| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sarah Lopez
   |
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:09:00 -
[1]
Having claiming tower majority in a system gets you Sov. Thats what YOU thought.
GMs have a different understanding of what is written in the knowledgebase and what we all think.
Here a few ( translated ) parts of a current Petition in which I asked why a Sov didnt switch whether the tower situation changed.
The scenario:
Alliance A has 9 Towers in a System
Alliance B has 12 Towers in a System
Alliance A anchores 5 Towers (online, claiming and stronted) before downtime so has 14 Towers before Towers in System, Alliance B stays at 12 Towers.
7 Days and one Downtime later after Alliance A added the 5 Tower, Alliance B still has Sov in that system ( they anchored more in the same system but AFTER downtime )
Here starts the petition:
Why does Alliance B still have Sov whether they have only 12 Claiming Towers against the 14 of Alliance A.
Here comes the answer ( Translated )
"Please not that only a limited amount of Control Towers are going into the Sov Calculation. Therefore a "Overbetting (outspammin)" with Towers in a Solar System is not possible anymore"
"We can not tell you the limited amount of Control Towers in this system, but the limit is exceeded, so no effect can be made on the sov of the other alliance"
"This change was made when the Constellaton Sov for Systems was introduced ( Sov 2-4), therefore its active for a longer time now"
"Regarding the Towers, the sov will be calculated for every tower on its own. Althou only towers are going into the calculation that are claiming until the limited amount of towers in the system is reached. If now a tower goes awol ( by going offline or getting destroyed ) the next tower in chronological order of claiming will be counted into the sov calculation. Therefore it is not possible anymore to take over control of a system by having more towers claiming, because this has lead to mass-fights in the past. Are you sure you want to escalate this petition ?"
So this means if a System has 80 Moons but is limited to the first 10 claiming towers and alliance can maintain Sov if they have the first 6 Towers claiming even if another alliance comes and puts 74 Towers in it.
I didn't believe this statement so I escalated it. The Answer from the Senior GM didn't invalidate the answer of the first GM so this means that not the one that has more Large Towers claiming in system gets Sov but the Alliance that claimed 51% of the ominous "limited amount of sov counting towers"
Dear Devs
C/D ?
If you want to look up the petition, its on this account.
|
Hunter GlobaGateways
Caldari
The Edge Foundation
Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:21:00 -
[2]
more CCP crap this week, so far today we had X issues with CCP fud
|
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:25:00 -
[3]
WTF?
That is a very big change and should have been listed in patch notes when the change occured.
Too bad all the mods/devs/gms will be too busy reading the rename thread to comment on this. 
Damn, with this and the rename crap, I'm glad I left 0.0.
|
Ndundhu
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:25:00 -
[4]
Sovereignty warfare is reduced to guesswork and crossing fingers 
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:26:00 -
[5]
If this is true, it sounds like a good way to reduce POS spam.
-
DesuSigs |
Aeryn Davenport
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:27:00 -
[6]
Was this system in a constellation with constellation sov? Because if so, it only takes one day for an alliance with constellation sov to claim sov with a new POS.
This GM was smoking some grade A reefer. They need to train the outsourced GMs better.
|
Sarah Lopez
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:27:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Crumplecorn
If this is true, it sounds like a good way to reduce POS spam.
Yeah but if people would know this before it could save a lot of hours work and fuel for the guys trying to take over a system ...
|
Sarah Lopez
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:28:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Aeryn Davenport
Was this system in a constellation with constellation sov? Because if so, it only takes one day for an alliance with constellation sov to claim sov with a new POS.
This GM was smoking some grade A reefer. They need to train the outsourced GMs better.
No constellation sov involved in this case
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:29:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sarah Lopez
Originally by: Crumplecorn
If this is true, it sounds like a good way to reduce POS spam.
Yeah but if people would know this before it could save a lot of hours work and fuel for the guys trying to take over a system ...
Yeah
Ah, CCP. They never cease to amuse.
-
DesuSigs |
Sarah Lopez
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:08:00 -
[10]
Still no reply.. Still no Sov..
|
|
|
teji
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:13:00 -
[11]
I hate to break it to you but CCP doesn't know how sov works.
|
Empyre
Domestic Reform
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:42:00 -
[12]
I read this as "soviet mechanism changed." I came in here thinking the Russians went all hippie on us.
Destroy all that which is evil, so that which is good may flourish. |
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:51:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Sarah Lopez
Originally by: Crumplecorn
If this is true, it sounds like a good way to reduce POS spam.
Yeah but if people would know this before it could save a lot of hours work and fuel for the guys trying to take over a system ...
Yeah
Ah, CCP. They never cease to amuse.
You should know better than moast that CCP loves to grief the player/forum base. Pinky.
Yay! Got meh sig back! ♥ Weatherman |
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:23:00 -
[14]
You have to have tower superiority for 7 days for sov to change. If B added more towers after a downtime, then they would retain sov (their timers for going up to sov 2 or 3 would probably be disrupted though) as they have not been contested by a tower-superior enemy.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Jobby
Minmatar
UNITED STAR SYNDICATE
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:30:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Jobby on 25/03/2009 02:30:16
Originally by: Sarah Lopez
GM replies removed. navigator
God forbid the players actually know the rules, eh?
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:30:00 -
[16]
I have no idea what the GM said, and it's hard to tell from the context, though it looks like it might be something along the lines of "only the oldest ten towers are considered for sov challenges". If so, this seems to be a clear change to the system (though not necessarily an entirely bad change).
However, I was wondering: were all of the towers in your example large towers? Because if there is at least one large tower claiming sov in a system, then only large towers count toward the sovereignty count. Also (just to confirm) all fourteen of the 'Alliance A' towers in question remained fueled and active the entire time, right?
--
Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
The Riddik
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:16:00 -
[17]
sounds like more fallout from CCP over the goonies stealing of delve.
makes a person wonder how truthfull they actually were.
in fact it wouldnt suprise me that it was a exploit of some kind, due to the preperation needed to pos spam 100's of poses up on delve.
ghey goonies, once again you LOOSE.
|
Colonel Pyat
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:52:00 -
[18]
Are you 100% sure that when alliance B anchored more towers to counter yours they did it after downtime? Any chance they could have managed it in the time between receiving mails notifying them of your new towers and before downtime hit?
Care to post with your main or reveal the names of alliances A and B?
|
Jack Gates
Gallente
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:41:00 -
[19]
Originally by: The Riddik
sounds like more fallout from CCP over the goonies stealing of delve.
makes a person wonder how truthfull they actually were.
in fact it wouldnt suprise me that it was a exploit of some kind, due to the preperation needed to pos spam 100's of poses up on delve.
ghey goonies, once again you LOOSE.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The amount of raw stupid is overwhelming.
|
Sarah Lopez
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Colonel Pyat
Are you 100% sure that when alliance B anchored more towers to counter yours they did it after downtime? Any chance they could have managed it in the time between receiving mails notifying them of your new towers and before downtime hit?
Care to post with your main or reveal the names of alliances A and B?
Alliance A towers went online 10 minutes before Downtime. System was empty of enemies and rescanned for every single moon.
|
|
|
Sarah Lopez
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:58:00 -
[21]
Originally by: The Riddik
sounds like more fallout from CCP over the goonies stealing of delve.
makes a person wonder how truthfull they actually were.
in fact it wouldnt suprise me that it was a exploit of some kind, due to the preperation needed to pos spam 100's of poses up on delve.
ghey goonies, once again you LOOSE.
No goonies involved here, sorry 
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:18:00 -
[22]
my guess is it is probably a ccp conspiracy for bob and against goonswarm. 
|
Rhadamantine
Game Community
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:18:00 -
[23]
Originally by: The Riddik
sounds like more fallout from CCP over the goonies stealing of delve.
makes a person wonder how truthfull they actually were.
in fact it wouldnt suprise me that it was a exploit of some kind, due to the preperation needed to pos spam 100's of poses up on delve.
ghey goonies, once again you LOOSE.
I'm no Goon fan, but it's LOSE and you've made a fool of yourself.
Regards.
Rhadamantine. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:22:00 -
[24]
The ten towers per system claim sounds like a load of BS. Wouldn't be the first time GMs are clueless to game mechanics and won't be the last.
Are you sure they are all large towers and all in the same alliance?
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Sade Onyx
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:54:00 -
[25]
It's CCP's game, they can do whatever the hell they want with it, why should they have to tell you?
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Rage of Inferno
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:45:00 -
[26]
That would be a huge change, more likely that the gm made a mistake.
-
|
Br41n
Pinky and the Brain corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:30:00 -
[27]
They should just drop the sov system and nap stuff.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pinky: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
nikhan
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:46:00 -
[28]
You also don't lose sov when you change your alliance name.
Originally by: Akino Sakura
Goonswarm is nothing more then a bunch of backward ******s that need to be lined up and shot to make the world a better place.
|
Gierling
Gallente
Viper Squad
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:51:00 -
[29]
This is probably the case now, they likely changed it when BoB made it clear that they were low on assetts and couldn't compete in a pos spamming war.
|
Azirapheal
Amarr
Purgatorial Janitors Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:07:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Ndundhu
Sovereignty warfare is reduced to guesswork and crossing fingers
or intelligence gathering.
if you know which :) take them out, all of them
Originally by: Grohalmatar
The proposed changes in the game development forum are obviously a nerf to falcon pilots. However, what they really are is a nerf to falcon alts.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |