|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 13:08:00 -
[1]
By now, you are probably aware that we are making changes to EVE's sovereignty system in our next expansion, Dominion. CCP Abathur's newest dev blog gives us the conquest lowdown and details the new structures and how they can be used in New Eden. You can read all about it here.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 13:30:00 -
[2]
Edited by: CCP Sisyphus on 11/11/2009 13:30:28
Originally by: Fatsam Where can hubs be anchored?
They can only be anchored at planets that do not have an outpost or conquerable station there.
The current values are on Sisi right now.
The intention was to encourage "active defense". If there are no defenders then you will be able to take a system easily, although you will have to wait through the reinforcement timers - we didn't want suprise midnight takeovers, the defenders will have time to respond to a system where they have built up infrastructure.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 13:54:00 -
[3]
Originally by: xttz
1) Since no one will have hubs on Dec 1st, will all systems be immediately vulnerable to SBU spam + TCU destruction in a short space of time? Is there any mechanic to protect or preserve existing sov from attack during this grace period?
Sovereignty Blockade Units (SBUs) will not be seeded until the following week after launch giving everyone a grace period for transition before we will add them to the market.
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 14:15:00 -
[4]
Originally by: xttz A few key issues:
1) Since no one will have hubs on Dec 1st, will all systems be immediately vulnerable to SBU spam + TCU destruction in a short space of time? Is there any mechanic to protect or preserve existing sov from attack during this grace period?
Been answered. No SBUs during the grace period.
Quote:
2) Does having sov still provide a fuel bonus to starbase fuel usage?
yes, 25%
Quote:
3) Can TCUs be physically moved within system without disrupting sov? Obviously if they are automatically placed the owning alliance may want them moved to a better location. Who will get ownership of the TCU in each system, the alliance executor?
Sortof - But when you unanchor a TCU you loose the strategic index (the "sov claim time"), and will start again from 0 once you reanchor. Currently the Executor will have ownership of all TCUs for an alliance.
This means that the executor corp will have to pay all bills.
Please note that the 1st bill will have already been paid.
But - You are able to change ownership of a TCU (and associated hub) to another corp in the same alliance. This will not reset the sov time and will transfer all bills/infrastructure etc to the new owning corp.
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 14:16:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Hertford
Except that any and all online SBUs count for making sov vulnerable.
Yes - an online SBU will count towards making the system vulnerable - no matter who owns it.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 14:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Ok. In a system with both an outpost and an iHub, does the TCU become vulnerable when either the outpost is captured or the iHub is destroyed (as the text implies), or do you need to capture the outpost and destroy the iHub to make the TCU vulnerable (as the flowchart implies)?
Need to take the outpost and destroy the IH to take sov.
|
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 14:26:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Papa Digger
Quote: Systems with Sovereignty òIf a Outpost owner has sovereignty, the station is invulnerable. To change the state to vulnerable, the attacker must place SBU(s) at 51% (or more) gates in the system.
Just anchor or online? How long SBU onlining?
Online.
Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe.
Also, SBU's are 2500m3, so honor tanked Vagabonds shouldn't be spamming them.
In terms of pricing, SBU's will cost in the area of a large starbase tower.
Originally by: Fuzzy Duck Question, will the invulnerability that SOV4 provides to structures still apply till the 8th? or does this fall away on the 1st?
Sov 4 is gone on Dec 1st. Happy CSAA hunting.
Originally by: Chribba Mmmm perhaps it is time to place a system under my tag
Don't you already own Amarr or something?
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Ok. In a system with both an outpost and an iHub, does the TCU become vulnerable when either the outpost is captured or the iHub is destroyed (as the text implies), or do you need to capture the outpost and destroy the iHub to make the TCU vulnerable (as the flowchart implies)?
AND. As in, you have to take out both targets before you can move on to the TCU.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 14:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Genevieve Mitsuda Are we any closer to addressing the costs of sov and JBs/Cyno(jam/gen) equipment? In a monthly fashion, I mean? And what the upgrades will cost per month? I expected this blog to be a big reveal to the adjusted costs.
Being only two weeks away and having 0 info on budget makes planning near impossible for alliances in 0.0
Based on feedback from the upkeep/infrastructure blog, we have made certain changes that will be available soon. Hopefully the feedback from this thread will add to that and we can present a more comprehensive set of changes.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:22:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Teck7
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe.
So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless.
Is that a correct assessment?
Somewhat, but that's how it works today as well. That's why we've added dual reinforcement timers to make sure you have ample occasions to defend your space.
But yes, you can go to bed, wake up with a system full of SBUs. Just like you can go to bed and wake up to a system full of reinforced POSs :)
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:51:00 -
[10]
Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 11/11/2009 15:51:40
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:24:36
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Teck7
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe.
So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless.
Is that a correct assessment?
Somewhat, but that's how it works today as well. That's why we've added dual reinforcement timers to make sure you have ample occasions to defend your space.
But yes, you can go to bed, wake up with a system full of SBUs. Just like you can go to bed and wake up to a system full of reinforced POSs :)
YES but currently when you wake up you can go on the offensive and attack the attackers POS's, this is not the case with SBU's, the attackers dictate when you can attack the SBU's.
Well how you can defend a system is relatively situational, in a low mooncount system you might not get the option to do what you're describing. I'm also not a big fan of the defender and attacker fighting in different windows. In the new system, attackers and defenders will have parallel windows, which will hopefully result in more confrontation.
Edit: Remember that the defender sets the reinforcement timer too.
|
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:15:00 -
[11]
Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 11/11/2009 16:15:18
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Slobodanka Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe?
Everyone can online SBU regardless who anchored them.
The ownership of the SBUs doesn't matter for breaking invulnerability. Only the total amount of SBUs do count.
But a question...
If the attacker is successful in capturing the system and planting their own TCU and gaining sov, what happened then with the SBUs? Will the go offline and can they be collected afterwards? Will the explode and just vanish? What happens to them?
The SBUs effectively prohibit putting structures down, so the attacker will have to secure the system (which can be reasonably assumed since he/she has the force to take down the TCU), offline the SBUs and put the TCU up.
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:22:00 -
[12]
Slight correction to misinterpretations.
Case1: Claim marker (TCU/FLAG) only - 51% of gates have an online blockade == FLAG vulnerable. - kill TCU - no reinforcements of any kind.
Case2: TCU (FLAG) + outpost - 51% gates blockaded = Outpost vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot outpost -> outpost reinforced (2x48hours) + blocades reinforced - take over outpost + 51% gates blocaded -> TCU vulnerable - kill TCU
Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU reinforced.
Case 4 - TCU + iHub + Outpost - 51% gates blockaded = outpost AND iHub vulnerable. - shoot at either iHub or outpost to get the reinforced timers. - blocades only invulnerable if BOTH iHub and Outpost are in reinforced. IF ANY SOV STRUCTURE (OUTPOST, IHUB, TCU) IS VULNERABLE, THE BLOCKADE CAN BE SHOT - once outpost taken AND iHub destroyed, TCU vulnerable - kill TCU.
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:32:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc Are SBU's just big dumb strategic objects with little real time tactical benefit to the side who anchored them or do they provide bonuses, logistics defence etc?
You mentioned 24/48 reinforced timers, does that mean up to 24/48 hours, or do the attackers decide when they structures come out of reinforced?
SBU are what allows you to even hurt the iHub and Outpost. If defender has sovereignty, then their hub and outpost are invulnerable.
The defender can set the desired time window for when the hub and outpost come out of reinforced - if there are no attackers at that time they get to repair their structures.
- if you destroy the hub, or take the outpost and then loose your blockades, you get to keep the progress you made so far.
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: sg3s Edited by: sg3s on 11/11/2009 16:34:43 I made a chart that is simpler to understand, tbh the blog chart doesn't look at it from a players perspective even though it is the same, it tells people what they want to know.
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5080/sovindominion.png
It's not pink...
edit: do tell me if I ****ed up somewhere.
Very very nice. The Hub outpost reinforcement thing is hard to make clear. If everything in a system is reinforced, the SBU is invulnerable. otherwise they are vulnerable.
The and/or statement might be confusing for defender.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:21:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Smurphy1 One question that a lot of people seem to be asking is what happens to the upgrades when you take a system from someone? I think that if you take a system you should have to put up a new infrastructure hub but the activity levels(except for time of course) are still there from the previous owner. The levels will have degraded somewhat due to the fighting but the conqueror should not have everything destroyed. Or possibly make it like looting a ship, some mods got destroyed and some are in the wreck.
The military and industrial indexes are preserved though will continue to decay as normal through time, only the strategic index will reset when system sovereignty changes hands. Whilst the system is contested it is highly unlikely there will not be as much resource gathering going on so you may lose a level or two depending on how long it takes to conquer the system. You could find yourself seizing a system with a high index level and good combo of base level resources or location value/gate count count combo.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Tippia On the topic of system upgrades, if I got this (and the sov upgrade) blog right, the way to take out cynojammers, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. is to kill either the hub or the outpost. Is this correct?
In other words, if the hub is gone, is the ability to use the upgrades lost, and do the respective achorables go offline?
Likewise, if the outpost is lost, will the anchorables ù and the effects they confer ù be lost as well?
You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. But yes your other options are destroy the hub which will offline anything which requires an upgrade (the important change here is we pause, not cancel S&I jobs unless the array is destroyed or unachored at which point the job is lost).
There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline.
|
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 08:25:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Treelox Will SBUs require "fuel"?
No.
Originally by: Treelox Will SBUs and TCUs be something of an ideal sig radius for Dreads to shoot at?
Yes.
Originally by: Treelox So it is possible for an attacker to gain control of the outpost(docking rights), without having gained sov(killing the TCU)?
Yes.
Quote: CCP you still need to make it possible for attackers to actually go past the tap to conquer a Outpost and let them have the option to actually totally destroy an Outpost.
Ahhh, this one again! I'll give the answer we gave at Fanfest.
There are no plans to ever allow Outposts to be 'destroyed' but what we have looked into is allowing them to be 'wrecked'. The new dual reinforcement timers have you chew through shields and then armor before the station can be captured. What is possible is that you could then finish the structure off, be rewarded with a nice kaboom and then you have a station wreck model.
All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. Rebuilding the station would be possible by simply anchoring the proper 'egg' there and filling it back up with XX materials needed to repair the station wreck.
There is no ETA on something like this, I just thought I would share that we have actually considered it. Maybe if we ever get the TotalHellDeath expansion...
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 09:30:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Astal Atlar Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses
I don't think that's necessarily bad. There has to be some point of focus that draws attacker and defender into a situation where they fight each other. The issue with the old system was the 12 hour POS shooting grind ops. The new system means that when a system is reinforced the time you have to dedicate to taking the system comes in small spurts of combat. Hopefully this system retains the incentive for conflict, but cuts down on the hours players have to spend shooting at stationary objects.
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:06:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Typhado3
wait what? TCU reinforced??
shouldn't it be:
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU vulnerable. - kill TCU
Ooops, sorry - TCU (FLAG) is never reinforced, it gets killed. You are right.
|
|
|
|
|