Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
Jokus Balim
Minmatar Rising Sun Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:40:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Jokus Balim on 11/11/2009 15:42:12
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:32:25
Originally by: lylaal but unlike pos you can always decide the aprox exit time so you can ensure its always around your prime
No, you can not, the timers are salted randomly as it says in the blog relative to the 24/48h timers. However lets for a minute ignore the previous, all you have the ability to do (as is the case on sisi) is add +/- 4hr to exit timers which, in the confines of even 24 and 48h timers, will still bring assets out of reinforced well within or very close to an enemies prime time that they chose to initially attack under.
The point still stands, enemy dictate when you can attack the SBU, defenders are left sitting on there hands after an attack has started till the outpost/hub comes out of reinforced, removing the potential for any intermediate combat as the attackers have absolutely no need to stick around.
This paragraph from the Dev Blog sounds pretty much like you give a specific time of the day, let's say 1600 server time, around which the reinforced mode ends:
Quote: Owners of the structures will be able to set a preferred time that they wish for them to come out of reinforced mode and then a random variable will be applied that determines the exact time they will exit reinforced.
EDIT: Oh no! They renamed the FLAG and STOP modules to some generic boring technobabble!
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:42:00 -
[62]
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?
Also this:
Quote: Vulnerability states SBU(s) are vulnerable while being anchored and onlining. Once an Outpost and/or Infrastructure Hub is reinforced, the SBU(s) enter a parallel reinforcement cycle. That means that the SBU(s) are invulnerable as long as there are no vulnerable structures in system. If the Outpost and Infrastructure Hub are vulnerable, so is the SBU(s). If the Infrastructure Hub is vulnerable and the outpost is not, then the SBU(s) are vulnerable. If the Outpost and Infrastructure Hub are vulnerable, so is the SBU(s).
My brain does not parse this very well... Is it possible to get a simplified examples for us dumber folks? System has: 1. FLAG 2. FLAG+outpost 3. FLAG+outpost+iHub Do you now have to reinforce the lot (everything in there) to be able to take sov? And how do invul timers fit in here?
|
Nightbird
SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:43:00 -
[63]
What happens if the Resource Hub or Outpost are in reinforced (but not both), and the SBUs are taken below 51% coverage?
Does the Outpost or Hub automatically end reinforced and become invul again (and able to be repped), or do you have to wait out the reinforced timer before you can repair the Outpost/Hub?
I just have this vision of a sieging alliance reinforcing a Hub... offlining and onlining their SBUs to break reinforced on the hub, then shooting the hub.
Paranoid, I know.... But I can just see the "this is now classified as an Exploit" notification in my mind....
|
Smurphy1
Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:48:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59 You are doing a fine job of ignoring the point of each post. That once SBU's are onlined and the outpost and hub reinforced, the SBU's are invulnerable making the defenders unable to actually defend outside the confines of the reinforced timers - removing all necessity for intermediate combat or the defenders ability to actually DEFEND at a time of there choosing. Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed.
But thats kind of the point. By making the defenders have to come when the timers come out this system promotes more about fighting people and less about fighting the mechanics.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:49:00 -
[65]
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?
Learn to read? There's no exploit of such sort.
|
lylaal
freelancers inc F A I L
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:50:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Smurphy1
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59 You are doing a fine job of ignoring the point of each post. That once SBU's are onlined and the outpost and hub reinforced, the SBU's are invulnerable making the defenders unable to actually defend outside the confines of the reinforced timers - removing all necessity for intermediate combat or the defenders ability to actually DEFEND at a time of there choosing. Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed.
But thats kind of the point. By making the defenders have to come when the timers come out this system promotes more about fighting people and less about fighting the mechanics.
someone who sees it the same way \o/
|
Nightbird
SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:50:00 -
[67]
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?
They stated that if 51% of the gates were disrupted, the outpost and iHub were vulnerable. They didn't indicate that ownership of the SBUs was important. In a 5-gate system, 3 different alliances could place an SBU on different gates and meet the "51% or more" requirement to disrupt sov.
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:51:00 -
[68]
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.
|
|
Teck7
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:51:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:52:25 This whole expansion is a joke, CCP lazy programming at its finest - avoid giving titans roles, avoid fixing true sec, fighter bombers generate too much lag? nerf mom drone counts (it is now only +1 drone per lvl instead of 3), a lazily implemented new sov system with even more lazy mechanics bleh bleh bleh
|
Orthaen
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:52:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Orthaen on 11/11/2009 15:53:55
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59 You are doing a fine job of ignoring the point of each post. That once SBU's are onlined and the outpost and hub reinforced, the SBU's are invulnerable making the defenders unable to actually defend outside the confines of the reinforced timers - removing all necessity for intermediate combat or the defenders ability to actually DEFEND at a time of there choosing. Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed.
No one taught the poor Atlas goon-wannabe how to troll! Poor guy, here's the guideline you ignored...you're only allowed to ignore your complaint being completely debunked 2 times max before you have to move on to a new imaginary complaint. Otherwise, everyone knows you're trolling, and you lose all hope of getting your precious e-rage.
New sov looks fun, even if replacing POS spam with equally expensive SBU spam seems a little counterproductive. Then, I suppose 4 days is less work then 7 days.
Edit: See, there you go, you got it! Complain about supercaps in the sov thread, that's a good start. Offtopic, AND different from making up things about reinforced timers. Remember, when someone points out that supercaps are now cap-killers, you can only ignore it twice, then you should move on.
|
|
Inferno Styx
Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:53:00 -
[71]
Is it possible to change the mechanic so that when the I-Hub hits ~5% structure it goes offline like POS guns? Then if the attacking alliance secures Sov they can then online as their own or the defending alliance drives off the attack and kills the SBU's and it remains theirs.
|
Gordon Red
SteelVipers Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:53:00 -
[72]
What will each structure cost on the npc-market?
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:54:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Nightbird What happens if the Resource Hub or Outpost are in reinforced (but not both), and the SBUs are taken below 51% coverage?
Can't happen - once either of them is reinforced, the SBUs become invulnerable, too. Also, once either of them exits reinforced, SBUs are vulnerable again.
I.e. the attacker decides when to do the first attack, during which the attacker is vulnerable (SBUs) for 3h/6h (not decided yet). Then both the attacker (SBUs) and defender (iHub/Outpost) are vulnerable. Then both are invulnerable until the time the defender picked (iHub/Outpost reinforce time). Once that time happens, again both attacker (SBUs) and defender (outpost/ihub) are vulnerable.
Defenders have 4 chances to get the timing right to be stronger than the attacker during their preferred time (2 reinforce timers for both ihub and outpost).
|
PaulTheConvoluted
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:56:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59 You are doing a fine job of ignoring the point of each post.
I have to reveal here that I've never bashed a POS, but afaik you cannot rep a POS while it is in reinforced. If that is indeed the case, how is waiting for the reinforced timers on an outpost of hub other than those on a POS?
The way I see it, the defender get _more_ control over when they can actually defend stuff, as in both cases they have to wait till the reinforcement timers expire before they can shoot stuff (if the attackers show up to finish the POS, currently), but instead of a time relative to the attack (how much stront to put in the POS to have it come out at $TIME ? That is, if you're in time to adjust the amount of stront...) you can set an absolute time (with a 1hour bit of randomness it seems), so you can always have the timer expire in your prime.
That once SBU's are onlined and the outpost and hub reinforced, the SBU's are invulnerable making the defenders unable to actually defend outside the confines of the reinforced timers - removing all necessity for intermediate combat or the defenders ability to actually DEFEND at a time of there choosing. Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed.
|
zelalot
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:56:00 -
[75]
This bit sounds exciting - sort the 0.0 so it is lucrative, sort out the amount of capped moons that only serve the blob alliances by lining thier pockets and we might actually have a way or model for alliances big and small to enjoy livining in null sec.
|
Stefan Lehmann
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 15:56:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed.
Originally by: Wikipedia Tactics, then, are isolated actions or events that take advantage of opportunities offered by the gaps within a given strategic system, although the tactician never holds onto these advantages. Tactics cut across a strategic field, exploiting gaps in it to generate novel and inventive outcomes. Tactics are usually used to spoil the running context.
Wikipedia entry on tactics
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:00:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Nightbird They stated that if 51% of the gates were disrupted, the outpost and iHub were vulnerable. They didn't indicate that ownership of the SBUs was important. In a 5-gate system, 3 different alliances could place an SBU on different gates and meet the "51% or more" requirement to disrupt sov.
So, what if they anchor SBUs but don't online them? AFAIK only owners with proper roles can (un)anchor/(off)online structures now... In other words: Is there a way to spam potential attackers out of having 51% SBUs online? (other than killing them)
|
RandomNack
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:01:00 -
[78]
Hi, got a few questions regarding the flowchart.
What happened when the iHub is destroyed and the outpost is still in reinforced mode, think this could happen a fair bit with the 48 vs 24hr reinforced timers, will the SBU's lose invulnerability? if so this mean that the attacker will have to control the system for the entire remaining time with sufficent numbers to defend the SBU's from attack, quite a challenge for anything bar the largest alliances with multiple timezones.
Also if the IHub is destroyed and the station is reinforced are the defenders prevented from achoring and onlineing another? this would make attacking very time consuming if not.
Do the upgrades to the Ihub remain if its destroyed and able to be claimed and used by the attackers to upgrade there Ihub once they have captured the system, would give the attacked something to gain from capturing the system instead of having to destroy everything.
|
fuze
Gallente Quam Singulari Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:02:00 -
[79]
It's not like adjusting loot drops and belt respawning in 0.0 is a hard thing to do really. That is a step in the right direction IMHO.
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:04:00 -
[80]
Looks great and very interesting.
While it does remove POS's from sov, won't attackers deploy at least one POS to stage out of, which intern will cause defenders to fill up low moon systems leading back to POS shooting?
|
|
Zastrow
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:10:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Pnuka Looks great and very interesting.
While it does remove POS's from sov, won't attackers deploy at least one POS to stage out of, which intern will cause defenders to fill up low moon systems leading back to POS shooting?
maybe but at least now you have the option of fighting over sov while ignoring those pos Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:11:00 -
[82]
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?
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:15:00 -
[83]
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.
|
|
Virtuozzo
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:20:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Virtuozzo on 11/11/2009 16:21:53 Nm, Sisi ftw.
|
Nikita Alterana
Gallente Clearly Compensating Da Orkz
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:20:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Hertford
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
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.
So basically, "no, you can't move TCUs without disrupting Sov".
sure you can, from what I gathered it would look something like this: Corp one(executer) has the TCU corp two (also in Alliance) puts up their own TCU Corp one transfers control to corp two making their TCU valid Corp one then repositions their TCU and they swap back. __________________________________________________ All Glory to the Goat Gods! |
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:22:00 -
[86]
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.
|
|
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:22:00 -
[87]
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? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:23:00 -
[88]
Hm. What happens if the SBUs die - do you lose all your progress, or just part of it?
Say, you took over the outpost. Then the iHub exits reinforced mode, and you lose SBU majority. Do you lose the outpost, even if you can anchor enough SBUs a bit later? That would mean it's never sensible to take the outpost first.
SBUs are somewhat flimsy at the moment, and defenders having 4 chances to determine fight times as opposed to attackers only having 1 timing chance seems to make it rather difficult to keep SBUs.
|
Pattern Clarc
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:23:00 -
[89]
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? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
crack'me'up
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 16:24:00 -
[90]
Question: is there any plans to "free" systems in npc space? like outer ring, stain and other npc regions?
i dont mean the systems with stations, but the empty ones, or at least some of them?
it's ridiculous if you look at outer ring almost no stations and 100% npc sov
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |