Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sh'iriin
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 21:56:00 -
[1]
Original Link original text: ------------------------------------------------------------
Awesome guy in the corp managed to get all this:
Sov changes - At the moment looks gate based. Claim markers anchored in system to have sov (wether at a pos, gate, planet what , don't know) DED (the guys that send out pos mails) charge to have one of the sov claimy things online in a system. Claim disruptors onlined within 20km of all the gates in a system can disrupt sov (either by making the claim marker vulnerable or something.)
Other changes - Quite a few changes were made to the minigame they keep talking about More changes were also done to the arena thing that got hinted to on sisi a while back Fleet systems get an upgrade, with fleets being able to be registered on corp/alliance/militia/everyone levels (atleast), no more 'fleet link please!' dubbed as the fleet finder Some storefront changes... Storefronts for Dominion, an expansion late Razz
Info from cache files to support the above sov changes (WALL OF TEXT WARNING) Sov Related EVEMails
SOVEREIGNTY_CLAIM_MAIL_ALLIANCE_BODY 'This mail is your confirmation that DED now officially acknowledges that your member corporation %(corporation)s has claimed sovereignty on your behalf in the system %(system)s.<br><br>Your sovereignty claim is contingent on your administration bill payments arriving on time.' SOVEREIGNTY_CLAIM_MAIL_ALLIANCE_HEADER 'DED Sovereignty claim Acknowledgment: %(system)s' SOVEREIGNTY_CLAIM_MAIL_CORPORATION_BODY 'This mail acknowledges that your corporation has claimed sovereignty in the system %(system)s on behalf of the alliance %(alliance)s.<br><br>This claim is conditional on prompt administrative bill payment. ' SOVEREIGNTY_CLAIM_MAIL_CORPORATION_HEADER 'Sovereignty claimed in: %(system)s' SOVEREIGNTY_DISRUPTOR_DETECTED_BODY 'A new disruptor has been detected in %(system)s.<br>If a disruptor is online at all the star gates then your sovereignty claim in this system could be jeopardized. ' SOVEREIGNTY_DISRUPTOR_DETECTED_HEADER 'Disruptor activity detected in %(system)s.' SOVEREIGNTY_NOTVULNERABLE_ALLIANCE_BODY 'The link to at least one star gate has been restored in the system %(system)s.' SOVEREIGNTY_NOTVULNERABLE_ALLIANCE_HEADER 'Sovereignty claim stable.' SOVEREIGNTY_UNCLAIM_MAIL_ALLIANCE_BODY 'DED acknowledges that you have lost your claim to sovereignty in the system %(system)s.' SOVEREIGNTY_UNCLAIM_MAIL_ALLIANCE_HEADER 'Lost sovereignty in %(system)s' SOVEREIGNTY_UNCLAIM_MAIL_CORPORATION_BODY 'Your corporation has lost sovereignty in the system %(system)s. ' SOVEREIGNTY_UNCLAIM_MAIL_CORPORATION_HEADER 'Lost sovereignty in system %(system)s.' SOVEREIGNTY_VULNERABLE_ALLIANCE_BODY 'Your claim in %(system)s is vulnerable to claim jumpers as the connections to the systems star gates has been disrupted.<br><br>Reestablish the connections to the system star gates to retain sovereignty.' SOVEREIGNTY_VULNERABLE_ALLIANCE_HEADER 'ALERT: Sovereignty claim is vulnerable to claim jumpers!'
CantOnlineSovereigntyAllreadyClaimed - messageText 'The %(tower)s cannot be onlined because sovereignty has already been claimed in this system.' CantOnlineSovInWormhole - messageText 'There are no Stargates to connect with in this system, structure can not online.' CantOnlineDisruptorsOnline - messageText 'The %(tower)s cannot be onlined because there is disruption generators at each of the stargare. Offline or destroy the disruption generators to online the claim marker.' CantOnlineDisruptorsOnline - messageText 'The %(tower)s cannot be onlined because there is disruption generators at each of the stargare. Offline or destroy the disruption generators to online the claim marker.' CantAnchorDisruptorNoStargate - messageText 'The %(tower)s can't be anchored more than 20km away from a stargate.'
|
rubico1337
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:02:00 -
[2]
hmmm looks interesting
inb4 the whining alliance carebears
Originally by: Lana Torrin
I'm getting pretty ****ed off with the supposedly hard core PvPers complaining about every little thing that gets changed. seriously, more tears than carebears.
|
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:07:00 -
[3]
stay tuned ;)
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:14:00 -
[4]
Originally by: rubico1337 hmmm looks interesting
inb4 the whining alliance carebears
do you have any idea how hard it is do apadt to an ever changing game on the fly when you have a ton of stuff to do? That's why people dont like change in terms of sov.
|
rubico1337
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:17:00 -
[5]
hmmm. this suggests that to take a system sov you must branch out though gates, using the gates to link sov systems together, originating from a capital system. i really like this!
Originally by: Lana Torrin
I'm getting pretty ****ed off with the supposedly hard core PvPers complaining about every little thing that gets changed. seriously, more tears than carebears.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:19:00 -
[6]
Originally by: rubico1337 hmmm. this suggests that to take a system sov you must branch out though gates, using the gates to link sov systems together, originating from a capital system. i really like this!
Unfortunately i heard the same thing when the current sov mechanics were put forward and look how well that turned out. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:28:00 -
[7]
Sweet this reminds me of Unreal Tournament 2004. Kill the nodes and then blow up the power station.
|
XXSketchxx
Gallente Remote Soviet Industries
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana Sweet this reminds me of Unreal Tournament 2004. Kill the nodes and then blow up the power station.
/me reinstalls UT4 _____________________________________________
-Sketch, Certified Pharmacist
Need a Boost?
|
Coranor
Black Nova Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:37:00 -
[9]
Needs more devblogs soon so everyone can commence *****ing.
|
Gunship
Amarr Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:41:00 -
[10]
Fighting at the gate, sounds better than some moon number 57...
|
|
Loki Farseer
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:52:00 -
[11]
CantAnchorDisruptorNoStargate - messageText 'The %(tower)s can't be anchored more than 20km away from a stargate.'
This is the part I find really cool if I read it correctly. So you will be able to anchor a POS within 20 KM of a Gate
Talk about epic gate camp lols
|
Jimer Lins
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:53:00 -
[12]
This is gonna be fun to watch.
/me gets out popcorn.
Killboard-Declarations of War Podcast |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 22:58:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Gunship Fighting at the gate, sounds better than some moon number 57...
Right. Cause there is no fighting at the gates now.
Here's to even more jump-in lag. ...
|
Avoida
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 23:07:00 -
[14]
I will be curious to see 1: the physical size (especially the volume) of these sovereignty claiming/disrupting structures and 2: the anchoring and onlining timers.
If the size/volume of the items mean they can be carried by Blockade Runners, getting them into position days/weeks in advance by going into a system and logging off at safespots will be stupidly easy especially given that Black Ops BS can just covert portal them to the destination system.
If the anchoring/onlining timers are fast, the ability to spam a system will be quick work as the number of gates really are limited. Dead end systems could potentially flipflop repeatedly. Some regions have lots of pipeline constellations whereby the systems have just 2 gates. Others have a setting more akin to a spiderweb so systems with higher gate-counts require more work to flip.
My OCD theorycrafting brain is going to overheat.
|
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 23:22:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Avoida I will be curious to see 1: the physical size (especially the volume) of these sovereignty claiming/disrupting structures and 2: the anchoring and onlining timers.
If the size/volume of the items mean they can be carried by Blockade Runners, getting them into position days/weeks in advance by going into a system and logging off at safespots will be stupidly easy especially given that Black Ops BS can just covert portal them to the destination system.
If the anchoring/onlining timers are fast, the ability to spam a system will be quick work as the number of gates really are limited. Dead end systems could potentially flipflop repeatedly. Some regions have lots of pipeline constellations whereby the systems have just 2 gates. Others have a setting more akin to a spiderweb so systems with higher gate-counts require more work to flip.
My OCD theorycrafting brain is going to overheat.
I think there is a point to making sov more work then just spamming a bunch of towers (or in some cases where the alliance has a lot of presence, just one or two). Maybe this will shrink the borders of some alliances because of the increased work, and will potentially result in 23/7 fighting along alliance borders.
This, along with the rumored titan changes, may make 0.0 warfare all the more interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if each beacon were 20,000m3 or something to prevent blockade runners from getting them in there, though.
I suppose there can be a tactical aspect as well: flip a pipe system inside an enemy alliance territory and disrupt logistics and such, although in this day and age of jump bridges, titan bridges, and cynos...who knows what impact that will have.
/me watches for the devblog
|
Taedrin
Gallente The Space Bar South The Compass
|
Posted - 2009.09.08 23:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Fallout stay tuned ;)
Now I find myself REALLLY looking forward to the next slew of dev blogs.
|
Ivanna Nuke
Daralux
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 00:04:00 -
[17]
I think we will see a camel.
A single camel who smokes a cigar while reading a newspaper on a beach.
|
Niitsitapi
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 00:21:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Niitsitapi on 09/09/2009 00:21:43 Good, I welcome a system that makes taking space easier
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 00:21:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 09/09/2009 00:22:04
Originally by: Loki Farseer CantAnchorDisruptorNoStargate - messageText 'The %(tower)s can't be anchored more than 20km away from a stargate.'
This is the part I find really cool if I read it correctly. So you will be able to anchor a POS within 20 KM of a Gate
Talk about epic gate camp lols
The '%(tower)' part is likely just an identifier for a class of anchorable structures that was reused, and doesn't mean you're going to be placing POS'es at gates.
|
IVeige
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 00:25:00 -
[20]
can you anchor those structures in high system to claim some kind of soverintytyty ?
|
|
Xiaodown
Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 00:44:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
Originally by: rubico1337 hmmm looks interesting
inb4 the whining alliance carebears
do you have any idea how hard it is do apadt to an ever changing game on the fly when you have a ton of stuff to do? That's why people dont like change in terms of sov.
Agreed; I think this would be a major pain in the ass for goons considering how much space you guys own, and goons have historically been the best at both understanding sov mechanics (heh) and adapting to game changes. I can't imagine what it's going to screw up for more tarded alliances who don't really understand sov now.
But, in the end, it could mean that people own less space. That would honestly be a good thing. How much space do people own now that's completely worthless?
We'll have to wait and see about the dev blogs. I've long thought that space ownership has been too easy (not to make light of the logistics involved in pos fueling; it sucks). Jump bridges (and titan bridges) really have made 0.0 eve so small that owning huge chunks of space is defensible even if the empire owning it has little to no interest in keeping it up.
I'm interested about the changes; Let's hope they get it right. --
|
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 00:54:00 -
[22]
Based on what I saw in the past from a dev about using gates I predict this will be an epic fail. The problem with using gates as the focus of sov is that some systems have 5 gates others only have one. Same thing with constellations. So the theory of using tactics to take multiple gates etc just doesn't wash. It will boil down to whoever has the biggest blob wins.
So nothing will change. People will spamm these new sov things at gates and the big alliances will make a blob and go blow it up blah blah. Same old thing different version. Not having seen the full details obviously I could be wrong but so far not looking very good.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 01:44:00 -
[23]
I hope its a really good troll by some bored jerk, because this is a variation of the garbage they tried to pass off last year.
Personally, I like the fact that losing a system often means billions of ISK in equipment and infrastructure losses. Possibly even tens of billions in capital losses.
Having to squat on gates involves all the boredom of sov ping-pong with fewer consequences.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 01:57:00 -
[24]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist I hope its a really good troll by some bored jerk, because this is a variation of the garbage they tried to pass off last year.
Personally, I like the fact that losing a system often means billions of ISK in equipment and infrastructure losses. Possibly even tens of billions in capital losses.
Having to squat on gates involves all the boredom of sov ping-pong with fewer consequences.
Yes, because you know all the details already...
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 01:58:00 -
[25]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Having to squat on gates involves all the boredom of sov ping-pong with fewer consequences.
Only if you're so short-sighted as to think gates will be the only factor. Did people so quickly forget about DUST 514 and the supposed 'multiple factors' that would affect sov?
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 02:09:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Yes, because you know all the details already...
I never said I did. I said it was a variation of what they already proposed. There is enough information and precident to show you what direction they're moving in, especially if you read the latest EON.
Maybe if I didn't spend weeks of my life watching gates I'd have started on a neutral footing.
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Only if you're so short-sighted as to think gates will be the only factor. Did people so quickly forget about DUST 514 and the supposed 'multiple factors' that would affect sov?
Right, because a meta-game which is completely beyond my control and involvement is a really great argument for explaining how I won't become bored out of my effing mind. Right?
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 02:33:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/09/2009 02:33:21
Quote: Right, because a meta-game which is completely beyond my control and involvement is a really great argument for explaining how I won't become bored out of my effing mind. Right?
Ahh, but it appears that you will have a degree of control, and if you wish you can also have involvement. I know what you are saying, but lets not put the cart too far before the horse... not yet anyway.
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 02:39:00 -
[28]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Only if you're so short-sighted as to think gates will be the only factor. Did people so quickly forget about DUST 514 and the supposed 'multiple factors' that would affect sov?
Right, because a meta-game which is completely beyond my control and involvement is a really great argument for explaining how I won't become bored out of my effing mind. Right?
Where others see opportunity to create a more complex and dynamic system with many different aspects, others only see what they want to see. If you're bored at the prospect of a diverse set of factors affecting sov, where gate control might be the initial step and DUST 514 together with other yet to be announced inputs decides the winner...
Well, perhaps you're just an alt of Leaving Eve?
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 02:57:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Ahh, but it appears that you will have a degree of control, and if you wish you can also have involvement. I know what you are saying, but lets not put the cart too far before the horse... not yet anyway.
The "control" you speak of is no different from trolling CAOD in wars you have no involvement in, and thinking it makes a difference.
In exceptional cases it will. In most cases, your efforts are negated by the other side doing the exact same thing. You could replace DUST with an algorithm that takes X isk from both sides' wallet and spews a random outcome.
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Where others see opportunity to create a more complex and dynamic system with many different aspects, others only see what they want to see. If you're bored at the prospect of a diverse set of factors affecting sov, where gate control might be the initial step and DUST 514 together with other yet to be announced inputs decides the winner...
Well, perhaps you're just an alt of Leaving Eve?
Multiple factors and mechanics already affect sovereignty even if there is only one direct set of rules for attaining it. You're a space boob if you think multiple sov-grabbing vectors automatically yields net gain in player enjoyment. The more likely outcome is a whole bunch of ways to metagame the system are made possible, and people utilize the most efficient.
And I don't know whose alt you think I am, but having spent more time in front of POS and gates than you've played EVE makes me an authority on lesser evils. The current system of dropping and killing POS on moons is excellent. What isn't excellent is the relative ease of doing the former, and relative difficulty of doing the latter.
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 03:26:00 -
[30]
WoW Nice breaking of the files and giving us a head up!!
now
ib4 goon threadnaught. --------------------------
WTB a sig, or moderation of my sig by all the hot CCP girls. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |