Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stamm
Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 11:21:00 -
[1]
Name is unimportant. Super POS. Huge POS. System POS. Whatever.
Can only be anchored in orbit of a star.
Only one can be anchored per solar system.
Double the grid/CPU of a normal POS.
4 times the hitpoints.
4 times the fuel consumption.
POS shield is 40KM from the tower.
Has an extra mode, called defensive mode. Activated when armour drop below 75%. In defensive mode the super POS cannot be damaged or repaired. Defensive mode consumes strontium, in the same way as a normal POS - obviously 4 times the amount. Defensive mode requires a POS module called Starbase Defence Array. This simply holds strontium. Once defensive mode is activated, then obviously this strontium cannot be accessed.
Reinforced mode starts as normal at 25% Again the POS cannot be damaged. Consumes strontium as above.
As far as sovereignty claim is concerned, the Super POS counts in the same way as a normal POS. In other words one super POS beats an infinate number of large/medium/small.
A super POS cannot be deployed unless the system has your alliances sovereignty or no sovereignty. A super POS cannot have a capital ship assembly array anchored at it.
Has a limit to the number of offensive modules it can control - to prevent people using too many smalls etc, which impacts server performance. Bigger weapons should be attractive. Small guns etc should only be there to deter smaller ships from pestering it.
---
What effect will this have?
1) All alliances, pretty much, will put these in their station systems. Alliances pursuing constellational sovereignty will likely deploy them in other systems in the constellation. 2) Fuel costs will be lower, in general, for station systems. However when it comes to the overall picture it should be more or less the same. Where 8 towers in the station system and 1 tower in nearby systems would be the norm, it'll now be the equivalent of 4 in station system, and 4 in nearby systems. 3) The main reason : Conquest of a system will revolve around one and only one POS. POS warfare will be reduced. You put it into reinforced, you come back and put it into defensive, you come back and kill it. 3 runs instead of 2 per POS. Each run taking twice as long. So roughly the same amount of shooting time as 3 POSs, however, only 3 runs compared to 6. 4) POS spamming ceases to be an issue. It simply cannot happen. 5) Ship maintenance arrays, moon mining, refining, manufacturing will almost certainly not take place at super POSs, this will be deathstars only. 6) POS weapons might just be scary. With double the firepower, and the new potential to focus it, it might get interesting. 7) Existing non-sovereignty POS functions are not affected.
Flame away!
Galaxian Recruitment Info |
Waxau
Amarr Liberty Rogues Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 13:02:00 -
[2]
No flame here. Intriguing idea, however having been in POS warfare recently, i can personally say its one of the most dull sides of eve. When folks say "Pos bashing, X up" i dont feel thrilled to type X. Which isnt what a game is for:)
So id personally be against it. A more simple way forward would just have outpost defences possibly.
|
fire 59
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 13:51:00 -
[3]
I like the idea. Have always thought that they should make specific pos for sov like in your suggestion. Would stop spamming in a stroke
GOONIES = OMNIPOTENCE INCARNATE |
Kudaro
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 13:59:00 -
[4]
Might be an insteresting idea but I do not like the "defensive mode". In fact, I hate almost anything that has to do with repairing armor for the simple fact that it defies basic chemistry. Change the armor repair mode to a backup shield or the like and you have got my support.
|
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 14:42:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Waxau No flame here. Intriguing idea, however having been in POS warfare recently, i can personally say its one of the most dull sides of eve. When folks say "Pos bashing, X up" i dont feel thrilled to type X. Which isnt what a game is for:)
So id personally be against it. A more simple way forward would just have outpost defences possibly.
qft Pos warfare must be changed, at this point u can total not defend system, only come with xx allies when pos comes out of reinforced and after that, show totaly no presence in that system.
So i'm not signed for even bigger pos that need to be shoot down. ---
Not replying to alts, post with ur main or STFU Moissac > is "lolalition |
Straith
GALAXIAN RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 16:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kudaro Might be an insteresting idea but I do not like the "defensive mode". In fact, I hate almost anything that has to do with repairing armor for the simple fact that it defies basic chemistry. Change the armor repair mode to a backup shield or the like and you have got my support.
There's no armour being repaired. The defensive mode is just a second reinforced.
For people that hate POS warfare, that's the point of this.
It'll vastly reduce the amount of POS warfare.
|
Waxau
Amarr Liberty Rogues Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 16:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Straith
Originally by: Kudaro Might be an insteresting idea but I do not like the "defensive mode". In fact, I hate almost anything that has to do with repairing armor for the simple fact that it defies basic chemistry. Change the armor repair mode to a backup shield or the like and you have got my support.
There's no armour being repaired. The defensive mode is just a second reinforced.
For people that hate POS warfare, that's the point of this.
It'll vastly reduce the amount of POS warfare.
Nah it wont. It'll be ANOTHER pos to take down, with two sets of reinforced. So two fleet battles to take it out. Minimum. Extra work, with no extra value in all honesty.
Well thought out and all that, but its something ccp should be reducing. Adding a package of multiple ones, into one, isnt doing that.
So in short - It will vastly increase pos warfare.
|
Stamm
Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.07.28 21:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Waxau
Originally by: Straith
Originally by: Kudaro Might be an insteresting idea but I do not like the "defensive mode". In fact, I hate almost anything that has to do with repairing armor for the simple fact that it defies basic chemistry. Change the armor repair mode to a backup shield or the like and you have got my support.
There's no armour being repaired. The defensive mode is just a second reinforced.
For people that hate POS warfare, that's the point of this.
It'll vastly reduce the amount of POS warfare.
Nah it wont. It'll be ANOTHER pos to take down, with two sets of reinforced. So two fleet battles to take it out. Minimum. Extra work, with no extra value in all honesty.
Well thought out and all that, but its something ccp should be reducing. Adding a package of multiple ones, into one, isnt doing that.
So in short - It will vastly increase pos warfare.
I don't think you've understood it then...
By implementing the super POS. Then there is only one POS to be destroyed and replaced to take a system - at the absolute maximum. No matter how many large towers there are, it's irrelevant.
The reason why I suggest 2 reinforceds is because taking a system shouldn't be too easy.
It replaces knocking down 10 towers with knocking down one big tower.
Galaxian Recruitment Info |
i take
|
Posted - 2007.07.29 03:24:00 -
[9]
no
|
Straith
GALAXIAN RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.29 17:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: i take no
y
|
|
Kotorr Vepar
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 03:24:00 -
[11]
Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but one super/huge/system POS being built in a system will prohibit any more or other control towers from being constructed and anchored?
If so, how would it counter systems that currently hold multiple large CTs? You'd still have to siege all of the other CTs, or dismantle them in order to construct the super POS, right? You'd need to be able to construct it with other CTs in the area, but not bring it online until the other POSes are offline. Into the Void /Subsystem Targeting |
Haulersss
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 09:50:00 -
[12]
If u need this to work u would have to have sov 4 or something like that. i dont think u should be able to whack one of these babys up in a system with no sov claim. Just my 2 pence
|
Stamm
Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 21:11:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kotorr Vepar Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but one super/huge/system POS being built in a system will prohibit any more or other control towers from being constructed and anchored?
If so, how would it counter systems that currently hold multiple large CTs? You'd still have to siege all of the other CTs, or dismantle them in order to construct the super POS, right? You'd need to be able to construct it with other CTs in the area, but not bring it online until the other POSes are offline.
It would not prohibit other POSs doing stuff.
It doesn't matter how many large CTs are in system.
If you want the system you blow up the super POS and deploy your own. Job done.
Galaxian Recruitment Info |
Stamm
Amarr Three Holdings Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 21:16:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Haulersss If u need this to work u would have to have sov 4 or something like that. i dont think u should be able to whack one of these babys up in a system with no sov claim. Just my 2 pence
It can't work that way. Otherwise an attacker would have to destroy the super POS... AND THEN all the other POSs. Which is completely not the point.
Deploying the super POS should be the objective of any assault on a system, and be achieved by destroying the enemy super POS. Making the sovereginty claim of all other POSs irrelevant.
Galaxian Recruitment Info |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |