EVE Search - Sov mechanism changed. But we don't know about it yet it seems.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sov mechanism changed. But we don't know about it yet it seems.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gunnanmon Gallente UNITED STAR SYNDICATE	Posted - 2009.03.25 15:48:00 - [31] Originally by: nikhan You also don't lose sov when you change your alliance name. heh Signature locked for discussing moderation. Navigator
Adeline Grey	Posted - 2009.03.25 15:55:00 - [32] Originally by: Sarah Lopez GM replies removed. navigator Cover it up, hide the truth!!! Omg, it would be terrible if the players actually saw how we run our business!!!
Junko Togawa	Posted - 2009.03.25 17:20:00 - [33] yawn Go pop each other and burn up some more resources while making T2 crap for hisec. That's what nosec is for. Originally by: Dreximus Originally by: Alowishus These things make the game more exciting overall for people who enjoy risk and the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. At the risk of being cliche, th
Jana Clant New Dawn Tribe New Eden Research	Posted - 2009.03.25 18:34:00 - [34] Originally by: Zeba 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. Aren't you confusing Crumplecorn with Tarminic? Or are you implying that they are alts? New Eden Research, where your research gets done!
Valrandir Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2009.03.25 21:04:00 - [35] Here is what happened: - Alliance B got back tower superiority before 7 days. - That guy from Alliance A is mistaken in saying that it was only after 7 days. - The GM is confused and replied stuff which is not true. - Alliance A pilot goes to forums and panic - Pitckfork crew jump over the opportunity to create moar BoD conspiracies. Business as usuall. This has surpassed the Yarrdware specification and has been dubbed Uberware.
Zebler Space Chimps	Posted - 2009.03.25 21:34:00 - [36] Well i would love to learn how the new system works, and what went wrong with what you were trying to do. I cannot see any reason to remove the GM replies. I cannot see that you were being offensive, and I can only assume that the GM response was constructive. Hence we should be able to see it so that we can all learn. If its not possible to have the debate here, I can only assume that it will have to take place on another forum....but that should hardly be necessary.
Venomire GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 21:57:00 - [37] BTW, dropping a tower and clicking "claim sov" doesn't immediately make the tower claim sov. It takes ~7 days for it to actively start claiming. Now if you kill your opponents sov claiming towers and drop it below the amount of your actively sov claiming towers, sov will drop (or flip, can't recall). This has not changed.
Angelik'a Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.25 23:57:00 - [38] Edited by: Angelik''a on 25/03/2009 23:58:35 Also are Alliance A's 9 towers large and Alliance B's small? Originally by: Zebler I cannot see any reason to remove the GM replies. I cannot see that you were being offensive, and I can only assume that the GM response was constructive. Hence we should be able to see it so that we can all learn. Edit: Posting GM/CCP/ISD replies, etc has never been allowed here, this isn't a "special case" (the fact they removed them).
kanojo1969 Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.03.26 03:05:00 - [39] Originally by: Angelik'a Edited by: Angelik''a on 25/03/2009 23:58:35 Also are Alliance A's 9 towers large and Alliance B's small? Originally by: Zebler I cannot see any reason to remove the GM replies. I cannot see that you were being offensive, and I can only assume that the GM response was constructive. Hence we should be able to see it so that we can all learn. Edit: Posting GM/CCP/ISD replies, etc has never been allowed here, this isn't a "special case" (the fact they removed them). I highly doubt that someone making this big of a fuss about sov changes would make the mistake of dropping small towers, sheesh. The censoring of a GM reply in this case, yes, it's normal practise. But it's such a boneheaded thing to do. What do you think the replies would have been like if the GM reply had been left visible? It might have actually been a useful thread. Instead we just get pages of awful posts with no light being shed on the actual issue at all. Because it's been censored we can only assume that the GM's reply was wrong. How frakkin hard is it for the forum mods to get a game dev in here to make one post that clarifies everything? Signature removed due to no EvE content and is not suitable in any way. Navigator
Angelik'a Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:43:00 - [40] Originally by: kanojo1969 Originally by: Angelik'a Edited by: Angelik''a on 25/03/2009 23:58:35 Also are Alliance A's 9 towers large and Alliance B's small? Originally by: Zebler I cannot see any reason to remove the GM replies. I cannot see that you were being offensive, and I can only assume that the GM response was constructive. Hence we should be able to see it so that we can all learn. Edit: Posting GM/CCP/ISD replies, etc has never been allowed here, this isn't a "special case" (the fact they removed them). I highly doubt that someone making this big of a fuss about sov changes would make the mistake of dropping small towers, sheesh. I've seen ******ed posts with people who don't understand game mechanics getting annoyed, why should I assume this one be different when he never said what tower sizes were used?

Bloodhands hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.04.01 04:47:00 - [41] Edited by: Bloodhands on 01/04/2009 04:49:46 Originally by: Sarah Lopez 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 knowledge base and what we all think. 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. 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" A little bit of thread necro. First off, In my position I work with the sov mechanics quite regularly so please respond fully and completely. 1. Are all towers in question large towers? 2. Were any towers from either party reinforced for any amount of time during the claim in question. 3a. How many large, online and unreinforced towers did alliance A have to contest sovereignty? 3b. Were any of the larges reinforced during the 7 downtime needed to contest sovereignty? 3c. After the 7 down times, what was the total large tower count that had the claim sovereignty box ticked? 4. How many large, online and unreinforced towers did alliance B have before the contesting 7 down times? 4b. Were any of the larges reinforced during the 7 downtime needed to contest sovereignty? 4c. After the 7 down times, what was the total large tower count? 5. Are you positive that the option to claim sovereignty was ticked on every tower from alliance A the entire time? Its not an automatically ticked option upon online. Also, your GM was smoking crack, didn't understand the question fully or you did not understand the answer completely. Please mail me in-game the translated and unabridged / untranslated logs since it is a violation of the Eve-Online guidelines to post GM chat logs or petition responses on an open forum. (nav was being nice, he could have temp banned you) Bloodhands Director, hirr Morsus Mihi
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.04.22 22:43:00 - [42] eve-search still has the gm reply. search for "sov gms" or just use this threadid in the url -.- - putting the gist back into logistics


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.