Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If a POS is anchored at a place that some people want it anchored it is likely for many other people to not want it to be there; even if for no other reason than that the POS is helping those people in some way. If a pos is at a stargate defending space by defending the "check point" there will be people who don't want it there. There will be conflict. If a pos defends any resource, there will be conflict. If it is at an asteroid belt, there will be people who don't want it to protect that resource and there will be conflict. When many people don't want the pos there, you will likely see conflict. When any game mechanic allows people to claim a resource that has substantial value or to secure their space, there will be conflict.

If multiple POS are defending a single stargate, then there will be substantial cost in fuel (an ISK sink and profit for miners with increasing fuel prices) for each stargate defended, and cloaky/fast warp (frigs/cruisers) ships will evade them easily. If ships can send probes through the gates and detect enemy POS defenses and camps before committing themselves. Then they can consider force escalations and strategic counters. They can call on allies and plan their entrance through stargates and cynos into the system to take the defenses down.

My conclusion is that there will be more conflict if pos can be placed anywhere. If stargates can be probed, there will be more strategy and multi-alliance teamwork and more large scale conflict.. If POS ownership changes like station ownership, a heavily defended stargate for one side can become a heavily defended stargate for the other side if they prevail.

+1 VERY MUCH NEEDED

Speaking as a WH dweller, the general consensus is that we do not want docking games in any way, shape, or form to be brought into W-space. Feelings about forcefields are a little more mixed, though personally I like mechanic and gameplay options it offers.

The thing is, none of the services (except WiS) require docking up in a station-type environment. Docking takes the player out of multiplayer space where he can interact with other players in space, willingly or unwillingly, and places him in a single-player station environment where he has minimal and restricted interaction with others, and only when he chooses to interact with them. That doesn't sound like the goal and purpose of EVE, though it is essential for places like Jita and other trade hubs or new player systems ... any highly-populated location.

Generally, even though we don't necessarily live in k-space, we do return there from time to time for various reasons. We could have exposure to space barbies on our trips into k-space. Everything else could be accomplished while keeping proximity-based station services in space.

Instead of rewriting POSes to be more like stations, rewrite stations to be more like POSes. Access to whatever services have been installed at the new-POS would be based on proxmity to the POS itself. Perhaps, as soon as you enter the safety of the new-POS forcefield, you have access to all new-POS services. The station environment, then, would be a single-player version of a new-POS that is always within proximity and has every service that is configured for that station.


If everything is going to be based on the new-POS code, please make docking optional and only allow the docking module in Sov space (note: please let W-space remain untamed, unclaimable). So the NPC-controlled new-POSes would keep docking capabilities in High, Low, and NPC-Null, and the player-controlled new-POSes would keep docking in Sov-Null
space. Everywhere else would not have that "convenience". Existing conveniences would not be nerfed, and as is now, players would be encouraged to fully-dockable stations to achieve safety, thus being exposed to barbies.


Personally, I'd like to keep forcefields, as it also keeps players present in multiplayer space, yet protects them to some degree. It's a different mechanic that allows different gameplay, and has a clear definition of when you are inside and when you are not inside, unlike the invisible station radius around the various racial stations in k-space today. Even if this requires a new-POS module that is used in place of a docking module, it would be a shame to homogenize this kind of mechanic out of the game.

The modularity of the new-POSes would eliminate countless distance calculations between hundreds or thousands of ships and every POS module on grid, which can be quite a high number, for an overall net improvement to performance.

I think CCP should create an official, Idea deposit for the POS revamp.

Have you actually fought on POSes? Have you fought on station undock? If you had done both, you would know the differences, which you clearly don't.

How about we Wait for CCP a word about the next expansion content and start a riot shooting things if they don't include POS revamp !?

Just wanted to note something here: The Exhibit D/E link in the OP leads to a file that doesn't load.

As far as pricate POS's go, since we dotn want them to be like outposts/stations with docking games, why not give them 4+ "undock points" they can choose from to get the ebst position against the siegers, but they also are susceptible to a dock/undock queue as a POS is not a station and each POS can only hold X pilots and con only dock them so fast. prolly an unbalanced and bad idea, but i REALLY dont want station games in wormholes.

From the last December CSM Minutes:

+1 flogg