EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Tiel Enim	Posted - 2009.09.11 11:41:00 - [451] Originally by: theshadowduke Ok so I haven't read 15 pages of ranting and raving, but I have one question. It is clear that the devs want us to all move to 0.0, and to spread the population out some, I'm ok with that. However, my question is this, how do they expect alliances like mine, or even small corps that don't want to join an alliance to move out to 0.0 without being destroyed utterly by the current power blocs? More importantly, why should we move out there, and make huge targets out of ourselves when the sov changes will really amount to nothing for smaller groups that just want to hold 3-5 systems? I'm really curious as to how the devs expect people to care about a system, that frankly, the vast majority of us will never get to use because their favorite people already lock down massive sections of space and deny anyone entry to even areas they don't want. ... and this is what will make EVE stop growing tbh. There is just no space for ppl in this spacegame. :( You cant go out there, claim a system or two, build a small enterprise and do your own thing with your friends unless you have atleast 50 caps. And if you do have 50 caps, the bigger alliances will bring 100 anyway just to kill your 50 for laughs. Even though they dont care about your system...
RansomList	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:04:00 - [452] Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Professor Dumbledore This is so ****ed it hurts. Your the **ing person they put in charge of this too eh. well i guess the game will burn to the ground then. Would a hug help? Would you like a hug? <3 The Sov changes thus far look like you deserve one. Just please, make the anchorable at stargates vulnerable to a small gang of SB's- Guerilla warfare is gimped as it currently is. Oh and make local dependent on the presence of Sov in a system.
TechnoMag Minmatar Reikoku	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:12:00 - [453] First of all ElvenLord STOP WINNING ffs. Hope u r the only from MM. U asking for reimbursements in isk for your pos's outpost's and time spent ... When pos was implemented no one think an alliance will be crazy enough to cover all moons from every system they got with 1 pos. At that time 1bill for each pos was enough to stop people to do that. After some time and after invention patch r64 started to be a printing isk house for alliance and all of them started to secure the space with pos spam. U want space work for it, u want isk work for them, that was always a eve-rule. So stop winning ... will be + and - points like every patch of course, but important is maybe this **ty sov system will transform. Question/proposal for CCP: Will be nice to have a reimburse for a raid on the enemy house. Right now fight in 0.0 its almost to 0 at small scale pvp. If u go with 10budies to have fun u dont have a single kill in 50jumps or u get blobed the hell out of u. Will be nice when u raid and kill a infrastructure to can take some minerals or whatever small ** enough to get in cargo bay and value enough to encourage people to go pvp raid or defend instead to carebear in his teritory. The bigger infrastructure u kill the bigger reward u will take. Right now people dont go to raid the neighbour because he dont take any profit from that. EULA 7. CONDUCT A. 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:43:00 - [454] Originally by: TechnoMag Post You may want to check your grammar Winning: 'To Win', 'Be the Victor' Whining: 'To Whine', 'Be the Loser' I assume you meant ElvenLord is a 'Whiner' (mainly because that brings you in line with the rest of us) Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:50:00 - [455] Edited by: Kerfira on 11/09/2009 12:52:03 Originally by: TechnoMag Right now fight in 0.0 its almost to 0 at small scale pvp. If u go with 10budies to have fun u dont have a single kill in 50jumps or u get blobed the hell out of u. I think you can blame this one on the missing differentiation between high-sec and 0.0 earnings. In most cases, single players or small groups of players are far better off running L4 missions in high-sec than doing anything in 0.0. L4's earn better (when everything is taken into account), and has no danger... For there to be targets in 0.0 for small gangs, there has to be something that make people risk being there. Today, virtually everyone knows there isn't! Thus 0.0 is left without any targets, making it useless to go roaming. The exception is of.c. still larger roaming blobs looking for other blobs to engage. The only way to change this is a drastic reduction or earnings in high-sec, as you can't just beef up 0.0 earnings without creating inflation. As such a change will make the 90% of EVE living in high-sec erupt in a fit of forum flaming, it'll most likely not happen..... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Overqueen Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:52:00 - [456] I am looking forward to seeing what CCP has in store in the Dominion expansion. It always seems like little adjustments on the outside, but the complexity of the changes gets scary the longer you look at them. If the Devs are trolling this thread (and I expect they do!) I want to toss a couuple of ideas out: + Security Status in nulsec is replaced by SOV status, still going -10.0 to +10.0 and viewable on screen by all + the SOV bunker is invulnerable to attack, but needs fuel weekly and can be starved (sieged) into offline + an alliance must have complete control of the system (planets, moons, belts) before placing a SOV bunker + bunker is fueled from planetary and moon products, so system activity helps feed the bunker + active SOV bunker can lock/unlock the gates, but a successful codebreaker attempt can unlock a gate for one cycle. + active SOV bunker also acts as a cyno jammer, but covert cyno is immune. + SOV level is also affected by SOV level of the neighboring systems in the constelllation + each SOV bunker cost is exponential, but also reduced by neighboring system SOV levels OK, there is my 2 ISK worth of free ideas. I look forward to seeing what the Devs come up with. :)
HelloKittyKungFuPrincess	Posted - 2009.09.11 12:55:00 - [457] Originally by: Alun Hughes quote] Morsus Mihi Denies you access to this stargate Oh well guys lets just go to AAA space for a roam AAA Denies you access to this stargate For **** sakes!! For your own good, tbh.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.11 13:26:00 - [458] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 11/09/2009 13:29:39 Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 11/09/2009 13:28:36 Originally by: Overqueen Edited by: Overqueen on 11/09/2009 12:56:09 Edited by: Overqueen on 11/09/2009 12:55:43 I am looking forward to seeing what CCP has in store in the Dominion expansion. It always seems like little adjustments on the outside, but the complexity of the changes gets scary the longer you look at them. If the Devs are trolling this thread (and I expect they do!) I want to toss a couuple of ideas out: + Security Status in nulsec is replaced by SOV status, still going -10.0 to +10.0 and viewable on screen by all + the SOV bunker is invulnerable to attack, but needs fuel weekly and can be starved (sieged) into offline + an alliance must have complete control of the system (planets, moons, belts) before placing a SOV bunker + bunker is fueled from planetary and moon products, so system activity helps feed the bunker + active SOV bunker can lock/unlock the gates, but a successful codebreaker attempt can unlock a gate for one cycle. + active SOV bunker also acts as a cyno jammer, but covert cyno is immune. + SOV level is also affected by SOV level of the neighboring systems in the constelllation + each SOV bunker cost is exponential, but also reduced by neighboring system SOV levels + The busier a system is, the higher the SOV status gets. Lack of activity reduces the level. OK, there is my 2 ISK worth of free ideas. I look forward to seeing what the Devs come up with. :) Congrats , your stupid or cant read. Quote: We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates. And other things i will not quote just for you.
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.11 14:45:00 - [459] Will infrasctructure hubs belong to Alliance or Corporation? And if to Corporation then what happens to claim when corporation changes alliance? ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
Terror Rising Death Of Fallen Angels	Posted - 2009.09.11 15:00:00 - [460] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Congrats , your stupid or cant read. Pot .. Kettle .. Black "your" .. "you are". Please resize sig to a maximum file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.11 15:48:00 - [461] Quote: The restrictions on neutrals unfortunately have to be there to avoid 'neutral' becoming the new 'blue'. It'll of.c. not prevent people from being friendly, but will make it much more of a hazzle, thus making it just too damned hard. Especially blobbing will become much harder. It would be way easier if you ask CCP just to delete every providence holders account if you want to remove NRDS in 0.0 from existence. Besides that your ideas arent pretty bad. No one would make neutral the new blue, it would mean you got to put every small corp/npc char who goes to your space red if you are nbsi. Your limits means you cant be allied/enemies with goons, only neutral since otherwise all your standing slots would be gone.
Aine Lagerange Minmatar The Executives Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.09.11 15:56:00 - [462] Hi, it would be a good idea to let the costs for the upkeep increase exponential grow. If "super" allies try to have more than a certain area, the costs should show the "stretched" resupply lines, in a higher upkeep then usual.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.09.11 16:09:00 - [463] Originally by: Aine Lagerange Hi, it would be a good idea to let the costs for the upkeep increase exponential grow. If "super" allies try to have more than a certain area, the costs should show the "stretched" resupply lines, in a higher upkeep then usual. Hi, i think you didnt read the topic coz it was proposed already. And creating alliance1 alliance2 alliance3 just to reduce costs is what will happen when you put exponential growth on costs.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.11 16:20:00 - [464] Originally by: Furb Killer It would be way easier if you ask CCP just to delete every providence holders account if you want to remove NRDS in 0.0 from existence. Actually, it SHOULDN'T affect NRDS a lot. The only structures you wouldn't be able to approach as neutral would be POS at moons (and similar future structures). As true neutrals don't have anything to do there anyway, it shouldn't matter much. Stations would still allow neutral docking (if so configured), as would anything new anchored at gates/stations. The limit on reds MAY be loosened a bit, but the problem with that is that the current NAP-fest will then just add EVERYONE but them to the hostile list, thus making neutral the new blue. At least you should be able to declare even a big alliance hostile. Numbers are up for discussion, and I do realise there are issues with NRDS, but I think they could be solved. The main thing to remove is the ease with which large numbers of people can NAP up. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Wolfgang Achari	Posted - 2009.09.11 16:57:00 - [465] Sorry if this has already been suggested and/or answered, the thread is too long for me to go through all of it at the moment. But if alliances are now going to be the one's 'paying' to maintain the stargates/etc. out in 0.0, does this mean that they will also be able to control how local works as well? Basically, will the alliance that has control of the system be able to choose whether local acts the way it does currently, is in some sort of delayed mode, or disabled altogether? I personally think it would be great if that option were available with the new sov system if it isn't to hard to implement.
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:08:00 - [466] Personally I really like the Infrastructure idea. Especially the Central Hub concept, In my head I see a massive structure that might even dwarf Titans. It also opens up more concepts that deal with the planets themselves. Like a Space Elevator Array for POS's. It also means you could incorporate income from planetary colonies or other planet based structures (I.E. Mines, Farms, etc.). Also if portions of the infrastructure are dispersed around the system you might see a limited effectiveness of blobs because you can be more efficient by breaking into wings and hitting multiple targets with the FC. coordinating. Then again I'm not a PVPer so my experience is limited in that regard.
Moraguth Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.09.11 17:46:00 - [467] Originally by: Unfamed II Will there be a "disband" button in the sov dashboard? favorite post. BWAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha good game Hoc filum tradit - This thread delivers.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.09.11 18:06:00 - [468] Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Professor Dumbledore This is so ****ed it hurts. Your the **ing person they put in charge of this too eh. well i guess the game will burn to the ground then. Would a hug help? Group hugs :D EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Ferkimer Burns Perkone	Posted - 2009.09.11 19:16:00 - [469] Edited by: Ferkimer Burns on 11/09/2009 19:16:46 0.0 sov reset LOL edit: I LOVE this game!!
Qi Teuf Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.11 19:35:00 - [470] Originally by: Rumba Purring Bits of details the dev blog contains remind me of a very old game: Master of Orion (MOO). In MOO, in order to conquer an occupied space, 1) you had to send in a fleet of ships to defeat ships guarding the system (along with orbiting defenses) 2) bombard planets to weaken ground forces, (this also destroyed facility upgrades on planets, so you had to make a choice) 3) then send in your own ground forces to kill off ground forces 4) once all military forces have been eliminated, you occupy system for a length of time until insurgents and uprising is suppressed. Then the system becomes yours, and you start reaping the benefits of system occupation. You can also start building more stuff to improve economy and defense. More facilities cost more to maintain, so you had to be smart about what you build. Now I doubt we'll see exactly the same thing in the new sov game, but based on few details devs are dropping, it will share at least some of the game concepts and elements. Good analogy. MOO was a great game - still play it 3 sometimes. Anyways, SOV could be hard to obtain for an attacking force, but a sieged system would not be producing as efficiently as an unsieged system, thus hurting the enemies ability to counterstrike. The biggest question I have is: can an alliance purposefully not maintain stargates, to where the only travel in or out of said system is by use of JBs? If the process is not made correctly, and gate upkeep is independant on SOV upkeep, or mod upkeep then the above example will become a reality. Where only chokepoint systems with a region will be open - effectively creating a massive shield around conquered systems. Idea - allow enemies to make the gate upkeep payment thus allowing anyone free travel through the gate until the next time a payment is due. This would serve a purpose of travel, and a stategic method of exhausting the enemies Isk. Oh the possibilities.
Albus Thumbledore	Posted - 2009.09.11 20:17:00 - [471] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane 2. Home improvement only works if you can home improve a dispro moon. No one is interested in home improving a veldspar belt. Think bigger. I got it. We upgrade and develop planets ? :cool: Move Moon Goo resources to the surface ? Plant surface defenses and hope thhe Dust 514 kids don't manage to rip through them ? Mum... can I get an XBox now ? ...
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.11 20:18:00 - [472] Edited by: The GrimWristler on 11/09/2009 20:21:14 A simple beacon around a planet, that has to be fuelled and paid for, would make so much more sense. Dust 514 will be introducing planetary gameplay, therefore eve's contribution to planets would help. If dust 514 is about claiming every continent on a planet for example, therefore eve should be able to manage those continents. These beacons (structures) could be there as a tool that manage a planet. These beacons, could have a cooldown on them where by the attacker only needs to kill it, to claim a planet/continent. Planets would make so much more sense than stargates. maybe in the future, have a few beacons located around a planet for claiming several continents with. Just an idea flying around. seems much more complex and satisfying than maintaining a stargate. Stargates are only there for travelling purposes, not claiming systems. although, i do think locking gates or/and gate guns would be cool.
Rosur Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.11 20:38:00 - [473] My idea for stargates: As you will be having to maintain stargates, i think u should be able to control who comes through them though to make there still have roaming gangs make it so to let anyone through u just have to take of the shield. This recharges back by its self quite quickly say 20mins and only takes about 5mins to kill with 15 HACs. Once in armour the gate takes a lot longer to kill needs big fleet of bs 100+ 10mins to kill, this will still give caps something to do as it speeds the killing of it up. Once armour has all gone the sov owner has to pay a few bill to repair otherwise anyone can go through that gate. Also make it so stations can be made inaccessible until the owner pays or reps them up. Please resize your sig to less than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars	Posted - 2009.09.11 20:45:00 - [474] CCP has already said that they will not be allowing anyone to control who can and cannot go through the stargates.
Qi Teuf Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.11 21:07:00 - [475] Originally by: Inferno Styx CCP has already said that they will not be allowing anyone to control who can and cannot go through the stargates. In a sense there will be control. If an alliance that owns the system does not pay the upkeep for the gates, then they shut down. That allows for control of stopping anyone from using the gates; friend or foe. IMO that's a great thing.

CCP Whisper	Posted - 2009.09.11 21:11:00 - [476] Originally by: Qi Teuf In a sense there will be control. If an alliance that owns the system does not pay the upkeep for the gates, then they shut down. That allows for control of stopping anyone from using the gates; friend or foe. IMO that's a great thing. Gates that are in an unclaimed system will continue to function normally for now. There were a ton of ideas floating around about reducing operational capacity, charging tolls or even shutting down stargates in unclaimed systems but all of them ended up being binned as too exploitable or just plain stupid. Not to say it might not happen but definitely not in this iteration of the mechanics.

Nose Snot	Posted - 2009.09.11 21:30:00 - [477] I have a few comments and questions... First off, this "flag" we plant, will there be a cost to plant a flag, or even a cost to acquire a flag? Would we have to cargo the flag to where we want to place it? Will we need skills to plant a flag? Can only an alliance leader plant a flag? Can corps claim this new sov or just alliances? I think if you make purchasing a flag, it'll make claiming a system a more worthy objective, rather than having a few grunts walk in and say "Mine, mine, mine." Also, what benefits would sov give? And for my comments... I think this is great. I like change. And you can bet large alliances will have to operate in smaller space. Which in turn, means less resources for your members to farm, which means CCP will most likely balance it out by adding more moons and belts. I'm very curious as to hearing more details... thanks.
Cailais Amarr Stealthfield Clandestine.	Posted - 2009.09.11 21:57:00 - [478] This looks epic. The concept of improving your own space is really really good and something Ive wanted to see for ages. The devil will be in the detail but this looks very promising! C. Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.11 22:03:00 - [479] Originally by: bitters much Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Professor Dumbledore This is so ****ed it hurts. Your the **ing person they put in charge of this too eh. well i guess the game will burn to the ground then. Would a hug help? <3 The Goon rage is high over these changes that alone makes this patch the best patch in years. We just need now some Goons claiming that these changes were forced by ex-BOB Devs to get Delve back. 'Goon rage'? There's only dumbledore sperging out in this whole 16 page thread and that's because he's a stupid gay baby, most of the goons posting itt have been neutral or cautiously positive.
Htaer Order of Celestial Knights	Posted - 2009.09.11 22:31:00 - [480] Edited by: Htaer on 11/09/2009 22:32:57 Sounds interesting, but still, is this going to make it even slightly easier for smaller alliances? At some point we want to attempt 0.0 sov. Also, this community is as sad as all of the others. You guys can't go a page without flaming CCP. You have no respect and you fail to realize, that even with this system, you will be addicted to EVE anyway. Your petty threats to quit don't scare CCP, since the online count is at least 40k everyday. Sounds successful, even with you ***s offline.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: 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.