
 

Edited by: Alexi Kalashnikov on 18/11/2007 21:17:38
I agree that a Planet Based Sovergnity. It drastically cuts down on the number of structures, brings fuel costs down as well AND would allow the introduction of a new starbase (if wanted, might be good to have a bit of a unique structure at planets). I can see no downside to this as moon sovierngty towers are totally un-needed, every system has a decent level of planets AND logistics becomes far less time consuming: making it a win for everyone. Less targets to destroy, less targets to defend. POSs are the way to go, as they allow the defenders the ability to use the station until they actually lose control over the system. If the station is turned into the focal point of the conflict, then small and random gangs flying through space can easily influence and demolish the control of the larger alliances.

Now if this were to be implemented, then CCP would have to grant a grace period where no alliances could place these structures in other alliances planets (massive spam, secure sov across EVE, et cetera) for a period of one or two weeks so everyone was brought up to speed.

Planet Soviergnty has my vote.


EDIT: Another point is that we should keep changes and new mechanics simple and straight forward. There shouldn't be complex calculations behind it, no limitations based on points. "Planet here, place tower, online tower, fuel tower, done." Introducing complex calculations will take any progress and diminish it. Not to bash on your idea (Foundatin dude, can't see the previous posts) which is really cool, but I think what everyone wants right now is a simplified system so these's less hassle in dealing with towers and sovergnity.

Jifai
Posted - 2007.11.18 21:59:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Alexi Kalashnikov
Planet Soviergnty has my vote.


Reducing sov targets puts the incentive on ever larger superblob 500 v. 500 battles to claim that one extremely valuable objective.

We want a wars where 1000s fight, just not have them all fight on the same grid simultaneously.

Likewise, game changes that reduce POS numbers means the pos fueling carebears can handling claiming ever more systems than today. Claim workload needs to high enough to encourage a resident population.

More targets that are easier to kill than today's pos will make territorial battles more playable, and soak up all the carebear energy.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.18 22:26:00 - [257]
 

So am i right in saying that we want:

The Simple Goumindongs Planet Sov mechanic.

But we also want something that adds more variety to territorial warfare instead of simply promoting the BOB/GOON style 100000 vs 100000 suberblob in one grid.


Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.19 00:52:00 - [258]
 

Assuming we were to with the Planet Sov idea. Here are some changes that i think will POS warfare less boring. Or at least be useful.

Boarding Module
Allows marines to board a Control Tower, offline it and all structures anchored to it and give control of it all to your corporation.
Bonus: 20% reduction in activation time per Level.

Activation Range 5km
CPU: 35
PG: 20
Activation cost: 65
Activation Time: 30secs
Ammunition: Marines
Capacity: 750m3
Fitting: High Slot

Boarding Requirement: To successfully board a control tower, it must first be in Armour. Number of Marines required = 10% of station capacity.

Sovereignty Beacon:
When a Sovereignty Beacon is put online at a large control tower that is set to claiming sovereignty. Only then does the tower start claiming sovereignty. The Sovereignty Beacon is unaffected by reinforced mode.
Only one Sovereignty Beacon can be fitted per station.

Fitting:
Power Grid: 50,000
CPU: 150

Base Price: 1bil

Implementation
Iím not sure how well this will work.
There is no grace period for the Alliances. Instead a date is set and it is implemented on the day.
All Large Control Towers set to claiming Sovereignty with enough CPU and Power grid available will receive a free anchored and online Sovereignty Beacon.
Systems where Medium Control Towers are controlling Sovereignty 2 or higher will have one of the Medium Control Towers changed to a Large Tower and be given a Free Online and anchored Sovereignty Beacon
Systems where Small Control Towers are controlling Sovereignty 1 or higher will have one of the Small Control Towers changed to a Large Tower and be given a Free Online and anchored Sovereignty Beacon

With this form of implementation there are still some people that are going to getshafted. But a grace period regardless of the mechanic change could shift a game economy something as drastic as that.

Also the Sov Beacon is another way to help reduce the POS spamming, and the price, well enough people over time has said that stations are too cheap. I've never seen CCP up the price on an item before and i dont think they would do it. Also too many individual player and small corps could get shafted by uping the prices of all stations. An announcement on rising POS prices would also lead to Rich Alliances stockpiling POS's for use, and to sell after the change and make rediculous amounts of isk. The same thing would happen with a grace period for changing the Sov mechanic, Rich Alliances would capitalize.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.19 00:59:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Jifai
We want a wars where 1000s fight, just not have them all fight on the same grid simultaneously.

(The rest of these ideas are to help encourage Multi POS combat/ fighting in waves, but not to get rid of super blob combat. I think the likes of Goons and BOB could super blob their way past this, but smaller Alliances would have more fun/variety and tactics at hand instead of trying to mimic super blobbing without the numbers/Capitals)

Shield hardeners Array:
Will be placed outside side the shields like the guns.

Shield Hardener Booster Link: Is anchored outside the station:
Boosts all Shield Hardener Arrays in range: Shield HP increased by 100% for each other Shield Hardener Booster Link in system.
(30 Shield Hardener Booster Link in system = 3000% increase in shield hardener arrays shield HP
Only one can be anchored per Control Tower.
Fitting:
PG: 200,000
CPU: 250
Shield HP: 2,500,000
Armour HP: 2,500,000
Range: 50km

Advanced Shield Hardeners:
They are the same as normal Shield Hardener Arrays:
Fitting
PG: 200,000
CPU: 250
Shield HP: 40,000
Armour HP: 40,000

Advanced Shield Hardener Booster Link
Is anchored outside the station:
Boosts all Advanced Shield Hardener Arrays in range: Shield HP increased by 200% for each other Advanced Shield Hardener Booster Link in system.

Only one can be anchored per Control Tower.
Fitting:
PG: 200,000
CPU: 250
Shield HP: 3,500,000
Armour HP: 3,500,000

Advanced turret batteries.
[Amarr Pulse Laser] Ė just for example
ANTI-CAPITAL Battery
Fitting
Powergrid: 500,000
CPU:0
Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Armour
Armour HP: 4,800,000
Structure
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged
Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 69 [Can be Jammed]
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 500m
Scan Resolution: 35
Miscellaneous
Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 300km
Accuracy Falloff: 100km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.00163
Rate of Fire: 20secs
Damage Modifier: 700
Signature Resolution: 1500
Base Price: 800,000,000

ANTI-Battleship
Fitting
Powergrid: 250,000
CPU:0
Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Armour
Armour HP: 1,800,000
Structure
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged
Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 32 [Can be Jammed]
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 295m
Scan Resolution: 95
Miscellaneous
Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 200km
Accuracy Falloff: 100km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.0337
Rate of Fire: 8secs
Damage Modifier: 100
Signature Resolution: 350
Base Price: 400,000,000

ANTI-Cruiser
Fitting
Powergrid: 200,000
CPU:0
Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Armour
Armour HP: 900,000
Structure
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged
Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 20 [Can be Jammed]
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 345m
Scan Resolution: 255
Miscellaneous
Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 80km
Accuracy Falloff: 100km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.0812
Rate of Fire: 5secs
Damage Modifier: 3
Signature Resolution: 120
Base Price: 90,000,000

ANTI-Frigate
Fitting
Powergrid: 150,000
CPU:0
Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Armour
Armour HP: 400,000
Structure
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged
Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 12 [Can be Jammed]
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 295m
Scan Resolution: 395
Miscellaneous
Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 50km
Accuracy Falloff: 50km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 1.2
Rate of Fire: 3secs
Damage Modifier: 1
Signature Resolution: 100
Base Price: 20,000,000


sg3s
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.19 09:27:00 - [260]
 

Edited by: sg3s on 19/11/2007 09:27:43
Originally by: Archivian Specialatus
*snip too much tekst*



Great! Now we only need some intel on what jammer to use and a scorp fleet to take down an entire POS at 0 losses.

/sarcasm

Now really making them jam-able like that is a big mistake, I do however sign for anti-capital guns on a POS.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.19 10:44:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: sg3s
Edited by: sg3s on 19/11/2007 09:27:43
Originally by: Archivian Specialatus
*snip too much tekst*



Great! Now we only need some intel on what jammer to use and a scorp fleet to take down an entire POS at 0 losses.

/sarcasm

Now really making them jam-able like that is a big mistake, I do however sign for anti-capital guns on a POS.


Well getting intel on what kind of jam wouldnt be that hard. you can just go to the market and look at the show info. Jamming the Capital Guns, well a well skilled falcon pilot would have about a 20%ish chance per jammer, lil under 50% chance for the BS gun, over 50% chance for cruiser and garanteed for the frigate guns (though by that point, if its all frigate guns you will need a small gang of falcons or just blow them up with bigger ships.

Ramirez Dora
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.19 11:37:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk.

All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.


Do you think cutting down numbers (which I think is the way to go) will also stop the nuisance of stront timers or do we still need some kind of fatigue system in place.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.19 12:01:00 - [263]
 

Originally by: Ramirez Dora
Originally by: Goumindong
You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk.

All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.


Do you think cutting down numbers (which I think is the way to go) will also stop the nuisance of stront timers or do we still need some kind of fatigue system in place.


I think that even if it was only 1 POS per system stront timers would still be needed.
Think about it, if there wasnt, BOB could probably clear out a few systems in a night, whilst the defenders who are on different hours are asleep.

Wouldnt be too fare if it were your POS's

Nifel
PAX Technologies
Posted - 2007.11.19 12:43:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Archivian Specialatus

I think that even if it was only 1 POS per system stront timers would still be needed.
Think about it, if there wasnt, BOB could probably clear out a few systems in a night, whilst the defenders who are on different hours are asleep.

Wouldnt be too fare if it were your POS's


And yet people coped before POS sovereignty was introduced and I dare say had a lot more fun doing it. Having your station taken over creates incentive to take it back which sparks conflict. Sovereignty was mostly introduced so we could play empire games and hold vast swaths of space without having to patrol it all the time. Turned out it wasn't so great and here we are.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.19 12:59:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: Nifel
Originally by: Archivian Specialatus

I think that even if it was only 1 POS per system stront timers would still be needed.
Think about it, if there wasnt, BOB could probably clear out a few systems in a night, whilst the defenders who are on different hours are asleep.

Wouldnt be too fare if it were your POS's


And yet people coped before POS sovereignty was introduced and I dare say had a lot more fun doing it. Having your station taken over creates incentive to take it back which sparks conflict. Sovereignty was mostly introduced so we could play empire games and hold vast swaths of space without having to patrol it all the time. Turned out it wasn't so great and here we are.


Well that would explain why POS prices are so low and part of why they get spammed so easily. So what your saying is that they increased the life expectancy of a POS (reinfoced mode and what not) without increasing the cost? well thats just bad planning. lol.

For POS's to keep reinforced mode it needs to hurt when you lose one. I would actually say that if they could increase the price of POS's as a fix (which is a type of fixing i dont think they would do) POS's should cost 5 times as much as they do now even if it does make life harder for smaller alliances.

But thats not exactly a new idea

Jifai
Posted - 2007.11.19 13:08:00 - [266]
 

Control tower prices were raised -- in RMR patch if I recall.

Large towers used to cost 100Misk. This was well after they conferred sovereignty bonuses.

And yes people who paid attention to test server and dev blogs profited handsomely. This also benefitted everyone else since players could buy towers for well below the new NPC price for months.

Archivian Specialatus
Amarr
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2007.11.19 13:15:00 - [267]
 

Originally by: Jifai
Control tower prices were raised -- in RMR patch if I recall.

Large towers used to cost 100Misk. This was well after they conferred sovereignty bonuses.

And yes people who paid attention to test server and dev blogs profited handsomely. This also benefitted everyone else since players could buy towers for well below the new NPC price for months.


Wow i didnt realise they were so cheap in a tme long past.

I only started playing last year and i took a 6month break, and relative to most of the people in this thread, I'm new to POS warfare.

Do you think the price needs to be raised again?

Blake Ice
Gallente
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.11.19 13:23:00 - [268]
 

Every thing in Eve is about waiting and not grinding. So, any system should be based upon time.

I would assume behind the scenes that sovereignty means that the habitable planets in the system get populated with regular people--and slave girls. :-)

So, every system must have at least one planet that is habitable for this to occur. You must have a space elevator to bring goods to the planet for the new colony--and slave girls. :-)

Once the colony is established, you have sovereignty one that over time will grow to sovereignty two, etc. It should also make sovereignty in neighboring systems a little quicker since people are near by--and slave girls. :-)

Destroying the space elevator before sovereignty one stops the process and everyone on the planet dies. After level one, the planet must be bombarded. The length of the bombarding required would be based upon population--and slave girls. :-)

A system around this structure is what would feel natural to everyone I think. With ambulation, other diplomatic or combat related options are possible.

Sovereignty should not give you any bonuses to your stations! However, population of the planets should. (and slave girls) :-)

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2007.11.19 13:29:00 - [269]
 

A couple of requests to make this thread easier for us Smile

1) If you really, really have to link to an externally-hosted file, please make it in a format which is guaranteed to be malware-free. Like, say, a text file Smile

2) Please try and avoid making value judgements about other players' ideas. Pointing out mechanical flaws is great as it encourages discussion and development, but simply saying "I don't like it" (or more complex derivations thereof, even if you "know" you're right) generally doesn't lead to constructive dialogue.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.11.19 14:34:00 - [270]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 19/11/2007 14:35:46
Originally by: Ramirez Dora
Originally by: Goumindong
You can reduce the number of POS needed to take and hold a system or killed to siege a system without making some overly complicated mechanic based on multiple layers of ownership and pos modules and poses and all that other junk.

All you have to do is reduce the number of POS in a system.


Do you think cutting down numbers (which I think is the way to go) will also stop the nuisance of stront timers or do we still need some kind of fatigue system in place.


I am not sure about stront timers. On one side, stront timers are important to keeping POS structures from dissapearing overnight. No one likes to go to bed and wake up with all their stuff destroyed. And Eve has made it a goal to not have this happen.

On the other hand, stront timers can be manipulated by both sides to avoid a fight by making the system come out in a bad or good time for the opposing alliance. If one side gets the tower to come out deep in their prime and out of the opponents prime the tower is saved/destroyed.

I think that even a simple change such as "you can put stront in, but cant take stront out" or "you cant see how much stront is in the tower" might work. Because then each side is playing a guessing game instead of sitting there and timing it exactly as they want while the other tries to kite the tower into their primetime.

But the basic design concept of "You cant got to bed and have your stations taken out from under you without warning" absolutly has to stay in the game.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (30)

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