These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

New awesome modular POS
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1 - 2012-08-13 04:11:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Inspired by CSM7 minutes:
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73092
First of all, some brief notes about ideas mentioned there:
1) Modular POS – hell yes!
2) Put modules however you like – no! Two big reasons: it’ll get too complicated to implement, and remember “time to penis” problem.
3) Anchor POS wherever you like – no! There should be competition for location.
4) Space cities – hell double yes!
5) Jumping POS – lolwut? If you want mobile base – make a special ship, don’t mess with POSes like that.

Now let’s pass to what I propose.
POSes should be anchored to moons. If you think 1 per moon is no enough, make it like 4 per moon – in Lagrangian points L1, L2, L4 and L5 (L3 is considered to be too unstable). As L1 and L2 are pretty close to the moon, they can be used for moon mining (see below), while L4 and L5 can’t.

POS should look like a tower. It starts with tiny stick, but you can upgrade it by adding vertical sections. Limit the number of sections to some reasonable amount – say 100 – otherwise “tower will be collapsed by its own gravity”, for the RP explanation. Each level is basically a rack, in which you can install either 1 “large” module, or several “compact” modules (say, up to 5 per rack). Large modules are those like docking port, moon mining device, solar panels, etc., while compact being labs, factories, shield boosters. There is a picture attached, but be warned that I’m not good in art ;-)
[link] http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/POS.GIF

Energy and fuel. Please, make the energy behave like capacitor – don’t make it a fixed dumb “powergrid” number. Make energy management a mini-game. Let’s see how it could be implemented.
After anchoring, POS tower will have zero capacitor. You can install batteries, though, in “compact” slots. But the capacitor will not recharge by itself, it will be fed by reactor (or solar cells). Reactor needs heat dissipation for operation, that’s why it takes large slot.
Leaving the math behind, I only present the graphs of capacitor recharge, reactor load and fuel efficiency (also the formulas are straightforward and have something to do with real-life physics). Here we go:
[link] http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1208/cap.PNG
The reactor load could be visualized with some awesome effects, like glowing red heat dissipation panels. But what does the fuel efficiency mean? Doesn’t the tower consume fixed amount of fuel blocks, depending on its size or – in our case – the number of reactor units? Yes and no. I don’t want to ruin the fuel block scheme, but instead want to make it more flexible. The reactor will consume, say, 10 blocks per hour. Within inside of the reactor fuel blocks are decomposed to its constituents. Robotics, oxygen and stuff are consumed totally. But ice products are only consumed proportional to the load of the reactor. So at the end of an hour unused ice products are delivered into cargo hold.
The efficiency graph above is about these ice products. It means that at light reactor load, ice is burnt at its maximum yield – while at maximum load it’s just wasted. But you shouldn’t operate at loads close to zero, because PI-components of fuel are consumed regardless. You will need to find optimal load, and it will depend on prices. We’ve got the sandbox!
As for solar cells, they can produce somewhat smaller amount of energy without consuming any fuel. To prevent abusing, there should be stacking penalty. They will shade each other, you know. If the penalty is based on the actual geometry of POS – great, if it’s just a usual formula – I’m fine with it as well. The key feature about solar cell is – their power output must depend on the distance to the sun. Why? Because “location, location, location”. Planets located close to their suns often have few moons, if any. Add the fact that POSes could be used for moon mining (see below) and maybe planetary interaction – and it turns out there are some precious spots in the galaxy where everyone wants to be. Conflict driver!
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#2 - 2012-08-13 04:11:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Tanking is accomplished by shield boosters. That’s right – as long as we have capacitor, we can afford active tanking like in ships. But unlike ships, POSes are often unmanned. That’s why it requires some automation switching SB’s on and off. Let’s make it straightforward. Suppose, we have 5 boosters. When shields go below 80%, first SB is switch on; when they rise up to 100% – it’s off. If the attacking force is strong enough to burn it down to 60% – the second SB is activated, and will run until regenerated to 80%. Below 40% – the third is on. And below...
And below 25% it’s reinforced.
Now let me put it clear – I don’t have anything against state of the art mechanics of reinforcing (in this thread at least). So if you want to keep it – keep it. But I want to show you that with active tanking there are other option, like this:
1. In reinforced mode, all shield boosters are switched on and everything else (labs, etc.) goes off. The capacitor never runs out, while there is strontium. In this case, the attacking force can – in theory – break through the tank. But in practice the defender can install so many boosters, that even a hundred of dreads gonna fail. The only exception is a staging POS. Deploying it will take considerable time, and it’s tank could be not that good.
2. Another option is to double (triple, quadruple, whatever) the efficiency of shield boosters in reinforced mode, similar to siege or triage mode. Nuff said.
3. Even more interesting – in reinforced mode everything goes offline, but shield boosters are switched on and off as usual. Among the others, energy transferring arrays are off (more about these devices later). But POS still can receive energy. That’s right, boys and girls – energy-based spider tanking POSes, wow! Reinforcing a single POS will introduce some strain to the energy network of spider-webbed starbases, but if it is designed with decent reserve – it’s not fatal. On the other hand, if attacker managed to reinforce several POSes – the network would fail.

Space cities. Yes, do want! Why would people want to set POSes close to each other? I think there are two main reasons: trade and mutual defense.
Energy transfer array was already mentioned as means to provide spider-tank. But it can have civilian applications as well. For example, starbases at Moon1-L1 and Moon1-L2 are extensively used for moon mining. Thus, they are energy-deficient. No worries, the energy will be delivered from Moon1-L4 and Moon1-L5. I think it’s reasonable to limit the range of energy transmission to within the moons of a specific planet. It could be either a strict rule, but it better be a kind of “falloff” formula. And of course, it’s best to let people really trade their energy! Something like issuing contract WTB energy @ 1 ISK/GJ. All moons around will be spammed with POSes maxed up with solar cells. No more empty nullsec!
Trading material goods should also be allowed. Let us build production chains! Building production chains is a very exciting feature, and EVE lacks it desperately. Unmanned vehicles will squirrel back and forth between POSes, delivering good according to their program. “Transport launcher” will take a large slot in tower and consume energy – nothing comes for free. Supply should be carried out according to contracts, like WTB fuel blocks @ 10000 ISK/pc, 10 pcs/hr. We don’t want it fully automated, that’s why contracts should be limited to about 1 week.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#3 - 2012-08-13 04:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Moon mining is facilitated with a laser plough. And by saying “facilitated” – I mean that applying the plough is just the first step of moon mining, which results in spawning of the famous planetary rings. And the rings are, of course, mined be us – capsuleers. The composition of rings could depend heavily on materials found on moon, and their yield and/or frequency of spawning – on the number of active ploughs. Yes, the more you mine – the more you get. But lasers consume a lot of energy, so if you can’t convince people to mine some reasonable amount of that rings – you’re wasting the money.
Now I would like to suggest a long desired thing – mining tax – which fits well into this form of cooperation, also in some subtle form. Laser ploughs would in fact mine some tiny amount of moongoo. Say, 3 pcs per hour – opposed to 100 pcs/hr as of now. Of course this is by no means profitable to rely only on that passive mining. So once again, if capsuleers don’t mine in the rings – it’s a bad idea to even online your ploughs. But if they do, the owner of a POS would also get something from it. Isn’t it awesome?

Gunnery and EW. To be honest, I’m pretty happy with the way the gunnery is managed now. But CCP folks said they want the whole POS as a single structure. And another nuance, the tower now may grow pretty large, so defending it throughout its length could be tricky. So here are some suggestions.
POS could have only one vulnerable spot – it’s “head”. Shield emitters are located there, that’s why shield is turbulent in that spot and can be pierced. Does it sound like a good explanation? Obviously, this is the spot that is protected with guns. The “head” of the tower have numerous (but still limited) specialized slots – “high” slots, if you like. Some of them are turrets, some are launchers, and the rest are “utility”, where you can install webs, scrams, ECM and so on. I don’t see the possibility of incapacitating guns when they are within the single structure, and it’s not really perfect. So I’d rather anchor them as separate units at some distance around the “head” – but once again, CCP is against.
As for fitting prerequisites, i.e. guns’ powergrid – there is a nice and simple solution. Just configure the “head” to consume capacitor, and convert it into megawatts of the grid. This way small tower can only afford a few small guns, while large spidertanking POSes, constituting city-fortress around gas planet can pop a titan :trollface:
CPU fitting prerequisite – in my opinion – is redundant, obsolete and must die. But if you want it – just incorporate some amount of computation power into the head. The teraflops could vary for towers of different races.
Another racial differences could include the number of turrets and launchers hardpoints, bonuses for tracking, optimal and falloff of guns, EW bonuses. Aside from gunnery, there could be:
- Caldari: bonus for shield boost;
- Amarr: bonus for energy transfer;
- Gallente: bonus for solar cells;
- Minmatar: bonus for energy reactor output.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#4 - 2012-08-13 04:12:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Discuss!
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-08-13 05:43:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
Imo, CCP have a good plan for the pos system, so yes for all 5 items.

POSes should be anchored to moons. why? there is no real reason why they should be restricted to moons... in fact it makes no sense...

POS should look like a tower. CCP wants to give people the possibility to make a POS the way they like, it will make things more interesting and the eve universe much more rich... Although way more complex then a single tower, people will want it.

Energy and fuel. Since ccp don't want to make the size of the new POS restricted by the tower powergrid or CPU, the new POS will possible be as big as you can feed them with fuel, possibly each building will increase fuel consumption or some isotope consumption... and since some big corps can spend bilions on infrastructure these will be real fortress and cyties.... I hope that CCP make something really nice with this... with some power generators buildings and fuel storange buildings and a really nice management system... like PI or something better...

Tanking is accomplished by shield boosters. The passive shield tanking for a pos would load way less the server then an active tanking... And we don't need to make already complex things more complex then they are now....

Moon mining CCP wants to remove moon minning with POS, this is annother reason why we will be able to anchor everywhere we want. So forget about this Idea...

Gunnery and EW. there are some sugestions here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=142837&find=unread

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-08-13 07:12:46 UTC
hmm...
- Lagrange points
Meaning that my dickstar setups are now 4 times more expensive to set up and maintain and 4 times as effective. they might be able to field a fleet to attack a solo tower, its never fun. four that can rep each other? so totally op that its not worth the trouble most times. afk characters in local are more effective.
while it does seem realistically wasteful to only have one per moon, it makes a lot of sense for game play.

- Energy and Fuel
This suggestion means that i have to build blocks, only to have the tower burn fuel in exactly the same way it used to. before the fuel block changes. only now, i cant add extra of one component (isotope or heavy water) by itself to maintain a otherwise fueled pos. terrible idea. a total reversion to the pre-block fuel consumption format would be better.

the vast majority of hisec research towers do not use their full pg potential. simply because the cpu use of labs far outweigh their pg use. im pretty sure that i could power my tower with just solar cells, but id still have to buy complete fuel blocks? stupid mechanic. as to distance to the sun pg requirements are so low on these research towers most spots in system wont be affected by the changes. some will but there are enough hisec moons that it wont be much of a thing to fight over. in null thats a different story as the materials in the moon will require some power planning.

- Tanking
almost none of this made sense to me from a game play perspective, while it makes sense from a "realism" standpoint it makes it that much worse to try to get an enemy off a p1 moon. over capacitored tower formations with rr/cap transfer and sb's out the ass would be the ideal for supercap staging points. next to impossible to take down unless you had a big enough fleet to take all four simultaneously. or if you didnt have all four setup, someone else would take it and work your defenses/ (meaning mandatory 4 tower setups)
shield boosting towers reliant on powergrid excess, seems like a nice way to make dreadnoughts more used, but less fun then the normal pos bash is. specially given that instead of repping it yourself you can also give it cap. or fuel. (shield boosters use capacitor, which is dependant on powergrid which is dependant on number of reactors which used a fluxing amount of fuel, not only can you jam and shoot back, now you can online reactors and offline nonessentials on the other towers to transfer more cap to the targeted tower sustaining reps longer cap chain across the +10 or so moons some planets have and you will never get the target to reinforced. My tech moon is now invincible)

plow mining.
one of the reasons that moon mining doesnt currently have an active component to it, is that CCP recognizes that one or many in a corp cannot be online at all given hours of the day. and in lowsec that mining fleet cannot be defended at all hours of the day. Moon mining will be restricted to those that can field large enough fleets to mine what they need/ only in those locations far from prying eyes. meaning deep alliance null. way to go raising all t2 prices. i dont think you have this part completely thought out as to the actual effects it would have.

-Gunner/EW
A single defense point cant cover the majority of the towers surface, four would be better six would be good coverage, twelve and up would be perfect. however from a graphic and useability standpoint, that much space used for gunnery towers would make the entire thing bulkier for ships to be covered by then is actually useful. (if they are connected physically to the main structure) making gunnery points as structures outside the shields makes sense. so instead of anchoring each gun individually you make them also add on structures placeable around the perimeter of the shield like old modules.
if CCP really is deadset against nonincorporated pos modules then im not sure how these should be implimented either, but if they are incorporated within the pos structure main body there shouldnt be any limitations on how many targets each can have locked at a given time up to pilots skill.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#7 - 2012-08-13 13:00:31 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
- Tanking
almost none of this made sense to me from a game play perspective, while it makes sense from a "realism" standpoint it makes it that much worse to try to get an enemy off a p1 moon. over capacitored tower formations with rr/cap transfer and sb's out the ass would be the ideal for supercap staging points. next to impossible to take down unless you had a big enough fleet to take all four simultaneously. or if you didnt have all four setup, someone else would take it and work your defenses/ (meaning mandatory 4 tower setups)
shield boosting towers reliant on powergrid excess, seems like a nice way to make dreadnoughts more used, but less fun then the normal pos bash is. specially given that instead of repping it yourself you can also give it cap. or fuel. (shield boosters use capacitor, which is dependant on powergrid which is dependant on number of reactors which used a fluxing amount of fuel, not only can you jam and shoot back, now you can online reactors and offline nonessentials on the other towers to transfer more cap to the targeted tower sustaining reps longer cap chain across the +10 or so moons some planets have and you will never get the target to reinforced. My tech moon is now invincible)

If you build a city around your techno moon - it's supposed to be difficult to destroy.
As in general, overwhelming defense is an intrinsic problem of scalable modular POS. If no limits are set, you can configure it to have infinite DPS and infinite tank. I tried to address the problem of DPS by explicitly setting the number of turrets you can fit into the tower’s “head”. Its tank can be limited in the same way. But the POS needs to be scalable after all, otherwise we’ll end up concluding that its current state is fine.
So I think a starbase should have any amount of tank, but it comes at cost of increased maintenance expenses.
But I see your point, as a POS could be configured to consume almost zero for its defense, but when it comes trouble – someone just puts everything online. The remedy could be the same as it is now – onlining delay. Just set something like 30 minutes to online a reactor. Yes, it sounds nasty, so if you have better ideas – fire away. And, as I have said, over-defending needs some treatment if we want modular POSes in any form.

Kusum Fawn wrote:
the vast majority of hisec research towers do not use their full pg potential. simply because the cpu use of labs far outweigh their pg use. im pretty sure that i could power my tower with just solar cells, but id still have to buy complete fuel blocks? stupid mechanic.

Fuel blocks are consumed only by reactors. If you manage to power everything with solar cells only – no blocks are needed. But if you think it will be easy – you’re wrong. Places close to the sun should be precious, no matter 0.0 or hisec.
As for the old fueling scheme – I’m all for it... but it’ll never happen. Blocks were introduced to make oh-so-complicated fueling process plain and simple. EVE is not that hard anymore, and getting even simpler. I can’t fight it – just if they want it dumb let it be dumb for those who don’t care about the sandbox. And I want my POS to be optimized for fuel consumption, want it energy-efficient and maximized for profit. The suggested scheme enables this fine-tuning, while retaining the “dumb-fueling” mode.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#8 - 2012-08-13 13:03:29 UTC
Alx Warlord wrote:
POSes should be anchored to moons. why? there is no real reason why they should be restricted to moons... in fact it makes no sense...

Kusum Fawn wrote:
while it does seem realistically wasteful to only have one per moon, it makes a lot of sense for game play.

Will you fight each other? ;-)
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#9 - 2012-08-13 15:03:35 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
This suggestion means that i have to build blocks, only to have the tower burn fuel in exactly the same way it used to. before the fuel block changes. only now, i cant add extra of one component (isotope or heavy water) by itself to maintain a otherwise fueled pos. terrible idea.

Just noticed that...
No, you've read it wrong - you dont need to add anything, only fuel blocks. On contrary, you will receive some % of isotopes back into your hangar, if the reactor is not running at full load.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-08-13 15:45:59 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Alx Warlord wrote:
POSes should be anchored to moons. why? there is no real reason why they should be restricted to moons... in fact it makes no sense...

Kusum Fawn wrote:
while it does seem realistically wasteful to only have one per moon, it makes a lot of sense for game play.

Will you fight each other? ;-)


CCP plans to make POS anchorable everywhere.... and this will allow allot of new possibilities... also they plan a jump drive to move the starbases without having to pack everything....they called it slow hotdrop lol

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-08-13 17:36:52 UTC
to be clear, there are two variations i want to point out.
1. If pos's are a anchorable anywhere.
- Cap chaining from solar cell towers near the moon to where ever its needed, since there isnt any ranges for cap transfer posted i cant do any calculations for number of towers needed or amount of cap moved from near the sun to the tower using the power. but large alliances with their own pocos can pump out extra towers used only for power cap chains. and the PI materials used for them. or they can be stored offline till needed. While not expressly useful in the inital seige, they would be incredibly useful for the secondary defense of the pos after the stront timer ran out.
-pos fuel blocks vs solar
0 competition in systems near jita for solar tower placements. massive research tower planting spike. cheaper bpcs and 0 fuel consumption. I actually kind of like this. Only manufacturing towers would need fuel or you could cap chain out to it with whatever is left over from your close to the sun tower.
-problems with finding the damn tower if you lose a bookmark (are towers probable? i dont think they are atm)

2. Pos's are anchorable near moons only
- again, if you control all the pos's on a planet, either with offline towers or online mining towers, getting attacked, on one is the bufffer for onlineing cap chains on the others, logistics, capital and subcaps to cap chain to towers (or towers to caps if possible) making the entire process of seiging a tower that much more difficult when there are three other towers that can passivly support and house repair fleets. without a way to isolate a tower from others in its cap chain, it become impossible for smallholders tot take a buffer strongpoint point from an enemy. not to mention an inner city. the dps output of the attackers would have to overcome the total combined reps of all the shield boosters on the tower for however long they could be capped, which it seems would be passivly forever with a marginally good setup. -or- you would have to take down 5-10 other less important towers before you got to the main objective. giving more then enough time for enemy batphone calls, coffee breaks, and trips to the mall.
-actual necessary distance to the sun is still very very far. most systems can support a bunch of solar only towers (but generally yes, not enough). while wspace gets better fuel to performance ratios, and null gets spread out slightly more, but fuel consumption would be fairly stable.


slow hotdrop.
what happens when you drop a tower on an existing tower at a lagrange point?

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#12 - 2012-08-13 17:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Kusum Fawn wrote:
0 competition in systems near jita for solar tower placements. massive research tower planting spike. cheaper bpcs and 0 fuel consumption. I actually kind of like this.

And I dont.
Hundreds of POSes within 2 jumps from Jita, and a barren desert everywhere else.
There must be a competition for the place to set a POS.

Kusum Fawn wrote:
slow hotdrop.
what happens when you drop a tower on an existing tower at a lagrange point?

Slow hotdrop is madness. It shouldn't be, in my opinion.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#13 - 2012-08-13 17:57:38 UTC
But again, I know that modular POSes can be over-tanked easily. Dont tell me it's a problem - I know that. I'd rather want to see how this problem could be solved. What's your ideas?
Velicitia
XS Tech
#14 - 2012-08-13 18:00:43 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
....
-problems with finding the damn tower if you lose a bookmark (are towers probable? i dont think they are atm)


Yes

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-08-13 18:09:20 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
....
-problems with finding the damn tower if you lose a bookmark (are towers probable? i dont think they are atm)


Yes



cool, i havent played with combat probes for a long time now, i dont remember ..

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Teshania
Silent Lazy Miners
#16 - 2012-08-13 18:15:02 UTC
POS Jump Drive i would totally Support Under a couple of conditions.

1- 48 Hour timer to Spin up of jump Drives. Nothing Else Besides Defenses can be used during this time due to the load on Power and CPU of the POS.

2 - There has to be a Jump Beacon (Anchoring 4~5) Anchored for the POS to Jump to and has to be in position and Anchored for the POS to lock on to prior to Starting up the 48 hour Jump Timer.

How to Stop an POS from jumping? Blow up the POS. OR Blow up the Jump Beacon!

These Two steps would Ensure POS will be used as Mobile BASES not as A substitute for Capital Ship that can be hot Droped all over the damn place. All the damn time.

We need a Bounty Button on the Forums
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-08-13 18:43:16 UTC
I like your overall ideas.

But I would remove a few things.

First I would not allow POSes to rep each other from off grid at all. If POSes are anchor able everywhere (CCP plan to do it this way) then you should be able to set up a set amount of power transmission to another tower if you are both on the same grid...or even give it a max range of 200KM or something. This way my research platform can beam its excess energy to the nearby manufacturing pos of my corp. Makes sense, but having an off grid POS repping is OP IMO.

Active tanking poses is a bad idea IMO. Keep it passive, but I agree that instead of being invulnerable, a sufficiently large fleet should be able to break the tank if they take the time. So a really small personal POS could be destroyed in like a couple of hours if the fleet attacking it has Capitals, sub caps shouldn't be able to break the tank at all, and a dickstar should still be functionally invulnerable.

I don't like the "head" idea of the where defenses should go. I think that players should be able to position them wherever they want in the modular system, if someone sets it up poorly, thats their fault.

I really really like the moon mining idea. It allows a good compromise between active and passive moon goo mining. I would up the amount per hour of passive though so that an alliance without the resources to actively mine still has a reason to do the passive, I would guess the right amount would be 25% (25 per hour vice 100) instead of 3% you suggest...dont want T2 prices to skyrocket, just bump up. This idea forces cooperation and can really shake things up. Well done.

My other favorite part is the transports zipping back and forth. Makes everything feel alive and lived in. I think they should be destructible by players (blockades) and they should only be able to operate within the same system as the parent POS.

I would add one thing that i think POSes have needed for a long time, drone bays. Instead of having just guns and EWAR, allow players to put drone and fighter bays on the pos that will launch automatically when aggressed. WIth a big enough POS, fitting Fighter bomber bays should be possible.

Really good post.

+1
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2012-08-13 18:47:13 UTC
Teshania wrote:
POS Jump Drive i would totally Support Under a couple of conditions.

1- 48 Hour timer to Spin up of jump Drives. Nothing Else Besides Defenses can be used during this time due to the load on Power and CPU of the POS.

2 - There has to be a Jump Beacon (Anchoring 4~5) Anchored for the POS to Jump to and has to be in position and Anchored for the POS to lock on to prior to Starting up the 48 hour Jump Timer.

How to Stop an POS from jumping? Blow up the POS. OR Blow up the Jump Beacon!

These Two steps would Ensure POS will be used as Mobile BASES not as A substitute for Capital Ship that can be hot Droped all over the damn place. All the damn time.



I like it, but I think 48 hours is too long. It pretty much ensures that you would never be able to jump a POS into another alliances territory, which is I think part of the point.

It should be long enough for an active alliance to respond, but short enough to be able to ninja into and out of an area that is not heavily used. I would say it should also scale with size of the incoming POS. So the smallest POS possible might take about 30 minutes to spool up, and the largest that is able to do the jump thingy should take like 5-6 hours IMO.

As far as the largest POS able to jump, I don't know enough to say what it should be other than to say that a mega DICKSTAR shouldn't be able to jump, and a major manufacturing POS shouldn't, but a solo or duo man POS should. The details Ill leave to others to discuss.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#19 - 2012-08-14 04:18:31 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
Active tanking poses is a bad idea IMO.

Why?
And why not offgrid energy transfer?
If you think active tanking makes modular POS over powered - it's not true. Passive tanking can be even more OP. There should be modules that increase the amount of shield, righ? Otherwise small and large starbases having same amount of shield - looks ridiculous. And how many shield extenders can you fit on your POS? A crap load. Isn't it OP?
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-08-14 04:21:32 UTC
hey take a look at this tread, is somewhat related lol

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=143764&find=unread

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
12Next page