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)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2009.09.09 11:57:00 - [1] For those of you who have been pining for more information about the upcoming changes to sov that will come to New Eden with EVE Online: Dominion, look no further than CCP Abathur's newest dev blog! Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

DRACO selen Krupp-Stahl Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:05:00 - [2] Edited by: DRACO selen on 09/09/2009 12:15:28 sounds like it's gonna be epic :) /me is looking forward to the new sov mechanism! edit: first
Blind Ego Amarr	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:09:00 - [3] This is pretty cool stuff Ardishapur Family Loyalist
Evlyna	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:10:00 - [4] Edited by: Evlyna on 09/09/2009 12:14:22 Quote: The current design calls for this to be a simple ISK transaction, representative of things like duct tape for reactor maintenance, Amarrios breakfast cereal and other important stuff. ... As usual, rich alliances or alliances with good space already will have their good time while not so rich alliances or alliances with ****ty space will struggle and lose to rich alliances. Aside that, what else is new?
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:10:00 - [5] So does this mean sov4, sov3, jammers and jump bridges are gone?
Junkie Beverage GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:17:00 - [6] WTS - 2500 faction towers
Sophie Shackle	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:17:00 - [7] Originally by: Teck7 So does this mean sov4, sov3, jammers and jump bridges are gone? Or maybe you'll be able to use cyno gens/jammers jump bridges as soon as you claim the space... but I expect these will be some of the 'upgades' you can do to your space. -Soph.
Taladool	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:20:00 - [8] great now fix Moon gold, whats that you say, they are going to act like asteroids, a little bit of everything in them now? :) one can hope...
Caelum Mortuos Gallente Zero G Research and Development	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:23:00 - [9] ....easily makes first page. Sounds good, more details soon tho please
Doomed Predator The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:26:00 - [10] Finally a dominion dev blog and it sounds awesome. The 'Fendahlian Collective' strikes again
Aylara	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:27:00 - [11] Awesome is awesome. I can't wait to see all the changes!
Shirrath Minmatar No Limit Productions Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:30:00 - [12] I wonder whether this is related to a certain former CSM member doing some insider trading.. In any case, this and the datamined sov notification messages give a generic idea on the overall design goals of the new system. However, it would be nice to get a bit more specific information. Say.. an article called "A day in the life of a sov manager". And a FAQ, just so that we can get rid of the worst kneejerk reactions.
Epitrope The Citadel Manufacturing and Trade Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:33:00 - [13] If the new upkeep fee is designed to be a direct replacement of the cost of fuel for sov-claiming towers, that seems like a potentially very large new ISK sink. Currently, most of the cost of fuel is for ice products, which are player produced. It appears to me that this change would result in quite a bit of ISK being removed from circulation, while at the same time reducing trading / currency velocity. Can we please get a comment on this from Dr. Gu=mundsson (CCP Dr.EyjoG)?
Sgt Blade Caldari Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:33:00 - [14] this sounds very interesting, and if all goes well would mean more people may get into 0.0 and regions that were thought to be worthless may be 'upgraded' with new ores and what not. Everyone doesn't have to fight for Delve any more to get the best goodies Hypnotic Pelvic Thrusting Level 5
arbiter reformed Minmatar Annihilate. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:35:00 - [15] eve online totalhelldeath awesome, this will be the **** Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe
Viper ShizzIe The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:42:00 - [16] Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 09/09/2009 12:16:55 So does this mean sov4, sov3, jammers and jump bridges are gone? further, this sounds like a micromanagement nightmare for small and large alliances alike if every single random roaming gang has the capability of easily contesting sov let alone doing so in dozens of systems with relative ease. some tangible details would be nice. The 0.0 metagame just became 0sp alts running through other alliance's space to disrupt sov. I guess it's better than shooting POS at least
JuGGeR Caldari Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:42:00 - [17] is the corp holding all the gates have open slots 4 members !? the gold from the gates alone should be enuf to fund anything in the game sorta say !? Phantomsquad
blkmajik Overview Glitch	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:43:00 - [18] while you're at it, make it so militia fleets can agro other pilots in their militia while in 0.0 without a standing hit (ie: bubble camps). With these new dynamics, the entry point systems will be juiced and we'd like to pwn them :D
Huberek Morchu	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:44:00 - [19] Originally by: Junkie Beverage WTS - 2500 faction towers I have 17mil, can i help?
Syrannis Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:46:00 - [20] This looks awful.
yunger Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:49:00 - [21] Like the part were systems can be upgraded. 2/3 of 0,0 space is simple not worth being in as you can get allot better isk in level 4 missions. But still a little nervous about being forced to go around everyday and repairs sov buildings that some random 10 man gang shot for 20 minutes before we got a defence gang over, would be no better then fuelling towers everywhere. Also can't see how this will break the numbers game. Instead of bringing a blob you bring 20 gangs breaking havoc everywhere and running (cloaking) when they meat opposition. And how will it work with time zone dependent alliances? Will they be pretty much ****ed as someone starts hitting their sov every night when they aren't online? And lastly wts a freighter load of towers buyer can pick them up in 0,0 about 39 jumps from empire
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:49:00 - [22] Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 09/09/2009 12:55:49 Delve surrended and need a new sov system for claim back ? :D Now the players get a new 0.0 infrastructure, where the big alliances will playing, which have enough money for upkeep. Why changes if the Dust 514 bring new sov system and planet claiming ? Sov "capture flag" at gates ? :D LOL The worst thing in game the gate system which hinders the extension of the game and move to battles to one place. Moar blob will coming.
Viqer Fell Minmatar Maelstrom Crew	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:49:00 - [23] It ate my post :( tl:dr version = potentially full of win
Midge Mo'yb Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:50:00 - [24] Originally by: Syrannis This looks awful. NC Alt Spotted. Sounds great, hopefully sov will be dictated more by presence than who can fuel the most towers. -----------------------------------------------
Jarnis McPieksu Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:52:00 - [25] Posted a dev blog on new sov system: +1 rep Included too little information: -5 rep Need moar. This just heats up the speculation more and more. Where are the examples - even if they are based on current unfinished design and figures? How will things work in practice for a random 1000-player alliance with a couple of station constellations? What happens to the R64 isk printers? As long as they are there, 0.0 will be controlled by whoever controls them, no matter what flags show up on the map. Too convoluted and/or expensive new sov system and people will just ignore it and go for the practical control. What about the whole "bigger the empire is, more it will cost?" If that is in any way significant, alliances will just split into dozens of smaller alliances and we'll have epic 50-alliance NAP trains going "toot toot" around 0.0 that is a massive jumble of random names on the map. Yes, 0.0 will then be split into smaller areas on paper, but in practice it will not. One reason alliances go for massive areas is to get a geographical buffer that protects their softer carebearing zones - if your core system is 3 jumps from the red team core system, it doesn't really matter how rich you can develop your space - there will be constant pewpew as it takes no :effort: to fly to the other guy's space to take out the carebears. That buildable military infrastructure has to be pretty epic to match the protection of "damn, we have to do complex logistics to get the capfleet there and back and it takes time and effort..." offered by a geographical buffer. You need to spill some beans. Unless you haven't really figured the system out yet and are just winging it - in which case it is going to be a wild ride... In any case. Change is good but change is also scary. Vague blogs like this make us even more scared.
Liliana Rahl	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:52:00 - [26] First page in a "the end of eve" thread.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:53:00 - [27] Aweeeeeeeeesome!! CCP devs are the best devs
Vile rat GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:54:00 - [28] I love it. Thanks!
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:55:00 - [29] Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 09/09/2009 12:16:55 So does this mean sov4, sov3, jammers and jump bridges are gone? Presumably cyno jammers, beacons, jumpbridges and other such sovereignty perks will be tied to the infrastructure upgrades that are mentioned.
jeffb GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:56:00 - [30] Will people in an alliance finally be able to deploy a personal pos without needing an alt corp? Could you also clarify "AFK Empire"? Eve has players from all around the world, expecting people to be able to respond to all roaming gangs no matter what time they come would be incredibly stupid, timezone warfare is one of the worst aspects of the current sov system.
Shadoo North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:58:00 - [31] I'll reserve comments until details start to come out -- but for now this looks very promising. Having said that "roaming gangs that disrupt alliance operations" was pretty much what CCP said about station services. That turned epic indeed. Finding balance is difficult I'm sure, but on the surface this promises to deliver a lot of opportunities to grief . Please don't mess it up.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 12:58:00 - [32] So I guess the most important question at the moment is what is going to become of modules that require levels of Sov? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:02:00 - [33] "There are no sov ælevels' anymore; you either have sovereignty or you do not." Makes a lot of sense. I never liked the arbitrary rules of the current Sov system. You needed a "level" to palce a mod like a cyno jammer? Why? It made no sense. Who is syaing they you need a level in your sapce to place your mod? This will be gone now I hope. As for the whines that are ehre and whines to come, we know to little of what actually effects sov, I highly doubt 0sp alts can do lots of harm as stated above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:03:00 - [34] Very nice, can't wait to see all the tears this will generate.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:03:00 - [35] sounds very good. sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. i hope you make the cost of owning more then one region insanly costly. hopefully u will have to pay more and more for every constelation u own
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:12:00 - [36] Biggest issue as I see it is: How will improved space compare to having unimproved space with dysp/prom? Will the improved "bad" space get similar semi-passive income sources as the "good" space has and with similar income levels. How will this improved space change hands? Will improvements be lost if sov is lost? What about the role of capitals (dreads) in this new sov mechanic? In general the system does sound ok, seems to be possible to expand on without just running into the same issues as you would with just expanding space. It looks like this system could make it possible to add more 0.0 regions as needs grow without them being instantly claimed by the current holders. But there is also the issue with "alt alliances" as people have mentioned which needs to be adressed.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:20:00 - [37] Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 09/09/2009 13:25:32 Originally by: ArmyOfMe sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. meh, no different than now, it just means that todays cycle of: farm r64 > haul r64 minerals to jita > sell r64 minerals in jita > buy POS fuel in Jita > haul POS fuel to 0.0 > fuel sovereignty towers in 0.0 is replaced by: farm r64 > haul r64 mminerals to jita > sell r64 minerals in jita > pay sovereignty tax Also now that nobody needs to keep hundreds or thousands of POSs running the market for ice products is going to tank like you wouldn't believe Quote: i hope you make the cost of owning more then one region insanly costly. hopefully u will have to pay more and more for every constelation u own That would just mean we'll use alt alliances to hold the extra space v0v
Unfamed II Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:30:00 - [38] Will there be a "disband" button in the sov dashboard? Originally by: Sandslinger of CA So this wasn't a straightoff logoffski from our point of view, rather a tactical manoeuvre
Ericca Slais	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:33:00 - [39] This is going to get to be a really bad idea from CCP espically since even they dont know how it will work so far. Maybe they will crash our computer again by rewriting the code.
Ariane VoxDei	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:33:00 - [40] Originally by: Evlyna As usual, rich alliances or alliances with good space already will have their good time while not so rich alliances or alliances with ***ty space will struggle and lose to rich alliances. Aside that, what else is new? Don't act that stupid. It would be trivial to make the system so that costs of holding space grows much faster than the income of said space - setting natural limits on how much space is economically sensible to hold. For example a kn vs n*log(n) relationship. Small amounts of space would then scale well, but as your system count growns (just to pick one parameter), it becomes harder to justify, and you hit a equilibrium between cost of holding it vs benefit of holding it.
Ciryath Al'Darion FinFleet	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:35:00 - [41] I hope that the sovereignty controls will be held/managed by alliance and not by corporations of the alliance like in the old. Like pos gunning, strong managing was.
Shinma Apollo 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:37:00 - [42] I'm forseeing certain levels of ******edness such as "run missions for sov" forthcoming.

CCP Whisper	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:39:00 - [43] Originally by: Unfamed II Will there be a "disband" button in the sov dashboard? Sure. We'll make it black. And when you press it, a black light will light up a black panel that's labelled in black on a black background to let you know you've done it. Alternatively you get teleported to somewhere in W-Space. We're still arguing about that functionality.

Kerdrak Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:39:00 - [44] This is the MAJOR corp director/pos fueler boost in EVE. Can't believe that we can finally remove most of the sov poses and be free Or is CCP releasing a new "time consuming experience/feature" instead? ________________________________________
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:41:00 - [45] This sounds good, but: 1. A lot of POS just used for claiming space will become useless. Although I think that's a good thing, that's a lot of capital destructed. Current 0.0 holding alliances won't like it much. Will there be a buy-back option? 2. Home improvement only works if you can home improve a dispro moon. No one is interested in home improving a veldspar belt. If this is possible, then epic, but then how are you going to counter making the rare common? 3. How about the Dread. It's sole use is bashing POS (really). Without that many POS around, the great need for these ships is also diminished. Perhaps they are needed to bash down the sov claim flag? Anyway, it's much better than POS bashing ... -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
feffrey	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:43:00 - [46] This sounds very cool. I really like the mention of having an integrated rent function. Although if it is easier to hold sov maybe our small corp won't need to be renters anymore Also what would be nice if sov can be claimed just by corp. As in, a corp does not need to be in an alliance to hold sov.
Huan CK Gallente GK inc.	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:46:00 - [47] Originally by: Kerdrak This is the MAJOR corp director/pos fueler boost in EVE. Can't believe that we can finally remove most of the sov poses and be free Or is CCP releasing a new "time consuming experience/feature" instead? WTB this feature :) Awesome randomness is awesome! Also, I hope the raiding/roaming corps/alliances will still have a place in 0.0! As this is the most fun endeavours in eve!! My videos: Watch on youtube.
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:46:00 - [48] this is all good, particularly if the rumors/devchat about removing doomsdays is true you'll pretty much have to get rid of doomsdays, or people will simply park a titan at each chokepoint into a region and nuke anything that comes through (assuming cynojammers still exist) Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:48:00 - [49] Originally by: Ariane VoxDei Originally by: Evlyna As usual, rich alliances or alliances with good space already will have their good time while not so rich alliances or alliances with ***ty space will struggle and lose to rich alliances. Aside that, what else is new? Don't act that stupid. It would be trivial to make the system so that costs of holding space grows much faster than the income of said space - setting natural limits on how much space is economically sensible to hold. For example a kn vs n*log(n) relationship. Small amounts of space would then scale well, but as your system count growns (just to pick one parameter), it becomes harder to justify, and you hit a equilibrium between cost of holding it vs benefit of holding it. So an alliance has to break into smaller entities and use even more metagaming to get around some arbitrary balancing formula. How exactly would this be a good thing? The limit has to be something less arbitrary or people will just ignore it and walk around it. This blog hasn't got enough info. We already knew most of what was said. I would urge CCP to not let info about the different aspects of this drip slowly to players. When you come out with the info, bring it all out in different blogs at the same time. This is a very large and complicated issue and not knowing some aspects of it will influence how it is recieved. You know we assume the worst in all things, so just bring it all and let people see the whole design for what it is. They will chew the info for a while and then comes the feedback and balancing, so the earlier this info is given the more time there is to improve it before release.
LoveKebab Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:48:00 - [50] Edited by: LoveKebab on 09/09/2009 13:49:42 Edited by: LoveKebab on 09/09/2009 13:48:11 in before the angry NC alts so far it looks promising does that mean "No more Cyno Jammers" ? xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial
Karanth Gallente Independent Fleet Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:49:00 - [51] Originally by: Dev Blog ...reactor maintenance, Amarrios breakfast cereal and other important stuff.... I need this cereal. When does the EVE Store start carrying it? Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans Sorry, no. You have to go into wormholes and get farmed by the new AI NPCs like everyone else...
Aethrwolf Caldari Home for Wayward Gamers	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:51:00 - [52] OMG.. infrastructure=REAL Empire building Dont be too quick to sell off all those POS, I'll bet that infrastructure upgrades will at least in part depend on them. with planetary interaction and DUST 514 coming, we're probably looking at POS at the planets themselves now to be able to support our defending units. WE should be looking at being able to actually colonize planets and putting some kinds of facilities down on them, that will most likely require SOMETHING in orbit for us to interact with since it seems that we wont be able to take our ships down there and land. The possibilities are endless... Absolutely everything is subjective.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:51:00 - [53] Random prediction: new sov mechanics wont change a thing, blob will still > everything
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:52:00 - [54] You are going to **** this implementation up so badly it will be amazing.
Evlyna	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:52:00 - [55] Originally by: Ariane VoxDei Originally by: Evlyna As usual, rich alliances or alliances with good space already will have their good time while not so rich alliances or alliances with ***ty space will struggle and lose to rich alliances. Aside that, what else is new? Don't act that stupid. It would be trivial to make the system so that costs of holding space grows much faster than the income of said space - setting natural limits on how much space is economically sensible to hold. For example a kn vs n*log(n) relationship. Small amounts of space would then scale well, but as your system count growns (just to pick one parameter), it becomes harder to justify, and you hit a equilibrium between cost of holding it vs benefit of holding it. You're proving my point, even though their fat space might shrink (as you say, natural limits), the r64 owners (or rich alliance whatever way they got rich) will still have the advantage over the others not so rich or enough to hold/upgrade/whatever. Then it comes back to the non-rich to attack and try to take from the rich their r64... rinse. No changes there from today. (Not necessarily bad either to be honest because fighting only for fighting without a goal would become boring ) Don't get me wrong, quite a few good things in all this and too little info to see the full picture. Including stating that the map will drastically change. It will be up to the tools available and what they can do to have a clearer view. But I welcome the POS need reduction as the Graal.
Sprobe Jagdkommando Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:52:00 - [56] Not so much detailed information in the blog, but I want to beam in to future, NOW!! never to old to play
Evlyna	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:57:00 - [57] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore You are going to **** this implementation up so badly it will be amazing.

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:58:00 - [58] Edited by: CCP Abathur on 09/09/2009 14:00:14 Originally by: Teck7 So does this mean sov4, sov3, jammers and jump bridges are gone? Yes, the Sov levels are gone. Jammers and Jump Bridges will be available as part of your Infrastructure Upgrades. Originally by: arbiter reformed eve online totalhelldeath I wanted this too. Originally by: yunger But still a little nervous about being forced to go around everyday and repairs sov buildings that some random 10 man gang shot for 20 minutes before we got a defence gang over, would be no better then fuelling towers everywhere. I think we'll make it a bit more balanced than that. Originally by: yunger And how will it work with time zone dependent alliances? Will they be pretty much **ed as someone starts hitting their sov every night when they aren't online? Time zone mechanics have been taken into account in the new design. We are well aware that there are people in many different time zones who wish to shoot each other. Originally by:** ArmyOfMe sounds very good.sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. We are well aware of how the current state of moon goo affects affairs in EVE. We have dedicated people who love all things mathematical that are researching this issue. More info will be coming soon. Originally by: Shinma Apollo I'm forseeing certain levels of ****edness such as "run missions for sov" forthcoming. No. Originally by:** Bartholomeus Crane 1. A lot of POS just used for claiming space will become useless. Although I think that's a good thing, that's a lot of capital destructed. Current 0.0 holding alliances won't like it much. Will there be a buy-back option? No. 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. Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane 3. How about the Dread. It's sole use is bashing POS (really). Without that many POS around, the great need for these ships is also diminished. Dreads will still be useful and needed to shoot things. There will be more information specifically addressing capital and supercapital ships out soon that will go into more detail on this.

LordSwift Caldari SWG-RoNaN-BloOdFiN	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:59:00 - [59] Is that hundreds of pos fuelers/haulers alts getting biomassed i hear
Nac MacFeegle ZiTek	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:59:00 - [60] This dev blog makes me moist.
Higgs Bison	Posted - 2009.09.09 13:59:00 - [61] I'm so friggin' tired of fighting on moons. So glad that this new dynamic sov system will have me fight on... wait... GATES?! /facepalm
Echo Mande	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:02:00 - [62] Edited by: Echo Mande on 09/09/2009 14:06:05 I only hope the sov marker isn't at the gates or even at a moon. I really really hope it can be anchored anywhere in the system and that it doesn't show up on the overview. Let people who want to take sov work at finding and destroying it. Give the marker a POS's HP though and maybe a POS's reinforcing ability (as an upgrade). It also cries out for optional station guns. Lots and lots of station guns. Economic upgrades. More and (especially) better belts? Some sort of buildable (and destroyable) mini-outpost like the shanty-town idea of yore? No cloning or refining, maybe repair and if it dies the contents drop out? Industrial upgrades. Maybe multiple outposts in a system? Some alliances would probably love the idea of a system with one of each outpost, plus some extra Amarr ones. Such a system would probably start to resemble Jita though, mistress of its region and primary target in any large war. And then there's the various ideas of supercap docking arrays . . .
Total Disaster Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:04:00 - [63] brilliant... please tell us more daddy
Emily Spankratchet Minmatar Pragmatics	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:05:00 - [64] Originally by: Echo Mande I only hope the sov marker isn't at the gates or even at a moon. To use an old-fashioned analogy: when you plant your flag to claim territory for King and Country, you don't generally do it somewhere where nobody else can see the flag.
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:05:00 - [65] The day this patch goes live, is all of nullsec going to be subject to a sov reset followed by a massive land grab?
Vanden The Happy Spacemen	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:08:00 - [66] Originally by: Mr Bananas The day this patch goes live, is all of nullsec going to be subject to a sov reset followed by a massive land grab? I think it would be more reasonable to assume that those who have sov will still have it, but that it will instantly begin to dissolve unless it is reinforced with the new method.
Zex Maxwell Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:09:00 - [67] things are about to bet interesting for 0.0 I wonder how the transition to it will hold up.
Killerhound Caldari Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:10:00 - [68] Makes me happy to see that sovereignity finally becomes what it was meant to be: FUN! Only down-set... I skilled nearly 1 Year, spent about 2.5 Bio ISK to buy a dreadnought. Now no need for it.. Phoenix Dreadnought is simply good for nothing anymore.. since most dreads were bought for territory war.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:10:00 - [69] Originally by: Higgs Bison I'm so friggin' tired of fighting on moons. So glad that this new dynamic sov system will have me fight on... wait... GATES?! /facepalm Ohnoes! You have to fight at a point in space! What is this game coming to? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:11:00 - [70] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/09/2009 14:11:04 Developing your space, leading to more wealth for pilots and reducing the need for huge empires. Increasing gate upkeep fees based on empire size? This will further discourage huge empires and holding space you dont really need. Less POS's, less boring fueling and less boring sieges. Awesome changes. And for those of you worried that it's going to be a dissapointment, I can assure you the current devs on this system (like Abathur) are FULLY aware of all the tedious and unfun mechanics we love to hate about the old system, and are determined not to make the same mistakes. Director of Education :: EVE University Your signature file is too large. Please use one that is no larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout Chairman of the CSM
Shadowsword Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:13:00 - [71] Originally by: CCP Abathur ...Jammers and Jump Bridges will be available as part of your Infrastructure Upgrades... Those Infrastructures Upgrades, how will they work? - Indestructible upgrades, like outposts upgrades? 0.0 Space will after a few years be good everywhere? - Reset when the owner lose sovereignty? - Destrutible? ------------------------------------------
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:14:00 - [72] 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'm thinking we'll probably be able to scan out new belts, modify the system's truesec for NPC spawning purposes, modify the rate of plex spawning, introduce system-wide anomalies like wormholes have etc. Maybe find moon minerals that were "already there" in the moons. Possibly a points system where we have to make a tradeoff for benefits so it's not just a linear or branched improvement but rather a reconfiguration? There's a lot of potential, I look forward to future blogs on it. Since it's all about mapping out resources that are already there, the system also has a lot of extensibility built in. It could be adapted to allow us to scan out comets for comet mining, for example. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
LordSwift Caldari SWG-RoNaN-BloOdFiN	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:15:00 - [73] Originally by: Vanden Originally by: Mr Bananas The day this patch goes live, is all of nullsec going to be subject to a sov reset followed by a massive land grab? I think it would be more reasonable to assume that those who have sov will still have it, but that it will instantly begin to dissolve unless it is reinforced with the new method. But iw ould so enjoy watching everyone panic. now where is my popcorn
Ivanna Nuke Daralux	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:16:00 - [74] Hmmm does sound good. I hope it balances out as to stop a single alliance "endgaming" 0-0 space.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:16:00 - [75] Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu Need moar. This just heats up the speculation more and more. That's pretty much the plan, I guess. CCP will now harvest whatever the community can think of how this might work exactly and implement ideas they like. Pretty much the same they did with the Dust 514 anouncment. Apart from that: sounds nice. Big alliances claiming more space than they use wasn't that good, anyways. Hundreds of systems where no one would ever rat or mine, but if someone tries to claim it, a cap fleet will be there after an hour and blow anything to smithers. As for "no good or bad space anymore", I thought that trying to get good space was an incentive to make people fight over territory. If "home improvement" leads to more fights or to more NAPs (since it doesn't matter where you hold space), we'll have to see.
hauling dutchman	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:17:00 - [76] This looks really good. I can't wait for the patch now!
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:19:00 - [77] Sounds very promising!
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:22:00 - [78] Originally by: Nika Dekaia As for "no good or bad space anymore", I thought that trying to get good space was an incentive to make people fight over territory. If "home improvement" leads to more fights or to more NAPs (since it doesn't matter where you hold space), we'll have to see. since everyone can apply the same infrastructure, bad space can become good... but good space can become even better! At least, that is what I assume. This is not based on super secret CSM knowledge. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
ThorTheGreat Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:22:00 - [79] Originally by: Ivanna Nuke Hmmm does sound good. I hope it balances out as to stop a single alliance "endgaming" 0-0 space. this was never possible in the first place
Paddlefoot Aeon Genbuku. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:23:00 - [80] There are a couple of things I like and dislike about this proposed change, however the dislikes mostly stem from a lack of information. 1. LOVE the removal of the POS-fueling logistics (for SOV towers). This will help reduce the demand for ICE (among other things), and provide an ISK sink. Macro ice miners will have their product in less demand... and anything that screws with the Macros is good in my book. POSes will still be necessary for moon mining, so at least the current stock of towers won't be rendered totally useless. 2. LOVE the idea of expanding your empire, one gate at a time. BUT... what I love even more is that this mechanic will allow for the eventual removal (or adjustment) of LOCAL in 0.0 space. If you are in your home sov, you know when some hostile enters your constellation/system. But if you're not at home, you have no idea who's in local until they talk. 3. I like the idea of "planting a flag".... which I assume is a concept similar to claiming a factional warfare system (the bunker). To avoid griefing from the casual gang, I'm also assuming that it will be possible to anchor certain defensive weapons around the flag, similar to defending a POS. HOWEVER... Having one focal point of claiming sov will only serve to encourage alarm-clock ops. If an alliance is Euro, what's to stop a North American or Aussie group from simply laying siege to this single "bunker" at 11pm local time (which is about 3-4am Euro time)? Also, with multiple Sov towers, the attacking fleet had to drop many of them into reinforced, then return at a later date to finish them. Having only one place to focus their assault makes it much easier for an attacking alliance to dethrone the defenders.... and anyone will tell you that odds should at least be 50/50... if not stacked in favour of the defenders. Like I said, I'm sure CCP has thought this out and has several possible solutions in testing... its more a lack of details on my part that has me "disliking" certain aspects. All in all, I think this shows promise. It was the drudgery of 0.0 POS warfare that caused me to quit back in Dec 08, and now that I just recently reactivated my accounts, I'm glad to see that I may not have to spend many more sleepness nights sitting in my carrier transferring shield, or sitting in my Dread splitting my Stront stacks and calculating siege cycles. -Paddle Now Recruiting. Join "Neogen" channel for details
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:24:00 - [81] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal And for those of you worried that it's going to be a dissapointment, I can assure you the current devs on this system (like Abathur) are FULLY aware of all the tedious and unfun mechanics we love to hate about the old system, and are determined not to make the same mistakes. Awesome! New mistakes! (Of course I say this with love. You can't tweak an infosystem as huge and dynamic as Eve without mistakes. And the new ones, at least, can sometimes be fun until they get fixed. Now, if we could only do something about the problem that fun mistakes get fixed in days and un-fun ones sometimes get left for years...) ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Sae Jabar	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:26:00 - [82] Without protective sov4 systems serving as a safe haven, how are 0.0 alliances able to perform lengthy research and supercapital production without allowing the towers to be a high priority target? Any competent enemy could prevent supercapital development without sov4-style protection.
Ivanna Nuke Daralux	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:30:00 - [83] Originally by: ThorTheGreat Originally by: Ivanna Nuke Hmmm does sound good. I hope it balances out as to stop a single alliance "endgaming" 0-0 space. this was never possible in the first place Learn something everyday
jeffb GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:31:00 - [84] Originally by: Sae Jabar Without protective sov4 systems serving as a safe haven, how are 0.0 alliances able to perform lengthy research and supercapital production without allowing the towers to be a high priority target? Any competent enemy could prevent supercapital development without sov4-style protection. shoot them
Da Maddness Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:35:00 - [85] Will systems that already have SOV be given a 'flag' in each system they have SOV in? Also will SOV 3 and above systems have their infrastructure upgraded to begin with or will the months/years of work they have done to their space have been made in vain?
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:36:00 - [86] Originally by: CCP Abathur Think bigger. Dysp mines/refineries on planets?
Frabba GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:37:00 - [87] Originally by: Sae Jabar Without protective sov4 systems serving as a safe haven, how are 0.0 alliances able to perform lengthy research and supercapital production without allowing the towers to be a high priority target? Any competent enemy could prevent supercapital development without sov4-style protection. Perhaps one of the "improvements" one can make to their space on the industrial side would be the ability to manufacture supercaps from an outpost upgrade that acts as a CSAA? I'm just sharing ideas here, because otherwise yeah Supercap production is gonna get pretty laffo.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:37:00 - [88] Originally by: Da Maddness Will systems that already have SOV be given a 'flag' in each system they have SOV in? Also will SOV 3 and above systems have their infrastructure upgraded to begin with or will the months/years of work they have done to their space have been made in vain? what work? You just held it for a while :P Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:39:00 - [89] I just wonder how useful dreads will be in Dominion. CCP have claimed so far that there will still be a use for them, so assuming they don't change their role much they will be needed to attack larger sov-related upgrades, which kind of brings us back to the POS bashing. Nice changes, but all you did was tease us with new info and no details, haha! Hopefully they'll get the balancing right.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:40:00 - [90] Originally by: Frabba Originally by: Sae Jabar Without protective sov4 systems serving as a safe haven, how are 0.0 alliances able to perform lengthy research and supercapital production without allowing the towers to be a high priority target? Any competent enemy could prevent supercapital development without sov4-style protection. Perhaps one of the "improvements" one can make to their space on the industrial side would be the ability to manufacture supercaps from an outpost upgrade that acts as a CSAA? I'm just sharing ideas here, because otherwise yeah Supercap production is gonna get pretty laffo. I fail to see why you think basically invulnerable sov 4 supercap production was cool or a good idea in any way. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
ThorTheGreat Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:40:00 - [91] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal what work? You just held it for a while :P heh nice troll bro
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:42:00 - [92] Originally by: Nyphur 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'm thinking we'll probably be able to scan out new belts, modify the system's truesec for NPC spawning purposes, modify the rate of plex spawning, introduce system-wide anomalies like wormholes have etc. Maybe find moon minerals that were "already there" in the moons. Possibly a points system where we have to make a tradeoff for benefits so it's not just a linear or branched improvement but rather a reconfiguration? There's a lot of potential, I look forward to future blogs on it. Since it's all about mapping out resources that are already there, the system also has a lot of extensibility built in. It could be adapted to allow us to scan out comets for comet mining, for example. Although all of this is certainly interesting but for big-ness, I don't think it tops home improving a dispro moon in your own backyard! Anyway, we'll just have to wait and see ... -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sae Jabar	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:43:00 - [93] Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Frabba Originally by: Sae Jabar Without protective sov4 systems serving as a safe haven, how are 0.0 alliances able to perform lengthy research and supercapital production without allowing the towers to be a high priority target? Any competent enemy could prevent supercapital development without sov4-style protection. Perhaps one of the "improvements" one can make to their space on the industrial side would be the ability to manufacture supercaps from an outpost upgrade that acts as a CSAA? I'm just sharing ideas here, because otherwise yeah Supercap production is gonna get pretty laffo. I fail to see why you think basically invulnerable sov 4 supercap production was cool or a good idea in any way. Because disruption of long build / research times is pretty stifling. You're telling me that moving all research to highsec is ok.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:43:00 - [94] Originally by: Thresh Avery I just wonder how useful dreads will be in Dominion. CCP have claimed so far that there will still be a use for them, so assuming they don't change their role much they will be needed to attack larger sov-related upgrades, which kind of brings us back to the POS bashing. even if it amounts to the same sort of sieges, isnt sieging 1 structure in a system better than having to siege 10? Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Dirk Mortice	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:44:00 - [95] Originally by: Echo Mande Edited by: Echo Mande on 09/09/2009 14:06:05 Give the marker a POS's HP though and maybe a POS's reinforcing ability (as an upgrade). It also cries out for optional station guns. Lots and lots of station guns. So you want to replace the POS with something that looks like and acts like a POS?
DaMadness	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:44:00 - [96] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal what work? You just held it for a while :P Not wanting to derail this thread but large corporations such as AAA, Goonswarm and TCF (to name just a few) have put in alot of effort in setting up logistics within their space. there are thousands of POS that have been deployed, fueled and defended throughout eve in order to gain SOV and it appears this may annoy alot of people who have put in alot of effort to this game.
Ikar Kaltin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:45:00 - [97] I'm just speculating but I would imagine that there wont be a single focus point for sov in a system. It will probably be based around planets and taking it will be as much as a pain as it is now, just in a different way, probably still involving capitals in some way. I imagine though that sov will give a number of benefits to systems under your sov, such as immunity for upgrades from attacks. This will be dependent on your system linking up with others of your systems which have sov in a chain. I imagine this thing with gates will be doing something which disrupts the blanket effects of sov by temporarily breaking the links with the other systems you have sov in, making them vulnerable. Thats just my guess anyway.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:46:00 - [98] Originally by: Sae Jabar Because disruption of long build / research times is pretty stifling. You're telling me that moving all research to highsec is ok. Well, you can still currently research (and build) in outposts. And I don't think we're gonna see many highsec Titans being built. Being able to build Titans with absolutely no restriction other than build time is just as ****ed as the cyno-doomsday. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Ivanna Nuke Daralux	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:48:00 - [99] The chaos when this patch goes live The term **** hitting the fan comes into mind
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:51:00 - [100] Originally by: DaMadness Not wanting to derail this thread but large corporations such as AAA, Goonswarm and TCF (to name just a few) have put in alot of effort in setting up logistics within their space. there are thousands of POS that have been deployed, fueled and defended throughout eve in order to gain SOV and it appears this may annoy alot of people who have put in alot of effort to this game. Sticking to the old, annoying system in order to not be annoyed by the transition to a new (hopefully) better system is really not the way to go.
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:54:00 - [101] Devs vs Nerds 1 : 0 Damn, this must be so funny to be able to bring a herd of nerds into rage with so little input. Kudos CCP! PS: sounds like over 9000 winsauce to me.. will stick around.
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:57:00 - [102] Originally by: Ivanna Nuke The chaos when this patch goes live The term ** hitting the fan comes into mind Yeah, that will be rather entertaining. With the additional bugs which will be stirring up ** even more, I really need to stock on popcorn. It will be awesome.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:57:00 - [103] Originally by: Ikar Kaltin I'm just speculating but I would imagine that there wont be a single focus point for sov in a system. It will probably be based around planets and taking it will be as much as a pain as it is now, just in a different way, probably still involving capitals in some way. I imagine though that sov will give a number of benefits to systems under your sov, such as immunity for upgrades from attacks. This will be dependent on your system linking up with others of your systems which have sov in a chain. I imagine this thing with gates will be doing something which disrupts the blanket effects of sov by temporarily breaking the links with the other systems you have sov in, making them vulnerable. Thats just my guess anyway. I'm pretty confused if you actually READ the blog before posting. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.09 14:59:00 - [104] Wont it all lead to alt alliances and corps to cut down the cost of upkeep, and even bigger NAPTRAINS ?
Myz Toyou Ore Mongers	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:01:00 - [105] Magic 8-Ball sees lots of tears after Dominion gets live -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [gold]Your signature image exceeds the maximum allo
Valator Uel Caldari N'Th'Rack Squadron Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:02:00 - [106] Do I spot an opportunity to change local? Quote: Aya > Hostile tcf gang coming to h-pa Deva Blackfire > ships? Ralarina > Yes, in ships
Aisley Tyrion The Penumbra Initiative Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:04:00 - [107] 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. So are you confirming we can start building Dyson spheres or swarms?
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:04:00 - [108] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Thresh Avery I just wonder how useful dreads will be in Dominion. CCP have claimed so far that there will still be a use for them, so assuming they don't change their role much they will be needed to attack larger sov-related upgrades, which kind of brings us back to the POS bashing. even if it amounts to the same sort of sieges, isnt sieging 1 structure in a system better than having to siege 10? I'm not saying it's not. I don't mind the tower sieging in the game already or most repetative tasks, but then CCP aren't changing the game for the minority like me. If it is only about 1-2 structures per system then that's good, but it also means a capital group can move through more of the enemy's space quicker, sieging everything in one night. So that's why i hope there's some smart balancing being made. If they just strengthen the 1 structure in each system, then it'll turn into a boring and long siege. So i'm just curious how it's going to be done.
XXXAKTIVE	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:09:00 - [109] Jesus!! U want alliance to pay for gates??? Then give the alliance some tools for managing gates then. It is not fair to pay for the gates, if anyone can use them, right? If U are going to pay for the gates, so give the owner of the system rights to install sentry cannons on the gates he pays for. I think it would be fair that way
DETURK Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:10:00 - [110] When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate.
Max Khaos Anger Management	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:11:00 - [111] Just my 2 cents worth ...... Has any thought be made to the effects to the "secondary players / corporations" that supply the raw materials for corps / alliances etc etc For example, I have used several corporations that supply POS fuel. If suddenly 2500 towers are no longer needed then this part of the Eve Industrial base will be cripped. The same goes for Ice Miners etc etc. Personally the changes look good, I don't live in 0.0 and the only tower I see is in my WH but I'm just wanting to know if the "knock on effects" has been thought through. Regards
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:15:00 - [112] Whatever happened to that button we could use to apply to a corp? Wasn't there like a whole dev blog for that? _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Nika Dekaia	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:15:00 - [113] Originally by: XXXAKTIVE Jesus!! U want alliance to pay for gates??? Then give the alliance some tools for managing gates then. It is not fair to pay for the gates, if anyone can use them, right? Originally by: DETURK When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate. How about a seperate server for every alliance so nobody disturbes your little carebear system? Originally by: XXXAKTIVE If U are going to pay for the gates, so give the owner of the system rights to install sentry cannons on the gates he pays for. I think it would be fair that way That sounds rather reasonable.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:16:00 - [114] I can somehow see dust tying into the infrastructure - if the infrastructure is somewhat planetside, then dust missions could be conducted to disrupt said upgrades.. It wouldnt be required to capture sov of a system, but it sure as hell might help if all their bridges/jammers arent working because you blew them up with a special forces squad.
Sanctus Maleficus Lambent Enterprises	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:20:00 - [115] It really seems like this will allow much smaller organizations to hold small areas of space. Part of the problem, currently, is that large alliances hold vast unused areas -- areas that smaller groups could use if they could put up their own infrastructure. I really hope this is the case.
Rumba Purring	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:21:00 - [116] 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. ------------- Would you be ready if the gravity reversed itself?
Black Bird1000	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:22:00 - [117] How do you want to balance the costs for the stargates? If you want that it impacts the big alliances (PL..) then it has to be something around 300b/month for two or three regions. On the other hand, there are small, highmoonless entitys which are not able to pay more then 5b per month for a constellation and stay somewhere near to being able to replace a capfleet in less then a month.
Cergorach Amarr Black-Sun Pitch Black Legion	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:23:00 - [118] 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. Discovering new planets/moons? An automated (mineral) mining facility? An isk printing factory? ;-)
Paddlefoot Aeon Genbuku. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:25:00 - [119] Originally by: Max Khaos Just my 2 cents worth ...... Has any thought be made to the effects to the "secondary players / corporations" that supply the raw materials for corps / alliances etc etc For example, I have used several corporations that supply POS fuel. If suddenly 2500 towers are no longer needed then this part of the Eve Industrial base will be cripped. The same goes for Ice Miners etc etc. Personally the changes look good, I don't live in 0.0 and the only tower I see is in my WH but I'm just wanting to know if the "knock on effects" has been thought through. Regards Towers won't disappear overnight mate... just the Large Death-Stars that are being used only for SOV holding. People will still need towers for Mining and Reactions... and unless the mechanic gets changed, you'll still need a tower to anchor structures like Jump Beacons and Bridges... and need a significant number of defenses around these transit points (unless you want to run your ships through a beacon on a small POS). People who think POS towers are going to disappear completely because of this patch didn't read it properly. Now Recruiting. Join "Neogen" channel for details
El Liptonez	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:29:00 - [120] Cynojammers and Jump bridges will remain? I hope you introduce 20+ new regions in turn. Oh wait, Titan nerf.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:30:00 - [121] Originally by: DETURK When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate. Maybe that might just be possible! Say that your outmost systems works as gatekeepers for the inner systems. To be able to even get one level deeper into enemy space you have to knock over a whole system To allow for some more interesting combat maybe smaller ships could be forced through blocked stargates. Say that battleships are blocked in border systems. One level further and battlecruisers are blocked too. Another level and only frigates and destroyers can get through. A frigate with a cyno could sneak 5 jumps in and light a cyno for a capital or black ops fleet
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:31:00 - [122] Originally by: Cergorach 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. Discovering new planets/moons? An automated (mineral) mining facility? An isk printing factory? ;-) A planet is bigger than a moon, so that'll be it. Makes sense ... Cue planetary warfare in the next expansion/Dust ... -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:32:00 - [123] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: ArmyOfMe sounds very good.sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. We are well aware of how the current state of moon goo affects affairs in EVE. We have dedicated people who love all things mathematical that are researching this issue. More info will be coming soon. ♥♥♥♥ sounds promising
adriaans Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:33:00 - [124] this sounds great for now, perhaps as more of the mechanics are revealed we will considering moving from low sec, maybe. -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Winters Chill Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:34:00 - [125] Sounds cool. Looking forward to it.
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:34:00 - [126] Originally by: Nyphur Since it's all about mapping out resources that are already there, the system also has a lot of extensibility built in. It could be adapted to allow us to scan out comets for comet mining, for example. This is a brilliant idea! Imagine scanning out rare and hard-to-find comets that are moving, then when you've got one pinned down, getting a group of nano ships with mining lasers strapped on speeding at 2-5km/s to keep up with the comet burning across the grid. It would be a very different style of resource gathering than anything there is in the game atm and the comets could yield very valuable resources. It would be a nice change to using mining barges and exhumers for every mining operation too and for plenty of the old players it will be a welcome reminder of trying to mine in frigates and cruisers back in the days before RMR. Anyway, back to the topic at hand... Whoever mentioned planets as use for resource-gathering, i'd imagine the colonization idea might be implemented with Dominion. For those that don't know what it is, check the CSM wiki here. It would be tied in with Dust as well as the fact that CCP say small gangs can disrupt sov, so this idea is very feasible.
Full Bowl	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:35:00 - [127] Ha! Large alliance tears! control 1 system = 25mil per month/gate control 2 systems = 50mil per month/gate 3 = 100mil 4 = 150mil etc.etc.etc. better be using every system you have to make isk!
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:45:00 - [128] On the splitting the alliance in little chunks: Lets say, jumpbridges require both ends to be held by the same alliance and other infrastructure upgrades require the same alliance to hold the constellation. Then you could split up the alliance to save on gate maintenance, at the cost of slowboating everywhere. The other option would be to forgo the top tier constellation upgrades and lose money and functionality. There are plenty of ways to make splitting the alliance more costly than splitting it up will pay. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:46:00 - [129] Originally by: CCP Abathur As you can see, we are not doing this by half measures. The quicksand box is about to get bigger and badder than ever. This is EVE Online - Dominion. There, now its corrected. Will post some questions for ya later this day. As this "new" sov idea sooooooo much resembles (not to say almost the same) certain "Sovereignty 2.0" proposal that has been send to CCP few month ago (maybe even a year). Originally by: Dierdra Vaal what work? You just held it for a while :P well unfortunately for you, a lot of alliances/corporations (even eve uni at one point in its past) invested way more into securing their space, then the actual profit they made. Risk everybody agreed and accepted was that losing your investment by the simple wit and/or tactics made by another player or group was OK, but in this case you have CCP that screws you over (and screw up)time and time again Originally by: Dierdra Vaal even if it amounts to the same sort of sieges, isnt sieging 1 structure in a system better than having to siege 10? Its actually several structures, not 1 Originally by: CCP Abathur Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold... Yes, and we all just need to forget time, money and effort put on all levels in the past years like it never happened. Great job there As said some questions etc to follow.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:54:00 - [130] EVE Online: CTF Joking. Anything should be better than what we currently have.
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:55:00 - [131] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 09/09/2009 15:45:18 Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: ArmyOfMe sounds very good.sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. We are well aware of how the current state of moon goo affects affairs in EVE. We have dedicated people who love all things mathematical that are researching this issue. More info will be coming soon. ♥♥♥♥ sounds promising It does indeed. And with the moon goo problem sorted, the removal of T2 BPOs should be a given as well! Finally a level playing field for all industrial characters! What's not to like? I agree, sounds promising indeed! -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Hethor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:58:00 - [132] Are there going to be true borders to sovereign space? As in, will this change make it so invaders are forced to take the edges of space before they can even access the more protected areas? Would be nice so that people can't just get free reign to roam wherever the hell they want in space that supposedly is vastly controlled by another alliance.
Tranca Phoenix Propulsion Labs	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:58:00 - [133] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: CCP Abathur As you can see, we are not doing this by half measures. The quicksand box is about to get bigger and badder than ever. This is EVE Online - Dominion. There, now its corrected. Will post some questions for ya later this day. As this "new" sov idea sooooooo much resembles (not to say almost the same) certain "Sovereignty 2.0" proposal that has been send to CCP few month ago (maybe even a year). Originally by: Dierdra Vaal what work? You just held it for a while :P well unfortunately for you, a lot of alliances/corporations (even eve uni at one point in its past) invested way more into securing their space, then the actual profit they made. Risk everybody agreed and accepted was that losing your investment by the simple wit and/or tactics made by another player or group was OK, but in this case you have CCP that screws you over (and screw up)time and time again Originally by: Dierdra Vaal even if it amounts to the same sort of sieges, isnt sieging 1 structure in a system better than having to siege 10? Its actually several structures, not 1 Originally by: CCP Abathur Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold... Yes, and we all just need to forget time, money and effort put on all levels in the past years like it never happened. Great job there As said some questions etc to follow. Shed some more tears large alliances.....we need more whining from all of you! All of you 0.0 alliances complained on how Sov sucked and how POS bashing and camping and sitting in POS shields was the ultimate bore. Well, as the saying goes....careful what you wish for. Because now you have it. And what do you do? You cry over it! Sweet. Sweet indeed!
SIR PRIME Minmatar Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:59:00 - [134] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Da Maddness Will systems that already have SOV be given a 'flag' in each system they have SOV in? Also will SOV 3 and above systems have their infrastructure upgraded to begin with or will the months/years of work they have done to their space have been made in vain? what work? You just held it for a while :P I guess you just demonstrated that being a CSM involves no knowledge of the eve universe outside your personal little viewpoint. If you bothered to open your eyes you'd realise there are regions of 0.0 Eve that are actually open to neutrals and blues alike and coincidentally Providence is the most developed region of space both in terms of a resident population and of the number of outposts. I'm happy to know that building forty two outposts, many of them upgraded, took no work, nor do the non stop defensive gangs we and other residents run. Coincidentally, we hold for Amarr whats considered to be the most crap region of 0.0 so we've had to do everything off our own backs and through sheer grind. That work. Loyal Slave
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 15:59:00 - [135] Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 09/09/2009 16:03:37 Originally by: Full Bowl better be using every system you have to make isk! ahaha yeah lets make 0.0 so expensive that only dedicated alliances full of macro-ratters and chinese farming teams can afford to live there sweet idea bro hi5
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:05:00 - [136] Originally by: SIR PRIME Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Da Maddness Will systems that already have SOV be given a 'flag' in each system they have SOV in? Also will SOV 3 and above systems have their infrastructure upgraded to begin with or will the months/years of work they have done to their space have been made in vain? what work? You just held it for a while :P I guess you just demonstrated that being a CSM involves no knowledge of the eve universe outside your personal little viewpoint. If you bothered to open your eyes you'd realise there are regions of 0.0 Eve that are actually open to neutrals and blues alike and coincidentally Providence is the most developed region of space both in terms of a resident population and of the number of outposts. I'm happy to know that building forty two outposts, many of them upgraded, took no work, nor do the non stop defensive gangs we and other residents run. Coincidentally, we hold for Amarr whats considered to be the most crap region of 0.0 so we've had to do everything off our own backs and through sheer grind. That work. And all that work should have put you in the right position to leverage the return of that work into keeping the regions you have under control right after the expansion. I think the point is that you or anyone else do not have a claim on that space. If you're not willing to fight for it, you shouldn't have it. That's the way it should be. But don't start crying just yet, we've yet to see how all this will be implemented. -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:05:00 - [137] Originally by: Tranca Shed some more tears large alliances.....we need more whining from all of you! All of you 0.0 alliances complained on how Sov sucked and how POS bashing and camping and sitting in POS shields was the ultimate bore. Well, as the saying goes....careful what you wish for. Because now you have it. And what do you do? You cry over it! Sweet. Sweet indeed! I don't know what you're talking. I am really looking forward to new, horribly pubbie alliances trying to take space and crushing them. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Trebor Daehdoow Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:06:00 - [138] <quote>Increasing gate upkeep fees based on empire size? This will further discourage huge empires and holding space you dont really need.</quote> Unless it's done cleverly, you'll just see GoonSwarm, GoonMob, GoonGang, GoonPile, GoonRiot, GoonGoon and GoonNoog alliances holding adjacent space in the massive space continent all will come to know as GoonTopia. If the cost depends on how many hostile alliances you have on your borders (safer = more expensive) then the napfest will just be informal; if it depends on how much you're being attacked, then you and your fake enemies just make fake attacks that deliberately fail. If the cost goes up the longer you hold the space, then you just swap space with a friendly enemy. Never forget that the real endgame in EVE is twisting game mechanics to induce alcoholism in the dev staff, and drinking bitter, bitter dev tears. World Domination - It's fun for the entire family! EViE - The iPhone / iPod Touch Skill Training Monitor
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:06:00 - [139] Can you CCP guys stop saying Starbases for POS. Sure sure it stands for... but POS is more clear. Also YAAAY cool features. Quote: Who makes sure all those stargates in 0.0 continue to run? Who pays the bills to the crews and funds essential services to ensure there are no breakdowns? When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. Not pay the bill. Cyno everything in and out? Someone else then has to pay the bill for you? non-sov systems cant be gone to? ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Tar om Minmatar Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:12:00 - [140] Least detailed devblog ever. -- Come join the carebear napfest train, everyone is welcome!
Ruby Kahn Masters of Noise	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:13:00 - [141] Great plans! Love the ideas! _O_
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:13:00 - [142] Looks good for an overview, we need more info. I like the idea of Treaties, something we've needed for a long time. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Antiquus Inflatio Amarr Phoenix Propulsion Labs	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:14:00 - [143] Wow 2500 faction towers.... I need to start up a Craigslist for eve....
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:15:00 - [144] Will Alliance/Corp/POS/Can security also be getting an overhaul with this? The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
G'ulSera Masters of Noise	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:21:00 - [145] Great plans! Love how you worked that out! _O_ It should be fun times in Dominion! Fight To Survive, Survive To Fight Messing up your mind with the sound of destruction The difference between a killer and a soldier is a question of loyalty
GPFS	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:28:00 - [146] Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their ***. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl.
Vereesa Gallente THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:30:00 - [147] I think this could be very good, if by upgrading the systems means putting structures that allow alliance members to 'see' things like asteroid belts that can't otherwise be located'. the gang aspect would I suppose be the gangs shooting these structures and rendering the new resources unavailable for a short period. I only have two concerns. 1st, the current sov level creates a buffer so a well established alliance can't lose all of its space to one uber- blob fleet from hell that goes on a killing spree. So I'd hope that incorporated into the new sov mechanics is a similar buffer, because I assume the system control module is going to be a very, very tough target indeed, much more so than a POS. My second, and main concern is will the current sov holders maintain sovereignty directly after the patch is released? If the modules have to be built and put online, I can see most of the EVE alliances imploding or losing a lot of space to new alliances taking advantage of all of 0.0 becoming sovless temporarily. PS: I hope dreadnoughts still play a big role, because I just spent a year training for one
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:31:00 - [148] Originally by: GPFS Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their ***. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl. you should probably not post again _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Slave 2739FKZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:35:00 - [149] There will be Threadnaughts. And Bug. And this is all ready generating tears, so it's all excellent and business as usual. Could end being quite cool actually. WIS is an expansion which allows EVE players to wear leather and walk around stations. Dust514 is a console shooter/rts which will tie into EVE and affect sov.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:38:00 - [150] Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 09/09/2009 16:38:25 Originally by: GPFS Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their ***. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl. not sure if you have noticed, but it was actually players that wanted this change in the first place but i guess there is a reason that trolls hide behind alts right?
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:38:00 - [151] Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ There will be Threadnaughts. And Bug. And this is all ready generating tears, so it's all excellent and business as usual. Could end being quite cool actually. No, I don't think it's all ready. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Hrin Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:43:00 - [152] hell yeah time to fire up alt alliances
Avatoin	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:55:00 - [153] well, i guess this finally means that alliances too unorganized and committed to truly own 0.0 space will find it much more difficult. Finally, the undeserving get what they deserve... yea i'm talking about you Arcane (that is if the alliance still exist.)
GPFS	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:56:00 - [154] not sure if you have noticed, but it was actually players that wanted this change in the first place but i guess there is a reason that trolls hide behind alts right? "Which" players wanted this is the main question? I sure hope CCP made their homework, and this is not gonna be another CTF game... What ALT?
Shemhamphorash	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:57:00 - [155] Quote: When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. Can an alliance by use of this mechanisme, deny access to its space? Can it close all borders and be happy carebears without interuptions?
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:57:00 - [156] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: GPFS Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their ***. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl. you should probably not post again Ahhh, why not, his tears taste delicious! -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Raneru Euphoria Released	Posted - 2009.09.09 16:59:00 - [157] It all sounds so good. I'm expecting to wake up any minute...
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:00:00 - [158] Originally by: GPFS not sure if you have noticed, but it was actually players that wanted this change in the first place but i guess there is a reason that trolls hide behind alts right? "Which" players wanted this is the main question? I sure hope CCP made their homework, and this is not gonna be another CTF game... What ALT? sorry, 5 month old chars then. i guess those 5 months have given you a great insight into what ppl want for 0,0
Sral TBear Mark Of Chaos	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:00:00 - [159] This actualy could make me go back to 0.0 and alliance stuff..... This might just be th biggest change for the better than eve have seen in 3 years....i do feel sorry for those alliances that have fought with the current system.....but as all say...adapt or leave.... Realy realy good stuf here
Alexandros T'dra Minmatar Ion Corp. Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:00:00 - [160] In my opinion, I would think it more important to get the alliances more accepting of the game's industrial/mining base. Do that by making "gate upkeep" dependent on fuel and processed materials and loose the isk dumping. Alliances would still have to spend isk for the goods under this proposal but miners and industrialists would prosper better with such a built-in market needed to run the gates.
VonRijSE Phoenix Tribe Cult of War	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:01:00 - [161] Edited by: VonRijSE on 09/09/2009 17:01:24 congratz to ccp for improving the system A LOT. one more thing i would like to see changed now tough. now would be perfect time to redistribute moon materials. if you see low sec locations of high end moons: Fort Knox list i cant believe having over half of them in one region can be ccp's idea of ballanced. if this is the case in low sec its prob the same in 0.0. with sov dislocated from moons, now its the perfect time to change moons to. please dont postpone this
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:06:00 - [162] Regarding the cost of holding space: When you say "the space you spread your 'Dominion' across" do you mean the total number of systems an alliance holds or the number of jumps the alliance spans? i.e. - If your alliance lives in Feyth, grabbing a moon in Deklin will cause you to loose more than you gain. If the cost is based on total systems it seems like large alliances will just let their weaker systems go and keep the ones with the best moons even though they are spread over 1/4 of the eve galaxy. Overall this looks very promising but I haven't seen enough details - especially regarding how defense and conquest will work - to get excited. Colonies and Capitals
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:08:00 - [163] Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently. They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not. By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system. Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense: If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares.
Jelek Coro Endemic Aggression Exalted.	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:14:00 - [164] Originally by: Full Bowl Ha! Large alliance tears! control 1 system = 25mil per month/gate control 2 systems = 50mil per month/gate 3 = 100mil 4 = 150mil etc.etc.etc. better be using every system you have to make isk! Silly carebear. Such a system would not work for obvious reasons... try to think it through
Testarosa	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:18:00 - [165] Home Dev: Will it be possible to set up achievements for treaties with corp or alliance partners like "Pirate down = X isk" Will it be possible to hire "NPC SpacePolice" to roam in the region automatically if alliances devellop enough their systems, against ISK bills like the "treaties" with corp thing. cheers !!
Avoida	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:24:00 - [166] Originally by: Ariane VoxDei Don't act that stupid. It would be trivial to make the system so that costs of holding space grows much faster than the income of said space - setting natural limits on how much space is economically sensible to hold. For example a kn vs nlog(n) relationship. Small amounts of space would then scale well, but as your system count growns (just to pick one parameter), it becomes harder to justify, and you hit a equilibrium between cost of holding it vs benefit of holding it. If sovereignty of a given alliance can only spread through physical connections (gates) then reaching all those rich moons might itself prove to be too difficult of a task. A string of single systems stretching out a dozen jumps just to reach an R64 moon might be incapable of obtaining infrastructure upgrades and thus will be easier to contest ownership. Alliance might be forced into more compact forms and be unable to gerrymander their borders to reach all those juicy moons...or they could just set up fake alt alliances to control them for the main alliance at which point nothing really changes.
McNutter Gallente Corax.	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:25:00 - [167] Seeing as the said sov holder is paying the bills for there jumpgates is there going to be a control like docking rights on who can jump through the gates?
something somethingdark	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:27:00 - [168] hmmmm vague will hold propper comments till more details are released ... for now ... cookies \o/
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:31:00 - [169] Originally by: DigitalCommunist If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. The system and it's resources or potential resources should be what is being fought over, not the markers used to claim them. If they left the space the same as it is now, and introduced the new "sov" mechanic only I think everyone would agree with you.
Hoo Is	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:33:00 - [170] I think they used FW as a alpha test. The Sov Flag will be the bunker... the upgrades will be the Beacons or whatever they are called... but rather than orbiting them, you have to pop them. Upgrade by making more spots they have to pop before taking out the main flag. And I am sure they are going to make it so you can put up gate guns and set them like POS guns, shoot at reds only or shoot everyone that is not blue etc etc etc. But please, make them use ice products or something mineable rather than just be isk sinks. Give the miners/industrialists some love. ---- a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:36:00 - [171] Originally by: McNutter Seeing as the said sov holder is paying the bills for there jumpgates is there going to be a control like docking rights on who can jump through the gates? i very much doubt that since it would kill off roaming gangs etc
Haytrid	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:37:00 - [172] I can see this coming a mile away: Alliance: OK, we pay for and upkeep the stargate so we don't want "x" alliance or red standings to be able to access it, etc. CCP: We'll, you can't do that, we expect you to pay for the upkeep on it but you can't restrict passage through it. Alliance: Alright!, what a great deal, sounds really cool, thanks! Guess we'll just have to wait for more details.
Nachshon Caldari Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:39:00 - [173] I may like this system better (not being that familiar with the current system). POSes will now be useful primarily as either sources of income or bases of operation for pilots. Most POSes will have at least one player who spends a lot of time there. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom My v
wickedpheonix Guy Fawkes Trust Fund	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:42:00 - [174] Sounds like ice is getting a pretty huge nerf offhand - yes, there will be a demand for ice for all the cap ships, so the price won't hit 0, but it certainly won't be as high as it was when POS's needed fueling. Doesn't sound so good, ice fits in well with those of us who would like to do homework (or post on the forums) or do something else... which a good 10 minutes between needing to drop the ice in an Orca, along with inexhaustible roids, affords us. Not talking about macros, just semi-AFK hi-sec play, which does still limit you to be near your computer and is legitimate isk gain (and a very big loss if someone suicides you). So, hopefully some of the new infrastructure upgrades will require fuel. There's a difference between hauling fuel to a POS in the middle of nowhere and hauling fuel to an Outpost that is actively manufacturing off BPO's whose products you need to haul out of there anyways, and thus have a reason to bring a hauler out there anyways and not just a random fuel sink. Also, hopefully we're talking about persistent borders here - yes the blog says sovereignty is one level only this time around, but I'd like to take that to mean that higher sov levels won't be required to build whatever you like - sov should still not be able to be challenged if you have sov in all the bordering systems. Why would someone destroy infrastructure upgrades? If you're invading a system because it has been upgraded then it doesn't make sense to destroy them once you're there and lost ships to take control of them. Essentially, where's the balance? Eventually all of 0.0 will get upgraded in that case... and then what? It looks good but I'm still a little cautious. If Dreads are still important, then unless the Dread is going to be radically changed, that means that something will need bashing - and then we just go from POS bashing at a moon to infrastructure bashing somewhere else in the system. e.g. NEEDS MOAR DETAILS.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:49:00 - [175] Whats with all the whining about "NEED MORE DETAILS." They said this blog was first in a series of more. Its called foreplay. Enjoy it. I sure am _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:58:00 - [176] Originally by: Pnuka Originally by: DigitalCommunist If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. The system and it's resources or potential resources should be what is being fought over, not the markers used to claim them. If they left the space the same as it is now, and introduced the new "sov" mechanic only I think everyone would agree with you. That's a good one, space friend. 0.0 wars aren't fought for the resources within the territory. They're fought because of the consequences involved, which makes the outcome of fights more meaningful than random ganking or fleet battles ever could be. These tangible economic consequences extend into intangible qualities like pride, ego and social classes further enhancing them. But resources? Losing sovereignty and all infrastructure within it is not equivalent to losing access to 0.0 resources. Its possible to make as much, if not more money working with a small group of friends in 0.0 as you do by building a player empire. As a group you will pull in less money, but per person is what counts. You have no maintenance costs or obligations and duties that waste your time. Even if that were somehow true (again, its not), players simply migrate to whatever 0.0 force happens to be successful. If the loss of territory, and even forced migration happens without notable economic impact on the defeated party, its the corporation equivalent of walking back to your corpse. A goddamn inconvenience, not a one-way ticket to ruin/empire. The only resource in EVE which you can assert is thoroughly contested by players would be "R64 moons", and even they do not have much connection with territory or sovereignty. If you can show up to protect that moon, the system itself is completely irrelevant. The big capital powers hold these moons in backwater systems found in empire, syndicate, or whatever. Sometimes from across the map.
ThorTheGreat Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 17:59:00 - [177] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently. They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not. By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system. Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense: If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares. someone should do chemotherapy on your posts
Attrezzo Pox Amarr The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:03:00 - [178] Anything similar to This linkage? I thought it was a good idea. Albeit with reasonable balancing and restrictions. ------------------------- PoX IS Eve!!! BOOM!!!
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:08:00 - [179] Originally by: XXSketchxx Whats with all the whining about "NEED MORE DETAILS." They said this blog was first in a series of more. Its called foreplay. Enjoy it. I sure am DON'T TEASE ME BRO !! -------- Ideas for: Mining
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:13:00 - [180] Originally by: ThorTheGreat someone should do chemotherapy on your posts Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now?
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:15:00 - [181] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: ThorTheGreat someone should do chemotherapy on your posts Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now? Sometimes, when we have nothing intelligent to say, we say nothing. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Attrezzo Pox Amarr The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:16:00 - [182] Edited by: Attrezzo Pox on 09/09/2009 18:21:16 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently. They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not. By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system. Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense: If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares. yikes really? Sounds like in new sov they WILL lose something tangible. Ideally all the new stuff they add in to "upgrade" their systems. Sounds like a nice thing to get or a terrible thing to lose. But barring further discussion on that until we see more detail.... POS as they currently exist are a duality. They're made tough because you horde your money making goodness and utility into them. But they're also the "flag" that needs to be "taken" to gain sov. Because real life won't allow must of us to play 23/7 it would really suck to lose your pos just because you had to go to work. As it stands that's even more likely because it contributes so greatly to sov. That being said, alliance warfare based on current mechanics has boiled down to a capital-battles only slug-fest. To take the flag you have to bring out the heavy ***. Everyone logs on to see where the new pos to take out is going to be. You cyno in and click a few buttons. Then you turn up the speakers and go eat, play some other game... whatever. This is crap for gameplay. There is no alternate strategy. To take sov you must kill lots of pos. That's the dead end they were talking about. The current sov system is TOTALLY dependent on pos, any addition to the current system would still be totally dependent on pos. The new system will be dependent on a variety of factors that can be tweaked. Allowing (should the need arise) a way to add or remove certain factors of sov mechanics to get the right balance. Additionally the binary you have sov or you don't protects from endless wow-level-grinding of sov. And makes it feasible and possible to wage war for both sides. IE a defender has something tangible to protect that is realistically vulnerable and defendable, and an attacker has something vulnerable to attack that's worthwhile and reasonably challenging. As it stands a defender creates a deathstar he may defend it but meh... The only ones that matter are the ones that keep the cyno jammers and jump bridges up. And an attacker gets NOTHING from millions in jump fuel, ammo, and lots of time but only a slight change in sov. -------------------------* PoX IS Eve!!! BOOM!!!
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:18:00 - [183] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now? look at you you're mad _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:26:00 - [184] Originally by: Pnuka Originally by: DigitalCommunist If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. The system and it's resources or potential resources should be what is being fought over, not the markers used to claim them. If they left the space the same as it is now, and introduced the new "sov" mechanic only I think everyone would agree with you. I agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Marko Riva Adamant Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:31:00 - [185] Away with the stagnant, spreadsheet, boring 0.0 crap. GOOD!
MoonsOverMyHammy	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:37:00 - [186] I welcome these changes
Tia Tzu Caldari G.E.A.R.	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:45:00 - [187] good, sounds like this will give other players a chance to get into 0.0 without having to be pets to a bunch of carebears with 3000 titans. Nice to see CCP is finally raising their game, I know a lot of inactive players who are seriously considering returning to EvE because of these changes, DUST 514 and the recent purge of ISK sellers. All the vested interests can just cry cry cry, your bitter emo tears are delightful, no more just sitting on your fat arses watching the isk roll in. I'm lovin' it.
ThorTheGreat Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:45:00 - [188] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now? makes a post on an internet forum Hell yeah man check out the size of these NADS!
Zeranna Lords Caldari Petition This ..i..	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:50:00 - [189] Edited by: Zeranna Lords on 09/09/2009 18:50:27 This looks like a great change. Big Fat Bored alliances need to get a shake up. There will finally be a higher cost of sitting on 0.0 space. With smaller alliances holding space, this may bring smaller pvp ops which would be awesome. Looking forward to seeing this in 2010.
Dionisius Gallente Saiyans United death from above..	Posted - 2009.09.09 18:53:00 - [190] This is going to be.... AWESOME!!!!!! _____________________________________
Damion Rayne Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:02:00 - [191] ----->Insert Random Complaint for the sheer sake of complaining because half the people in this thread have nothing else better to do, are never happy with anything what so ever, and only have the ability to flame, dispute and otherwise atempt to destroy logic and rational debate over proposed changes. Anyway, I for one am all for these proposed changes in the Sov Mechanic.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:05:00 - [192] Originally by: Zeranna Lords Edited by: Zeranna Lords on 09/09/2009 18:50:27 This looks like a great change. Big Fat Bored alliances need to get a shake up. There will finally be a higher cost of sitting on 0.0 space. With smaller alliances holding space, this may bring smaller pvp ops which would be awesome. Looking forward to seeing this in 2010. This is what I am hoping for. I decided to take a tour through delve and querious to see what the goonies where up to and other than a few dozen docked up in a couple of outposts and two super n00b bubble camps it was completely empty other than all the other non goons ratting in belts and running blood raider missions. Was a rather interesting experience with all the barking about the 'delve police' and other such nasty fates awaiting anyone entering goonspace. So sov 4 and cynojammers makes defense faaar to easy so maybe now we will actually see players out and about defending space instead of docked up and spamming /b/ only bothering to stir when a cap fleet is needed to bash a pos or attacking fleet. I think nullsec just got a whole lot moar intersting now. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:15:00 - [193] Originally by: Attrezzo Pox yikes really? Sounds like in new sov they WILL lose something tangible. Ideally all the new stuff they add in to "upgrade" their systems. Sounds like a nice thing to get or a terrible thing to lose. But barring further discussion on that until we see more detail.... Nothing says you have to upgrade a system. You're comparing an optional and niche outcome to the everyday tug-of-war. Even if top upgrades can cause you to lose 50bil in a single system, it's pretty meaningless if 99.99% of systems don't have this. Unless the gate disruptors are made ridiculously expensive, contesting and losing systems is far more inconsequential under the new system. Originally by: Attrezzo Pox POS as they currently exist are a duality. They're made tough because you horde your money making goodness and utility into them. But they're also the "flag" that needs to be "taken" to gain sov. Because real life won't allow must of us to play 23/7 it would really suck to lose your pos just because you had to go to work. As it stands that's even more likely because it contributes so greatly to sov. There is nothing wrong with that duality. Protecting the stuff that provides utility makes more sense than specialized structures with absolutely no other purpose. Originally by: Attrezzo Pox That being said, alliance warfare based on current mechanics has boiled down to a capital-battles only slug-fest. To take the flag you have to bring out the heavy **. Everyone logs on to see where the new pos to take out is going to be. You cyno in and click a few buttons. Then you turn up the speakers and go eat, play some other game... whatever. This is crap for gameplay. There is no alternate strategy. To take sov you must kill lots of pos. That's the dead end they were talking about. An evolutionary dead end means the underlying concept is broken, which isn't the case. Using and destroying tangible property in territorial war is great. Territorial warfare in EVE used to be whoever happened to have the most people in a given system at any point in time, which was great for roaming gangs, but utterly crap for empire building. CCP is killing the current system because they are enticed by the prospect of designing something from scratch. Outwardly appearances are more interesting, and they don't have to bother understanding the current system. In other words, they aren't experienced enough at playing their own game to adequately balance the stats which currently dominate sov warfare. Originally by:** Attrezzo Pox The current sov system is TOTALLY dependent on pos, any addition to the current system would still be totally dependent on pos. The new system will be dependent on a variety of factors that can be tweaked. Allowing (should the need arise) a way to add or remove certain factors of sov mechanics to get the right balance. The current system is dependent on assets which claim sovereignty points, whether they're starbases anchored around moons or gate disruptors around gates. You're naive if you think the new system isn't going to recycle game mechanics. And the whole idea being DUST, where console players capture ground regions to control a planet and contribute to system sovereignty? Not more related to this new system, than the current one. Basically, if you think the current system isn't extensible, you're drinking their kool-aid.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:21:00 - [194] Originally by: Attrezzo Pox Additionally the binary you have sov or you don't protects from endless wow-level-grinding of sov. And makes it feasible and possible to wage war for both sides. IE a defender has something tangible to protect that is realistically vulnerable and defendable, and an attacker has something vulnerable to attack that's worthwhile and reasonably challenging. This is the first time I've heard of sovereignty being described as "tangible". Until you or CCP can explain to me what the defeated party actually loses when sov flips, its an even bigger grind treadmill since you have no economic realities holding you back from an endless tug of war. Originally by: Attrezzo Pox As it stands a defender creates a deathstar he may defend it but meh... The only ones that matter are the ones that keep the cyno jammers and jump bridges up. And an attacker gets NOTHING from millions in jump fuel, ammo, and lots of time but only a slight change in sov. And the attacker gets.. what under the new system? At least in the current system I'm satisfied with destroying a billion isk or more in uninsured assets. Even if I don't get sov in the system, the defender incurred real damage.
Kytanos Termek Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:25:00 - [195] Start agument: Ive been with a major alliance, and in a major war for 6 months. POS warfare was some of the most boring, tedious game play I have ever experienced. Does anyone at all?, one man. Disagree that the act of bashing a pos. Not what's behind it, not any "Strategic value" or setup, or anything like that. but the raw gameplay and act of bashing a $((#star into goo for half an hour or an hour is some of the most boring and tedious game play on the face of new eden? If just one of you thinks, "Ohhh awesome, another pos bash. I love those things". Please speak up. I dont know about the new system, im one of those wait and see people. but I will tell you this, I am exstatic about the removal of this boring game mechanic. I couldnt care less about anything else. Atleast I never have to see another E-war star.
Jean LeCamion Gallente Big Heart Industries	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:28:00 - [196] Originally by: DigitalCommunist This is the first time I've heard of sovereignty being described as "tangible". Until you or CCP can explain to me what the defeated party actually loses when sov flips, Pixels. What do I win?
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:29:00 - [197] Originally by: ThorTheGreat Originally by: DigitalCommunist Oh no, I had something to say and the nads to say it. You jealous? You gonna cry now? makes a post on an internet forum Hell yeah man check out the size of these NADS! By making real posts, you risk having someone smarter and more experienced tearing it apart. Your inferiority is made apparent. With pointless one-liners, your inferiority is only assumed but never proven. In terms of risk vs reward, you're a flagrant forum carebear and I'm a 8ft buff machine that chews steel and farts lightning.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:32:00 - [198] Edited by: ElvenLord on 09/09/2009 19:35:13 Lets begin. Out with the old After years of game play its kind of obvious that linking sov to moon POS was a bit stupid just from the shear fact there is loads of moons per system. POS do have their purpose even besides keeping sovereignty, but by removing POSs as sov claimer after 4 years of existence, just because it was a stupid idea and you admit it was a mistake, needs to come with some sort of compensation to players/corporation/alliances that invested and risked huge amounts of ISK into those same POSs to create some sort of security/profit whatever. How will you compensate for the wasted time, effort and resourses of players? Are you willing to pay at least part of the expanses that ppl lost there? You know, in life one that makes a mistake is the one paying for them. And in this case we are talking of trillions of wasted ISK. Planting the flag Great idea. Just like the one I was involved and was in the making for few years, and what do you know, it was sent as a proposal to CCP called ôExegesisö or if you like Sovereignty 2.0. How strange. With removing of sov levels, how do you exactly plan on adjusting all other things tied to them? Do you plan on introducing upgrades to replace ALL of them? And I donÆt mean just POS modules, but some bonuses and more important risk û reward ratios of for example ships/module or production in general. And donÆt tell me thatÆs a topic for another dev blog, cause IÆm 100% sure from reading this wall of nothing that you still have no clue. Upkeep How nice. You say: ôWho makes sure all those stargates in 0.0 continue to run?ö. Well this thing comes to renting rights doesnÆt it?. You will rent star gates (directly), indirectly meaning systems/constellations/regions to alliances, some, that already invested huge amount in those. What is it exactly that we get in return? If you want to go into those kinds of relations you need to give something in return. We are the ones paying your rent, we are the ones investing in infrastructure, we are the ones paying for upgrading those systems, we pay for the overall upkeep and in the end we pay this game. As you always said risk û reward balance must be kept. Home improvement More expanses, yeeeeeeey. You already made us (players in general) spend loads of time, money and effort into improving ourselves and our homes. Then you decided itÆs a mistake, tear it all down, we get back to scratch, and now we need to pay even more to get where we were. Few question for now in this part. How do you plan to compensate for lost time, effort and money? How much more time, effort and money is this going to cost us this time? How is your plan on doing rebalancing of moon mineral requirements in t2 production going? Did you plan redistributing moon minerals themselves yet? Lets stop at these for now. I want to blow %#$ up! This would be nice, but as all other attempts, I have a distinct feeling it will fail on so many levels as usual. Some questions here that mainly result from game design in question. What happens to capitals ships now with POSs as sov holders gone? How do you plan on keeping their usefulness, not to mention again the risk û reward ration of skilling, flying and owning one? You do know 20 dreads are easily replaced by blob of battleships and its way more ISK efficient tbh. Any plans on compensating for lost time, effort and ISK if you fail?* Dominion Tools Well, only thing here I can say if this works it will be great. And judging by it the corporation/alliance management will finally, but maybe, get some improvement. Iteration & The Future I do understand that you need to create some ISK sinks in game, but you are also the ones generating it. The trend of risk û reward ratios decay seems to be on a steady track past 6 years, donÆt you think? It seems, instead of sandbox, we are getting a quicksand box. Well done, well
Daryldutch Caldari Caldari State 1st Protectorate	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:41:00 - [199] Anything that makes me almost never shoot posses again is a win win situation. Looks like a promising new system that allows corps to also take effect in 0.0 which will make it better and more interesting. Making a -0.01 into a -1.00 is never going to happen i think but at least pulling such a system closer to it is a fast improvement and makes more of the formally sov filler 0.0 into a more active place. ------------------------- Some people wonder what insanity feels like, I wonder what sanity feels like.
Kiri Serrensun	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:43:00 - [200] Edited by: Kiri Serrensun on 09/09/2009 19:43:04 This might get me interested in 0.0 again (first POS shoot was kind of fun, then "Okay, ten more to go, then we can move onto the next system."). And while it can do a lot of good if it goes right (fragmenting the sov map a bit, reducing the buy-in to 0.0, removing the Titan off-switch to playing the game) even if it goes wrong, it can't be worse than the POS system. My personal dream is more NRDS zones, or at least a form of government more complex than "camp gates in, kill all non-blues". There's so much potential in 0.0 that's kind of wasted because the mechanics don't reward it right now. I really don't envy whoever has to work on this, though. Player ratios aside, there's certainly a massive amount of money invested in 0.0, and it's going to get ugly if one alliance happens to be advantaged over another through chance.
En Passant	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:43:00 - [201] 7 Pages of comments and not ONE mentions Dust 514... or any predictions as to how it integrates with this new rmechanic. I'm thinking it will work something like.. This soveriegnty beacon will have so many shields, armor and structure. Each will be ridiculously high in quantity, requiring fleets to take it down. Each planet that is controlled by your alliance reduces the (or increases) one of the 3 values of the soveriegnty beacon. Certain starbases will probably provide shields or other buffing affects for the beacon, but all in all to take a system the beacon will have to be destroyed, and probably re-built (a process that will take days, while the system is in flux). This would prevent dust from destroying soveriegnty, give value to POS's and keep huge fleets the thing to do to take sov back. Sounds great!
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:45:00 - [202] ElvenLord: * All that effort isnt really wasted though. All that effort got you (Morsus Mihi) where it is today. Without it, you'd be sitting in empire. So ya, the effort wont help you directly after the patch, but it helps you now. * Is it so hard to think everything cant be infrastructure? There could be upgrades, prerequisites, etc. So you wouldnt be able to just plunk down some jammers right away, without first setting up base infrastructure. * You get space in return for the gate upkeep. Isnt that enough? Think of all the costs in fuel and man hours you'll save now that you wont need huge POS spam! All that tedious logistics is replaced with an easy-to-pay bill! * tbh I cant think of answers to the rest of your question, but I do know the devs have thought/are thinking of all these things! (Note: this is my opinion/speculation, not insider info) Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Needa3 Minmatar BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:47:00 - [203] sounds good if ccp manages to deliver hope this finally enables us to get rid of fail blobs that only exsist due to numbers instead of actual skill
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:50:00 - [204] Originally by: ThorTheGreat Originally by: DigitalCommunist Removing Starbases from the equation is a huge mistake, and the assertion that Starbases are an evolutionary dead-end is one I disagree with vehemently. They might not have been designed with sovereignty mechanics directly in mind, but they were always designed to give the residents security within the system. Something along the lines of "if you want a logistical and military advantage here, pay for it". The reason CCP eventually included them into the sovereignty rules was because they were already related to system security, so don't pretend like it was a nonsensical decision which is finally being rectified through the powers of hindsight - it's not. By removing the need to deploy towers, you might be removing the boredom caused by their removal - but blowing them up is more meaningful than any other action available to players. Fleet battles are childs' play compared to razing a major outpost system. These new gate disruptors won't cost as much as towers, and even if they do, there are fewer of them in any given system. Your way of addressing the boredom, primarily caused by an unbalanced level of risk and effort in deploying new towers versus destroying them, is to trash five years of logical development for something that has no real basis in player feedback. This new system is a variation of the overhaul which was peddled to us ages ago, and subsequently shot down by simple common sense: If we're going to fight over space, the loser should lose something tangeable with value whether or not they show up. Otherwise this next expansion may as well be called EVE Online: Battlefield. I'm in favour of including gates and other vectors in the sovereigntly process, but your method of "fixing" 0.0 territorial warfare is like doing chemotheraphy with solar flares. someone should do chemotherapy on your posts DC is 100% on the money. You don't know wtf you're talking about. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Tier 5 Battleships
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 19:55:00 - [205] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/09/2009 19:54:52 double post :( Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
ThorTheGreat Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:01:00 - [206] Originally by: Bellum Eternus someone should do chemotherapy on your posts DC is 100% on the money. You don't know wtf you're talking about. You are correct of course. The devs and all should be looking to MeatSausage express and the November corporation for advice on how to handle 0.0 sovreignty issues. I know nothing about these things. I'll back off and let the experienced pros do the talking.
soldieroffortune 258 Gallente Trinity Council Seposita Astrum	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:04:00 - [207] In before all the conspiracy theorists claiming that CCP hates Goons and other Big Alliances that are not Band of Brothers/Kenzoku, that this Sov change is going to unfairly affect them, and that if BoB was still in power this sov change would never have happened or something. /Tinfoil Hat Please re-size your signature to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes.Applebabe
Gekkoh Caldari Rule of Five The Junta	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:05:00 - [208] Originally by: ArmyOfMe sounds very good. sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. i hope you make the cost of owning more then one region insanly costly. hopefully u will have to pay more and more for every constelation u own I hope that they get rid of static resource points, as well as make the cost ramp up exponentially so it's not possible to have giant alliances any more. Blobs suck, and more flags to fly under combined with attacking resources will mean more conflicts to fight in, and more stuff to fight over. Sure, it would mean the end of the current monopoly by blob system, but given how few Eve players get to to play a meaningful role in it, that's not a bad thing.
The WiCk3D tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:05:00 - [209] Originally by: ElvenLord stuff Ah, thank you very much CCP, I just LOVE that we finally get some so needed change to 0.0. And this is only start of carebear tears, i expect lots and lots of such great posts, this will make my time reading the forums so much enjoyable.
Hester Shaw	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:05:00 - [210] Originally by: ThorTheGreat Originally by: Bellum Eternus someone should do chemotherapy on your posts DC is 100% on the money. You don't know wtf you're talking about. I know nothing about these things. Truer words etc~
Zyck Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:11:00 - [211] Just a thought, but if they make it so that non-alliance members don't receive the benefits of the upgraded systems, then alt-alliances may not be as appealing.

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:20:00 - [212] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Protecting the stuff that provides utility makes more sense than specialized structures with absolutely no other purpose. Agreed. Shooting things with no purpose = bad. If you're going to blow something up it should hold some value to your enemy. Dominion will have plenty of this. Quote: CCP is killing the current system because they are enticed by the prospect of designing something from scratch. Outwardly appearances are more interesting, and they don't have to bother understanding the current system. We believe our current understanding of the current system is just fine. In the interests of transparency, CCP Greyscale will be publishing a blog soon where we outline exactly how we came to many of our conclusions about the current system. If you wish to debate those points, I know he will be happy to oblige you. Originally by: DigitalCommunist In other words, they aren't experienced enough at playing their own game to adequately balance the stats which currently dominate sov warfare. Oddly enough, the current design team has a great deal of past experience in just the sort of warfare you describe. Additionally we spend a great deal of time reading various forums/websites that discuss EVE and listening to players at FanFest and other venues. The CSM has also helped in moving the 0.0 agenda forward. All things added together and it's safe to say we've prepared well for this expansion. Originally by: DigitalCommunist And the attacker gets.. what under the new system? At least in the current system I'm satisfied with destroying a billion isk or more in uninsured assets. If a billion ISK of damage in the current system satisfies you, Dominion should make you feel as if you've bathed in the blood of your enemy like never before. Originally by: ElvenLord ]How will you compensate for the wasted time, effort and resourses of players? Are you willing to pay at least part of the expanses that ppl lost there? Your previous efforts have not been wasted or else you wouldn't have space in the first place. There are no plans to 'reimburse' alliances in the manner you speak of. However, alliances that are currently holding space may have certain advantages factored into what Infrastructure they can initially utilize based on their current holdings and investments. Originally by: ElvenLord With removing of sov levels, how do you exactly plan on adjusting all other things tied to them? Do you plan on introducing upgrades to replace ALL of them? Yes, we have a plan. For now, we simply wanted to outline the broad strokes of where we are going. Originally by: ElvenLord More expanses, yeeeeeeey. You already made us (players in general) spend loads of time, money and effort into improving ourselves and our homes. Consider what you currently have as the foundation then. What is coming in Dominion will allow you to actually begin building a home.

Gekkoh Caldari Rule of Five The Junta	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:21:00 - [213] Originally by: Full Bowl Ha! Large alliance tears! control 1 system = 25mil per month/gate control 2 systems = 50mil per month/gate 3 = 100mil 4 = 150mil etc.etc.etc. better be using every system you have to make isk! How about: 1 system - 25M/month 2 systems - 50M/month 3 systems - 100M/month 4 systems - 200M/month 5 systems - 400M/month 6 systems - 800M/month 7 systems - 1.6B/month 8 systems - 3.2B/month ... We'd have lots of smaller organizations duking it out with their many neighbors. Blobs are less common, and fun fighting is more common.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:23:00 - [214] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * All that effort isnt really wasted though. All that effort got you (Morsus Mihi) where it is today. Without it, you'd be sitting in empire. So ya, the effort wont help you directly after the patch, but it helps you now. Well, do your math again, cause it is in most part wasted, and I'm not thinking of RAWR (we just might even have an upper hand in this), but corporation and alliances in general. When you start calculating how much ISK has any sov holding alliance put into their space and other assets, and how much they might have gained and the risks it took it is a waste. For example if a small alliance (I know more then few that grabbed some space after the northern war last year) decided to, in absence of high-end moons, invest in titan production (the only profitable thing past almost a year)they needed to, in order to partially secure the investment, build a sov4 constellation. For making a sov4 constellation you needed 3 outposts, at least 50% of moons in all station systems covered + few towers in rest of constellation to hold it. 3 station cost 75bil (with no upgrade) 1 POS costs 1 bil (just basic POS), and if we take average of 35 moons per system, 50% coverage comes to 18bil per system. Average constellation has 6 systems so 75 + 3x18 + 3x2 = 131 billion. To get that outpost to have at least some bonuses you needed to invest in station upgrades. ThatÆs for 1 upgrade per station additional 5bil per upgrade + time and effort. To get outpost to a station level you need a total of 67 bil per outpost. If we add that to initial sum we come to a figure of 332 bil without upkeep price. Titan BPO + components BPO are approximately 100bil + few more bil for CSAA and CSMA. So the sum comes to 450bil without upkeeping. And we are not even getting into possibility of corp/alliance, on top of regular upkeeping, having reimbursement programs, office bills, alliance bill etc. . Lets say Titan production price is 50bil in minerals not counting any other cost or the fact it can be mined (cause you can sell those minerals, and mining those amounts of minerals take ages). Per year you can only make 8 titans, so if you sell them all for profit until few days ago (CCP screw up) you could have made about 270bil profit, and that without counting manpower, time and effort put into it, not to mention risk. 280 is not the same as 450, so unless you get some extra income resources you did not manage to get your investment back. So here you have an example for alliances losing huge amounts of ISK, that is not that big of a problem for large moon holding alliances but for small alliance it is a huge problem, cause even with tax of 100% that kinda of ISK is hard for a corporation to make (unless maybe for macro farmer corporation that collects even all loot, but thats maybe). So time effort and money IS wasted, thank you very much. Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * Is it so hard to think everything cant be infrastructure? There could be upgrades, prerequisites, etc. So you wouldnt be able to just plunk down some jammers right away, without first setting up base infrastructure. Again, I am partially familiar with this new sov mechanics, and upgrades do require some sort of perquisites in infrastructure, time, effort and ISK. Game play surrounding new sov will, I hope, be much more interesting. But the question of past things and their usefulness still stands. Will it all be a waste of time, effort and money? rest to follow
riverini	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:26:00 - [215] Originally by: soldieroffortune 258 In before all the conspiracy theorists claiming that CCP hates Goons and other Big Alliances that are not Band of Brothers/Kenzoku, that this Sov change is going to unfairly affect them, and that if BoB was still in power this sov change would never have happened or something. /Tinfoil Hat THIS!!!! The first thought that came to my mind after reading this was: WHAT A BUNCH OF ALBINO FAT ASS LOSERS!!!! You are totally spot on, now that the war is won, they want to change the rules of the game... PRETTY LAME ... BTW, where is INCARNA??>>
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:26:00 - [216] Originally by: ElvenLord You know, in life one that makes a mistake is the one paying for them. And in this case we are talking of trillions of wasted ISK. sure, are your alliance willing to pay back all the isk you have gained from moons as well at the same time?
Dionisius Gallente Saiyans United death from above..	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:27:00 - [217] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: DigitalCommunist And the attacker gets.. what under the new system? At least in the current system I'm satisfied with destroying a billion isk or more in uninsured assets. If a billion ISK of damage in the current system satisfies you, Dominion should make you feel as if you've bathed in the blood of your enemy like never before. Abathur how does the Dev team propose that? I would like to know how the new system is going to affect fleet warfare ( blob and lag ) that we see today. Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: ElvenLord More expanses, yeeeeeeey. You already made us (players in general) spend loads of time, money and effort into improving ourselves and our homes. Consider what you currently have as the foundation then. What is coming in Dominion will allow you to actually begin building a home. Is that somewere along the lines of Master of Orion for example? _____________________________________ Retribution and Death!
Haseo Arashi	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:28:00 - [218] Dreads still shoot things right? Their main purpose up until now was sitting at a pos shooing at it. Now it will be sitting somewhere else shooting at something different to archive the same goal. Maybe small gangs and "annoy" sov holders, but I doubt anything short of a dread fleet will be able to take sov away from anyone. mostly because if anything short of that is able to happen people will complain its "too easy". but if it stays the same its "too monotonous". so they're just gonna throw a few new toys in, rename the dreads targets and call it an improvement.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:28:00 - [219] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/09/2009 20:29:30 I guess you're right ElvenLord, it is all a waste of money. I suggest you start unanchoring your POS's and POS modules en masse to sell them while they have still value Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:29:00 - [220] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 09/09/2009 20:29:18 Originally by: ElvenLord Oh god. Do you think you could be a bit more familiar with the "Enter" key? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:36:00 - [221] So many threads to keep up with today aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa So I have a lot of confidence in the developers working on this expansion. I know there's a lot of cynicism floating around about CCP's track record with regards to sovereignty, but many of the people working on Dominion are not the ones who introduced the broken systems we have now. (They even have 0.0 alliance experience under current mechanics!) I remain optimistic, and I wouldn't feel bad if I never had to anchor another pos mod ever again.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:37:00 - [222] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * You get space in return for the gate upkeep. Isnt that enough? Think of all the costs in fuel and man hours you'll save now that you wont need huge POS spam! All that tedious logistics is replaced with an easy-to-pay bill! Well you dont get space if you pay gate upkeep, that is the point. You get opportunity to get it. So you pay gates as a direct bill and pay space as a indirect bill trough other means. POS bill will still be there just significantly lowered as you still need them for industry for example, and afaik what you call tedious logistics will still be there. You have a lot to learn about expanses and life in 0.0 in general, its not all that glamorous. Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * tbh I cant think of answers to the rest of your question, but I do know the devs have thought/are thinking of all these things! Thats what scares me the most, their thinking part. Originally by: Dierdra Vaal (Note: this is my opinion/speculation, not insider info) Well its quite easy to get those insider info, they cant keep a secret if they wanted anyways (/me points to a certain interview that collapsed markets and made ppl run for their lifes from few days ago)
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:38:00 - [223] Originally by: ElvenLord Well you dont get space if you pay gate upkeep, that is the point. You get opportunity to get it. So you pay gates as a direct bill and pay space as a indirect bill trough other means. POS bill will still be there just significantly lowered as you still need them for industry for example, and afaik what you call tedious logistics will still be there. You have a lot to learn about expanses and life in 0.0 in general, its not all that glamorous. So in other words, it's exactly like the post fuel expense. Because I don't know if you understand this, but just putting a pos down right now does not gauruntee sov foverever. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:42:00 - [224] Originally by: CCP Abathur Consider what you currently have as the foundation then. What is coming in Dominion will allow you to actually begin building a home. Well Mark, check your server logs and you will see we, in particular are doing it for a loooooong time. But for Domination, lets say, it will have to go a looooong way to prove that risk is worth the reward for those kind of things.
Soi Mala	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:44:00 - [225] Originally by: Gekkoh How about: 1 system - 25M/month 2 systems - 50M/month 3 systems - 100M/month 4 systems - 200M/month 5 systems - 400M/month 6 systems - 800M/month 7 systems - 1.6B/month 8 systems - 3.2B/month ... We'd have lots of smaller organizations duking it out with their many neighbors. Blobs are less common, and fun fighting is more common. Soooooo... who's thinking goonswarm, goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3....
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:46:00 - [226] Because god knows we don't spend anything now. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Alun Hughes United Amarr Templar Legion Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:47:00 - [227] Originally by: DETURK When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate. 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!!
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:47:00 - [228] In this thread - former eve players *****ing about the loss of investment in POS from the changes Please, CCP .. take my sov POS .. send wormhole aliens to disintegrate them now and forever. I'm looking at my alliance POS management tool and the 860 POS on it and working out how many can die without affecting us in the SLIGHTEST. Do I want them reimbursed? Not as much as I want to see them gone! Myn
Darknees	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:50:00 - [229] what about npc space?
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:53:00 - [230] Originally by: Mynas Atoch I'm looking at my alliance POS management tool and the 860 POS on it and working out how many can die without affecting us in the SLIGHTEST. Do I want them reimbursed? Not as much as I want to see them gone! Myn
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:53:00 - [231] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/09/2009 20:29:30 I guess you're right ElvenLord, it is all a waste of money. I suggest you start unanchoring your POS's and POS modules en masse to sell them while they have still value I have a better idea, let me give it to you and you try to sell them. Think of it as a donation.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:58:00 - [232] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/09/2009 20:29:30 I guess you're right ElvenLord, it is all a waste of money. I suggest you start unanchoring your POS's and POS modules en masse to sell them while they have still value I have a better idea, let me give it to you and you try to sell them. Think of it as a donation. im sure the moon income has payed for them many times over already
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.09 20:58:00 - [233] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: DigitalCommunist Protecting the stuff that provides utility makes more sense than specialized structures with absolutely no other purpose. Agreed. Shooting things with no purpose = bad. If you're going to blow something up it should hold some value to your enemy. Dominion will have plenty of this. I smell the development of planets and the ability to rain hellfire on planets with dread fleets. Makes sense. It is more logical than the concept up putting up towers on useless moons and/or shooting towers on useless moons. Originally by: CCP Abathur Quote: CCP is killing the current system because they are enticed by the prospect of designing something from scratch. Outwardly appearances are more interesting, and they don't have to bother understanding the current system. We believe our current understanding of the current system is just fine. In the interests of transparency, CCP Greyscale will be publishing a blog soon where we outline exactly how we came to many of our conclusions about the current system. If you wish to debate those points, I know he will be happy to oblige you. Sounds like the devs, who play the game, have been stuck in POS bashes and are just as tired of it as everyone else. So, it should come as no surprise that they are coming out with a more interesting way of taking/holding sov. Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: DigitalCommunist In other words, they aren't experienced enough at playing their own game to adequately balance the stats which currently dominate sov warfare. Oddly enough, the current design team has a great deal of past experience in just the sort of warfare you describe. Additionally we spend a great deal of time reading various forums/websites that discuss EVE and listening to players at FanFest and other venues. The CSM has also helped in moving the 0.0 agenda forward. All things added together and it's safe to say we've prepared well for this expansion. Read: CSM has asked for this every time they talk to CCP and the devs have been saying "Soon" up until now. Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: DigitalCommunist And the attacker gets.. what under the new system? At least in the current system I'm satisfied with destroying a billion isk or more in uninsured assets. If a billion ISK of damage in the current system satisfies you, Dominion should make you feel as if you've bathed in the blood of your enemy like never before. Kill billions on planets along with the cities and "infrastructure" that had billions of isk sunk into it via raining hellfire from space? Atmospheric flight was another thing promised that could come (please?) with Dominion. Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: ElvenLord ]How will you compensate for the wasted time, effort and resourses of players? Are you willing to pay at least part of the expanses that ppl lost there? Your previous efforts have not been wasted or else you wouldn't have space in the first place. There are no plans to 'reimburse' alliances in the manner you speak of. However, alliances that are currently holding space may have certain advantages factored into what Infrastructure they can initially utilize based on their current holdings and investments. Based on the CSM getting canned for "buying" something instead of "selling" (POSs)... I would imagine POSs aren't going out of style entirely. What was being bought? I can only hope it is those marines that are rotting away in my hangars. Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: ElvenLord With removing of sov levels, how do you exactly plan on adjusting all other things tied to them? Do you plan on introducing upgrades to replace ALL of them? Yes, we have a plan. For now, we simply wanted to outline the broad strokes of where we are going. Between Dust and Dominion, I would assume planets are actually going to be the key more than moons (it would makes sense).
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:00:00 - [234] Edited by: ElvenLord on 09/09/2009 21:00:23
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:02:00 - [235] Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 09/09/2009 21:04:30 Originally by: Bagehi I would assume planets are actually going to be the key more than moons (it would makes sense). It wouldn't. I'd expect to see more habitable and exploitable planets orbiting gas giants than orbiting suns, so I suppose it depends on your perspective. In real life, those of a scale with Venus, Earth, Io, Callisto, Europe, Ganymede and Titan.
DeputyFruitfly	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:03:00 - [236] How will the transition to the new sov system take place? Everybody loses all sov and it's a FFA for everyone to get it? Something else?
Thresh Avery Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:06:00 - [237] Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 09/09/2009 16:06:50 Quote: Increasing gate upkeep fees based on empire size? This will further discourage huge empires and holding space you dont really need. Unless it's done cleverly, you'll just see GoonSwarm, GoonMob, GoonGang, GoonPile, GoonRiot, GoonGoon and GoonNoog alliances holding adjacent space in the massive space continent all will come to know as GoonTopia. Never forget that the real endgame in EVE is twisting game mechanics to induce alcoholism in the dev staff, and drinking bitter, bitter dev tears. Putting in my application for GoonMob now - the greatest alliance in all of GoonTopia! You're right though, no matter what CCP change or create, the mechanics will always be used in a specific way to manipulate the game. Let's hope it's not going to be something lame though, like jumping gates back and forth or whatever.
Gekkoh Caldari Rule of Five The Junta	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:07:00 - [238] Originally by: Soi Mala Originally by: Gekkoh How about: 1 system - 25M/month 2 systems - 50M/month 3 systems - 100M/month 4 systems - 200M/month 5 systems - 400M/month 6 systems - 800M/month 7 systems - 1.6B/month 8 systems - 3.2B/month ... We'd have lots of smaller organizations duking it out with their many neighbors. Blobs are less common, and fun fighting is more common. Soooooo... who's thinking goonswarm, goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3.... Ah, meta-gaming. How bittersweet it is. However, with all of those being a self-contained unit of space, wouldn't it be more likely for in-fighting to break out and split the meta-alliance into smaller pieces? Don't underestimate the psychological factor of group dynamics and the role symbols play in them. Take a large team under one flag, one name, and break it up into smaller teams, with different flags and names, and now it's far easier to blame the "others" for things. That's just human nature. Smart game design can leverage that to increase the number of "teams" and thus the amount of potential conflict. Do I have a clean answer for this? No, but that doesn't mean there isn't one to be found.
chatgris Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:09:00 - [239] Originally by: Viper **zIe Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 09/09/2009 12:16:55 So does this mean sov4, sov3, jammers and jump bridges are gone? further, this sounds like a micromanagement nightmare for small and large alliances alike if every single random roaming gang has the capability of easily contesting sov let alone doing so in dozens of systems with relative ease. some tangible details would be nice. The 0.0 metagame just became 0sp alts running through other alliance's space to disrupt sov. I guess it's better than shooting POS at least Sounds a lot like fw... thank god sov doesn't mean anything :)
Itzena Viziam	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:14:00 - [240] Originally by: Soi Mala Originally by: Gekkoh How about: 1 system - 25M/month 2 systems - 50M/month 3 systems - 100M/month 4 systems - 200M/month 5 systems - 400M/month 6 systems - 800M/month 7 systems - 1.6B/month 8 systems - 3.2B/month ... We'd have lots of smaller organizations duking it out with their many neighbors. Blobs are less common, and fun fighting is more common. Soooooo... who's thinking goonswarm, goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3.... More like Goonswarm, Goonfleet, Goonwaffe, Goonplatoon, WANG, etc etc....
Haakelen Gallente Angels. Cruor-Salax Legion	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:19:00 - [241] Originally by: DeputyFruitfly How will the transition to the new sov system take place? Everybody loses all sov and it's a FFA for everyone to get it? Something else? Please, god, let it be that.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:22:00 - [242] Look at all these people who think that just because sov rules are changing that they will have a chance in conq 0.0.
Iron Cog	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:23:00 - [243] Theres an awful lot of people crying for fear over this new system, which i find surprising considering how many hate the current system. But i believe its going to be a good improvement to the game. Say goodbye to alliances(Goons, BoB(pre-death)) holding huge swaths of space that they never use. Im eager to see systems that usually have an empty local actually being unclaimed.
Mrs Management	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:25:00 - [244] I totally agree that the system needs changing .... but I've heard nothing about plans for the player base that supply the POS's / Corp's / Alliances. i.e Ice / Isot miners, Dread Builders, POS Manfacturers and fuel suppliers. Does this mean that 4900 Faction towers are no longer needed and a Dread is a thing that doesn't undock.
Jenna Sojik Riggers of War	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:27:00 - [245] Actually, i think the new system will bring about the birth of large BoB-style regions of space that are rented out to useful 'serf' corporations who can pay rent and maintain a single system of space. Be interesting to see which way it goes.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:32:00 - [246] Originally by: teji Look at all these people who think that just because sov rules are changing that they will have a chance in conq 0.0. Given that the sole way to claim or destroy sov past workarounds was to spam pos and then bash them I would say that is exactly what will happen. The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. This is changing and will redefine what it means to be an alliance after it hits. Active territory wide player participation will be needed to hold space and only those alliances who can organise lots of simultanious daily ongoing operations will be able to stay on top. The days of only having to log on for a pos bash every once and a while to determine how big you are on the map is now dust in the wind. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
Wotcher Renyolds	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:39:00 - [247] Originally by: Bagehi Based on the CSM getting canned for "buying" something instead of "selling" (POSs)... I would imagine POSs aren't going out of style entirely. What was being bought? I can only hope it is those marines that are rotting away in my hangars. oh come on everyone knows by now it should be your first guess
Marchocias Silent Ninja's	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:45:00 - [248] Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: DeputyFruitfly How will the transition to the new sov system take place? Everybody loses all sov and it's a FFA for everyone to get it? Something else? Please, god, let it be that. Funniest idea ever ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
Weaselior GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:54:00 - [249] Originally by: Zeba Originally by: teji Look at all these people who think that just because sov rules are changing that they will have a chance in conq 0.0. Given that the sole way to claim or destroy sov past workarounds was to spam pos and then bash them I would say that is exactly what will happen. The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. This is changing and will redefine what it means to be an alliance after it hits. Active territory wide player participation will be needed to hold space and only those alliances who can organise lots of simultanious daily ongoing operations will be able to stay on top. The days of only having to log on for a pos bash every once and a while to determine how big you are on the map is now dust in the wind. yeah you don't stand a chance Sig removed, inappropriate content - Mitnal
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:56:00 - [250] Edited by: teji on 09/09/2009 21:57:40 Originally by: Zeba The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. The amount of effort required to live in 0.0 will still be above what the empire *******s in this thread will want to put in.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.09.09 21:57:00 - [251] Originally by: Zeba The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. You do realize this situation existed before jammers were introduced, right?
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:07:00 - [252] Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Zeba The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. You do realize this situation existed before jammers were introduced, right? Believe me, jammers made it a lot worse ... -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:10:00 - [253] Edited by: Teck7 on 09/09/2009 22:11:31 So the real short of it is, sov mechanics on a very simplified level, will go back 3 years where an enemy can relatively risk free conquer space with absolutely nothing forcing them to field capitals. The one nice thing about the current mechanics is that the attackers must risk as much as the defenders stand to lose; i.e: if the defenders can field 100 capitals and 200 support, then the enemy must typically be able to match that. The new mechanics will overwhelmingly favor conventional, non-capital, blob fests; so that there is no equalizing factor, that the guy with the most numbers will simply win now.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:11:00 - [254] Originally by: teji Look at all these people who think that just because sov rules are changing that they will have a chance in conq 0.0. Funnily enough i have to agree with a goon. Even if getting sov meant placing ONE flag in system most people wouldnt get it becaus ethey lack balls to actually risk doing this. They prefer to "waah waah ccp fix it". Like i said earlier: nothing will change. Just whines about "too many towers to kill" will change into "too many xyz to do".
Mithfindel Aseyakone	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:24:00 - [255] The "stargate maintenance charge": Stuff to keep the gates running. Improve the thing with a locking module (with a price, of course). Simple solution to "omg, teh stagstes R lockzorz" fears: Training Hacking V (and possibly some other skills). Wait 30 secs to get in, if you've got the skills that is. A red light highlights on the "regional control panel" of the sovereign alliance. A bit different solution: make it so that the gate locking module exists in space and must be installed on both sides of the gate. Of course, this means that the first in-gate to sovereign space cannot be locked, and the attacker can attack select gate-locking modules, knocking them down (a good small gang objective?) or install gate disruption modules, knocking the gate lock down (of course, the defenders can shoot the disruptor mods, and they'd possibly highlight on the defender's interface). One more way to complicate things for the defender: Make all transit through the gate to unlock it for a set time. Attacker slips in a cov ops. Which generates a Covert Cyno. Jump in a Blockade Runner, anchor gate disruption module while no one's watching. Of course, the weak point of most of those would be that it might be possible for the defender to use only vessels capable of long jumps to service their space, leaving invaders on the locked gates. At the first solution, this isn't an issue 'cause the attackers can get in, though alerting the defenders. On the second of my suggestions, it does limit the attacker's attack points into set "fronts" which may or may not be a good thing. On my third suggestion would likely not work alone, if the defending alliance had absolutely no traffic except via titan bridges and cap jumps, so at the minimum you'd need Gate Hacking. Perhaps Covert Ops (as in "CovOps, not Bombers") could have an additional role of being capable to hack the gates without raising the alert. Sneak in the Cov Ops. Find target system with the caps. Light your own cyno. Hello, PR- siege. Even more, if we'll have gate locking, the system likely would "cost extra", so if it isn't installed on every gate by the defenders, if you kick in the door, you've got free reign inside. Or even more likely, make locked gates "check your ship's identity", lasting a few seconds. Insert gatecamp with a bubble. Now was it really that useful to have that gate locked, was it? Also, accessing a restricted gate / hacking the gate lock / knocking gate lock down destroying your attempts to get in, since the defenders know where to Drop the Blob? Split up. Attack ten systems instead of blobbing one. Sure, their blob might knock a few of your smaller gangs down real easy, but can they reach you all? Specially if the region's all locked up, and there's a delay accessing locked gates, they might be able to knock down a few attackers but arrive late to some systems. (Of course, combined with a cheapskate alliance locking only entry gates, once you're in, they couldn't track you.) They might compensate by building an extensive jump bridge network, but then again, they need to set up the towers and fuel them, which means that while no one attacks, they waste money. Risk and reward just needs balancing there.
Krapz Sloppy Seconds	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:26:00 - [256] For the love of God....Lock this thread. I am sick and tired of reading pages of people on these forums whining about changes made to this GAME. Every patch is the same. Why did you nerf this so much? why can't I do this easier? Its pathetic. This one tears it. Large alliances scared they wont be as uber anymore. Now they have to change the way they run things, and it has damaged their "Plan" to win EVE. I didn't read where anyone has tested this yet. Maybe I missed it. No 2 wars have ever used the exact same tactics and procedures. In real life there is ALWAYS change. It's your job to adapt and overcome. If your scared say so...maybe you can get a better alliance to help you. Don't bother responding to me, I wont be reading this garbage again. Explain to the other readers why you can't cut it. You have 2 options: 1. STFU and quit. 2 STFU and adapt. Whatever you do...unless you have a how to question...STFU!
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:31:00 - [257] I love the changes! Infinitely better than the current pos system. I think this is a major step in the right direction and will make 00 fun again. A few Questions: 2) I very much like the idea that this cost is another isk sink to combat inflation, rather than a resource cost that doesn't remove money from the game. So, how does this cost work? Obviously it's a bill. But is it a fixed cost per system, or variable cost depending on the number of systems? IE each system costs 1 mil to capture and maintain, but if I capture 5 systems, each system now costs 3 million to maintain, etc. That would be the best way to prevent the power blocks from owning half of eve. 3) How easy is it to capture space? Can an alliance immediately capture systems with a single cap fleet? Or are there time sinks like the reinforced mechanic now provides? I believe that alliances need time to repel attacks, so someone doesn't come in at an off peak hour and simply capture your space immediately. MOAR INFO! (And I'm still waiting to hear about supercap changes from a dev blog...please expedite that one!)
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:33:00 - [258] Edited by: Typhado3 on 09/09/2009 22:34:05 the changeover for this is gonna be pretty interesting.... will ccp just release the new system one day and wipe all sovereignty from the map that day till we all fly around and put our flags up? Also did anyone else just realise we all became pets to ccp? we now have to pay them rent to own space. Lastly I'll add my ideas on sov. THERE SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE WAY TO TAKE A SYSTEM For example one of the ways I came up with was poses/stations/flags fueling themselves by sending out probes to collect fuel automatically (eg. solar collector). Roaming small gangs and possibly solo players could take out these probes to make the enemies fuel and maintanance cost go up. If you can defete your enemy by constantly raiding their space breaking their supply lines and cutting there income they will starve and die. Right now without nerfing jump bridges, jump freighters and titan jump portals there is no way to disrupt the enemy supplies. The defence against this should be being able to set up turrets etc. Another add on idea to this is if you still have the small/med/large system like in poses adding in a capital one that can be used as a massive block to slow the enemy advance at the cost of opening you up to rediculous expenses if they try to starve you out. If you think you can pull it off you should be able to capture a station/flag stand/sov thingy. Only way i can think of this is to anchor some sort of boarding module next to the flag and wait while it takes over. Sorta like the inverse of reinforced mode, rather than no fighting till it comes out all the fighting takes place before it comes out then the fighting is over. Of course this module would take a couple days or more to give people in different time zones an oportunity to plan to blast it off. ------------------------------ Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Slave 2739FKZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:34:00 - [259] Morsus Mihi has a special thing with whining, amiright? Also, lol at the bitter vets jumping on conclussion without any real insight of the changes. tears, a lot of them, will flood the forums. Funny WIS is an expansion which allows EVE players to wear leather and walk around stations. Dust514 is a console shooter/rts which will tie into EVE and affect sov.
velocity7	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:34:00 - [260] Originally by: Mynas Atoch In this thread - former eve players *****ing about the loss of investment in POS from the changes Please, CCP .. take my sov POS .. send wormhole aliens to disintegrate them now and forever. I'm looking at my alliance POS management tool and the 860 POS on it and working out how many can die without affecting us in the SLIGHTEST. Do I want them reimbursed? Not as much as I want to see them gone! Myn QFT!
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:35:00 - [261] Originally by: Krapz For the love of God....Lock this thread. I am sick and tired of reading pages of people on these forums whining about changes made to this GAME. Every patch is the same. Why did you nerf this so much? why can't I do this easier? Its pathetic. This one tears it. Large alliances scared they wont be as uber anymore. Now they have to change the way they run things, and it has damaged their "Plan" to win EVE. I didn't read where anyone has tested this yet. Maybe I missed it. No 2 wars have ever used the exact same tactics and procedures. In real life there is ALWAYS change. It's your job to adapt and overcome. If your scared say so...maybe you can get a better alliance to help you. Don't bother responding to me, I wont be reading this garbage again. Explain to the other readers why you can't cut it. You have 2 options: 1. STFU and quit. 2 STFU and adapt. Whatever you do...unless you have a how to question...STFU! Yeah, did you hear that! I can see from the pixels that this guy is a pro. He clearly knows stuff. Laying down the line as it where. So, do what the guy from Sloppy Seconds says, and STFU! -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Darkeen Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:43:00 - [262] SOunds good. Looksmliek standings will undergo a major hit. and chnage to Treaties... A good thing IMO as changing standings (a personal thing) have been unknown if one corp/alliance suddenly resets others and the others dont know about it. With a treaty, if one side breaks the treaty, the other side will at least get an alliance email saying treaty has been broken. Looking forward to gettting zero sec being made profitable by corp/alliance changes and spending money... Got a ****ty system? Throwing isk at it for "reasearch and surveying" and other ingame tasks and low, you discover belts of ABCM that you can harvest, or find out that the moons can be harvested after all... At least thats what this game needs - to break the holds that major alliances have over their isk generating machines - if everyone (with an alliance in zero sec) can start developing moon minerals than it makes the system a lot better - more market forces.. Good work CCP Devs!
Darkeen Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:50:00 - [263] Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Unfamed II Will there be a "disband" button in the sov dashboard? Sure. We'll make it black. And when you press it, a black light will light up a black panel that's labelled in black on a black background to let you know you've done it. Alternatively you get teleported to somewhere in W-Space. We're still arguing about that functionality. HAHAHHA!!!! ROFLMAO!!!! CCP Whisper, you get my vote for coolest post of the millenium with a Hithickers/Hotblack Desiato quote!
Cpt Constantinus Celestial Janissaries	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:55:00 - [264] Meh, i am quite pessimistic about the changes. We either get a system where empire building is nigh impossible if you dont police every single bordergate 24/7 or a system which basicaly stays the same we have now, just under a different name and with a slightly different mechanic. Sure, the first option might be great for the average roaming gang, but it is much less fun for the defender. I dread the day when every litle steathbomber gang ( ever tried to catch such a gang? It isnt fun ) can directly influence sov. But still, what exactly happens remains to be seen.
Praesus Lecti Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 22:55:00 - [265] Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ Morsus Mihi has a special thing with whining, amiright? Please do not extrapolate from ElvenLord's inane blathering to encompass the entirety of Morsus Mihi. Believe me he does not speak for everyone. The rabid theorycrafting and predictions of doom and gloom based solely upon conjecture has produced some quite hilarious readings. I can't wait to the upcoming dev blogs on this subject.
Gerard Deneth Caldari Pavlov Labs GmBH Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2009.09.09 23:01:00 - [266] Originally by: Typhado3 THERE SHOULD BE MORE THAN ONE WAY TO TAKE A SYSTEM There are plenty of ways. Use Covops, spam with dreadnoughts, trim supply lines. But these are all things that lead to HOW you do it, of which there is only one true way to take a system: You kick the other guys -out- :P ---------------------------- The Game's always changing under your feet; don't start moaning when you get a toe caught in the gears.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.09.09 23:34:00 - [267] Originally by: Praesus Lecti Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ Morsus Mihi has a special thing with whining, amiright? Please do not extrapolate from ElvenLord's inane blathering to encompass the entirety of Morsus Mihi. Believe me he does not speak for everyone. The rabid theorycrafting and predictions of doom and gloom based solely upon conjecture has produced some quite hilarious readings. I can't wait to the upcoming dev blogs on this subject. Well spoken. Perhaps some of you fellows will give him a nudge and clue him into the fact that many MM pilots have been begging for changes along this line for years. In fact, most everyone that has been involved in current sov battles has been shedding tears of blood while enduring the current system. For those whose fingers are still racing in a panic stricken frenzy over their keyboards, take a moment and look for the DEV responses in this thread for a bit of reassurance. Then take a deep breath, remember the last 200 POS's you had to refuel, then remember the last 200 POS's you had to destroy, and then commence shaking with relief that your agony is nearly over. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Crimson Tail Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.09.09 23:37:00 - [268] Edited by: Crimson Tail on 09/09/2009 23:37:14 Originally by: Krapz For the love of God....Lock this thread. I am sick and tired of reading pages of people on these forums whining about changes made to this GAME. Every patch is the same. Why did you nerf this so much? why can't I do this easier? Its pathetic. This one tears it. Large alliances scared they wont be as uber anymore. Now they have to change the way they run things, and it has damaged their "Plan" to win EVE. I didn't read where anyone has tested this yet. Maybe I missed it. No 2 wars have ever used the exact same tactics and procedures. In real life there is ALWAYS change. It's your job to adapt and overcome. If your scared say so...maybe you can get a better alliance to help you. Don't bother responding to me, I wont be reading this garbage again. Explain to the other readers why you can't cut it. You have 2 options: 1. STFU and quit. 2 STFU and adapt. Whatever you do...unless you have a how to question...STFU! QFT....not to mention that there is a disclaimer for this game. Online universe is subject to change according to how CCP feels they want their game to go. You all clicked on the 'ACCEPT' button and have no place to ***** and whine about anything that is changed. Just like every patch before this change. You learn to adapt or you emo-ragequit. So skip all the whining and hit the quit button already.
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.09 23:49:00 - [269] Hey all. Im very scared for Eve's future at present by whats been announced at what i can describe as a sudden shock, by its subscribers. Within 2months time Eve dominion will be changing the whole sov interface and how its gunna be used in the new system. Reading the blog today, it mentioned that the current system of sov is at a brick wall, and nothing can be done to develop it, in anyway. All this speculation and blogs contain very controversial views for many players ingame and feel it could be a braking point for eve for what its become. there are many ways the current system can be improved and tweaked using Sov. Dust 514 is introducing planetary combat and planets can be used as sov instead of moons. thats one example i could easily think of. Maybe having multiple pos structures that control individual continents that all dust 514 fighters to capitalise over a planet. Pos's at moons can be changed for different things such as moon harvesting and or manufacturing. These moon pos's wouldnt be Sov inclined, but more like services in space. i think too much change in such a small timeline could damage eve, and its subscribers. Eve has developed over the years introducing new things over time. Changing Sov and how it works will effect so many other dinamics, it could over whelm people all in one go. How would Jump bridges / cyno generators / cyno jammers and outpost construction naming but a few will be effecting in such a sudden change in Sov? will these get scrapped due to no sov level system? Paying for maintenance of stargates within a system is one thing, but how would it work for those who have multiple stargates per system? would there be a set fee for every stargate, which will increase or decrease dependant on how many systems have claim? IGN stated that titans will be majorly nerfed in dominion also. why is this the case? many people complain over multiple titans simultaneously setting off DD's which prove to be invinsible. why cant a restriction of titans per alliance be introduced or having allowed only 1 titan for an alliance per system at any one time? scripting points onto individuals for insta death is one way but seems to defeat the object of what a titan is all about. the titan was designed to kill fleets and be used as a moving station so to speak. sorry for such a long post, but i do wish to hear more about this subject as many people who play in eve live in 0.0 space. this will effect a good 70% of all players in eve, and seems to me like a huge gamble over the current system. Thank you.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.09 23:57:00 - [270] Edited by: ElvenLord on 10/09/2009 00:00:38 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Praesus Lecti Please do not extrapolate from ElvenLord's inane blathering to encompass the entirety of Morsus Mihi. Believe me he does not speak for everyone. The rabid theorycrafting and predictions of doom and gloom based solely upon conjecture has produced some quite hilarious readings. I can't wait to the upcoming dev blogs on this subject. Well spoken. Perhaps some of you fellows will give him a nudge and clue him into the fact that many MM pilots have been begging for changes along this line for years. In fact, most everyone that has been involved in current sov battles has been shedding tears of blood while enduring the current system. For those whose fingers are still racing in a panic stricken frenzy over their keyboards, take a moment and look for the DEV responses in this thread for a bit of reassurance. Then take a deep breath, remember the last 200 POS's you had to refuel, then remember the last 200 POS's you had to destroy, and then commence shaking with relief that your agony is nearly over. Hey Ranger1, long time no see. And on the topic, I do like the idea of this and I do welcome it with my arms wide open (god knows how much I hate POSs), don't get me wrong, it's the fact that CCP is doing it makes me uncomfortable in a way, cause after 7 years I kinda lost trust in them doing things right :P But hopefully, this time it just might work as it was intended since some of the new developers do have a huge experience of 0.0 life and actual game mechanics not just intended one. Besides, as I might mentioned, similar proposition of sov mechanics was sent to CCP few times over past 2 years and I was one of the authors/contributors. edited the speling sry
Comar Sidious	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:03:00 - [271] The info is too vague, please give us more. give us a scenario.
Korizan Oort Cloud Industries	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:10:00 - [272] So does this mean corporations will actually control their space ? As it stands now a corporation leaves an alliance they pretty much pack up and leave as they really didn't control anything. (a few exceptions of course) It should be a corporation leaves an alliance and they take their space with them to join a new alliance or go rogue. Make EVE a true feudal system. ie Corporations are lords and own the land and the alliance is the king/queen under which they choose to align themselves with. Give us border wars and civil wars. Make a corporation mean something again. Sorry but EVE should promote civil wars.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:10:00 - [273] Quote: Protecting the stuff that provides utility makes more sense than specialized structures with absolutely no other purpose. The system as it is... is horridly soul destroying. I love cap battles but damn is it ever dull. The reason they are now changing it is simple really. It needs fixing... and Band of Developers lost all their space. This is revenge on goons. Quote: We believe our current understanding of the current system is just fine. In the interests of transparency, CCP Greyscale will be publishing a blog soon where we outline exactly how we came to many of our conclusions about the current system. If you wish to debate those points, I know he will be happy to oblige you. Revenge on the goons for ruining band of developers. We all know the truth. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Aleria Angelis Strix Armaments and Defence	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:13:00 - [274] Gate maintainance is going to be a straight up ISK fee? WHAT That is rediculous, it should require Ice or gas products, every possible feul need type should open up and encourage trade and industrial choices for players. If gate maintance only requires ISK then I foresee a huge decrease in the need for Ice products and Ice mining becoming even less attractive. Other than that it sounds interesting though we need more infomation please.
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:18:00 - [275] Create more pockets of systems in eve lowsec and 0.0 and introduce the new sys using this method. trial run it before integrating it completely. Eve and 0.0 security space isnt what it used to be, lets be honest. 0.0 is getting jam packed. To support the ever growing population of players, eve must grow. Although i think factional warefare was a huge slump, and somewhat disapointing, i dont think it would hurt introducing small regions like npc based regions that have this new system in place, where player can get a feel for the new up coming system. for many i think it would be a huge shock for the whole of 0.0 sov to change all at once. I'm throwing alot of ideas about which wont get looked at from CCP, neither will other players but it is in their best interests for keeping the subscribers, let alone bringing in new content. What about openning up Jovian empire and have them declare war on 0.0. get pvp turned on its head or something with npc engagements like what it used to be within stain etc. :)
AM Boveri	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:20:00 - [276] JumpBridges as they are now use Liquid Ozone fuel. For Stargates under the new system, why not just have them use LO2 as well? They do the same thing, and it would remove the ISK sink that comes with fees. Everyone's right, space maintenance should still be maintained as a player-driven market, not lost isk.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:26:00 - [277] I still would like to know if gate cost depends on the span of an alliances space or the total number of systems. So far it looks like the amount being based on the total number of systems may not prevent alliances from grabbing moons all over New Eden. Yes I realize there may be something we haven't been told. Anyone else realize that Gate maintenance will probably be the biggest isk sink the game has ever seen? (I see that as a good thing) Finally, I think some of the people crowing about "vet tears" don't realize how sick said vets are with POS bashing/fueling. Still this is the biggest change to Eve's end game since Sov was introduced. People will have concerns and should be allowed to voice them. Colonies and Capitals
AdmiralJohn Gallente The Unknown Bar and Pub	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:33:00 - [278] Originally by: AM Boveri JumpBridges as they are now use Liquid Ozone fuel. For Stargates under the new system, why not just have them use LO2 as well? They do the same thing, and it would remove the ISK sink that comes with fees. Everyone's right, space maintenance should still be maintained as a player-driven market, not lost isk. Yay, you just removed tedious POS fueling for tedious star-gate fueling, great job there. As a pity gift to ice miners, CCP could make it OPTIONAL to fuel gates using ozone for a REDUCED price of maintenance (enough to justify using the ozone, but make it so painfully annoying to do that paying is a hell of a lot easier). The use of ozone shouldn't completely do away with fees, but maybe make it an acceptable alternative to poorer start-up alliances. It might also encourage industrial resource-type upgrades, because putting an ice-field in would encourage using the space, as well as trimming costs for alliances. As a side note I'm not really in support of this idea, but I enjoy talking out of my arse.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:36:00 - [279] Originally by: ElvenLord Edited by: ElvenLord on 10/09/2009 00:00:38 Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Praesus Lecti Please do not extrapolate from ElvenLord's inane blathering to encompass the entirety of Morsus Mihi. Believe me he does not speak for everyone. The rabid theorycrafting and predictions of doom and gloom based solely upon conjecture has produced some quite hilarious readings. I can't wait to the upcoming dev blogs on this subject. Well spoken. Perhaps some of you fellows will give him a nudge and clue him into the fact that many MM pilots have been begging for changes along this line for years. In fact, most everyone that has been involved in current sov battles has been shedding tears of blood while enduring the current system. For those whose fingers are still racing in a panic stricken frenzy over their keyboards, take a moment and look for the DEV responses in this thread for a bit of reassurance. Then take a deep breath, remember the last 200 POS's you had to refuel, then remember the last 200 POS's you had to destroy, and then commence shaking with relief that your agony is nearly over. Hey Ranger1, long time no see. And on the topic, I do like the idea of this and I do welcome it with my arms wide open (god knows how much I hate POSs), don't get me wrong, it's the fact that CCP is doing it makes me uncomfortable in a way, cause after 7 years I kinda lost trust in them doing things right :P But hopefully, this time it just might work as it was intended since some of the new developers do have a huge experience of 0.0 life and actual game mechanics not just intended one. Besides, as I might mentioned, similar proposition of sov mechanics was sent to CCP few times over past 2 years and I was one of the authors/contributors. edited the speling sry Heya EL. Sorry, I couldn't resist giving you a bit of elbow in the ribs, but you were freaking out for a little while there. To be honest, I don't blame you for being a little nervous. You have a lot of assets tied up in POS deployments. But the point stands, the old system really, really needs to move in this direction... and I seriously doubt that your layers of defensive fortifications will no longer provide healthy dividends after the changes go into effect. One thing that lets me relax a bit on that point is the fact that they keep emphasizing that a great deal of this new system is based on player feedback from a variety of threads and other sources. So you are most likely right. You will probably see traces of the proposals you have written in the past raising their ugly head in some bizarre mutated Icelandic form. Now that I think about it, if it all goes bad, I now know who to point a finger at. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:40:00 - [280] Originally by: Weaselior Originally by: Zeba Originally by: teji Look at all these people who think that just because sov rules are changing that they will have a chance in conq 0.0. Given that the sole way to claim or destroy sov past workarounds was to spam pos and then bash them I would say that is exactly what will happen. The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. This is changing and will redefine what it means to be an alliance after it hits. Active territory wide player participation will be needed to hold space and only those alliances who can organise lots of simultanious daily ongoing operations will be able to stay on top. The days of only having to log on for a pos bash every once and a while to determine how big you are on the map is now dust in the wind. yeah you don't stand a chance Who me personally? Of course not as my small 5 account corp is no match for even the smallest nullsec alliance. I might have my own cap fleet to play station games and to use as mobile pos for exploiting an alliances exploration sites but I hold no illusions of holding conquerable space. However if the new mechanics work out how I think they will then all those empty unused areas of nullsec that are currently locked up in sov will be freed up when the logistical cost is to high to maintain. Then we will see smaller alliances getting a foothold and using the new mechanics to improve the systems so they can carve out lots of smaller empires that make enough to fund the defenses. Think the goonie masses are ready for the massive level of commitment that will be needed to keep all that yellow on the map? Originally by: teji Originally by: Zeba The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. The amount of effort required to live in 0.0 will still be above what the empire *****s in this thread will want to put in. The amount of effort with the new mechanics may be moar than some established alliances will want to put in. Everything I am reading from this bit of dev blog info is that empires will take active ongoing daily management and player participation to prosper and not the current rush rush rush pos spam then ages of comfort once you get jammers up. Originally by:** Ukucia Originally by: Zeba The only reason we have these lolhuge areas of territory under one color is that once the pos and jammers are up its not generally worth the effort to take it away. You do realize this situation existed before jammers were introduced, right? Yopu do realize this expansion exists to get rid of the creeping horror that was the olde sov mechanic, right? Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
Viper ShizzIe The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.09.10 00:54:00 - [281] Originally by: CCP Abathur We believe our current understanding of the current system is just fine. In the interests of transparency, CCP Greyscale will be publishing a blog soon where we outline exactly how we came to many of our conclusions about the current system. If you wish to debate those points, I know he will be happy to oblige you. Oddly enough, the current design team has a great deal of past experience in just the sort of warfare you describe. Additionally we spend a great deal of time reading various forums/websites that discuss EVE and listening to players at FanFest and other venues. The CSM has also helped in moving the 0.0 agenda forward. All things added together and it's safe to say we've prepared well for this expansion. Originally by: "CCP Abathur" Oddly enough, the current design team has a great deal of past experience in just the sort of warfare you describe. Additionally we spend a great deal of time reading various forums/websites that discuss EVE and listening to players at FanFest and other venues. The CSM has also helped in moving the 0.0 agenda forward. All things added together and it's safe to say we've prepared well for this expansion. The current design team has a great deal of experience from when they played the sov warfare game in 07, perhaps. The game has changed a lot in the last three years. Honestly, Seleene, I really don't get what the **** you're doing with 0.0, r64 moons and titans. Right now it looks like 90% caving to people crying on forums and 10% game changes that needed to be made. I've seen a lot better proposals that were easier to introduce than what I've read and heard about recently. Changing 0.0 sov mechanics to something that's basically FW is stupid. I hate POS warfare with a passion, but there's really no reason for people to hold 0.0 space right now outside of r64 moons and sov4 supercap construction bonuses. Unless this new "build your own space" feature with randomly spawning moon minerals is vastly overpowered, it's going to be ineffective for drawing people out of NPC held 0.0 stations or lowsec. Not to mention that there's very little benefit for blocs, or individual alliances, to attack each other as it is, and this seems like it's only compounding that problem. Also, will sov4 invulnerability continue for builds that were placed before the patch, or will builds currently in production be vulnerable due to these changes?
Aethrwolf Caldari Home for Wayward Gamers	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:02:00 - [282] Originally by: CCP Abathur Think bigger. hehe.. you ASKED for it.. since alliances are now going to rent stargates we will now be able to damage them, and part of the "rental contract" states that the renter is billed for all repairs if they arent completed BY the alliance by the next DT. if an alliance member shoots a gate that his alliance holds sov on, sov is LOST for the day as a violation of the rental agreement. Dyson Sphere.. final infrastructure upgrade in a system.. requiring all other possible upgrades to be implemented... 1 year build time.. stops ALL non-gate traffic in or out of a system and allows gates to be locked down if sov is held in all adjacent systems. Terraforming to improve planets so they can be colonized. Drop a freighter load of nanite paste and an orbital Terraforming control tower. Colonies on planets that have "fueling" requirements, but also produce goods based on what upgrades are on the planet. Targeted Doomsdays still AOE, just smaller area and more like a remote ECM Burst. "Flag" structures have a %chance to auto use a DD-like weapon after a period of time with no defenders showing up. chance goes up the longer the structure is under attack. "prospecting" probes for finding moongold on "barren" moons. LONG scan time and low-mid range chance of finding anything. Deals with local npc rats that will allow the alliance to call them for fast reinforcements in case of attack. this would cost every time it was used and would have to be manually requested by a person with the correct roles. This would call every rat actually in system at the time to help fight your attackers.. so if you were ratting you may have just shot your only hope of winning a pvp battle. multiple moon mats possible on the same moon, and the ability to anchor a pos for each mat that a moon has. Planetary defense batteries. ability to stabilize a WH, thereafter preventing any new WH from opening in a system till you allowed it to collapse. system scanners that will scan for sites and mark tham on the overviews of players in system from the alliance. ability to change local settings in systems you hold to delayed. POS cloaking arrays.. since they wont be used for sov and no longer have a reason to be easily found without someone flying to every moon to try to decloak them. sites that CANT be found without a pos based scanner array. allainces can now ATTEMPT to take sov away from npc entities, including the Empire lowsec systems. ofc this means they effectively wardec that faction, including the FW corps. FW fleets can claim 0.0 systems for their faction and actually CHANGE the sov in contested systems for their faction. "secondary" sov in empire.. highsec corps/alliances can "claim" planets in highsec that dont currently have stations for their corp.. basically forming a colony and becoming administrators under the faction that holds sov. Makes you part of FW and a part of any other war the faction is involved in... OH.. the CHAOS! I'd better stop now as these are getting wilder and wilder. Absolutely everything is subjective.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:03:00 - [283] Quote: Also, will sov4 invulnerability continue for builds that were placed before the patch, or will builds currently in production be vulnerable due to these changes? I would say that builds currently in production will be out long before these changes take place. Plan future builds accordingly. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Trojanman190 Black Legion Industries	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:05:00 - [284] Originally by: Aleria Angelis Gate maintainance is going to be a straight up ISK fee? WHAT That is rediculous, it should require Ice or gas products, every possible feul need type should open up and encourage trade and industrial choices for players. If gate maintance only requires ISK then I foresee a huge decrease in the need for Ice products and Ice mining becoming even less attractive. Other than that it sounds interesting though we need more infomation please. As much as I don't want to have to agree with this dude (because simple is awesome) he is raising a valid point. Without pos wars ice mining isn't going to be a big deal at all. Maybe the products that normally would fuel poses will fuel other things? Straight up isk sounds cool but it will nullify sub professions...
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:05:00 - [285] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: ElvenLord You know, in life one that makes a mistake is the one paying for them. And in this case we are talking of trillions of wasted ISK. sure, are your alliance willing to pay back all the isk you have gained from moons as well at the same time? If that char is still in ownership of the person that used to be a member of both hirr and 4S, should also be aware of the amount of ISK made from tributes "vast" number of valuable moons, aint it?
Viper ShizzIe The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:11:00 - [286] Originally by: Ranger 1 Plan future builds accordingly. derp derp, that's why I'm asking
mechtech Entropy Industries	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:15:00 - [287] What about local? Obviously W-space was a testbed for eve without local chat, and that part of W-space has been a resounding success. With smaller, more concentrated empires, local will prove to be an even more powerful godlike tool. Any plans on moving local to delayed mode for 0.0?
Peregrin Psythe	Posted - 2009.09.10 01:57:00 - [288] All the changes sounds awesome! Can the devs please confirm they have thought about economic impacts? Upgrading space means over time there will be more wealth and money around....gate upkeep will be an ISK sink but we need to be sure we won't get massive inflation, right?
Junko Togawa Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.10 02:18:00 - [289] Oh yes, do want very much. Hoping future revelations will reveal how a lot of functionality of infrastructures will rely on being in a formal alliance and prices will be based on total alliance size, not on corp sizes. Similarly, access granted to structure use based on fees set by holding alliance to treatied 'renters' with a requirement that such agreements cannot be with any group that actually holds sov somewhere else to stopgap attempts to exploit system for the dreaded NAPTrain.
Retsil Evad Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.10 02:29:00 - [290] Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Unfamed II Will there be a "disband" button in the sov dashboard? Sure. We'll make it black. And when you press it, a black light will light up a black panel that's labelled in black on a black background to let you know you've done it. Alternatively you get teleported to somewhere in W-Space. We're still arguing about that functionality. Will this include "crash into the sun" and "travel back in time" options ============== Office use ONLY ============== BRING BACK EVE TV!!!!!!!
Salient Soldier Minmatar The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.10 02:32:00 - [291] Sounds WoWtasticly Rtarded From the sad dad carebear side of it all, it just sounds like another never ending grindfest literally on a galactic scale. On the gf beating emo raging pvper side of it all, sounds like another way to give yet more advantages to those who live in null sec. By militaristic upgrades, you mean "Oh hi ccp, could you please give us a way to make our Ravens invulnerable to all pvp damage? k thx. bai." In the end ccp will say,"Yeah you never get to kill anyone anymore, but hey at least you get to blow up the do-dad thingymajigers they spend all day macroing to build" They are trying to bring over the failtastic ideas from factional warfare to 0.0. We all see how well factional warfare turned out. EPIC T1 frigate fights in games of capture flag. Yes, this is indeed what i have signed up for. So ladies, bust out your mounts, load up your mammoth mining bags, lets go on quest down the magical road that is sovereignty 2.0.
AdmiralJohn Gallente The Unknown Bar and Pub	Posted - 2009.09.10 02:38:00 - [292] Originally by: Korizan Sorry but EVE should promote civil wars. Frankly, this. I had the same thoughts reading the blog, about how alliances would just make more instances of themselves to avoid fees. The only counter I could see would be to make relations between alliances naturally abrasive. That is, make it more appealing to be independent than linked. Take these new official treaties. CCP could make it so that if you can place gate guns and all this other shiny stuff plays out like it looks like it will, treaties will grant alliance immunity from certain "roadblocks". What do I mean? Say two alliances sign a treaty. This grants each alliance military access to the other's space without sentry guns aggro, ability to light cynos in each other's space, or what have you. Basically, give it tangible benefits. Downside: these treaties are prohibitively expensive. One treaty shouldn't cost much, but maintaining more will cause a rapid escalation of maintenance fees. This would make NAP trains hard to establish, and also provide incentive to not be so friendly with everyone. Other non ISK-sink downsides could include decreased upgrade efficiency, decreased moon mining efficiency or rat spawn rates, or some other mechanic that is detrimental. More treaties = more detriment. Foreseeably, CCP could instigate the choice between defenses and friends. Sure, it would be easy to not sign an agreement and just not put all those annoying defenses up, but then you just get steamrolled. Flame away.
Prof Fail	Posted - 2009.09.10 02:59:00 - [293] Edited by: Prof Fail on 10/09/2009 03:03:42 1)I want to know how ccp want to encourage more alliance-scale wars in o.o space? In my understanding of this dev-blog every alliance can upgrade their systems to enhance their usefulness in different areas. Does it mean all systems in eve-galaxy are more or less equal ...more or less rich? You also want to redesign the distribution of the moon gold? In past ALOT of conflicts raised because we actually had very different space / moons in eve. There alwys were people who wanted to seize nice moons or nice regions. The largest and most thrilling battles I took part (hundreds of capkills), were fought over ISK-moons. If everything will be equal, I just see alot of lazy people upgrading their own small carebear-space without any purpose to move out and look for their destiny. Sounds boring, sounds like a new stupid grindfest, btw. Differences are most important for an exciting gameplay. 2) You will move Sov away from POS' and from moons. Fine. But what about my captitals? What about my Dreads and Carriers? Waht will be their pupose in future? I really hope capital fleets will not ne useless afterwards. I really like large CapOps/fights.
jeffb GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.09.10 03:01:00 - [294] Edited by: jeffb on 10/09/2009 03:04:01 Originally by: Itzena Originally by: Soi Mala Soooooo... who's thinking goonswarm, goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3.... More like Goonswarm, Goonfleet, Goonwaffe, Goonplatoon, WANG, etc etc.... Interesting to find out how the scaling will work, but you'd expect whatever it is to have alot more effect on alliances like AAA, Legion, MH, Solar & Atlas. GS is fairly compact, where as those alliances are spread over huge distances. Could also have a huge impact on someone like PL with moon miners all over the place. Pretty good timing downsizing from Paragon Soul, Esoteria, Feythabolis, Omist, Tenerifis, Detorid, Scalding Pass & Germinate to Delve & Querious :v: edit: wait... abathur is seleene?
Count Helmchen	Posted - 2009.09.10 03:21:00 - [295] Originally by: jeffb Edited by: jeffb on 10/09/2009 03:04:01 Originally by: Itzena Originally by: Soi Mala Soooooo... who's thinking goonswarm, goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3.... More like Goonswarm, Goonfleet, Goonwaffe, Goonplatoon, WANG, etc etc.... Interesting to find out how the scaling will work, but you'd expect whatever it is to have alot more effect on alliances like AAA, Legion, MH, Solar & Atlas. GS is fairly compact, where as those alliances are spread over huge distances. Could also have a huge impact on someone like PL with moon miners all over the place. Pretty good timing downsizing from Paragon Soul, Esoteria, Feythabolis, Omist, Tenerifis, Detorid, Scalding Pass & Germinate to Delve & Querious :v: edit: wait... abathur is seleene? the larger the blue list, the more they have to pay isk for each system Originally by: Alun Hughes Originally by: DETURK When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate. 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!! yep, those ppl want a extra server with carebear rules
jeffb GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.09.10 03:39:00 - [296] Originally by: Count Helmchen the larger the blue list, the more they have to pay isk for each system bitter?
Maeve Kell	Posted - 2009.09.10 04:52:00 - [297] Sounds like allys that are based on single timezones need to reclaim their space every morning :X great
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.09.10 05:05:00 - [298] Originally by: ElvenLord How will you compensate for the wasted time, effort and resourses of players? Are you willing to pay at least part of the expanses that ppl lost there? Cry me a river. But don't expect that I have sympathy for these whines. Wasted time and effort? So your trillions of isk free cash are wasted effort? Your dozens of titans are wasted time? Your immense cap fleet is all worth nothing? Your tons of t2 bpo's gathered during the time are useless? You want to be even COMPENSATED that you do not have to care for isk any more or any other item and are so far beyond any starting alliance? You even want MORE advantages and cry about this? Sorry, but no, I have no sympathy for that point of view.
Autobot Amarr	Posted - 2009.09.10 06:01:00 - [299] The sand box epically becomes many sand boxes, of which contain various sized turds; some with shiny stuff. But if you want you can feed the blimp sized house kitten better food and get your parts per million shiny stuffs increased in the kitty turds. And then we have to talk about renting your sand box, oh and if you want the flapping door we're gonna charge you the upgrade fee, cause we know your poop stinks... And all those ice products will be used to clean such smelly interiors for a fee. Thank god this isn't a democracy we'd have to talk about the quality of your sand in the box, your health plan and if concord needs to step in for quality control. This is why CCP created a monthly plan, if you don't like or agree with whats being done, don't renew that monthly subscription :) On the other hand, if you like a challange and don't mind keeping one foot in front of the other stick around its going to be interesting, to say the least. AutoBot
rantuket Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.10 06:14:00 - [300] great to see some changes rolling through, if it turns out to be crap i am sure we will all let you know. if it turns out to be awesome then we will probably keep quiet. nice work CCP, keep the train chugging and tooting
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.10 06:24:00 - [301] Originally by: ElvenLord Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: ElvenLord You know, in life one that makes a mistake is the one paying for them. And in this case we are talking of trillions of wasted ISK. sure, are your alliance willing to pay back all the isk you have gained from moons as well at the same time? If that char is still in ownership of the person that used to be a member of both hirr and 4S, should also be aware of the amount of ISK made from tributes "vast" number of valuable moons, aint it? still same old me. and as far as i know RAWR has plenty of moons outside tribute as well. and having owned a 0,0 region must have done something good for RAWR's income seeing your pretty impressive titan and dread fleet. so as ive said, it looks like its paid of being in 0,0 even if you had to buy and fuel pos's
Infinion Caldari Endless Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.10 06:36:00 - [302] Will the new sovereignty system affect NPC controlled systems in 0.0 like the Stain region?
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2009.09.10 07:26:00 - [303] I can't help but think that a lot of what's outlined in this blog would have been great for alliances such as ASCN who were all about building "an empire away from empire" in their day, as opposed to the forum-infiltrating, TS-hacking, hot-dropping, isk-selling, NAP-festing, account-sharing, phone-calling, meme-spouting, serious-business unwashed 0.0 masses of today. Better late than never, I suppose. It's hard to predict the result of these changes without more detail, to be fair. On one hand, the process of maintaining existing sov becomes a lot easier which may gimp the existing projection-of-force issue in 0.0 even further, though I guess it's hoped that having to claim every system in between the R64s and not just the R64s themselves will cancel that out to some degree. Time will tell. As far as what to charge for a sov tax is concerned, here's a formula for CCP to mull over: = number of systems currently claimed x the number of blobs they form on the map (to encourage an alliance to stick to one area of space) x the number of blue standings the alliance has (to discourage alt alliances) x the number of systems claimed by the blue list (to discourage NAPs between all the biggest powers) x the shortest distance in LY to each of the blues' sov claims (to keep the blue list to more relevant nearby parties only) Finally, don't forget to nerf capital-scale logistics while you're at it, please. /Ben
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.10 07:29:00 - [304] Originally by: The GrimWristler IGN stated that titans will be majorly nerfed in dominion also. why is this the case? many people complain over multiple titans simultaneously setting off DD's which prove to be invinsible. why cant a restriction of titans per alliance be introduced or having allowed only 1 titan for an alliance per system at any one time? And what would prevent anyone from creating a separate alliance for each titan pilot? You can not say 'Ok, then let's make a restriction that only 2 DD's can be set off in a system per hour' either, since people would then pre-DD a system before going there. Restrict the number of titans allowed in a system, same thing.... Number limits of any kind can and WILL be exploited! 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.
Nicolo da'Vicenza Amarr Dissonance Corp Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.10 07:39:00 - [305] Amarr Victor
destinationunreachable Hello Kitty Fanclub	Posted - 2009.09.10 10:00:00 - [306] I had already posted this in the german forums. It seems CCP wants to move the income from moon gold to player generated (if I understand their comments here correctly) and at the same time charge per system. This is a List with all Alliances with the amount of systems and players (including obviously alts and inactive accounts) as well as a calculation of players per system. Seems there will be soon lots of free space in the east. c/d ?
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.09.10 10:27:00 - [307] Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 10:33:46 I hate how dev-blogs more and more are like rhetorical political statements. A lot of talk and no real information, as if it's created to give the blind and easily swayed a lot of 'hype' about nothing. And you leave out the most important statement of them all, the one that should've been FIRST on your agenda and that is TRANSITION from current sov-mechanics into the new ones. Since you're not doing that every alliance with Sov4, supercapital building, etc. are going to squirm and create forum drama, which you could've avoided by some smart planning and decent community-relations. Good job CCP. Please hire someone competent who can strategize about HOW TO TALK TO YOUR FANS and COMMUNITY. It's not that I believe it's a bad expansion, it's the opposite. But you really haven't improved on your communication skills since the old t20 incident. Just saying.
Sworn Absent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 10:48:00 - [308] Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 09/09/2009 22:11:31 So the real short of it is, sov mechanics on a very simplified level, will go back 3 years where an enemy can relatively risk free conquer space with absolutely nothing forcing them to field capitals. The one nice thing about the current mechanics is that the attackers must risk as much as the defenders stand to lose; i.e: if the defenders can field 100 capitals and 200 support, then the enemy must typically be able to match that. The new mechanics will overwhelmingly favor conventional, non-capital, blob fests; so that there is no equalizing factor, that the guy with the most numbers will simply win now. This post right here is ATLAS in a nutshell

CCP Whisper	Posted - 2009.09.10 10:50:00 - [309] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin And you leave out the most important statement of them all, the one that should've been FIRST on your agenda and that is TRANSITION from current sov-mechanics into the new ones. The issue of the transition from the old mechanics to the new ones is something that is at the top of the list of priorities. This extends not just to making sure we account for all the current structures and processes, but that we test this to within an inch of its life several times over to make sure the deployment goes well. The process of moving from one to another is scary in its complexity and we are looking at several options to carry this out. Work on this is not completed. We've created a new internal testing infrastructure specially for the sovereignty changes and are working through the various options open to us. Until we know exactly how it is going to work (and that it works) you should not expect exact details. In the full knowledge that any statements regarding the transition made at this point will be treated as final, gospel truth I am not going to commit my team and the deployment team to a course of action which may yet turn out to be unworkable.

Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:02:00 - [310] Originally by: CCP Whisper I am not going to commit my team and the deployment team to a course of action which may yet turn out to be unworkable. Well, you fully well know what happens when you release incomplete information to the community such as this dev-blog. Do you guys really enjoy watching people get ***ed at you for things that possibly won't even be implemented in the game (compare this to the carrier nerf). This change is on such a grand scale, I'm sure you realize this, because sovereignty is something your dedicated players commit to 24/7 for years. If you thought people would be ***ed at just talking about a carrier nerf, guess what is going to happen when the dev-blog to many essentially may seem like a 'Sov-nerf'. Personally I think you could've avoided the need to respond to queries by deciding transition first, and then talking about how said transition would have been made. The breakfasts, dinners, late-night snacks stuck in sov-holding alliance leader throats because of this may have resulted in the first series of mass-metagame homicide. ;)
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:07:00 - [311] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin And you leave out the most important statement of them all, the one that should've been FIRST on your agenda and that is TRANSITION from current sov-mechanics into the new ones ... But you really haven't improved on your communication skills since the old t20 incident. Just saying. It is always interesting to see how strong people feel about Eve. But the quote shows a real lack of an understanding how planning and top level strategy works, should work and how damn well CCP is doing here. On essential long term strategies it should NEVER be the first consideration 'what can we do from here on?' but instead ALWAYS the question 'where do we want to go?' If the question of the goal is clarified THEN and only then the question of how to reach that goal from the current position can be tackled and answered. First you need a goal to have a clear direction. Otherwise it is just stumbling around blindly. This order of steps is the right one - everywhere. Here in Eve at this case but also in real life. Take it as a free lesson But yeah, I am more curious than ever for the next blogs!
Shidhe Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:17:00 - [312] Sounds promising - I may even get interested in 0.0 again.
jk scowling Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:20:00 - [313] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Originally by: CCP Whisper I am not going to commit my team and the deployment team to a course of action which may yet turn out to be unworkable. Well, you fully well know what happens when you release incomplete information to the community such as this dev-blog. Do you guys really enjoy watching people get ***ed at you for things that possibly won't even be implemented in the game (compare this to the carrier nerf). This change is on such a grand scale, I'm sure you realize this, because sovereignty is something your dedicated players commit to 24/7 for years. If you thought people would be ***ed at just talking about a carrier nerf, guess what is going to happen when the dev-blog to many essentially may seem like a 'Sov-nerf'. Personally I think you could've avoided the need to respond to queries by deciding transition first, and then talking about how said transition would have been made. The breakfasts, dinners, late-night snacks stuck in sov-holding alliance leader throats because of this may have resulted in the first series of mass-metagame homicide. ;) I actually appreciate that they are letting us know what they are planning, and maybe then even getting some feedback from the playerbase. But yeah this is EVE, rage away.
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:25:00 - [314] Originally by: jk scowling I actually appreciate that they are letting us know what they are planning, and maybe then even getting some feedback from the playerbase. But yeah this is EVE, rage away. That's just it, they haven't let us know what they're planning. We know nothing of the options they're considering for a transition. So your point is moot.
GPFS	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:27:00 - [315] @Gnuple WHAT TITANS?!? With the incoming titan nerf, we might as well put strip miners and start mining veldspar...Putting a titan on field must be very well calculated risk, because there is the risk of one getting takled, and when you have titan cought somewhere trust me, all hell brakes loose and you migt loose it pretty fast... @Autobot So we should all cancel our subscriptions? Interesting point of view, wonder what the shareholders think about that? This is not very productive way of doing things. While POS bashing is really boring thing, removing everything in such a radical way might as well kill the entire game. Just hope CCP makes full backup of the DB and SOL servers the day before the deployment, you might never know when you will need it . So far as I read this thread most of the people that are about this idea are those who live in high/low sec or don't have a nice 0.0 sec spot, and they whine about it. Guess mining veldspar is getting boring after some time...
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:30:00 - [316] Originally by: Gnulpie But the quote shows a real lack of an understanding how planning and top level strategy works, should work and how damn well CCP is doing here. On essential long term strategies it should NEVER be the first consideration 'what can we do from here on?' but instead ALWAYS the question 'where do we want to go?' I see you haven't been following CCP development blogs previously. So here: CCP usually posts a blog when they have decided on what to do, and when the work is in the finishing stages. They then inform us of what they have made in a series of blogs. And we get to nerdrage about it. If you think that the blog is some kind of 'possibility' then you need to work on your reading-skills. The point I was making was that they should've informed, particularly the alliances that this mod affect how the transition is being made PRIOR to any other information so they can make the necessary preparations. But go ahead and make more strawmen if you wish.
Atrienne	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:38:00 - [317] I hope they will rework moonmining system, this will make game viable for smaller alliances, because now smaller alliances just catching what fall from table after bigger guys dinner.
Ad Valorem	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:40:00 - [318] Ok,ok my Corp sets up our little home in Delve, just a few systems for some major carebear pursuits and I invest heavily in upgrading it all to get my own dyson vacuum cleaner, and dysprosium moon goo out the wazoo . I've invested in the mod to delay local and have dreadnought sized gate guns with ubertracking. Then some ebil piwates decide to attack coz they want my moongold can i slash and burn it all making my own system worthless to them, or will their victory gain them the spoils?
Mioelnir Minmatar Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:41:00 - [319] Originally by: CCP Whisper The issue of the transition from the old mechanics to the new ones is something that is at the top of the list of priorities. This extends not just to making sure we account for all the current structures and processes, but that we test this to within an inch of its life several times over to make sure the deployment goes well. The process of moving from one to another is scary in its complexity and we are looking at several options to carry this out. Work on this is not completed. We've created a new internal testing infrastructure specially for the sovereignty changes and are working through the various options open to us. Until we know exactly how it is going to work (and that it works) you should not expect exact details. In the full knowledge that any statements regarding the transition made at this point will be treated as final, gospel truth I am not going to commit my team and the deployment team to a course of action which may yet turn out to be unworkable. Well, I doubt anyone here is really interested in the SQL statements and diffs that will make this transition happen. The technical deployment quirks you are talking about. What people want to know are high level design decisions. - will current sov systems have a grace period in which the current sov will be hold to give the controlling entity time to prepare deployment of the new structures or decide to abandon that space? Or will it be free-for-all? - will systems with higher level sov inherit certain benefits with regars to structures rquiring higher level sov, i.e. will all cyno beacon networks, jump bridges and cynojammers go offline (if yes, how long to reenable them) or will there be a grace period? - will capital ship arrays stay at "sov 1" or will they require a higher system upgrade? Will currently running jobs get suspended until that upgrade is deployed, which sov levels will inherit this upgrade (if any)? How long does it take to be able to deploy that upgrade if it isn't inherited? - will there be a benefit similar to constellation sovereignity for entities that pumped massive amounts of ISK into (maybe not even necessary) outpost deployments? - has the economics team analyzed the expected effects of this massive reduction of control towers on the ice products market? Is this reduction on the amount of miners a 0.0 entity needs within its ranks (or working for them) a side-effect that can't be helped, or intended? These kinds of things should be set in stone in your design specs already, and those are the things that are really of interest.
Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:42:00 - [320] Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Tobias Sjodin And you leave out the most important statement of them all, the one that should've been FIRST on your agenda and that is TRANSITION from current sov-mechanics into the new ones. The issue of the transition from the old mechanics to the new ones is something that is at the top of the list of priorities. This extends not just to making sure we account for all the current structures and processes, but that we test this to within an inch of its life several times over to make sure the deployment goes well. The process of moving from one to another is scary in its complexity and we are looking at several options to carry this out. Work on this is not completed. We've created a new internal testing infrastructure specially for the sovereignty changes and are working through the various options open to us. Until we know exactly how it is going to work (and that it works) you should not expect exact details. In the full knowledge that any statements regarding the transition made at this point will be treated as final, gospel truth I am not going to commit my team and the deployment team to a course of action which may yet turn out to be unworkable. That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B". You guys do realize that if you release the patch, and everyone loses ALL sov which turns all of 0.0 into a death scramble, your reputation is going to fall to the likes of SOE, right? If you spell out a plan, then have to change it later, anyone who flames you for that is being childish and immature. The flames you guys are getting for bomb throwing (today's blog) and then running away behind stone walls, however, was brought on by yourselves. My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my corp or alliance.
jk scowling Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:42:00 - [321] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin The point I was making was that they should've informed, particularly the alliances that this mod affect how the transition is being made PRIOR to any other information so they can make the necessary preparations. Ok so the Devblog should have been "This is how the transition to the new sov mechanic is going to be..." Without explaining any of the new sov mechanic, doesn't make sense, and wouldn't help you to prepare, so moot point really. I'm sure this will be covered in later devblogs when they know how it will work.
Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:47:00 - [322] Originally by: Gekkoh Originally by: Full Bowl Ha! Large alliance tears! control 1 system = 25mil per month/gate control 2 systems = 50mil per month/gate 3 = 100mil 4 = 150mil etc.etc.etc. better be using every system you have to make isk! How about: 1 system - 25M/month 2 systems - 50M/month 3 systems - 100M/month 4 systems - 200M/month 5 systems - 400M/month 6 systems - 800M/month 7 systems - 1.6B/month 8 systems - 3.2B/month ... We'd have lots of smaller organizations duking it out with their many neighbors. Blobs are less common, and fun fighting is more common. If they make it a scaling thing, where systems get more expensive the more a single alliance holds, all you are going to see are patchworks of this: Alliance Alliance1 Alliance2 Alliance3 and so forth. This won't open up any space for smaller alliances, the big alliances will just form dummy "holding" alliances to hang on to space at the cheapest possible cost.
Slave 2739FKZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.10 11:55:00 - [323] Originally by: Praesus Lecti Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ Morsus Mihi has a special thing with whining, amiright? Please do not extrapolate from ElvenLord's inane blathering to encompass the entirety of Morsus Mihi. Believe me he does not speak for everyone. The rabid theorycrafting and predictions of doom and gloom based solely upon conjecture has produced some quite hilarious readings. I can't wait to the upcoming dev blogs on this subject. The AT whinage was pretty epic too. Also lol at Viper **ty, are you fearing you won't be able to hold bazillions of R64's anylonger or what? WIS is an expansion which allows EVE players to wear leather and walk around stations. Dust514 is a console shooter/rts** which will tie into EVE and affect sov.
zenox paradox	Posted - 2009.09.10 12:10:00 - [324] Originally by: GPFS Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their *. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl. Don't you realise, 90% of the players are Empire based, not 0.0 based. By opening up 0.0 to smaller groups of noob(ish) players 90% of CCP's customers are likely to extend their subscriptions because there actually might be a point, rather than losing 10% of their customer base. Do you realise that if they wiped out every Goon account out there their subscriptions would increase rapidly as more space is opened up to the masses! Trouble with you 0.0 guys is that you forget what it's like in Empire - what do we have to look forward to if you control all of nullsec and always will? We'll keep buying your ** to line your pockets while we munch on Veld roids! Try doing a 14 day trial completely seperately and ask yourself "what's the point"
Bado Sten Minmatar Dead poets society The Laughing Men	Posted - 2009.09.10 12:24:00 - [325] Originally by: zenox paradox Originally by: GPFS Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their *. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl. Don't you realise, 90% of the players are Empire based, not 0.0 based. By opening up 0.0 to smaller groups of noob(ish) players 90% of CCP's customers are likely to extend their subscriptions because there actually might be a point, rather than losing 10% of their customer base. Do you realise that if they wiped out every Goon account out there their subscriptions would increase rapidly as more space is opened up to the masses! Trouble with you 0.0 guys is that you forget what it's like in Empire - what do we have to look forward to if you control all of nullsec and always will? We'll keep buying your ** to line your pockets while we munch on Veld roids! Try doing a 14 day trial completely seperately and ask yourself "what's the point" QFT!
Snake O'Donell Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.09.10 12:33:00 - [326] Originally by: zenox paradox Originally by: GPFS Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:41 Edited by: GPFS on 09/09/2009 16:29:25 So you keep nerfing everything in game...to make it more easy for the noobs ( the titan nerf that's comming, "mommy...mommy I got DD and lost me fancy ship" ). Big alliances spend tons of work and time to get a hold on the space they have (set up POS towers defend them), and now you decide to stick a middle finger in their *. I wonder how much more abuse can your players ( customers ) take . Way to go, that's the proper way to treat your customers...People never learn that big and radical changes don't do so well with the ppl. Don't you realise, 90% of the players are Empire based, not 0.0 based. By opening up 0.0 to smaller groups of noob(ish) players 90% of CCP's customers are likely to extend their subscriptions because there actually might be a point, rather than losing 10% of their customer base. Do you realise that if they wiped out every Goon account out there their subscriptions would increase rapidly as more space is opened up to the masses! Trouble with you 0.0 guys is that you forget what it's like in Empire - what do we have to look forward to if you control all of nullsec and always will? We'll keep buying your to line your pockets while we munch on Veld roids! Try doing a 14 day trial completely seperately and ask yourself "what's the point" I know its hard to believe, but YOU** could live in 0.0 if you really wanted to. Therefore your point is moot.
zenox paradox	Posted - 2009.09.10 12:44:00 - [327] Originally by: Snake O'Donell I know its hard to believe, but YOU could live in 0.0 if you really wanted to. Therefore your point is moot. Snake, I've lived in 0.0 for some time (this is posted on another toon on my account, not an alt) but the whole 0.0 thing isn't what is was set up to be. In an earlier post somewhere someone had it spot on, it was about corps creating their own empire outside Empire. It's just been taken to the nth degree now as very few corps/alliances can compete. I'm not whining, I know you guys work hard to keep your soverignity (I've been there, I've literally got a wardrobe of T-shirts) but ask yourself if it's fun anymore? It's gone downhill in my view, especially since the moon mining and R64 stuff. It's started to become more enjoyable with WH and stuff but waiting in a gang of about 200 for another gang of 200 to come through your gate and have a gankfest? Come on, you might as well go and play Command & Conquer!!! I think CCP have missed the point here. It shouldn't be about making 0.0 more accessible, it should be about making it less valuable. Throw the odd Ark roid into a 0.9 system, have an mission outpost drop a T2 BP copy randomly.
Van Doren	Posted - 2009.09.10 12:50:00 - [328] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore You are going to **** this implementation up so badly it will be amazing. I stopped reading here cause I was laughing too hard. Thread winner!
GPFS	Posted - 2009.09.10 13:05:00 - [329] If you want to help noobs go in to 0.0, you can boost empire or low sec. Don't just nerf things because ppl got good at using them, and thus the new accounts will get a chance. Make the learning bonus 5mil SP instead of 1.6 so they can fly a decent ship and start doing PvP faster so it's more interesting to them ( if that is what they want ). I do agree that current state of the POSes is a nightmare, but trust me so is the issue of fueling them and all the logistics you have to do. As I said if you want to help the noobs boost them, but not at the expense of someones hard work!! And than telling them they ain't getting any compensation for all the effort they put in to it, cuz next time it will be YOU that will get cut off. Than I wonder what will you think about it..?
Misinomer	Posted - 2009.09.10 13:22:00 - [330] Key strategic questions for the end result of this patch: - 1. Will the change allow any corporation/alliance not blued to one of the 5 main 0.0 entities to hold/use 0.0 space? No 2. Will the changes encourage 0.0 Alliances to stop being so paranoid and actually recruit corps (that do not have a 100% pvp character roster) No 3. Will Empire and Low sec still be as tedious as it is now? Yes 4. Will the patch encourage 0.0 war? Will it push the 5 power blocs in 0.0 into attacking each other? No 5. What will the patch achieve? a. Ps off/please 0.0 alliances b. Ps off industrialists/miners c. Status Quo (3 months after the patch is implemented) I like the idea of Sov being changed, but if your not in 0.0, or cant get into 0.0 - it makes not a blind bit of difference. Misi
Sollana Amarr Davy Jones Locker Enforcers of Serenity	Posted - 2009.09.10 13:22:00 - [331] nice change to sov looks good. perhaps this will lead to super alliances (alliance of alliances) to hold space. also if i read it correctly and you hold the system and control the gates does this mean that if standings are set you cant jump through a gate? witht e system upgrades does this mean if someone is set red on standings that the gate guns will shoot them on entry, maybe even log times when known reds jump into system if allowed. Heres hoping they apply this to Low sec too. The only thing i can see this changing is the day before patch, people will be moving into position to steal systems they want when its all reset.

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.09.10 14:27:00 - [332] Hello thread! Okay, the calls for a bit more detail have been heeded and I can open the doors a bit further now. I expect some of this will result in more questions and I will answer them as best I can. Many questions are focused on what will happen to the stuff you have now and how it will continue to function in the new system. We are looking at the upgrades in player built outposts. We are considering a few new offerings but will have to see how they balance against the rest of the Infrastructure system. Of more immediate import is we will likely be reducing the cost of the Level 2 and Level 3 outpost upgrades to something sane enough to discourage players from simply dropping another outpost because it's cheaper. This is also important because some Infrastructure upgrades will require you to have an outpost upgraded to a certain level as well. The new Infrastructure system will revolve around a new structure in space we are calling the Infrastructure Hub. This will be a new shiny that serves as one of the centerpieces of your star system's development. Depending on your level of investment in certain areas, your Hub may change visually and can eventually become quite impressive. Defending / attacking / capturing an Infrastructure Hub is just one more thing players will have to consider in their Dominion plans. The Infrastructure upgrades themselves were left intentionally vague in my Dev Blog because listing every potential upgrade we are considering would require another blog by themselves. The beauty of this system is that even after Dominion launches we can literally 'plug in' new concepts, balance them against current upgrades and then assign them a proper value in terms of required investment. When Dominion launches, you will have what we consider the best candidates to promote the concepts outlined in the blog and will continue to iterate in future expansions. Next, while we are moving starbases away from the actual claiming mechanic, we are not taking away their basic functionality in day to day operations. Things like Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Beacons and Capital Ship Assembly Arrays will continue to require the use of starbases to operate. Just as with the current mechanic, there will be prerequisites to meet as each of these structures will be part of the new Infrastructure system. We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates. While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion. The following are balancing changes we are seriously considering: We may open the doors to allowing more than one outpost to be anchored/built in a sovereign system. We are still investigating the technical limitations and a few gameplay issues associated with this and will make a final decision in the coming weeks. Cyno Jammers will be one of the more expensive Infrastructure upgrades and may only be anchorable in systems where you have sov and own a station. Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. Approaching character limit. BTW, apparently I liked using the word SPACE in my blog.

Liliana Rahl	Posted - 2009.09.10 14:34:00 - [333] Edited by: Liliana Rahl on 10/09/2009 14:34:03 Originally by: CCP Abathur Hello thread! Okay, the calls for a bit more detail have been heeded and I can open the doors a bit further now. I expect some of this will result in more questions and I will answer them as best I can. Many questions are focused on what will happen to the stuff you have now and how it will continue to function in the new system. We are looking at the upgrades in player built outposts. We are considering a few new offerings but will have to see how they balance against the rest of the Infrastructure system. Of more immediate import is we will likely be reducing the cost of the Level 2 and Level 3 outpost upgrades to something sane enough to discourage players from simply dropping another outpost because it's cheaper. This is also important because some Infrastructure upgrades will require you to have an outpost upgraded to a certain level as well. The new Infrastructure system will revolve around a new structure in space we are calling the Infrastructure Hub. This will be a new shiny that serves as one of the centerpieces of your star system's development. Depending on your level of investment in certain areas, your Hub may change visually and can eventually become quite impressive. Defending / attacking / capturing an Infrastructure Hub is just one more thing players will have to consider in their Dominion plans. The Infrastructure upgrades themselves were left intentionally vague in my Dev Blog because listing every potential upgrade we are considering would require another blog by themselves. The beauty of this system is that even after Dominion launches we can literally 'plug in' new concepts, balance them against current upgrades and then assign them a proper value in terms of required investment. When Dominion launches, you will have what we consider the best candidates to promote the concepts outlined in the blog and will continue to iterate in future expansions. Next, while we are moving starbases away from the actual claiming mechanic, we are not taking away their basic functionality in day to day operations. Things like Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Beacons and Capital Ship Assembly Arrays will continue to require the use of starbases to operate. Just as with the current mechanic, there will be prerequisites to meet as each of these structures will be part of the new Infrastructure system. We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates. While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion. The following are balancing changes we are seriously considering: We may open the doors to allowing more than one outpost to be anchored/built in a sovereign system. We are still investigating the technical limitations and a few gameplay issues associated with this and will make a final decision in the coming weeks. Cyno Jammers will be one of the more expensive Infrastructure upgrades and may only be anchorable in systems where you have sov and own a station. Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. Approaching character limit. BTW, apparently I liked using the word SPACE in my blog. thank you for dealing with all this whining
Trebor Daehdoow Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.09.10 14:37:00 - [334] Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow on 10/09/2009 14:37:54 Originally by: Haytrid CCP: We'll, you can't do that, we expect you to pay for the upkeep on it but you can't restrict passage through it. It occurs to me to wonder if it will be possible to restrict access if you control enough surrounding systems, so that core areas of your territory are effectively defended. ie: consider systems A - B - C - X, where you own A,B, and C, but not X (think of them as rings of systems, not as a linear chain, btw; the same logic applies). Reds might be able to use the C-X and B-C gates but not the A-B ones, so your A system is protected (except against cynos, of course). They can only attack the periphery directly, but keeping A protected means you have to actively defend all the C-ring systems. Quote: Dyson Sphere.. final infrastructure upgrade in a system.. requiring all other possible upgrades to be implemented... 1 year build time.. stops ALL non-gate traffic in or out of a system and allows gates to be locked down if sov is held in all adjacent systems. I think this is over-reaching a bit, given the fact that you'd have to disassemble the entire starsystem for the materials to build it. I suggest something more modest, like a Ringworld (grin). I wonder what Scrith will go for in Jita? World Domination - It's fun for the entire family! EViE - The iPhone / iPod Touch Skill Training Monitor
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.10 14:39:00 - [335] Originally by: Misinomer Key strategic questions for the end result of this patch: - 1. Will the change allow any corporation/alliance not blued to one of the 5 main 0.0 entities to hold/use 0.0 space? 4. Will the patch encourage 0.0 war? Will it push the 5 power blocs in 0.0 into attacking each other? I like the idea of Sov being changed, but if your not in 0.0, or cant get into 0.0 - it makes not a blind bit of difference. Misi There were some good points here so I removed the bits that sounded more like trolling and left the parts that I think CCP really needs to answer before going forward with these changes. I especially want to know how this is going to get more alliances -that aren't on one side or the other of the ongoing 'great war' - into 0.0. Getting rid of the POS grind is great but if 0.0 remains a (mostly) two sided war, this change will not have improved nearly as much as it could. Colonies and Capitals
Gehnster Gallente RED SUN RISING	Posted - 2009.09.10 14:49:00 - [336] Edited by: Gehnster on 10/09/2009 14:50:57 Thanks for all the great information! I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space.
destinationunreachable Hello Kitty Fanclub	Posted - 2009.09.10 14:53:00 - [337] Originally by: Gehnster Edited by: Gehnster on 10/09/2009 14:50:57 Thanks for all the great information! I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Smaller alliances will always be weaker than larger. Otherwise the game would not make sense (everything in EVE is based on team work - the more the better)
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:00:00 - [338] Originally by: Gehnster Edited by: Gehnster on 10/09/2009 14:50:57 Thanks for all the great information! I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Don't think smaller alliances will be able to claim anything significant really. However it might make it more likely they can get "scraps" from the large ones as it might become unviable to claim a entire region or more. As for warfare, there might not be major warfare between the big alliances regardless of the changes. But maybe it will be as in the real cold war, proxy wars between small alliances/nations in the less developed and poorer regions as a major war is just too expensive and risky for the big alliances. So most warfare could perhaps boil down to 3-5 system alliances doing warfare against similarly sized alliances over 1-2 systems rather than massive wars of extermination and regional conquest.
Ximen	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:01:00 - [339] Edited by: Ximen on 10/09/2009 15:03:16 Originally by: CCP Abathur BTW, apparently I liked using the word SPACE in my blog. Heres a game for the forum. See if you can spot the word 'balancing'.. large screens will be of benefit

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:03:00 - [340] Originally by: Gehnster I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Eve is a sandbox MMO, meaning that the rules within the game are essentially made by the players. Teamwork is its own reward. It is our job to provide players with the tools to enforce the rules they want to enforce. We cannot artificially enforce the desire for large player-run empires to want smaller corps or alliances in their space. What we can do though, by introducing more varied game play and options, is encourage such behavior by making it more attractive for them to have those kind of relations. This is one of the things we hope to encourage in the future with the Treaty feature.

Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:08:00 - [341] Edited by: Trent Nichols on 10/09/2009 15:14:57 Originally by: destinationunreachable Originally by: Gehnster Edited by: Gehnster on 10/09/2009 14:50:57 Thanks for all the great information! I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Smaller alliances will always be weaker than larger. Otherwise the game would not make sense (everything in EVE is based on team work - the more the better) Yet in reality small/weaker nations have always existed due to them being in locations that are easily defended or too far out of the way for the larger empires to maintain control over them. Granted I shouldn't get too hung up on real life parallels. Changes should be based on what will make the game more fun. The removal of POS bashing aside, I'm waiting to see more such information (Like opportunities for smaller unaligned organizations) from CCP. Edit (hit reply before CCP post) You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce anything. Create a system where such a thing occurs naturally. Saying "Eve is a sandbox" is just a lazy excuse for not creating a better sandbox. Colonies and Capitals
Papa Digger OEG GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:09:00 - [342] Quote: 'A new disruptor has been detected in %(system)s.<br>If a disruptor is online at all the star gates then your sovereignty claim in this system could be jeopardized' Your claim in %(system)s is vulnerable to claim jumpers as the connections to the systems star gates has been disrupted.<br><br>Reestablish the connections to the system star gates to retain sovereignty 'The %(tower)s cannot be onlined because there is disruption generators at each of the stargare. Offline or destroy the disruption generators to online the claim marker If all these things from changelogs are true.. How you gonna deal with timezones? Will it depend from attackers now (24h timer on disruptors for example)? tia. ---- ex-CEO.
Misinomer	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:10:00 - [343] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Gehnster I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Eve is a sandbox MMO, meaning that the rules within the game are essentially made by the players. Teamwork is its own reward. It is our job to provide players with the tools to enforce the rules they want to enforce. We cannot artificially enforce the desire for large player-run empires to want smaller corps or alliances in their space. What we can do though, by introducing more varied game play and options, is encourage such behavior by making it more attractive for them to have those kind of relations. This is one of the things we hope to encourage in the future with the Treaty feature. and to those of us are not in one of the five 0.0 power blocs read: nothing will change!
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:12:00 - [344] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal As for warfare, there might not be major warfare between the big alliances regardless of the changes. But maybe it will be as in the real cold war, proxy wars between small alliances/nations in the less developed and poorer regions as a major war is just too expensive and risky for the big alliances. Lmao. Its not RL its EVE. If large alliance/napfest wants to stomp small one (3-5system alliance?) into ground they will do this over weekend time without bigger issues. Reasons for this? Just to keep the flock busy. Or to make life miserable for the small alliance. Either way - i doubt you will see more small alliances owning 0.0 in this game. Quote: So most warfare could perhaps boil down to 3-5 system alliances doing warfare against similarly sized alliances over 1-2 systems rather than massive wars of extermination and regional conquest. Yep. As long as they are larger alliance *****es. Otherwise they will just get removed "for fun".
kyrieee Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:14:00 - [345] This was an exciting devblog, but I'm concerned about the economics regarding all of these changes The big money in 0.0 is in T2 materials, but the T2 market is finite. If you give us players the means to increase supply we will simply get massive inflation in the T2 market, which might be a good thing, but it won't give players / alliances that much more income. If most of 0.0 is to become more profitable then you need to increase the influx of isk to the game, not the amount of resources we have to trade. That means bounties, T1 minerals, w/e. Then there's the fact that you're creating new massive isk sinks, which is interesting. Maybe that will balance things out? I don't know, but you're gonna have to put some thought into adding new riches if you actually want it to work
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:23:00 - [346] Edited by: Professor Dumbledore on 10/09/2009 15:25:20 Originally by: CCP Abathur Hello thread! Okay, the calls for a bit more detail have been heeded and I can open the doors a bit further now. I expect some of this will result in more questions and I will answer them as best I can. Many questions are focused on what will happen to the stuff you have now and how it will continue to function in the new system. We are looking at the upgrades in player built outposts. We are considering a few new offerings but will have to see how they balance against the rest of the Infrastructure system. Of more immediate import is we will likely be reducing the cost of the Level 2 and Level 3 outpost upgrades to something sane enough to discourage players from simply dropping another outpost because it's cheaper. This is also important because some Infrastructure upgrades will require you to have an outpost upgraded to a certain level as well. The new Infrastructure system will revolve around a new structure in space we are calling the Infrastructure Hub. This will be a new shiny that serves as one of the centerpieces of your star system's development. Depending on your level of investment in certain areas, your Hub may change visually and can eventually become quite impressive. Defending / attacking / capturing an Infrastructure Hub is just one more thing players will have to consider in their Dominion plans. The Infrastructure upgrades themselves were left intentionally vague in my Dev Blog because listing every potential upgrade we are considering would require another blog by themselves. The beauty of this system is that even after Dominion launches we can literally 'plug in' new concepts, balance them against current upgrades and then assign them a proper value in terms of required investment. When Dominion launches, you will have what we consider the best candidates to promote the concepts outlined in the blog and will continue to iterate in future expansions. Next, while we are moving starbases away from the actual claiming mechanic, we are not taking away their basic functionality in day to day operations. Things like Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Beacons and Capital Ship Assembly Arrays will continue to require the use of starbases to operate. Just as with the current mechanic, there will be prerequisites to meet as each of these structures will be part of the new Infrastructure system. We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates. While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion. The following are balancing changes we are seriously considering: We may open the doors to allowing more than one outpost to be anchored/built in a sovereign system. We are still investigating the technical limitations and a few gameplay issues associated with this and will make a final decision in the coming weeks. Cyno Jammers will be one of the more expensive Infrastructure upgrades and may only be anchorable in systems where you have sov and own a station. Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. Approaching character limit. BTW, apparently I liked using the word SPACE in my blog. Why the ** are we paying to "MAINTAIN" stargates if we don't get to control who uses them? That's ing **ed. Change the mechanic. And what the do you mean MAY escape this rule either they will or won't or are you guys still in ing rapid devlopment for a patch that is supposed to go live in less then 3 months? Are you **ing serious?
Gehnster Gallente RED SUN RISING	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:24:00 - [347] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Gehnster Edited by: Gehnster on 10/09/2009 14:50:57 Thanks for all the great information! I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Don't think smaller alliances will be able to claim anything significant really. However it might make it more likely they can get "scraps" from the large ones as it might become unviable to claim a entire region or more. This is what I'm talking about. I don't expect hand outs and I didn't mean to say I hope you are making it easier for smaller groups to get 0.0 space. I meant, as was said in other places, I wonder if this will actually change people from "owning space for the sake of owning space" to owning only the space they need. More systems the major alliances don't want to support, more the systems other alliances can try to control.
Sertan Deras Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:34:00 - [348] Some of the crap CCP thinks up sometimes really makes you scratch your head. Jump capable chips no longer being able to use jump bridges? Why, to make flying capital ships more tedious than it already is? Brilliant. I would imagine there is some designer at CCP who wants to take away the defensive advantage of caps through jump bridges in to cyno jammed systems, but I have some news to break to him: Defenders should have the advantage. It should be hard to go take someones space from them. If the attacker has all the advantages there is literally no point in holding space.

CCP Whisper	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:37:00 - [349] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore rabid frothing of the mouth. Could I recommend that before you make more such constructive comments you go for a walk and get some fresh air? Pet a kitten? Go watch a romantic comedy or listen to a Richard Marx album? Internet spaceships are serious business but they're not worth having an aneursym over. Honestly.

Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:38:00 - [350] the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing. The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BE WORTH IT?
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:38:00 - [351] Originally by: CCP Abathur Hello thread! Okay, the calls for a bit more detail have been heeded and I can open the doors a bit further now. I expect some of this will result in more questions and I will answer them as best I can. Many questions are focused on what will happen to the stuff you have now and how it will continue to function in the new system. We are looking at the upgrades in player built outposts. We are considering a few new offerings but will have to see how they balance against the rest of the Infrastructure system. Of more immediate import is we will likely be reducing the cost of the Level 2 and Level 3 outpost upgrades to something sane enough to discourage players from simply dropping another outpost because it's cheaper. This is also important because some Infrastructure upgrades will require you to have an outpost upgraded to a certain level as well. The new Infrastructure system will revolve around a new structure in space we are calling the Infrastructure Hub. This will be a new shiny that serves as one of the centerpieces of your star system's development. Depending on your level of investment in certain areas, your Hub may change visually and can eventually become quite impressive. Defending / attacking / capturing an Infrastructure Hub is just one more thing players will have to consider in their Dominion plans. The Infrastructure upgrades themselves were left intentionally vague in my Dev Blog because listing every potential upgrade we are considering would require another blog by themselves. The beauty of this system is that even after Dominion launches we can literally 'plug in' new concepts, balance them against current upgrades and then assign them a proper value in terms of required investment. When Dominion launches, you will have what we consider the best candidates to promote the concepts outlined in the blog and will continue to iterate in future expansions. Next, while we are moving starbases away from the actual claiming mechanic, we are not taking away their basic functionality in day to day operations. Things like Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Beacons and Capital Ship Assembly Arrays will continue to require the use of starbases to operate. Just as with the current mechanic, there will be prerequisites to meet as each of these structures will be part of the new Infrastructure system. We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates. While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion. The following are balancing changes we are seriously considering: We may open the doors to allowing more than one outpost to be anchored/built in a sovereign system. We are still investigating the technical limitations and a few gameplay issues associated with this and will make a final decision in the coming weeks. Cyno Jammers will be one of the more expensive Infrastructure upgrades and may only be anchorable in systems where you have sov and own a station. Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. Approaching character limit. BTW, apparently I liked using the word SPACE in my blog. this is all good. i like the bit about limiting cynojammers to outposts only, as well as limiting capital travel through bridges. might consider a separate 'capital jump bridge' pos module though, instead, requiring more infrastructure/grid. so you have the main bridge network and the separate freighter/carrier/jf/dread route. Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Stumpet Rakingclaw Stellar Research Incorporated Emergence.	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:42:00 - [352] This is going to be awesome When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. - Churchill Originally by: CCP Abathur If a billion ISK of damage in the current system satisfies you, Dominion should make you feel as if you'v
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:43:00 - [353] Furthermore I can see a lot more people (nync) camping beacons with a cyno alt and a single plat-insured tackling dread waiting to gank JFs as it becomes harder to build beacon networks or jam systems to keep him away
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:43:00 - [354] Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 10/09/2009 15:45:30 Bah stupid 5 min timer, it has already been answered.
Prof Fail	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:44:00 - [355] Edited by: Prof Fail on 10/09/2009 15:45:39 Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. This would be a huge mistake. You really need jbs to for proper movement of capitals in develeped Areas. Without Cynojammers and Jumpbrigdgemovements there will be alot of stupig ganks all day via hotdrops...At least a bit safety should be possible in your homespace.
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:50:00 - [356] also zastrow is right we need something serious to make 0.0 isk-worthy enough, because really the only reason to be out here atm is pride and griefing, on the isk/risk/reward curve empire is way way way more profitable for the individual player, and most of the r64 income is sucked into towers and capitals basically alliance-level income works out alright, but for the regular fleet pilots in an alliance, there's not much reason to be out in nullsec. if the 'development' bonuses only help alliance-level income, that doesn't help the imbalance for the fleet pilots. dayquil is fun. Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:51:00 - [357] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Gehnster I would also be interested in knowing how this will hopefully allow smaller alliances to get into 0.0 space. Eve is a sandbox MMO, meaning that the rules within the game are essentially made by the players. Teamwork is its own reward. It is our job to provide players with the tools to enforce the rules they want to enforce. We cannot artificially enforce the desire for large player-run empires to want smaller corps or alliances in their space. What we can do though, by introducing more varied game play and options, is encourage such behavior by making it more attractive for them to have those kind of relations. This is one of the things we hope to encourage in the future with the Treaty feature. I appreciate the info posted for far, this all sounds like it has a lot of potential but I would love to see a more solid answer to that question. It was said that one of the goals of this system was to promote smaller alliances claiming small areas of space rather than megacorps dominating huge swathes of space. I'd like to know how this system achieves that because none of the information so far suggests it does. If the costs to secure a system are linear, all this does is replace the current cost of running a POS in every system with a new cost of straight-up ISK. Hell, it even gets rid of the hauling, which has a massive opportunity cost in deep 0.0. And if the costs don't scale linearly, that will just encourage factionalism of existing alliances to reduce costs. So either there has to be something other than cost to encourage small alliances claiming space or the goal won't be achieved. Thinking about it, I can see two things that make small alliances claiming small areas of space better off in this new system. The first is that improving a system will improve the volume of resources in a system, thereby increasing the carrying capacity of existing system environments. That in itself doesn't discourage mega-alliances from claiming whole swathes of space but it does reduce the area of space they NEED to comfortably fit their alliance members. The second thing encouraging contraction of large empires is that there's a possibility of improving a system's defensibility against attackers at the cost of investment or increased upkeep. So alliances trying to claim a lot of space will have to pay out the nose to upgrade the security of every system or those systems will be at greater risk of being invaded and stolen. But if a system's being used well, there'll be plenty of isk to keep it secure. Even if that's the case, it a nice start but we won't know how it works out until it goes live. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Gertrud ToD Terrorists of Dimensions	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:56:00 - [358] Originally by: Prof Fail This would be a huge mistake. You really need jbs to for proper movement of capitals in developed areas. Pos installed jump beacons == good way to move capitals Originally by: Prof Fail Without cynojammers and movements via jumpbridges there will be alot of stupig ganks all day via hotdrops... Oh.. people shooting at eachother.. yeah that sounds bad. Originally by: Prof Fail At least a bit safety should be possible in your homespace. Cloaked cynoalts and a hotdrop on standby is a plague these days, dont let it escalate. yeah, people need a way to be totaly safe. in special in 0.0, fighting is bad mhkay? also, it shouldnt be necessary for everyone to actually secure his capitals and defend their home! /me waves the sarkasm flag.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:57:00 - [359] Originally by: Misinomer Key strategic questions for the end result of this patch: - 1. Will the change allow any corporation/alliance not blued to one of the 5 main 0.0 entities to hold/use 0.0 space? No Depends on implementation. It's quite possible to structure the system so that it's not profitable for the large alliances to "hold" as much space as they currently do. That opens the space up to others. But there hasn't been enough details yet to come to a conclusion. Quote: 2. Will the changes encourage 0.0 Alliances to stop being so paranoid and actually recruit corps (that do not have a 100% pvp character roster) No Except that the whole 'treaty' system could allow them limited rights to part of their empire without bringing in the actual corp. Again, there has been nowhere near enough details to come to a conclusion. Quote: 3. Will Empire and Low sec still be as tedious as it is now? Yes Why, exactly, do you expect changes to 0.0 to change empire and lowsec? Quote: 4. Will the patch encourage 0.0 war? Will it push the 5 power blocs in 0.0 into attacking each other? No Depends on implementation. Let's say the devs do make it not profitable to hold vast expanses of empty space. So some of the larger alliances split up into smaller alliances that nominally work together. K, that would result in no real change. Unless there's major bonuses for working in your own alliance's space, and penalties for working in another alliance's space. So now the multi-mini-goons are disconnected from each other. Time passes, and the various entities don't feel like a cohesive unit anymore. Eventually, you end up with separate alliances with their own goals, which might not quite fit in with the overall group's goals. Think Canada and the US. They're definitely close friends, but Canada does have it's own politics and does some things the US really doesn't like. Quote: 5. What will the patch achieve? a. Ps off/please 0.0 alliances b. Ps off industrialists/miners c. Status Quo (3 months after the patch is implemented) Again, there's been nowhere near enough details to come to any conclusion. Quote: I like the idea of Sov being changed, but if your not in 0.0, or cant get into 0.0 - it makes not a blind bit of difference. You can always get into 0.0. It just takes a slight quantity of effort to find a corp you like that is already there, or for your corp to find an alliance that needs your services. I'm sorry that every alliance doesn't just roll out the red carpet for ya, but it's really not that hard.
Shadowsword Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:58:00 - [360] Originally by: Prof Fail Edited by: Prof Fail on 10/09/2009 15:47:24 Edited by: Prof Fail on 10/09/2009 15:45:39 Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. This would be a huge mistake. You really need jbs to for proper movement of capitals in developed areas. Without cynojammers and movements via jumpbridges there will be alot of stupig ganks all day via hotdrops... At least a bit safety should be possible in your homespace. Cloaked cynoalts and a hotdrop on standby is a plague these days, dont let it escalate. The change make sense. Currently the defending alliance can bring in heavy capital support to just about any attacked system without ever taking the risk to uncover said system for 30 minutes. That's a huge advantage for defenders, that need to be fixed. ------------------------------------------
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:58:00 - [361] Another thing, we all know that all of the current major alliances have hundreds of billions of isk and we like to put it all in a big vault and swim around in it like Scrooge McDuck. We can afford to build a lot of infrastructure. If you design the costs of these upgrades with our wallets in mind, no new alliances who don't have our "old money" are ever going to be able to afford to come out to 0.0 and build their own space-home.
Alisaadi Chorster Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.10 15:58:00 - [362] Maybe CCP should change the focus from gate maintenance to Infrastructure hub maintenance. This will stop the I should be able to lock all the gates as part of the defense. I still don't see any thing that will change who owns and controls what alliance can enter null sec. The only way even a 500 member alliance will hold space is to rent from a much larger one.
Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:03:00 - [363] Originally by: Zastrow J the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing. The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BE WORTH IT? Thats exactly what I thought too. whats the cost of all this. And since you pay for the "gates". what kind of control will you have ?
Gertrud ToD Terrorists of Dimensions	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:04:00 - [364] Originally by: The Mittani basically alliance-level income works out alright, but for the regular fleet pilots in an alliance, there's not much reason to be out in nullsec. if the 'development' bonuses only help alliance-level income, that doesn't help the imbalance for the fleet pilots. Hello, i understand that the 0.0 world of eve can be harsh to single players sometimes, so i came up with the perfect scheme for you to make some extra isk. good-natured as i am i took the freedom of buying one copy of the mining skillbook for you, you can claim the contract at any time in the next two weeks. welcome to eve, and have fun on your journeys.
Steve Thomas	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:08:00 - [365] Originally by: CCP Abathur Hello thread! The Infrastructure upgrades themselves were left intentionally vague in my Dev Blog because listing every potential upgrade we are considering would require another blog by themselves. The beauty of this system is that even after Dominion launches we can literally 'plug in' new concepts, balance them against current upgrades and then assign them a proper value in terms of required investment. When Dominion launches, you will have what we consider the best candidates to promote the concepts outlined in the blog and will continue to iterate in future expansions. We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates. While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion. The following are balancing changes we are seriously considering: We may open the doors to allowing more than one outpost to be anchored/built in a sovereign system. Cyno Jammers will be one of the more expensive Infrastructure upgrades and may only be anchorable in systems where you have sov and own a station. Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. SPACE . Hmmm I wonder how mutch of the upgrading you will be allowed to do in empire and Low sec/FW space. . . Especaly FW Space! Muaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaa! Originally by: CCP Whisper Pet a kitten?. Hands away from MY Kitten if you want to keep them. **. . . . . . . .** Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:13:00 - [366] Originally by: Gertrud ToD Originally by: The Mittani basically alliance-level income works out alright, but for the regular fleet pilots in an alliance, there's not much reason to be out in nullsec. if the 'development' bonuses only help alliance-level income, that doesn't help the imbalance for the fleet pilots. Hello, i understand that the 0.0 world of eve can be harsh to single players sometimes, so i came up with the perfect scheme for you to make some extra isk. good-natured as i am i took the freedom of buying one copy of the mining skillbook for you, you can claim the contract at any time in the next two weeks. welcome to eve, and have fun on your journeys. This is either a very nice troll...or a clueless pubbie. I'm honestly not sure _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Jadal McPieksu	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:18:00 - [367] Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Misinomer Key strategic questions for the end result of this patch: - 1. Will the change allow any corporation/alliance not blued to one of the 5 main 0.0 entities to hold/use 0.0 space? No Depends on implementation. It's quite possible to structure the system so that it's not profitable for the large alliances to "hold" as much space as they currently do. That opens the space up to others. But there hasn't been enough details yet to come to a conclusion. No. It may make the map completely useless (very little "officially sov flagged") but alliances value geographical buffer zones more than anything else. If we have a major alliance huddled in 5-10 systems and another small alliance sets up shop next door, 3-4 jumps away, they will be vaporized unless they are blue (= pets or allies). The only way this new system and the further-in-the-future Treaty system may change things is to give us bigger (in "number of alliances" if not "number of pilots") powerblocks controlling that same space, but they will be napped and/or in master-pet relationship. You just can't have a considerable pile of reds 3-5 jumps away and still run any "carebear" stuff or really build 0.0 infrastructure. If you can improve space enough (high end ratting everywhere you want, high end mining, plexing.. whatever the best 0.0 space offers today) it could make lot of currently worthless 0.0 space worth something but you still won't find any 0.0 space that you are free to park your new alliance in. You either have to take it by force (Sov or no sov) from the current landlord, or you have to pay for it. Sorry. I'm sure you have all seen the picture comparing high sec, low sec and 0.0. In 0.0, everyone must kiss Don's pinky ring, or become a new Don (non-trivial, requires deep pockets, lots of PvP thugs and some skill in diplomacy). Quote: Quote: 2. Will the changes encourage 0.0 Alliances to stop being so paranoid and actually recruit corps (that do not have a 100% pvp character roster) No Except that the whole 'treaty' system could allow them limited rights to part of their empire without bringing in the actual corp. Again, there has been nowhere near enough details to come to a conclusion. If the treaty system is done well, it could bring the new age of pet alliances/corps. Of course you can get 0.0 space even today - it will just cost and you have have some brain cells and able to follow the rules set by your landlord and able to pay the rent. Just contact any major alliance and ask for rates :D
ITTigerClawIK Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:19:00 - [368] after reading this blog i REALLY do like what i see so far but what my main question/concern is. now that there will be a maintenance fee for the amount of systems controlled, what will the "Entrance" level of system control be like, hopefully nothing to steep. Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected])
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:23:00 - [369] hummm R.I.P true-sec...? - putting the gist back into logistics
AmechWorrior Mortis Angelus	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:28:00 - [370] Edited by: AmechWorrior on 10/09/2009 16:31:13 Edited by: AmechWorrior on 10/09/2009 16:30:27 Thank you for some more details. But could you explain what will be done to limit or dissuade large alliances from makeing a bunch of smaller alliances to control the large amounts territory "like they do now" while limiting costs. I ask this because I assume one of the reasons of changeing the sov mechanics was to enable the vast amounts of unused/empty space that is currently just (edit: it bleeped me for some reason) trap-ed in the large alliances to be freed up for use. So more alliance can hold space instead of a few holding most of the space. If this is not a reason could you please explain what you expect will be the case.
Sophie Daigneau CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:29:00 - [371] Originally by: Zastrow J the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing. The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BLEND? Fixed that for you.
Snake O'Donell Gallente Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:31:00 - [372] Originally by: zenox paradox Originally by: Snake O'Donell I know its hard to believe, but YOU could live in 0.0 if you really wanted to. Therefore your point is moot. Snake, I've lived in 0.0 for some time (this is posted on another toon on my account, not an alt) but the whole 0.0 thing isn't what is was set up to be. In an earlier post somewhere someone had it spot on, it was about corps creating their own empire outside Empire. It's just been taken to the nth degree now as very few corps/alliances can compete. I'm not whining, I know you guys work hard to keep your soverignity (I've been there, I've literally got a wardrobe of T-shirts) but ask yourself if it's fun anymore? It's gone downhill in my view, especially since the moon mining and R64 stuff. It's started to become more enjoyable with WH and stuff but waiting in a gang of about 200 for another gang of 200 to come through your gate and have a gankfest? Come on, you might as well go and play Command & Conquer!!! I think CCP have missed the point here. It shouldn't be about making 0.0 more accessible, it should be about making it less valuable. Throw the odd Ark roid into a 0.9 system, have an mission outpost drop a T2 BP copy randomly. Can I have some of what you are smoking please? It has to be some good ****. You are so offbase its not even funny. You are right that the balance is severely messed up, and you have it backwards. Level 4 missions in thier current form are more profitable than ratting in all but the best -1.0 systems in 0.0. Mining in the vast majority of 0.0 is no better than in high and low-sec, and is even less profitable than running missions(you can get more mineral from reprocessing loot from missions than from mining in an hour). The only real places that 0.0 really shine are the pirate faction missions(available in npc space only)and r64 moons. As far as R64 moons, they make money on a corp/alliance level, therefore the majority of the time none of the members of the corp see any isk from them. There is a reason why I run missions in high-sec to make my money, and why a large number of people in 0.0 have high-sec mission alts. Please do the research before you make wild ass assumptions that have no basis in fact.
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:34:00 - [373] I'm really looking forward to the unspecified "you can improve your space" improvements. Of course, I'm worried that the possible improvements will be pre-nerfed and not very useful. Folks have argued that if they are very good, there will be no point in fighting over space, just turtle up and improve your own instead. There's a simple solution to that: make the improvements sufficiently persistent and/or captureable. Then it's: "Nice little system you got here, I think we'll keep it." Voila -- a reason for fighting over space again. In short, it would be a shame if taking space away from someone required (or resulted in) destroying or resetting all their space improvements back to the natural state. Hopefully CCP won't do that. ------------------ Ironfleet.com
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:53:00 - [374] Originally by: Zastrow J the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing. The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BE WORTH IT? ehm, you should really start reading a bit more carefully Originally by: CCP Abathur Next, while we are moving starbases away from the actual claiming mechanic, we are not taking away their basic functionality in day to day operations. Things like Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Beacons and Capital Ship Assembly Arrays will continue to require the use of starbases to operate. Just as with the current mechanic, there will be prerequisites to meet as each of these structures will be part of the new Infrastructure system. Fuel bill stays, maybe it will be lowered a bit (lets say few unnecessary DS), but you will still need them for use of all modules and production tide to them, not to mention if you by any chance own a Supercapital you will have to keep some pure DS so they have a place to live (unless, see bellow). All in all, it seems we will pay more, just that no one knows how much more. Originally by: CCP Abathur While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion. Originally by: Zastrow J Furthermore I can see a lot more people (nync) camping beacons with a cyno alt and a single plat-insured tackling dread waiting to gank JFs as it becomes harder to build beacon networks or jam systems to keep him away I guess with removal of "invulnerable" POSs and limitations to jump bridges, building, parking (even for few minutes), or even flying of supercapitals just got 100x more riskier, and if we add on that announced titan nerf, those things become not even worth of mentioning. Are you finally removing them from game in Dominion or is this just an intro to it?
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:53:00 - [375] Originally by: Steve Thomas Hmmm I wonder how mutch of the upgrading you will be allowed to do in empire and Low sec/FW space. . . Especaly FW Space! Muaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaa! Try none. Since this expansion is about 0.0 sov space revamp and upgrading that space... _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Sira Pekara	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:57:00 - [376] Some of the things are good - some interesting - and some simply not logical. Examples: I pay for stargates but can not control it? Why that? Blocking stargates would bring some new possibilities as CovertOPs frigates could "hack" them, jump in unseen and call BlackOPs via CovertOPs cyno into the blocked system. Because of hacking the stargate, CovertOPs would not been shown in local until it uncloaks or lightens the cyno. So this would not be carebear heaven but it would bring in complete new possibilities. It's the same unlogic thing as it is with jumpbridges. I fight for my home-space and suddenly my own jumpbridge refuses to port me to an other system. Why? Funny thing because cynogenerators do not have this problem. Even in ancies times people were able to open/lock their doors as they wanted and an intruder had to break them in some way. I find it very sad, that there is no locical explanation for such things. It's simply "gameplay" - but a game with the complexity of EvE should not relay on "gameplay" - it should have logical reasons for as much as possible. So in my opinion this is again a nice try - but parts of it will still not fit into the EvE universe.
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.09.10 16:59:00 - [377] Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 16:59:06 Would still very much like to know what will happen in the transition from current state to Dominion, for instance to todays sovereignty. Without a transition, there will be no sovereignty at all. So will alliances have to immediately start claiming the same old space, or what? I don't care about the little plug-in modules or how nifty the new claiming thingymabobs are. I want to know how you will transition from old to new.
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:02:00 - [378] Edited by: Zastrow J on 10/09/2009 17:02:27 Originally by: Elvenlord Fuel bill stays, maybe it will be lowered a bit (lets say few unnecessary DS), but you will still need them for use of all modules and production tide to them, not to mention if you by any chance own a Supercapital you will have to keep some pure DS so they have a place to live (unless, see bellow). All in all, it seems we will pay more, just that no one knows how much more.. the goonswarm fuel bill will be reduced by 80% or more than it is now. We fuel a lot of towers just to keep systems safe from spam. These towers will be able to be pulled down now. (hundreds of them) The point of my post was that just because our new upkeep costs are called "stargate maintenance fees" does not mean we get to actually manage stargates, deny traffic, etc. actually why am i bothering to reply to this postghuahguaghaughaughuahg
Smyrk	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:04:00 - [379] If you want to open up 0.0/sov warfare to smaller organizations, maybe it would work to use w-space as a gateway to smaller-scale sovereignty areas. If there were pockets of k-space only accessible through w-space, with no connection to existing k-space, you could put some fairly minor restrictions on them and open up the sovereignty system there. Disallow capital ship assembly arrays and large control towers, and make sure the best moon mats are not available. The mechanics of wormholes will ensure that it's not practical to bring huge fleets into this space, so you could get sov warfare at a smaller scale.
Mioelnir Minmatar Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:05:00 - [380] If technically feasible, I'd vote for a combat-capital exclusion for the normal jumpbridges and a new capital jumpbridge suggested above with the limitation that at least one of its endpoints has to be in a station system. Offlining/Onlining jammers to get caps in is just a PITA tbqh and a bit of homefield advantage should be awarded in that you don't have to jump in your caps after the enemy took down the jammer.
Gehnster Gallente RED SUN RISING	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:06:00 - [381] My town owns its main street and keeps its maintenance up but that doesn't mean it gets to decide who can use it and who can't. Just like if you have a sidewalk in front of your house you need to shovel the snow off of it.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:09:00 - [382] Originally by: Zastrow J the goonswarm fuel bill will be reduced by 80% or more than it is now. We fuel a lot of towers just to keep systems safe from spam. These towers will be able to be pulled down now. (hundreds of them) The point of my post was that just because our new upkeep costs are called "stargate maintenance fees" does not mean we get to actually manage stargates, deny traffic, etc. actually why am i bothering to reply to this postghuahguaghaughaughuahg Have you considered that your dyspro/prom income might disperse too from a simple fact they will not be worth as they are atm? You might need to use those towers for blasphemy, like reactions.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:09:00 - [383] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 16:59:06 Would still very much like to know what will happen in the transition from current state to Dominion, for instance to todays sovereignty. Without a transition, there will be no sovereignty at all. So will alliances have to immediately start claiming the same old space, or what? I don't care about the little plug-in modules or how nifty the new claiming thingymabobs are. I want to know how you will transition from old to new. While no exact details have been posted, it has already been posted by one of the devs that current infrastructure will provide some cross over benefits to the new system. Additionally, dev above posted that things like cynogens/cynojammers/jbs will all still be tied to POSs, so I can imagine some of those will stay intact at least to some degree. Stop getting so damn worried. More info is going to come and I highly highly doubt that they will just do a "hehehehe FFA, take what space you can get chumps." Obviously they are working out some sort of transition.... and again, as I stated earlier...its called foreplay...enjoy it I'm sure they are. Sitting in Iceland laughing at us while we squirm, trying to overcome their powers of intense titillation... _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Thebro Nobrunder Schrodinger's Renegades	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:17:00 - [384] If you could close a stargate then you could block off a huge portion of the map by locking relatively few gates. This would be very bad. Now having ways to improve the security of your space is still a great idea. Gate guns, npc patrollers etc... Even being able to close a gate would be fine as long as you could hack it or blow it open.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:42:00 - [385] Originally by: CCP Whisper Originally by: Professor Dumbledore rabid frothing of the mouth. Could I recommend that before you make more such constructive comments you go for a walk and get some fresh air? Pet a kitten? Go watch a romantic comedy or listen to a Richard Marx album? Internet spaceships are serious business but they're not worth having an aneursym over. Honestly. ♥
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:44:00 - [386] Originally by: Ukucia Originally by: Misinomer 4. Will the patch encourage 0.0 war? Will it push the 5 power blocs in 0.0 into attacking each other? No Depends on implementation. Let's say the devs do make it not profitable to hold vast expanses of empty space. So some of the larger alliances split up into smaller alliances that nominally work together. K, that would result in no real change. Unless there's major bonuses for working in your own alliance's space, and penalties for working in another alliance's space. So now the multi-mini-goons are disconnected from each other. Time passes, and the various entities don't feel like a cohesive unit anymore. Eventually, you end up with separate alliances with their own goals, which might not quite fit in with the overall group's goals. Think Canada and the US. They're definitely close friends, but Canada does have it's own politics and does some things the US really doesn't like. That is very unlikely for two reasons. First it goes against the sandbox ideal. You would have to put massive amounts of artificial restrictions on the players to achieve anything, so such a system will likely not be implemented. Any negatives from operating in other peoples space always comes from the players themselves and it should remain so. Secondly, even if it was put into the game, established alliances have developed mature communication methods, that allow circumvention of any communication limitations. Even some insane in-game limitations can be overcome and will be, especially since people would be quite aware of the risks it posed. Cohesion isn't guaranteed in todays system either and good corps and alliances are used to maintaining and encouraging it. People might even take any restrictions as a challenge and be even more determined to maintain cohesion against CCPs outside efforts to disrupt it. War will propably be more common though, if smaller entities can inflict damage on big entities. Even if they can't remove sov directly, it would help, if they can cause significant financial strain without the need for massive capital fleets. The limit for an alliance would be the ability to semi-actively(semi since some military infrastructure is available) defend space. This is what we sort of have now, but it favors defensive forces too much and non-capital fleets have lost importance, reducing the pressure that ambitious empire dwellers could create otherwise. Removing pos grind and changing capitals(hello titan nerf) will help to change things. Such a limit is natural and you can't metagame your way around it. Just the pressure caused by constant outside forces trying to cause trouble would keep things more lively and create space for new alliances to be crated. What ever happens I'm exited to see how CCP plans to handle things and what things they are planning to add to it later. At least the new system is more adjustable, so it might not take several years to change it when the inevitable problems become apparent.
Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:47:00 - [387] Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57 Originally by: Jack Gilligan That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B". This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ... ----
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:49:00 - [388] Originally by: Roemy Schneider hummm R.I.P true-sec...? There's no reason to assume that's the case. Current true-sec ranges from 0.0 to -1.0; let's assume that you can effectively improve your truesec with upgrades by (up to ) 1.0 sec, then sure, you can get any system to at least -1.0 truesec; but the ones with better native truesec would now have -2.0 truesec and even better rats and ore etc. than can be accessed now. It makes sense really - an upgrade that would improve rat spawns will improve rat spawns. So if one system is better than another when neither have it, it will still be better when both have it. What it does mean, though, is that to a limited fashion you have the ability to sculpt your system(s) to emphasise the elements that you want from them. I like the comparison to something like an RTS (or probably something more like Civ), where if you go fully carebear you'll have a very rewarding system with very underdeveloped defenses, and just get it taken from you. On the other hand you can harden the system to attack, at the cost of not getting as much economic/infrastructure benefits. At least "building units" is theoretically free if you can persuade enough self-funding players to join your corp!
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.10 17:52:00 - [389] Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57 Originally by: Jack Gilligan That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B". This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ... if they're too specific people will do ******ed things like buy up all of the market for certain moon minerals and run around flailing their arms and screaming. Of course being too vague means we can't give any valid feedback until its potentially too late to dodge the iceberg
scotty551 UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.10 18:13:00 - [390] Sov system needed changed for sure but what is going to happen on patch day ? Is everyones sov going to be reset making once invulnerable systems vulnerable to attack ? Will alliances lose their sov 4 security and what will happen to super caps being built in those systems when evrything changes ? This is the info the people who already work hard to defend and maintain their little bit of 0.0 need to know. What we don't want to find is on patch day everything gets reset and we find we need to rebuild our space all over again to make it as secure as it was before the patch. Its not just about keeping the space but its also about ensuring our assets in that space a still safe and protected during the sov change stransition period.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 18:18:00 - [391] Originally by: scotty551 Sov system needed changed for sure but what is going to happen on patch day ? Is everyones sov going to be reset making once invulnerable systems vulnerable to attack ? Will alliances lose their sov 4 security and what will happen to super caps being built in those systems when evrything changes ? This is the info the people who already work hard to defend and maintain their little bit of 0.0 need to know. What we don't want to find is on patch day everything gets reset and we find we need to rebuild our space all over again to make it as secure as it was before the patch. Its not just about keeping the space but its also about ensuring our assets in that space a still safe and protected during the sov change stransition period. Here's a hint: You can look for the posts with the blue bars rather than needlessly ranting and pre-emptiveley whining. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Aelena Thraant Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.09.10 18:28:00 - [392] I think in general these are good ideas. I'm worried about the Super Caps that are in the queue when this goes live due to the usual lack of a date far enough away to know. (And no I don't build Super Caps though if anyone wants to give me a Nyx I wouldn't turn it down). What about 0.0 NPC Space? ie Fountain Core, Venal, Curse, Etc. Are we going to be able to do anything there are will they stay static? EVE Killboard and Forum Hosting Service: MyEVEKb
Hugh Hefner Caldari Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2009.09.10 18:35:00 - [393] Hmmm, with Dust and this change I guess we can soon rename the game StarCraft the next Generation?
Darkdood	Posted - 2009.09.10 18:39:00 - [394] The one thing that I see and like about this setup is the implication that you can take a very small set of systems and setup multiple outposts etc and expand that infrastructure. That eliminates the need for them to be spread out over 2 entire regions. Even if bob or goon or whoever has the ability to take 20 constellations what would motivate them to do so when it costs them money. If you can cherry pick 6 constellations and expand their infrastructure to make 300 billion a month and only pay a 50 billion gate fee why would you want to expand to 20 and pay 300 billion in fees to earn 500 billion. The total profit is 50 billion less, and its 5 times the hassle. The ONLY advantage is bragging rights. So you can brag you make less money? Lol... The real problem here is that all the "old money" groups will cherry pick the very best of the best constellations and the smaller groups will be left with the rest, but they will have the power to move into 0.0 which prior to this was impossible. Obviously I'm assuming allot. My one compliant is the way the devs are teasing us without any real details. My greatest fear though is that blobs will still be the status quo rather than smaller strategic fights.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Smegnet Incorporated Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.10 18:43:00 - [395] Originally by: Darkdood Obviously I'm assuming allot. My one compliant is the way the devs are teasing us without any real details. My greatest fear though is that blobs will still be the status quo rather than smaller strategic fights. Guess what? Dev already stated that although they can provide players with the tools necessary, they cannot change human behavior, no one can. So yeah, if BoB/Goons/NCs feel like they want to blob the living crap out of you, and they can, they will. CCP will never be able to change this. Ever. If you can, I'd love to hear it, but good luck changing human nature. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Quartex Gallente Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:00:00 - [396] There is far too little detail to be specific about anything but I want to speculate anyway.....there will be more Alliance names in nulsec and roaming gangs will probably have to decide what to fit for, before setting out (Reckon there'll be Flag killing mods). They'll be looking to take some ISKies out of the game too but no-one should underestimate what existing Alliances can save up before the change, to fortify their space with. Don't expect the map to change overnight ... the fact you can make your space perfect means that you don't need to go to the other side of the map to take someone elses. Pets and Mercs will take on new importance to a space holding Alliance and PvP Alliances will have to find a way to maintain gameplay balance between industry and warfighting, or face losing pilots to Mercs et al. The dashboard will mean sudden cta's to rush to a certain system and limit damage from an incursion and DUST activity will fit into this to, so that you have to react with your Dust team/pay DUST mercs. Isn't speculation fun!?
Kesper North Caldari Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:01:00 - [397] Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part. If we can only cyno jam station systems... And capital ships can't use jump bridges... ...where are we supposed to park our capitals?! -- Killed me? Read about it in my blog! Northern Lights: Solo PVP in EVE Online
Aelena Thraant Divine Power. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:02:00 - [398] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Originally by: Darkdood Obviously I'm assuming allot. My one compliant is the way the devs are teasing us without any real details. My greatest fear though is that blobs will still be the status quo rather than smaller strategic fights. Guess what? Dev already stated that although they can provide players with the tools necessary, they cannot change human behavior, no one can. So yeah, if BoB/Goons/NCs feel like they want to blob the living crap out of you, and they can, they will. CCP will never be able to change this. Ever. If you can, I'd love to hear it, but good luck changing human nature. --Isaac There is this device that destroys blobs with one push... oh wait.... nevermind... didn't work EVE Killboard and Forum Hosting Service: MyEVEKb

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:06:00 - [399] Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part. If we can only cyno jam station systems... And capital ships can't use jump bridges... ...where are we supposed to park our capitals?! Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?

ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:13:00 - [400] Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 10/09/2009 19:13:32 Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part. If we can only cyno jam station systems... And capital ships can't use jump bridges... ...where are we supposed to park our capitals?! Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? this is quite nice, as i think it would lead to a heck of a lot more pew pew from roaming gangs etc in 0,0
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:14:00 - [401] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part. If we can only cyno jam station systems... And capital ships can't use jump bridges... ...where are we supposed to park our capitals?! Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? I fully admit to having watched BSG: Pegasus way too many times :P But is it too late to consider some sort of shipyard concept? :-) Surprise *** of the highest scale is such a wonderful thing. ≡v≡ Please resize sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:26:00 - [402] What's the time scale on all this, please because there needs to be a lot of forthcoming clarification? For example, how will the handover from the current Sovereignty mechanic to the new one be handled? If every Alliance suddenly looses Sov due to their POS no longer being the claiming mechanic, there's going to be complete and utter chaos - think what happened to BoB on an Eve wide scale. It wouldn't be pretty and could alienate a high proportion of the player base. What about conquering space going forward? Are Corp's/Alliance's investments in Capital fleets now worthless or will they still have a part to play? If POS no longer claim sovereignty, will Dreads now be relegated to tools in wars of attrition where their only role is to take down money making POS (assuming Moon Mining isn't being removed)? It was once said large fleets should be the end of a strategic solution, not the beginning. I hope you still maintain this philosophy. I can't say I'm fond of bashing POS but I don't want to see major investments made worthless over night. You say that you want Alliances to hold small but well developed tracts of space but if R64 moons can allow most Alliances to knock out Titans like the rest of us knock out BS, how will you address the fact that they will simply switch investment to maintenance, especially if Capital Ship importance is downgraded, thus allowing for the upkeep of their current vast empires. Unless you address this issue, you'll simply be creating a problem of near limitless wealth for the largest Alliances further down the road. Don't misunderstand, I agree the current system has to change before Eve looses too many veterans to burn out but this needs very careful balancing before deployment, not post deployment otherwise it will be too late to head off potentially major issues in the future. Across the galaxy there is only war. .
Treelox Amarr Evolution	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:30:00 - [403] I would love to see the ability of conquerors of Outpost systems, the ability upon their first docking with their newly conquered outpost to totally destroy it. A razed invasion ala Rome VS Carthage, a fully punitive invasion with no plans to hold the conquered territory, would help keep 0.0 more fluid, IMO. --
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:36:00 - [404] Originally by: CCP Abathur Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? cap pilots will have to adapt, and those who cannot will become victims of eVHUGHAUGHAGHAUGHAUHGAUHGUAHGUAHGUHAaghahguahg
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:46:00 - [405] Abathur: One of the problems with the pos system was the intense time and manpower it took to setup and maintain the network. What steps does this new system take to make sure that we don't repeat this problem with the new system?
Niko Mat	Posted - 2009.09.10 19:47:00 - [406] Originally by: John McCreedy What's the time scale on all this, please This has already been answered - it's the winter expansion. So roughly end of november/start of december, but it'll be done when it's done. Quote: For example, how will the handover from the current Sovereignty mechanic to the new one be handled? This has already been addressed in this thread. Quote: What about conquering space going forward? Are Corp's/Alliance's investments in Capital fleets now worthless or will they still have a part to play? If POS no longer claim sovereignty, will Dreads now be relegated to tools in wars of attrition where their only role is to take down money making POS (assuming Moon Mining isn't being removed)? This has already been addressed in this thread.
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2009.09.10 20:12:00 - [407] Edited by: Avernus on 10/09/2009 20:13:26 Originally by: Viper **zIe Originally by: CCP Abathur Seleene Seleene? Wondered where you had got too, glad to see you on the team there, I know first hand you understand sov issues perfectly well. On the other hand... no Prohibition III will ever happen. Ofc we'd need MC... and FIX... and IAC. Yeah, wasn't going to happen anyways. Btw, your devblog, it was like 1/4 the size of your battle reports! WTF man! Edit; fun with quote tags.
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.10 20:19:00 - [408] Alot of cap pilots will turn to sub caps instead. Evidence shows that the titans will become ****e, and from reading the IGN blog, I can imagine carriers and dreads being blown up to quickly by frig bomber fleets, unless i read this incurrectly. Dreads will also become a ship that wont be needed as much as they do in the current system. It sounds like all the cap ships are becoming nerfed directly or/and indirectly in ways where people just wont use them as much or if at all. http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/102/1021847p1.html To this day i think the titan is balanced nicely except for the fact that multiple titans become invinsible. A limit upon the titans use within a particular system at anyone time would effectively stop the invinsibility so to speak. Some people have mentioned about the sheer amount of POS's that would be taken down in dominion due to the new sov system. Well. no. Pos's will still do the job like it is now but not used for sov. Therefore the cost of pos's and general maintenance will continue. the expense of gates each day/week/month will be something that will create more strain on alliances wealth. let alone the fact that some systems have multiples of gates per 1 system. Allthough i agree that the current system needs to be tweaked, i dont feel stargates should be the route of claiming Sov. we all know that planets are the future in eve, from where dust 514 is concerned. being someone who thinks about things really indepth, Planets within systems would be a better way of claiming sov. the planets will slowly become managable from a continent sideline anyway, from what development ive seen on particular fanfest clips. Having dust 514 get introduced as a seperate game which runs parallel with eve and the goings on through Sov. It make sense that dust514 should get the opportunity to claim sov also. stargates wouldnt be in dust 514 as such as its all primarily done on planets, unless im mistaken, from what ive read. I'm still puzzled by the original dev blog where by it was mentioned that the current sov system has lead to a dead end. I can think of many tweaks and changes within the sov system that would improve the game in little ways. I also dont feel that changing SOV all throughout 0.0 all at once would be ideal due to chaos. I feel that stargates are for transfering players from 1 system to another and should be kept that way. whether locking gates or having gate guns could be implemented, would for me make more sense. Beacons at planets or special pos structures for planets i feel would make more sense for claiming Sov.
Sh'iriin	Posted - 2009.09.10 21:04:00 - [409] << I can imagine carriers and dreads being blown up to quickly by frig bomber fleets, unless i read this incurrectly. >> the bombers they talk about are for carriers, as heavy version of the fighters they have...
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.09.10 21:06:00 - [410] Originally by: Jadal McPieksu Originally by: Ukucia Depends on implementation. It's quite possible to structure the system so that it's not profitable for the large alliances to "hold" as much space as they currently do. That opens the space up to others. But there hasn't been enough details yet to come to a conclusion. No. It may make the map completely useless (very little "officially sov flagged") but alliances value geographical buffer zones more than anything else. If we have a major alliance huddled in 5-10 systems and another small alliance sets up shop next door, 3-4 jumps away, they will be vaporized unless they are blue (= pets or allies). Well, this still depends on the implementation. If a Goon-sized alliance can only profitably exploit, say, 15 systems, then they're not going to want to hold an enormous buffer zone themselves, and the profit's there for new alliances to move in. Yes, in the short run they pay the Goons. But that's the short run. Perhaps a new alliance in former Goon space finds itself next to whatever alliance becomes the new BoB and there's 3 buffer blues between them and Goontopia. They'll probably align themselves with the folks next door. This will **** off the Goons, who invade, and but the mini-alliance has friends who come to their defense, and suddenly all 0.0 is shooting again, just like WWI. That's the kind of thing I'm hoping for, but really we can't make any judgement calls until the rest of the details come out and a lot of numbers get crunched.
yunger Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.10 21:08:00 - [411] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part. If we can only cyno jam station systems... And capital ships can't use jump bridges... ...where are we supposed to park our capitals?! Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? Problem as I see it is that the main staging area often is a sov 4 system (that will not exist anymore as I understand it) and in larger alliances these will often see carriers and jf/rorquals entering every 10 minutes. So cycling wonÆt be possible. and seeing that staging systems will probably have a few hundred caps parked in them were allot of them probably wont log in everyday it pretty much comes down to what possibilities will the new system have for delaying the hostiles from simply bringing a blob and taking the station in 2 days so many pilots wont even be able to react.
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.10 21:08:00 - [412] @ Sh'iriin Ahh... Thats ok then i guess. :) atleast theres 1 promising thing from all of this, from a cap pilot point of view. :)
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.09.10 21:14:00 - [413] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 16:59:06 Would still very much like to know what will happen in the transition from current state to Dominion, for instance to todays sovereignty. Without a transition, there will be no sovereignty at all. So will alliances have to immediately start claiming the same old space, or what? I don't care about the little plug-in modules or how nifty the new claiming thingymabobs are. I want to know how you will transition from old to new. Isn't it a tad premature to expect all the transition elements to be worked out when they haven't finished working out what the new elements are yet? "Ok, Sov 4 means they get a planetary super-mine" two weeks later: "planetary super-mines are too good. We're gonna have to not put them in". Take a deep breath, and let 'em finish designing the new system before they work out the transition into the new system.
Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.09.10 21:19:00 - [414] Originally by: Destination SkillQueue Originally by: Ukucia Depends on implementation. Let's say the devs do make it not profitable to hold vast expanses of empty space. So some of the larger alliances split up into smaller alliances that nominally work together. K, that would result in no real change. Unless there's major bonuses for working in your own alliance's space, and penalties for working in another alliance's space. So now the multi-mini-goons are disconnected from each other. Time passes, and the various entities don't feel like a cohesive unit anymore. Eventually, you end up with separate alliances with their own goals, which might not quite fit in with the overall group's goals. Think Canada and the US. They're definitely close friends, but Canada does have it's own politics and does some things the US really doesn't like. That is very unlikely for two reasons. First it goes against the sandbox ideal. There have been many tweaks to the sandbox to push us in the direction CCP wants us to go. For example: Alliances didn't exist at one time. Neither did POSs. Or Sov. Or Cynos. And so on. Quote: Secondly, even if it was put into the game, established alliances have developed mature communication methods, that allow circumvention of any communication limitations. I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to speak to each other. What I'm saying is if they are encouraged to just stay in their own space, then they start to care less about the space of their former alliance mates. Their goals and interests diverge. Quote: This is what we sort of have now, but it favors defensive forces too much and non-capital fleets have lost importance, reducing the pressure that ambitious empire dwellers could create otherwise. Removing pos grind and changing capitals(hello titan nerf) will help to change things. Such a limit is natural and you can't metagame your way around it. Just the pressure caused by constant outside forces trying to cause trouble would keep things more lively and create space for new alliances to be crated. Actually, such a change is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. CCP doesn't say "You can only hold 15 systems". CCP puts out a formula that says if you hold too many, it's gonna cost an arm and a leg. We don't care if you just cut down on how much space you hold, or if you pay for it by taking the ISK from your neighbors.
ian666 Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.10 22:09:00 - [415] Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. (...) Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. Bad Any logistic ship should not escape from anything, JF's too. There should be two ways only - either safer locked system for all caps with Jump Drive (except BlackOps), or a 'less' safer but with ability to jump in and do whatever you want (industry, logistics etc). Maybe then people start to use regular freighters and gates for logistics more often.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.10 22:16:00 - [416] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule. I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part. If we can only cyno jam station systems... And capital ships can't use jump bridges... ...where are we supposed to park our capitals?! Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? 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.
Kesper North Caldari Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.10 22:22:00 - [417] Originally by: CCP Abathur Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? So that is all well and good for official ops, but the problem here is that the most common capital movements are unofficial. They are people moving their carriers to lowsec and back to pick up new PVP ships, they are people jumping Rorquals full of minerals down to (or up from Empire). They are not large fleet movements and if I ask the guy in charge of the cyno jammer to unjam the system so that I can pick up a fleet BS and a couple of new Zealots, he is going to tell me to go to hell. And that is assuming that he is even online, which he won't be, because he is German and I am American. I can't park at a starbase because I'm not about to put my carrier in a SMA where anyone can grab it, which means that I have to stay in it... which means that I am being penalized in the same way that a mothership or titan pilot is, and that is rather unfair. There is no "op", there is just the day to day flow of personal and corporate logistics in any 0.0 alliance, and this change would disrupt it completely - and be really irritating, and no fun at all. I propose an alternative: Allow the cyno generator pos mod to function in cyno jammed systems. That way, you can still jump capitals in but your enemies cannot. -- Killed me? Read about it in my blog! Northern Lights: Solo PVP in EVE Online
Doctor Mabuse	Posted - 2009.09.10 22:32:00 - [418] 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. Onoes! The skies falling! /o\ A Goon said so! I can't believe you really want control over who jumps through the gates, this is about adding choice into the game no allowing you to sit behind your carebear protection wall. Then again perhaps you're this upset because you think CCP will break the game before the Goons do? I'm sure a few personal insults aimed at the devs will help though. Srsly. ------------------------------------ Who's trip-trapping on my bridge?*
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2009.09.10 22:42:00 - [419] Originally by: Doctor Mabuse 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. Onoes! The skies falling! /o\ A Goon said so! I can't believe you really want control over who jumps through the gates, this is about adding choice into the game no allowing you to sit behind your carebear protection wall. Then again perhaps you're this upset because you think CCP will break the game before the Goons do? I'm sure a few personal insults aimed at the devs will help though. Srsly. facepalm* Dumbledore is a grenade the goons throw into a thread just for the lulz of responces like yours. Quote: [03:39:05] Emperor Salazar > HOLY **** ITS ZEBA [03:39:20] Emperor Salazar > NEVER STOP POASTING Zeba is the BEST! ~Mitnal
Doctor Mabuse	Posted - 2009.09.10 22:51:00 - [420] Originally by: Zeba facepalm Dumbledore is a grenade the goons throw into a thread just for the lulz of responces like yours. A curse on those tricksy Goons! ------------------------------------ Who's trip-trapping on my bridge?
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.09.10 23:08:00 - [421] the big issue with jump bridges people have is: 1. reinforcements uber fast 2. super easy logistics; freighters, jumpfreighters, haulers. 3. only for the big and rich. If my small alliance only holds 2 star systems and they are next to each other. I cant use it. So it gives the big advantages that shouldnt really benefit them. Capital ships being able to use them isnt on the list of problems really. That is... supercaps and carriers/dreads. jf-freighters arent good when mixing with bridges. The purpose of caps seems lessening and lessening. To nerf them like this hurts even more. Sure it seems like caps are becoming uninteresting. Which is ironic because of how boring current cap battles are around. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Solid Star	Posted - 2009.09.10 23:17:00 - [422] The ideas in the blog sound awesome. This looks like it could bring a lot more depth to controlling 0.0
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.10 23:32:00 - [423] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore WTB Education. WTB Forum Moderation? Anyways, I think this patch is going to be uber. I heard that only Motherships will be able to use Fighter Bombers, so, I'm guessing that's going to actually make people even think about buying a MS :) Also, new sov mechanics = Win. TBH, this whole expansion = Epic Win.
Prof Fail	Posted - 2009.09.10 23:38:00 - [424] Edited by: Prof Fail on 10/09/2009 23:40:00 Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? So that is all well and good for official ops, but the problem here is that the most common capital movements are unofficial. They are people moving their carriers to lowsec and back to pick up new PVP ships, they are people jumping Rorquals full of minerals down to (or up from Empire). They are not large fleet movements and if I ask the guy in charge of the cyno jammer to unjam the system so that I can pick up a fleet BS and a couple of new Zealots, he is going to tell me to go to hell. And that is assuming that he is even online, which he won't be, because he is German and I am American. I can't park at a starbase because I'm not about to put my carrier in a SMA where anyone can grab it, which means that I have to stay in it... which means that I am being penalized in the same way that a mothership or titan pilot is, and that is rather unfair. There is no "op", there is just the day to day flow of personal and corporate logistics in any 0.0 alliance, and this change would disrupt it completely - and be really irritating, and no fun at all. I propose an alternative: Allow the cyno generator pos mod to function in cyno jammed systems. That way, you can still jump capitals in but your enemies cannot. qft Expecting a Cynojammer to be cycled for every capital movement is just impossible. Also some kind of home-advantage should be there. Otherwise its easier to live in npc space and just sell carriers and dreads. Theyre not that strong anyways against BS-Fleets (no lag issues anymore).
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.09.10 23:54:00 - [425] Originally by: Prof Fail Expecting a Cynojammer to be cycled for every capital movement is just impossible. Also some kind of home-advantage should be there. Otherwise its easier to live in npc space and just sell carriers and dreads. Theyre not that strong anyways against BS-Fleets (no lag issues anymore). Then turn cynojammer off and risk it. Or turn on, be safe from hotdrops but suffer on logistics. Cant eat cake and have cake like it was till now. And the home-advantage will still exist. Under cyno jammed system you can still move fleets faster than enemy (faster = advantage, amrite?). Or you can still protect your system from enemy caps as long as jammer is online (denying enemy cap use is also an advantage, amrite again?).
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.11 00:31:00 - [426] Hmm... I have some questions: 1) Will be moons affected? (not POSes, i'm talking about moon materials) 2) New resources will be provided by new sources? (Like i remember some talk about Planets and Winsauceables from Fanfest 2008) ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
Zlut Gothica	Posted - 2009.09.11 00:51:00 - [427] Edited by: Zlut Gothica on 11/09/2009 00:51:54 Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? So that is all well and good for official ops, but the problem here is that the most common capital movements are unofficial. They are people moving their carriers to lowsec and back to pick up new PVP ships, they are people jumping Rorquals full of minerals down to (or up from Empire). They are not large fleet movements and if I ask the guy in charge of the cyno jammer to unjam the system so that I can pick up a fleet BS and a couple of new Zealots, he is going to tell me to go to hell. And that is assuming that he is even online, which he won't be, because he is German and I am American. I can't park at a starbase because I'm not about to put my carrier in a SMA where anyone can grab it, which means that I have to stay in it... which means that I am being penalized in the same way that a mothership or titan pilot is, and that is rather unfair. There is no "op", there is just the day to day flow of personal and corporate logistics in any 0.0 alliance, and this change would disrupt it completely - and be really irritating, and no fun at all. I propose an alternative: Allow the cyno generator pos mod to function in cyno jammed systems. That way, you can still jump capitals in but your enemies cannot. You could dock your carrier in a station-system, where there's no cyno-jammer to start with. Cynojammers are ment to be placed in your core-systems (read: some 2 or 3 ), and not everywhere. Cynojammers protect your capital shipyards and super-cap parking lots, not every cheap-ass carrier. And your mentality of "I can jump into a jammed system and hide there, while my enemy can't"... well... NC at it's best I guess. Carebearland is over! And rightfully so. You want 0.0-space, then start fighting for it instead of hiding in cynojammed systems with tons of caps to throw at the BS-fleet that's incoming to beat the **** out of you. --- The proposed changes are long overdue and they should've been implemented long before the last big wars. It would've been much more interesting this way.
Steve Thomas	Posted - 2009.09.11 01:57:00 - [428] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Steve Thomas Hmmm I wonder how mutch of the upgrading you will be allowed to do in empire and Low sec/FW space. . . Especaly FW Space! Muaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaa! Try none. Since this expansion is about 0.0 sov space revamp and upgrading that space... Why none? I see nothing wrong with useing some of this to upgrade FW for example by adapting the Stations and gates to being used to designate flags for who owns what system in FW. **. . . . . . . .** Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries	Posted - 2009.09.11 02:11:00 - [429] Originally by: Steve Thomas Why none? I see nothing wrong with useing some of this to upgrade FW for example by adapting the Stations and gates to being used to designate flags for who owns what system in FW. don't expect it any time soon FW is a whole separate ball game that is probably not gonna see love with Dominion _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.11 02:51:00 - [430] Originally by: XXSketchxx don't expect it any time soon FW is a whole separate ball game that is probably not gonna see love with Dominion CCP will give Tier 1 Navy BSes... only for FW corp... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.11 03:04:00 - [431] Originally by: Zlut Gothica and the maintenance is handled by 10 peeps easily these days, which is plain and simple a bad game-design. ok the rest of your post i was all whatever just some guy ranting, but this issue right there is just **ing ****ed. Making the most dedicated of your players do the soul-crushing job of pos logistics is absolutely the worst part of eve, take it from goonswarm's logistics director (me). There is nothing fun or satisfying about it and I am much happier with a straight-up isk payment for owning space in the form of stargate fees
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.09.11 03:16:00 - [432] Edited by: Ranger 1 on 11/09/2009 03:17:33 Quote: Cynojammers and bridge-networks give way too much advantages to the defenders and the maintenance is handled by 10 peeps easily these days, which is plain and simple a bad game-design. I am, to a degree, forced to agree with this. It's doable with a small dedicated group, but it is mind numbingly dull. I've been on both sides of the fence when it comes to viewing game design in this regard. No disrespect to groups that have put a huge amount of effort into fortifying their holdings is intended by saying this but... Strictly speaking, from the perspective of creating the most action packed and enjoyable game possible, you need to avoid stagnation. Stagnation comes from having the ability to make yourself invulnerable to almost everyone else in the game. In essence, if you want EVE to be full of explosive combat and encourage bold military actions, you need a game design that allows space to be nurtured to the point of being very profitable (and appealing as a target) yet still be difficult to defend (especially a large territory). Defense of a manageable territory should definitely be doable as long as you don't bite off more than you can chew, but a determined attacker should have a number of ways to come at you to keep you on your toes. They should be able to cause damage financially by destroying parts of your infrastructure. They should be able to attempt to siege you by cutting off your lines of easy supply. They should be able to pull off numerous small raids that have a larger cumulative effect. Or they should be able to attempt to directly wrest control of your outlying systems away from you (via a number of methods ranging from fleet battles to ground attacks, or a combination of the two)... and geographically speaking, the larger you are, the harder it should be to effectively defend. The tricky part is enabling these possibilities without making it seem less than worthwhile to attempt to maintain SOV over an area. That is why being able to develop an area to be extremely profitable is crucial to making this all happen. If you can turn a relatively small area into a very lucrative one, you will attempt to develop it and fight for it, even if the fight is difficult. Of course, that means outside entities will be encouraged to try and take it away from you as well. These pressures are good, and both sides will be highly motivated in their respective goals. Looking at this from the big picture point of view, this is a very, very good thing. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.09.11 05:15:00 - [433] Originally by: Kesper North Originally by: CCP Abathur Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op? So that is all well and good for official ops, but the problem here is that the most common capital movements are unofficial. They are people moving their carriers to lowsec and back to pick up new PVP ships, they are people jumping Rorquals full of minerals down to (or up from Empire). ... I can't park at a starbase because I'm not about to put my carrier in a SMA where anyone can grab it, which means that I have to stay in it... Maaaaaybe choose your corp / alliance a bit more carefully then? Maybe chose a corp / alliance where people are more organized and working together better? Can you imagine that there was a time without cyno jammers, jump bridges and all that?! And can you imagine that at that time already some 0.0 alliances existed and some good fun happened in 0.0? How do you think they did stuff back then? I wish they would remove jump bridges at all except for station systems. That would help A LOT more. No jumpbridges for capitals - very good Cyno jammers only at station systems - very good
Darkdood	Posted - 2009.09.11 06:06:00 - [434] I'm no 0.0 expert but it occurs to me the simple answer is to make 2 separate types of jump bridges. A small one that only subcaps can use that has a limit of say 2-4 per system and then a large type that has a limit of 1 per system. The large type allows capitals and jump capable ships so you can provide a way in and out of your main jammed system but its a well defined path. On a day to day basis its useful but if I was the attacking force I would first smash that unjammed systems POS with that bridge on it. Cut off reinforcements and easy escape. Maybe give the large one much higher requirements on the infrastructure tree, and maybe more CPU or PG for the POS? etc etc... Not sure if it should have longer range or shorter? Just an idea.
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.11 06:33:00 - [435] Originally by: Darkdood The large type allows capitals and jump capable ships so you can provide a way in and out of your main jammed system but its a well defined path. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i suppose that CCP considered this possibility as unbalanced... So if u need to move your Cap Fleet in u need to diactivate Jammer and fight consequences... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
Dramaan	Posted - 2009.09.11 06:46:00 - [436] Have you consider to make limitations to jump brige and cyno jamers how many allianse can have? Or will you increase the cost on more number you have?
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:39:00 - [437] Originally by: Trimutius III Originally by: Darkdood The large type allows capitals and jump capable ships so you can provide a way in and out of your main jammed system but its a well defined path. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i suppose that CCP considered this possibility as unbalanced... So if u need to move your Cap Fleet in u need to diactivate Jammer and fight consequences... amen Originally by: Dramaan Have you consider to make limitations to jump brige and cyno jamers how many allianse can have? that would actually make a very effective way of making sure alliances doesnt claim to much space
Darkdood	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:47:00 - [438] Originally by: Trimutius III Originally by: Darkdood The large type allows capitals and jump capable ships so you can provide a way in and out of your main jammed system but its a well defined path. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i suppose that CCP considered this possibility as unbalanced... So if u need to move your Cap Fleet in u need to diactivate Jammer and fight consequences... True but it might not be the point. What I see people complaining about the most is that under the current system you can have two jump bridges per system. So if its well planed you can basically make a ring through all the key defense spots. Then when you need to get a defense fleet to somewhere you just have them make 3 quick jumps and boom they are on the target. It gives the defender a huge advantage cause he can cover more area than an attacker could ever hope to. Even worse he can do so with his entire capital fleet with no cyno. My point is if the "large" jump bridge was only allowed one per system then it only connect those two systems. Without a 2nd large you have to cyno the capitals in and out of that unjammed system. So rather than making it immune it just adds a layer of def. You pop that one tower in the unjammed system and the one inside the jammed system means nothing. It gives capitals AND jump freighters a gate to get into a jammed system. While at the same time eliminating major parts of the abuse. I would even go so far as to say maybe they should make it a special structure rather than a POS module. Part of the infrastructure tree. Something that could be attacked and disabled or even destroyed. Without knowing the details its hard to know what idea would fit. The main point is if you want to allow a jump bridge that capitals can go though make it one per system forcing them to choose which systems it connects. Rather than 2-3 per system were they can make patterns to cover large areas of space.
Gella Darru	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:49:00 - [439] observe as the gates become expensive to maintain and alliances that hold R64 moons jack up dyspro prices to pay for em, and the rest of us suffer. I hope CCP is on the ball with this one...
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:51:00 - [440] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: Trimutius III Originally by: Darkdood The large type allows capitals and jump capable ships so you can provide a way in and out of your main jammed system but its a well defined path. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i suppose that CCP considered this possibility as unbalanced... So if u need to move your Cap Fleet in u need to diactivate Jammer and fight consequences... amen Originally by: Dramaan Have you consider to make limitations to jump brige and cyno jamers how many allianse can have? that would actually make a very effective way of making sure alliances doesnt claim to much space no all that would do is make alliances create alt alliances to hold all their space.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.11 07:59:00 - [441] Edited by: Kerfira on 11/09/2009 08:01:17 In conjunction to this, I think this may be a good chance to overhaul standings and put some limitations on them EVE is a game of strife and discord, and having the majority of 0.0 friendly to each other and 'stomping' everyone else is not IMHO good for the game. There of.c. has to be a good deal of stomping going on, the stomping should also be between the big entities. So, something along these lines would be nice: An alliance/corp can set positive standings against a maximum of 5000 people, minus the number of people in the alliance/corp. An alliance/corp can set negative standings towards a maximum of 5000 people. Wardec'ed enemies doesn't count against this number. The structures of an alliance/corp WILL fire on neutrals. Note that this is currently easy to do as they're in out-of-the-way places. If some get moved to gates, these (the ones at gates only) MAY have to be on/off'able for neutrals. Hostiles can NOT be given any rights. Neutrals may NOT enter any forcefields or structures, or use any infrastructure (apart from docking rights at stations, and using gates) 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. A second point.... With the new mechanics, it would be a nice restriction if an alliance (or corp if not in an alliance), had to designate a 'Capital' for their empire. The Capital can only be moved if sov. in the Capital is TAKEN away. All new systems added to the empire MUST be connected to the capital through other systems all under sov. Systems where the connection is 'broken' will drop sov after 7 days if the connection is not re-established. This'll ensure that an alliance/corp can not just swoop up the 'best' systems/areas scattered over the place (at least not without paying the upkeep for the intervening systems). Third point... Currently 0.0 consists of 3 system types 'Worthless', 'Decent' (meaning they can support 2-3 players ratting/mining at a time), and 'Unbelievably Incredibly Totally Good' (good moons). This should be completely redone so all systems are decent, and the best systems are just maybe 50% better income wise than the worst! If this is combined with a L4 mission nerf (high-sec), the ratting/mining does not need to be increased, but moon mining will have to be. Best change I think would be for all moons to have all moon-minerals, but in somewhat different amounts. Good moons should have a bit more high-ends than bad moons, but the difference should be noticeable, but not huge. Fourth point.... To create a living 0.0, where people actually LIVE and not just go with a character to fight, it may be an idea to put some severe restrictions on resource movements. I know you've already done this with carriers/dreads, but to be brutally honest, I think the introduction of the Rorqual and the Jump Freighter was a mistake. Resources used in 0.0 should also be produced there, not in high-sec. Perhaps reduce JF's and Rorq's so it becomes too inconvenient to import low-end minerals and ice products. Last point... Aforementioned L4 income nerf. If the objective is to create a living 0.0, safe earnings have to be reduced. Currently you can earn more by L4 mission running than ratting, without any danger. Why are people going to do stuff in 0.0 (thus provide targets for enemies) if they can earn more in complete safety? If people do not DO stuff in 0.0 (ie. no small targets), the only targets is other fleets, meaning small-gang stuff suffers. All the above is aimed at making 0.0 more fun. If that could be done without putting any restrictions on the sandbox, this would have been nice, but I think reality has shown some things needs to be restricted. 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.
theshadowduke	Posted - 2009.09.11 08:23:00 - [442] 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.
Herpes Sweatrash	Posted - 2009.09.11 08:34:00 - [443] Nerf lvl4 mission income and remove all asteroids from high sec except those ones you need for mining missions (put them in high sec belts for decoration). Make npcs respawn every hour in 0.0 so people can't just rat all day in the same system.
Lusulpher Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.11 08:36:00 - [444] Edited by: Lusulpher on 11/09/2009 08:39:35 I would like to propose a few more Capital changes while the iron is hot. 1) What's up with Clonebays not being a functional feature on SuperCaps? Can't an owner ss it, deaggro and clonejump to empire like the powerful player he is? That would solve the parking issue if the hull could be set to 'occupied' while parked at a POS and no one in alliance could use it also for 24hrs. Hell, build a POS array so we could dock the damn things in public view(still stealable/theftable). 1 per Tower. Shows on scanner like usual. Small alliances consider these ships liabilities for the costs and access everyone has to them. At least let people lock the doors. 2) JFs need to move their own ass about space. Boost them to do that efficiently enough to provide fueling support for alliance and Capitals. THAT'S IT. No more Jump Bridge for Capitals to Capital, makes no damn sense. 3) Cynoes are for Strategic movements. My small, blackened heart aches when I hear about a devastating hotdrop that had involved no talent or planning. Just "Surprise! *******!" + Tackling Dreads closerange + 3x numbers. Fix: Warmup 3-5mins for the FTL Jump? Cooldown for the Drives? Both. This Tactical movement of war-winning/losing ships has to be more carefully though out. Capacitor penalty can be reduced, but offensive modules MUST be disabled. Say 1 min after entering, no tackle/guns/Fighter boost/Launch. So after the trap is sprung, only support tackles count as victory. And roamers/skilled FCs can escape when they get outbuttsecked. Dropping a Mom + Carriers on a routinely hostile camped system and warping them in when the camp is active, is a masterstroke...doing it because you can/it'd take 10mins to ruin other players' day, is not. A game of fuuking skill/teamwork this is. 4) *REMOVE DRONEBAYS FROM DREADS. Jeez, the amount of dreads you typically see + the drones they unleash on the support ships is ridiculous. They need to be vulnerable to EWAR and tackle ships. If you want to have your dreads on the field and the exit option. BRING/SWITCH TO SUPPORT FLEET.* 5) Titans must be able to take down a dread or two solo. Say a siege mod works on a Titan and give the Titan a 10x-50x damage multiplier on it's guns? Allow the Titan to fit minimum 5 hardpoints/launchers? Cannot track/hit BSs or smaller. Massive penalty to remaining HP, so the pilot has to make up their mind, pre-fail. This would also allow rapid liquification of POS, but that won't be as important in the future, and the Titan is now priority target on such ops. See what happens after the Titan uses it's DD...it has options when it gets dread-blobbed. Titan has to at least make it to the 2nd DD cycle or take a few ballsy bastards with it...bring fear back to Titans, and not just Titan blob fears. Might even have siege Titans slugging each other...Capitals Online would fix itself. As a cornered Titan would definitely bite hard, and might do enough so that you lost your own Titan in the deaththroes(LOVE THE WORD) Or you will still have to buff their HP eventually after nerfing their major appeal, "multi-dooming". Bombers for Carriers is definitely a proper change to remove all these damn dreads. And T3 scripts/authoring used on those new towers and Outposts? It's either more of this or a nasty Capitals ship tax. Even for my Carrier I never use. 7

CCP Whisper	Posted - 2009.09.11 09:25:00 - [445] 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?

Jim Pooley Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.11 10:40:00 - [446] 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? Can I have a hug, even though I am in a terrific mood as it is Friday and all. Just a hug would really top my day off nicely. ------------------------------------------ Mines a Pint of Large
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.11 10:42:00 - [447] 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.
ElvenLord 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.11 10:47:00 - [448] 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? and politeness IS a virtue but it seems you lack that one
iP0D	Posted - 2009.09.11 10:49:00 - [449] 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? Hugging will come too late for him, undoubtedly, but since you are offering, I could really use one ..
Serpents smile	Posted - 2009.09.11 11:19:00 - [450] 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?
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.
Steve Thomas	Posted - 2009.09.12 00:01:00 - [481] Originally by: Htaer 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. ok secnond thing first, lets try to keep the fb off the bords? first thing second, I think the whole idea is to make it so that people who want to keep 0.0 will have to work to keep the space they have, with a Big aliance controlling say an entire region while individual corps can hold say a constelation or several star systems in there. . . . . . . . .** Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense.
Gunship Amarr Destructive Influence	Posted - 2009.09.12 00:01:00 - [482] It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this (not being build in a sov 4 system). All good refreshing stuff, I'm sure we will endure a patch or two before we get there, but the the end most def. justify the means, so well done and respect for having the balls to carry it out.
Haraukiae Youik	Posted - 2009.09.12 00:42:00 - [483] If CCP finally gets rid of the soverenity of systems which is the way 0.0 started, then people will go there and populate the systems. As it is now unless they place exhorbitant taxes on control of systems the 0.0 corps will just cry like babies once again and CCP will cave. The best thing to happen so far has been wormholes but those most certainly will not last in their present forms as CCP has traditionally caved to a small sector of players. You free up 0.0 CCP and the players will come. You keep it up as the "elite sandbox" and players will stay away.
Garok Nor Blueprint Haus	Posted - 2009.09.12 01:00:00 - [484] Originally by: An Anarchyyt I fail to see why you think basically invulnerable sov 4 supercap production was cool or a good idea in any way. ^^ THIS... Isn't the proliferation of Supercaps becoming just a tad ridiculous? ------------------------------------------------- Items posted by me are in no way a reflection of the policies and/or opinions of my corporation or alliance. {though they maybe really ought to be}
Xantiln Abbey.Normal	Posted - 2009.09.12 01:26:00 - [485] I have read several post that the change will not help small alliances to enter null sec and claim Sovereignty. What exactly is a small alliance? Do they deserve a hand holding into null sec.
Grista	Posted - 2009.09.12 01:31:00 - [486] Originally by: Gunship It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this (not being build in a sov 4 system). The solution is obvious: serious alliances will just drop a dozen towers with CSAA's in one system. Only 1-3 will actually be building anything. Anyhow, I'm optimistic if the upgrades at release include improving space for ratters, miners, and exploration. As many others have noted, there's no reason a 20 belt system with perfect truesec should only be able to support 1 or 2 ratters. That, and the fact that 95% of 0.0 are terrible truesec are why the larger alliances hold systems in 3, 4, or 5 regions.
Steve Thomas	Posted - 2009.09.12 02:22:00 - [487] Originally by: XXSketchxx Originally by: Steve Thomas Why none? I see nothing wrong with useing some of this to upgrade FW for example by adapting the Stations and gates to being used to designate flags for who owns what system in FW. don't expect it any time soon FW is a whole separate ball game that is probably not gonna see love with Dominion Quote: Viceroyalty Viceroyalties are systems in low security Empire space which are administered by a player Viceroy, on behalf of their corporation or alliance. TheyÆll allow you to both turn a better profit and defend your chosen system from pirates, and act as both a way to populate low-sec space and an easier first step on the road to 0.0. look in the tabs over there <<<--- where it says "The Drawing board" Granted there is no telling when/if they will get around to doing it(after all the Skill que was on the drawing board forever before someone said ok lets do it, however it seems to me that for the rest of low sec it would be a fairly straight forward plug in. **. . . . . . . .** Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense.
Steve Thomas	Posted - 2009.09.12 02:43:00 - [488] Edited by: Steve Thomas on 12/09/2009 02:44:36 Originally by: Gunship It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this (not being build in a sov 4 system). I doubt any. long before this goes live your going to see it turn up on SiSi and I will garantee that anyone in one of the corps whos building any supercap will be paying close attention to what happens. (~6 weeks 5 days 9 hours 46 min 40 seconds with my current skills to build a titan. also, unless its changed recently, on SiSi if a supercap is in production and a given aliance is still considered "intact" but loses sov4 the ships will keep building. however you stop being able to start new builds. (Gtranted that probably is on SiSi only because of the weirdness that goes with them trying to test things, SiSi is in more ways that the developers will ever admit its own beast) I suspect that the previously announced "Nerf" to the Dooms Day Device has probably done more to curb Titan builds than anything else tbh. **. . . . . . . .** Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense.
Pherusa Plumosa Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.09.12 03:39:00 - [489] Originally by: CCP Whisper 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. indeed. close all stargates around your systems and maintain jumpbridges to control who enters your space or not I don't know how those stargate fees look like. if it is a fix fee, maybe let sov drop, as the space is appearantly not used. and if the fees depend on the people who jump through, it would be not really fair imho to punish the owner too hard. maybe let local disappear, since space + gates don't get enough love ^^ __________________________________________________
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.12 03:40:00 - [490] I'm all for smaller alliances trying to carve out a home in 0.0, and Dominion sounds like it will do a lot to facilitate it. However, there's just not enough entry gates between empire and 0.0 for them to come and go without getting **** on by the big alliances who enjoy camping these gates all day. There may be entire empty constellations but it wont make any difference if you can't reliably get to them.
Garok Nor Blueprint Haus	Posted - 2009.09.12 03:44:00 - [491] Originally by: Gekkoh Ah, meta-gaming. How bittersweet it is. However, with all of those being a self-contained unit of space, wouldn't it be more likely for in-fighting to break out and split the meta-alliance into smaller pieces? You sir don't get goons... they have an identity separate from the game which is stronger than the one they have in game. If (and big if here cause TBQH most of what is being discussed here is wild conjecture at this point) Alliances need to splinter to manage sov costs, I think you'll find those with a strong OOG identity with a distinct advantage. But TBQH I don't see this going in the direction you suggest... perhaps that's just wishful thinking on my part... perhaps not. ------------------------------------------------- Items posted by me are in no way a reflection of the policies and/or opinions of my corporation or alliance. {though they maybe really ought to be}
Aethrwolf Caldari Home for Wayward Gamers	Posted - 2009.09.12 05:58:00 - [492] Originally by: Zastrow J I'm all for smaller alliances trying to carve out a home in 0.0, and Dominion sounds like it will do a lot to facilitate it. However, there's just not enough entry gates between empire and 0.0 for them to come and go without getting **** on by the big alliances who enjoy camping these gates all day. There may be entire empty constellations but it wont make any difference if you can't reliably get to them. There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps. on another note, I deliberately went a little crazy on me earlier "think bigger" post, but I've been thinking that some of those ideas arent completely crazy, if they were balanced a bit. I would also like to add for thought... Exploration beacons. an upgrade that could be purchased that allows someone with the correct roles to place a beacon in an exploration site (belt, gas cloud) that would then mark the site as part of the system. Afterward the site would stay in system and follow the respawn/growth rules for normal belts. Site would have to be left there for at least 1 DT or it would despawn as usual and the marker is wasted. (the last part is along the lines of "I dont know how well this could be automated without excessive programming time" and allows for devs to manually spawn the belt as part of the system without being "on call" every time someone places a marker) markers would be destructible objects. (hmmm.. lends thought to having ALL belt beacons destructible) and heres another most likely impracticable idea.. mission agents as infrastructure? basically allow alliances to become more like factions? alliances could set either standings or membership reqs for using them. Planetary upgrades that include manufacture of POS fuel items that are currently npc only. I would like to see players able to do just about anything that npc factions can. Absolutely everything is subjective.
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.12 06:16:00 - [493] Originally by: Aethrwolf There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps. If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here.
Poseign Cryo Innovations Teutonic Guard	Posted - 2009.09.12 07:56:00 - [494] Edited by: Poseign on 12/09/2009 07:57:00 Originally by: Grista Originally by: Gunship It will be interesing to see how many baby Titans are going to burn as a result of this (not being build in a sov 4 system). The solution is obvious: serious alliances will just drop a dozen towers with CSAA's in one system. Only 1-3 will actually be building anything. IMO This would also be a way CCP is "nerfing" titans. Dont you think there's already a mess of them in 0.0? With as long as they take to build, I would venture to say that unless complete secrecy is kept between builder and pilot, not many new titans will be born under new sov mechanics, at least no where NEAR as many as have been pushed out under sov 4. Not that I'm complaining. I'm all for titans, they serve their purpose, but when you get so many of them in game that we start seeing screenshots of 30+ titan-only conga lines on POS'es.... speaks for itself doesnt it? x-103 Azrael Pilgrim Quote: "And the Angel of Death apeared from the darkness knowing that tonight another victim would be claimed by his fury."
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.12 08:30:00 - [495] Originally by: Grista The solution is obvious: serious alliances will just drop a dozen towers with CSAA's in one system. Only 1-3 will actually be building anything. IIRC, you can actually see in-game which ones are producing.... There are supposedly blinking lights or something on the active ones. 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.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.09.12 09:10:00 - [496] Originally by: AM Boveri JumpBridges as they are now use Liquid Ozone fuel. For Stargates under the new system, why not just have them use LO2 as well? They do the same thing, and it would remove the ISK sink that comes with fees. Everyone's right, space maintenance should still be maintained as a player-driven market, not lost isk. bolded the important bit.. and yes it is needed badly ISK has been steadily devaluing due to rampant inflation for years with minimal isk sinks. biggest isk sinks that spring to mind are clones, pos's and pos mods (which will take a SERIOUS hit with the sov change) and the lol corp/alliance creation fee. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Slave 2739FKZ Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.12 09:54:00 - [497] I just can hope sov development and system upgrades will affect moon mining output (the quantity of it and maybe the quality?), this will be a reason to conquer these moon holding systems, defend them, and develop them. WIS is an expansion which allows EVE players to wear leather and walk around stations. Dust514 is a console shooter/rts which will tie into EVE and affect sov.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.12 10:01:00 - [498] Originally by: Zastrow J Originally by: Aethrwolf There's a point and a possible exploit(?) here. If holding too much space is too expensive, then all the nullsec alliances need to do is make sure all the space that connects to empire is claimed, then simply deny access from empire to the remote sections of nullsec that they cant or dont want to pay for. How feasible that would be, I dont really know, but I'm sure someone will try it. WH will offer o way around this, but with mass limits, it would take a great deal of luck,planning, and patience to move enough ships/resources out not to get stomped as soon as you started showing up on the sov maps. If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here. All true. There might be ways around it though, for example black ops jump bridges with which you can bring in stuff for bases (blockade runners) and if you can stay under the "radar" so to speak it should be possible.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.09.12 10:14:00 - [499] Originally by: The GrimWristler I can imagine carriers and dreads being blown up to quickly by frig bomber fleets, unless i read this incurrectly. you did not as it were get it correctly, those "frig" bombers are carrier deployed drones... just like fighters. so your fear might be assuaged by the fact that it will be carriers and mom's fielding drone bomber fleets to lay dps onto dreads and other caps. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.09.12 10:19:00 - [500] Originally by: Devblog The idea is that some areas of space are obviously considered of less worth than others and always have been. This is going to change. YOU are going to change it. Through the investment of time, money and effort at all levels, an alliance will be able to directly affect the value of and develop the space they hold. do you intend to fit less profitable regions with more improvement potential and currently profitable ones with a lower potential? say there is a profitable region, will this have the same improvement potential as a less profitable one? the same maybe? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.12 11:00:00 - [501] Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?
TexasWARlord North Domain Defense Forces	Posted - 2009.09.12 11:24:00 - [502] Quote: If you look at the map, 0.0 space is nothing but pipes and chokepoints. It is entirely feasible for big alliances to "control" regions without having sov all over it. So while Dominion will reduce the barriers to entry in 0.0, I still haven't heard enough to imagine a flood of new corps/alliances heading out here. Simple fix, increase worm hole spawns in areas that are not occupied by say 10 pilots in a 48 Hrs period. Extend wormhole life for areas that are not inhabited for 7 days. Example: Systems been unoccupied and unsoved for one week. A unique wormhole spawns with 10b mass for 3 days. If you cant capatalize on that you dont deserve being out there at all. On the plus side it would give alliances a superhighway for a limited time to set up shop. After shop is set up then its up to them to hold it and get supplies in through the choke points.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.09.12 11:40:00 - [503] Originally by: Aralis Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? yep, they are trying to reduce the practical size of any alliances space, by tying the amount of held space directly to the amount of players it can leverage to defend the actual systems. ie: a 200man alliance that plays in roughly the same TZ, is active everyday and runs constant ops with 180-200men fleets will succesfully be able to hold enough space and possibly more than the current model where alliance membership ranks in the thousands (of ratters/miners and part time pvp'ers) and a dedicated crew of a dozen or three logisticians keeping up the sov by their lonesomes. personally i think this change will be awesome. dead end constellations and arms will become serious fortresses, due to the fact that defenses can be focussed on one system. ring shaped constellations will be quite hard to hold and yet harder to conquer both due to higher number of gates. frankly it would be nice if say SOT for instance could confine itself to a single constellation or two and still offer all our members the benefits we currently enjoy by holding near half of fountain. especially if all the systems were actually useful and bear-able. a lot of people are rightfully stating that any newcomer would immediately be squashed because no 0.0 entity will tolerate a red faction 3-5 jumps away from their core systems. however i can see a nap-train of smaller individuals (in space owned terms, not players) sharing a region, and replacing current multi-region nap-trains sharing whole sides of null sec. imagine for a moment if the entire NC could comfortably fit into a single region and extract from it enough stuff to rival what it currently gains from all the regions they hold. would they continue to hold a ton of regions and defend them all? or would they pile all their members into a much smaller area, raising the defender/system ratio much higher while at the same time keeping their alliance/corp/individual isk flow intact? now I'm not trying to single out the NC, the above example really goes for every large entity. let's not forget with the drastic reduction in cyno jammer availability a lot of currently save space gets splayed wide open to the enemy. and the (hopefully) exponential increase in isk cost to maintain star-gates in order to maintain sov. with the re-balance of R64's the seemingly endless jewgold faucets might crank down a bit, or R64 moon mins are going to go through the roof to pay for the new isk sink. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Alizandro Goderaski Minmatar Broski Enterprises	Posted - 2009.09.12 11:48:00 - [504] Originally by: Aralis Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? Go whine to your queen about it.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.12 11:58:00 - [505] Originally by: Aralis Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? What they are trying to do is make spaced lived in better and alliances that focus on living in their space rather than just harvesting moon goo better off. So as I interpret it is that your alliance will probably have the easiest time of all to adapt and profit from the new system, that is they are hardly trying to do you over.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.12 12:07:00 - [506] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Aralis Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? What they are trying to do is make spaced lived in better and alliances that focus on living in their space rather than just harvesting moon goo better off. So as I interpret it is that your alliance will probably have the easiest time of all to adapt and profit from the new system, that is they are hardly trying to do you over. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest CCP were picking on CVA. I realise it will be equally bad for everyone. In fact I agree it may be less bad for us than some others. But it certainly isn't doing us any favours. This is all rather beside the point though. I don't suppose CCP would be listening to my whinging and I wouldn't waste my time. What I want is to understand what CCP want. That might give us a chance to adapt to it. I can't imagine it making space better lived in. That doesn't seem a likely consequence of this at all - quite the reverse! (And I think we'd be in a position to know what does make space well lived in.) Surely they must have some more realistic goal?
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.12 12:26:00 - [507] people seem to think this will free up an extreme amount of pos hassle. Pos life will still continue within dominion even if Pos bashing isnt the way to claim sov anymore. People will still manufacture and moon harvest for example. It will only be the moons that have bugger all on them, ehich wont get used, even then thats debatable due to region space that an alliance may hold. reading the comments throughout this thread, i still do not understand why stargates are given the sov role. is there something im missing where by planets are the next major things to develop within eve and dust 514? should there not be an infrastructure put in place ready for the deployment of dust 514 in a couple of years time? i dont see dust 514 fighting on stargates to claim sov with! Due to this, would the sov system get changed again in the near future to accomadate dust514? alot of individuals have been ranting about this "player investment and development in improving their land" so to speak. what does this entale exactly? would this improve ratting or/and mining? No. ofc not. When you mine. the ore runs out. you rat in the lowest sec status system you find. Would the sec status drop maybe? how do go about improving this space? is it through just staying here over time, or do we have to work our butt off in ways which compensates for our time fuelling slightly less amount of pos's.
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.12 12:40:00 - [508] Smaller alliances dont get a sniff in 0.0 space, and its agreed that bigger alliances have claim therefore you obey by their rules, or get out. democracy plays quite apart. Npc regions have also played a large role for smaller scale alliances to up their numbers before venturing into true 0.0. Making 0.0 space large than it already is make alliances more over stretched and allow smaller alliances to creep in? maybe npc regions which wont allow any alliances in with Sov under their ticker? maybe a scheme of missions where a small alliance can run prestige missions or points which can be gained to gain themselves a plot of space for so long within 0.0? all gates are locked except for that particular alliance of so many day or weeks? either way, smaller alliances will struggle within 0.0 whether we like it or not. bigger alliances with larger numbers can overwhelm them even with this new system in place. you dont have to claim sov, but you can suck them dry from pos bashing and general influence within the area.
The GrimWristler	Posted - 2009.09.12 12:50:00 - [509] Although i dislike the idea of stargates being under rule of sov, and planets should play a bigger role. i cannot stop thinking about all the things that previous game developers had done to several games which killed them off. I do think that Sov plays a HUGE role within eve, and that over 70% of players who play eve, have some connection within 0.0. it would be a real shame if it became a huge flop and killed it. I know that ccp wouldnt allow it to happen, well atleast while ambulation and dust is in development. I do fear that alot of players could dislike sov enough to end their careers within eve if ccp isnt careful.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.12 13:38:00 - [510] Originally by: Aralis Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? What is exactly the problem with this? Less hassle with POS's, giving us the ability to make provi actually decent space, hurting alliances who got only alot of space for the R64 moons, etc. This looks like the best thing to happen to providence since we started importing sliced bread.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.12 14:15:00 - [511] Originally by: Aralis Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? I'd guess the aim is to make it so holding space is about playing the game and shooting the people who try to take it off you, rather than having a POS fuelling team treating EVE as a full time unpaid job as they jump from system to system pouring isotopes into towers. A simple sovereignty tax makes 0.0 far more accessable to the small-medium alliances than them having to drag millions of m3 in fuel halfway across the galaxy every month. I obviously don't know who is in charge of tower logistics for CVA's various corps, but ask them what they think of no longer having to spend untold soul-destroying hours running round Providence with fuel for literally hundreds of towers.
XXXAKTIVE	Posted - 2009.09.12 14:24:00 - [512] It is much easier to claim systems with outposts. For example the outpost built in the system will give SOV to the systems nearby, for example 3 AU or something. And make outposts destructable (a hell of a lot of HP, but destructable). The problem of claims will be solved easily
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2009.09.12 14:47:00 - [513] I read most of the thread ... The talk of altering true sec to get more rats - This doesn't make sense. Let's build up Park Avenue and invite the criminals to the tea house. An ability to find more plexes, or a worm hole generator to get into W space. Maybe the "hidden gate detector" that leads to X space, some hidden rat gate to some hidden rat system that lasts for 48 hours and full of rat loot - maybe the hidden system has gates to other 0.0 areas too and you might find your enemies in there ... Would be better. With W space code now implemented, this, X space, could be done rather easily. Gate control - Gates are an artificial means to push people to one spot so you can shoot each other, that's it. They limit game play too much already. Allowing someone to lock them or put up guns or make them more limiting than they already are would be a bad idea. Silly things should be gotten rid of anyway. Exponential Cost - Yay. Should be more expensive/more difficult to hold larger and larger areas. The treaty idea fits into this very well. It will allow the creation of new political structures. Federations, Confederations, Republics, Feudal ... All will have more value. No POS and Sov - Good. One of the things that keeps people away from even wanting to be involved in Sov, tiresome chores. Eve is a game and a hobby, not a job. Wealth Distribution - Dunno what's gonna happen with moons, but even distribution of materials would work better. Economies work better when more entities participate in the market. As for players ... They need to make more ISK as individuals in 0.0 space. I know you're a business CCP, but the encouragement of multiple accounts to overcome issues such as 0.0 ISK faucets and Security Status is rude, and no, nerfing lvl 4 ISK won't fix that. The X space idea above could do that on an almost unlimited basis providing the spawn rate in X space were (please) faster than W space, which is boringly slow. Transition - I'm sure CCP isn't going to hit the disband button on everyone, and I suspect that on day zero everyone will magically have all their new Dominion bunker thingers or whatever they are called poofed into place. Will probably have a month to decide what to do with them all before anyone will have to pay a bill. Give CCP some credit. Though they make design choices that I find odd sometimes, they are not idiots. Cyno - Caps are big and slow and jumping all over creation is silly. They should be The toys pulled out for the final assault, the big boom. Not "hey let's go roam in caps! X up for cap roam, hot drop some miners dewds!" Allow Mommies and Titans to dock in the home systems, with a cap ship dock array or something. Let people keep the big toys home and safe. If someone is always stuck in one of the things, that they paid months and months of subscription time, and all the effort, of course they're going to want to use it, and for the most mundane of things, since they can't do anything else. Scorched Earth - An alliance should be able to destroy its own assets (with all Security concerns in place, as per the BoB incident.) It should be a risk to the attacker that all their efforts may provide them with nothing of their enemies assets. Since space can be improved, the gain should be the space and the ability to improve it, not the improvements them selves.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.12 15:33:00 - [514] Originally by: XXXAKTIVE Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 14:26:57 It is much easier to claim systems with outposts. For example the outpost built in the system will give SOV to the systems nearby, for example 4 AU or something. And make outposts destructable (a hell of a lot of HP, but destructable). The problem of claims will be solved easily Since outposts aren't possible to destroy and the cost of one is oh 25bn or thereabouts I doubt that is ever going to be how sov is claimed.
Rumba Purring	Posted - 2009.09.12 16:05:00 - [515] Originally by: Aralis Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see. However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we? What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve? I doubt CCP's intention is to purposefully single out a certain group of players to harass. I wager their intention is simple and is exactly as they stated: they want to improve EVE as a game (shock!). The current sovereignty game has been played ad nauseum for a few years. While it was great fun, there are cracks and annoyances. Also, having played it, more interesting ideas have been generated, which could make the game even more fun and interesting. So it's time to introduce a new game. As a by-product, this adversely hurts players who have excelled and placed high in the current game. On the other hand, I have no doubt the qualities that brought success to current winners (strategic thinking, dedication, team-work, risk taking) are likely to reap rewards again once the new game arrives. Interesting times ahead. ------------- Would you be ready if the gravity reversed itself?
Garok Nor Blueprint Haus	Posted - 2009.09.12 16:19:00 - [516] Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57 Originally by: Jack Gilligan That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B". This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ... Ever consider this is CCP's way of brainstorming with the playerbase to see if they come up with anything they hadn't thought of that might go wrong with or improve the Dominion patch? I see this whole thread as a sort of townhall on the coming major changes... 17 pages of input so far... a lot of concerns plus some really good (and many whacky) ideas. I doubt CCP is ignoring what is being said in this thread (except the odd OMG the sky is falling post with nothing else of substance in it). R&D mate... R&D... would you rather they just implemented the patch and said "hai guise here's what we did like it or leave it"? ------------------------------------------------- Items posted by me are in no way a reflection of the policies and/or opinions of my corporation or alliance. {though they maybe really ought to be}
Alisaadi Chorster Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.12 17:04:00 - [517] After reading through most of the posts in here I would like to add my 2 isk input. There is no way CCP can help a small alliance move into null sec if the larger Alliances does not want them there. I would assume that CCP will deploy a patch weeks before the upgrade that will place a flag in every system that sov can be established. This will allow the current sov holder the option to declare they will hold sov in that system and know how much isk up front it will cost to keep it the way it is. Example would be a sov4 super capital building system will need all military upgrades to keep the level to where it is cyno jammed have a cyno beacon to jump only alliance capital ships in and out. This will make it difficult to invade, but produce no income and have a high upkeep. Lets say they choose to claim the system with economical upgrades there would be many rats, complexes and wormholes. The higher the upgrade the the higher the bounty on rats the better the complex and the more stable the wormhole(s). The down side there will be no cyno jammer, jump bridge and a local that is delayed. This system would give your alliance a large amount of isk with greater risk. The Industrial system will have more belt and high end moons and the planets will provide industrial benefits. The system will have better defendable upgrades a local that updates faster but still be vulnerable to attacks. The income will not be as immediate as a economical system but will generate isk after added work is done.
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2009.09.12 17:34:00 - [518] Originally by: Anonymouns Whiners Ever consider this is CCP's way of brainstorming with the playerbase to see if they come up with anything they hadn't thought of that might go wrong with or improve the Dominion patch? Same group will complain later that CCP never listens. The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
XXXAKTIVE	Posted - 2009.09.12 18:41:00 - [519] Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 18:44:59 Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 18:42:46 Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 18:41:14 Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: XXXAKTIVE Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 14:26:57 It is much easier to claim systems with outposts. For example the outpost built in the system will give SOV to the systems nearby, for example 4 AU or something. And make outposts destructable (a hell of a lot of HP, but destructable). The problem of claims will be solved easily Since outposts aren't possible to destroy and the cost of one is oh 25bn or thereabouts I doubt that is ever going to be how sov is claimed. This will make things easier. Outposts could be made destructable. It is not a big deal. Also give the ability to fit outposts with repair modules and guns and hardeners. It would be fun, I assure U About 25 bils... There are lot of titans in Eve, each titan costs at least 60bln + fitting) So it is not so expensive as U may think
Vergil Kankuro	Posted - 2009.09.12 20:28:00 - [520] This sounds like an amazing idea, the sov system is getting to be a bit old and wrinkly. But this also represents an opportunity to make mom's and titans more integral to sov holding, rather than just products of it. Perhaps say that the 'sov flag' can only be planted by a supercapital, or if planet colonization comes into it somehow then that would be a supercapital affair as well. Would certainly increase the need for supercaps in the game, rather than just as hugely expensive liabilities.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.12 20:36:00 - [521] Originally by: Adunh Slavy The talk of altering true sec to get more rats - This doesn't make sense. Let's build up Park Avenue and invite the criminals to the tea house. Rats are already completely nonsensical (why are they just hanging out in the asteroid belts waiting to be shot? Why especially are haulers full of minerals just sitting there too? Why don't they warp away when you break their tank? Why don't they call their buddies in from the other belts to help them when you attack? Who is putting the bounties on their heads out in 0.0? Why do they only fit one gun? Why do the weapons they drop not match the weapons they attack you with? Why do officer and faction spawns go into battle with expensive implants and BPCs sitting in their cargohold?), so I don't see why an extra layer of implausibility on top of the rest should harm things too much.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.12 20:48:00 - [522] Originally by: Vergil Kankuro This sounds like an amazing idea, the sov system is getting to be a bit old and wrinkly. But this also represents an opportunity to make mom's and titans more integral to sov holding, rather than just products of it. Perhaps say that the 'sov flag' can only be planted by a supercapital, or if planet colonization comes into it somehow then that would be a supercapital affair as well. Would certainly increase the need for supercaps in the game, rather than just as hugely expensive liabilities. "Hey guys welcome to the open-ended player-driven sandbox of 0.0 where you are free to tread your own path, oh by the way the rules are you can only be a spaceholding alliance if you have a fleet of supercaps" This is a horrible idea. Changing the sov system so small alliances have a chance to take space is completely pointless if you then force them to spend 20bn or 50bn they don't have on a bunch of 'hugely expensive liability' ships for a few poor suckers to sit in and plant flags. There's too many Titans in game (like, 10 or 20 times too many) as it is without making them a mandatory tool for territorial warfare.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.12 20:53:00 - [523] Enough talking. CCP we are waiting on SISI
Poseign Cryo Innovations Teutonic Guard	Posted - 2009.09.12 21:56:00 - [524] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Vergil Kankuro This sounds like an amazing idea, the sov system is getting to be a bit old and wrinkly. But this also represents an opportunity to make mom's and titans more integral to sov holding, rather than just products of it. Perhaps say that the 'sov flag' can only be planted by a supercapital, or if planet colonization comes into it somehow then that would be a supercapital affair as well. Would certainly increase the need for supercaps in the game, rather than just as hugely expensive liabilities. "Hey guys welcome to the open-ended player-driven sandbox of 0.0 where you are free to tread your own path, oh by the way the rules are you can only be a spaceholding alliance if you have a fleet of supercaps" This is a horrible idea. Changing the sov system so small alliances have a chance to take space is completely pointless if you then force them to spend 20bn or 50bn they don't have on a bunch of 'hugely expensive liability' ships for a few poor suckers to sit in and plant flags. There's too many Titans in game (like, 10 or 20 times too many) as it is without making them a mandatory tool for territorial warfare. not to mention the new mechanics will make building these supercaps more risky than it is currently, considering POS's will no longer have the sov 4 immunity. caps and supercaps are there to give an easier way to take space by force, not to be the only way. x-103 Azrael Pilgrim Quote: "And the Angel of Death apeared from the darkness knowing that tonight another victim would be claimed by his fury."
Cailais Amarr Stealthfield Clandestine.	Posted - 2009.09.12 23:08:00 - [525] I think one of the more interesting aspects to come out of the recent dev blog is the potential for treaties to be used to enhance sovereign control. Ive long thought that the best route to encouraging players out into .0 would be by providing incentives to Alliances to accept the presence of 'neutrals'. Think of it this way. If a sovereignty holding Alliance benefited or even needed a '3rd party' to provide legitimacy to its ownership of a system this would be of benefit to both parties. Assuming the process required a modi**of effort on the part of the 3rd party the risk of 'alt corps' being used would be reduced. C. Originally by:** Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
Adunh Slavy	Posted - 2009.09.12 23:44:00 - [526] Originally by: Scatim Helicon I don't see why an extra layer of implausibility on top of the rest should harm things too much. There's lots of better ways to introduce profitable PVE ratting to "improved" 0.0 besides the same lame old belt rating. That's why. The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
Aquinzus Amarr Modern Marvels	Posted - 2009.09.13 03:02:00 - [527] I have a few questions, comments and inquiries. 1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever? 2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ? 3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ? 4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ? 5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone? Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before. They just not going to buy your bunker flag BS and plant it so that some 20 man roaming Stealth Bomber gang can come by and bask at washing in blood as you so put it, in over 1 Billion of distructable assets hanging out at a gate. And if you think Johnny Q and his buddies are able to face the like of -A-, Goons, NC, CVA, etc etc etc then your sorely mistaken. This is going to do nothing for the small guy, CCP sorry your not going to make a patch that turns people into CVA, those other guys shoot people for being neutral, the very minute a neutral shows up he is dead. Alliances are not going to allow people to move to 0.0 and claim thier space that they had sov over only 24 hours before patch. 0.0 Alliances for the exception of CVA/Sylph wont allow you to enter thier space, and operate NBSI. This is why more people are not in 0.0. Not because of sov and sov warefare. You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.13 04:39:00 - [528] Originally by: Aquinzus I have a few questions, comments and inquiries. 1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever? 2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ? 3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ? 4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ? 5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone? Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before. They just not going to buy your bunker flag BS and plant it so that some 20 man roaming Stealth Bomber gang can come by and bask at washing in blood as you so put it, in over 1 Billion of distructable assets hanging out at a gate. And if you think Johnny Q and his buddies are able to face the like of -A-, Goons, NC, CVA, etc etc etc then your sorely mistaken. This is going to do nothing for the small guy, CCP sorry your not going to make a patch that turns people into CVA, those other guys shoot people for being neutral, the very minute a neutral shows up he is dead. Alliances are not going to allow people to move to 0.0 and claim thier space that they had sov over only 24 hours before patch. 0.0 Alliances for the exception of CVA/Sylph wont allow you to enter thier space, and operate NBSI. This is why more people are not in 0.0. Not because of sov and sov warefare. You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period. All pretty clear. THough I assume the bit about a mail to alliance leaderships is a joke. I hope CCP would never consider getting in the game so directly. But the trouble is that NRDS is Eve on hard mode. It does clearly require a lot more work - why should most people do it? Certainly this patch is all set to make life a lot harder for NRDS and gotta wonder if we can keep it up in these conditions. Also for the same sort of reasons alliances will be much less inclined to let anyone else set up camp near them. The risks are going up.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.13 04:54:00 - [529] Originally by: XXXAKTIVE This will make things easier. Outposts could be made destructable. It is not a big deal. Also give the ability to fit outposts with repair modules and guns and hardeners. It would be fun, I assure U About 25 bils... There are lot of titans in Eve, each titan costs at least 60bln + fitting) So it is not so expensive as U may think Fun, perhaps. Possible, maybe. The reason outposts aren't possible to destroy is probably the same reason why we can't have piloted ships in other piloted ships (carriers etc) namely database. It is probably not as simple as setting a arbitrary number for HP etc. As for the cost, yes there are lots of titans in the game. Most are bought for with income from moon goo, 25bn is a huge barrier to entry which won't change much.
Mara Intala	Posted - 2009.09.13 05:26:00 - [530] Originally by: Aquinzus I have a few questions, comments and inquiries. 5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone? Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before. They just not going to buy your bunker flag BS and plant it so that some 20 man roaming Stealth Bomber gang can come by and bask at washing in blood as you so put it, in over 1 Billion of distructable assets hanging out at a gate. And if you think Johnny Q and his buddies are able to face the like of -A-, Goons, NC, CVA, etc etc etc then your sorely mistaken. This is going to do nothing for the small guy, CCP sorry your not going to make a patch that turns people into CVA, those other guys shoot people for being neutral, the very minute a neutral shows up he is dead. Alliances are not going to allow people to move to 0.0 and claim thier space that they had sov over only 24 hours before patch. 0.0 Alliances for the exception of CVA/Sylph wont allow you to enter thier space, and operate NBSI. This is why more people are not in 0.0. Not because of sov and sov warefare. You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period. QFT Personally I think the patch looks amazing. Made me and my corp. want to get a system or 2 in Sov. But of course what one would want, and what happens is very different. There is no way in H*LL that we would ever be able to get Sov. Not with out requiring a hundred+ PVP pilots and a cap fleet. The only way that we would eve be able to get into 0.0 is, A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. C. If, and only IF we met there requirements join an alliance that already has Sov, but that, itself defeats the purpose of trying to get Sov for our selves. Think about it for a second. All the large alliances need to do to keep all there space is to block the entry points. If you cant get in, you cant use the space, and in a sense they keep there space and donÆt need to spend any isk at all. /ends ramblings The only way I can see smaller alliances getting into 0.0 is if CCP adds a LOT more systems that lead to 0.0, so the large alliances wont have such an easy time blocking the entry way.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.13 06:13:00 - [531] Quote: A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. Pay a small ammount of isk to rent a couple of systems and get blue standings? Since it wont be possible anymore for one alliance to control a few regions due to the use of cynojammers, jump bridges, pos', etc (well that is at least ccps goal), they would then only have roughly 1 region. Now either they can try to kill everyone trying to get sov arround them, which might work a bit. Or they can decrease isk cost of becoming a renter by alot, so those systems surrounding theirs do have sov and become a better buffer zone.
Lusulpher Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.13 06:23:00 - [532] Possible solution to the NAP would probably be in the Treaty system...make those nullsec allies pay to be allied. Just like wardecs, scaled for large alliances and such. Throw in integrated comms for the alliance but make them choose a few allies or 2 to function with seamlessly, any other corp blue additions would have to prove their worth. And that makes it real political/economic instead of carebear like it is now. All the fighting this will create. Wow. Sleep dep creates some nice game fixes. 7
XXXAKTIVE	Posted - 2009.09.13 07:44:00 - [533] Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 13/09/2009 07:49:13 Originally by: Aquinzus You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period. Everyone neutral, who enters the 0.0 space is red by default. Noone comes to 0.0 space from neutrals with peace. Noone will let them fly safe in controlled systems. Never ever! They are just enemies and they will be ones untill they get official + status. Coming update will cause chaos in EVE, thats for sure. I think, that lots of empire alliances will start merging to try to swarm 0.0 space. I am quite satisfied with the current laws in 0.0 space. The diplomatic issues will bring alliance leaders a lot of head ache if there will be too many independant alliances in 0.0 space. Yes, claim dynamics must be changed totally, but it must not hurt the existing game balance.
Elfangor	Posted - 2009.09.13 09:03:00 - [534] if players are going to support the opperation of gate systems than there must be some control for the players over who uses them. and any changes too the sov system should include a radical redraw of the 0.0 map. Blobing has always been a problem in eve even before sov came along and it has always been linked to the limited targets players can attack and the limit travel routes they can take to attack those targets. if every 0.0 system in eve could be bypassed in 1-3 jumps then this more then anything will force smaller claims to space and incurage several smaller active gangs to form instead of one massive blob.
SickSeven The Undead Righteous Knights	Posted - 2009.09.13 09:34:00 - [535] Originally by: Elfangor if players are going to support the opperation of gate systems than there must be some control for the players over who uses them. and any changes too the sov system should include a radical redraw of the 0.0 map. Blobing has always been a problem in eve even before sov came along and it has always been linked to the limited targets players can attack and the limit travel routes they can take to attack those targets. if every 0.0 system in eve could be bypassed in 1-3 jumps then this more then anything will force smaller claims to space and incurage several smaller active gangs to form instead of one massive blob. I think this guy is onto something. If more systems were interconnected then some systems would not be more overly important than others. And if you could now bypass certain 'hubs' then that would encourage smaller claims of space.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.09.13 11:43:00 - [536] Originally by: SickSeven Originally by: Elfangor if players are going to support the opperation of gate systems than there must be some control for the players over who uses them. and any changes too the sov system should include a radical redraw of the 0.0 map. Blobing has always been a problem in eve even before sov came along and it has always been linked to the limited targets players can attack and the limit travel routes they can take to attack those targets. if every 0.0 system in eve could be bypassed in 1-3 jumps then this more then anything will force smaller claims to space and incurage several smaller active gangs to form instead of one massive blob. I think this guy is onto something. If more systems were interconnected then some systems would not be more overly important than others. And if you could now bypass certain 'hubs' then that would encourage smaller claims of space. Blobs arise from two sources really. First from groups consisting in general of people without strict organisation or chain of command, or even people with a different primary perspective then pvp. You see this kind of blob pop up primarily from defensive reactions. Think of now long dead organisations, pet / citizen organisations, but also in settings where the masters incorporate or rally the affiliates / renters / pets. This is the kind of blob which will become much more flexible, both in movements as well as activity in general. Secondly from groups who have a strict focus on projecting force through both presence and objectives, with less care for methods or means. It's something of a BOB trauma in all honesty, which over the years has cultivated a mindset of putting the wagons in a circle against the evil baddies on all levels (fleets, production capacity, finance, etc). The practical result is what is often jokingly referred to as the napland. Application of force through a direct concentration of force on objectives. Some people call this minimising risk at all cost, and to a degree this is true, but we must not forget how this is something that has grown over the course of years. For this kind of blob, no changes will ever have any impact whatsoever, since it is not about kills or losses, or dominating a grid or having fun regardless of consequences. This is a school of thought where the only thing of importance is the big picture over a long period of time, hence the complete willingness to shift 2k+ people around without a fight, as long as it denies an opponent getting even close to an objective. Keep in mind that these days such movements use gates less and less, because of the mobility provided through the bulk of titan portals available. The widespread presence of this type of group, and the mentality that goes hand in hand with it, is the reason the removal of the area effect doomsday worries me quite a bit. Recognising the multitude of hickups with Titans in great numbers which are being addressed by the cyno jammer and bridge changes, I have difficulty understanding why the only factor which has ever forced people to think before blobbing is that easily removed. Cost, time, manpower, all such variables are unimportant at this level, only the prospect of the projection of force being cut off hard through doomsdays (even knowing how ineffective they are) has ever been a factor against blind blobs. Interconnection of systems is a good thing, but so is the concept of chokepoints. Most people think of interconnection as the hub, not many people see interconnection as a means of maneuvering around hubs, chokepoints and other people in general. There are plenty places on the map where such options are very limited, both for conventional and capital travel. Sometimes this presents benefits in its own right, but very often we see that ultimately pressure is focused mostly towards station systems and region connection points.
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.09.13 11:55:00 - [537] Wild speculation time: So maybe sovereignty will be contested in sort of the same way as FW systems are. Except that those facilities that you attack aren't just for looks but have an actual function for the owner of the system (could be deadspace pockets where players are the ones extracting resources). Maybe some player run agent functionality can be put in place as well, where agents are rewarding you isk (perhaps even loyalty points) when you accumulate victory points in a system of a designated enemy. Open up the game a bit more for mercenaries and make the NBSI policy a bit more unattractive. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
iP0D	Posted - 2009.09.13 12:01:00 - [538] Originally by: Aralis All pretty clear. THough I assume the bit about a mail to alliance leaderships is a joke. I hope CCP would never consider getting in the game so directly. But the trouble is that NRDS is Eve on hard mode. It does clearly require a lot more work - why should most people do it? Certainly this patch is all set to make life a lot harder for NRDS and gotta wonder if we can keep it up in these conditions. Also for the same sort of reasons alliances will be much less inclined to let anyone else set up camp near them. The risks are going up. I doubt it will get that hard or complicated, in all honesty. But say it did get completely impractical and crazy. You could always establish open door institutions for bypassing the NRDS. Think of it as a delayed mode NRDS: corporations can join a premade affiliate alliance, pilots can join a premade affiliate corporation. Yes, a delayed mode of 24 hours. But should matters become complicated this winter with NRDS this could become a more practical yet still extremely open alternative approach. You could still have NRDS, with an added bonus of streamlined standings grouping. Not everyone would have to enter affiliated organisations, obviously, transition phases would be perfectly possible.
Aquinzus Amarr Modern Marvels	Posted - 2009.09.13 12:56:00 - [539] I think more people agree that NBSI is the sole reason people dont travel to 0.0, why in the world would anyone want to go to a place where they know they will be shot and killed with no other reason than you were there. NRDS is really the way to go if your going to develop any kind of space. While I see Providence the most densly populated area of 0.0, I go into Catch, Immensia, Curse, Great Wildlands, Delve and Querious and see so many empty systems with nothing there and not a soul in sight of anything. All of that space claimed and wasted, but the minute a couple guys in a bantam and bestower show up to mine there is a blob there to kill him because he is neutral, and they can add another notch to the killboard and brag how thier mighty fleet of 50 slew the Bestower and Bantom menace. Instead they could of showed the guys where the nearest refinery was and collected a tax on the ore refined, and a docking fee from the rats they killed. NBSI is broken, has been forever, NRDS is the only way 0.0 will ever become popluated, just shoot the bad guys, whoever may be bad to you and leave the rest to go about and do thier thing and reap the rewards of them in your space using your services, instead of bleeding your own Alliance and Corp members on the markets. But I guess not everyone thinks long term, this patch may make them change, may not, I hardly doubt it.
Bobby Smyth THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.13 13:26:00 - [540] I think we, as in the large alliances, underestimate the will of small alliances. All it will take it requires is one covert op to slip through our gate camps with a cyno gen and they can get people and supplies through with 1 rorqual and 1 carrier. I welcome the new changes with open arms and hope the waste of 0.0 space that goes on over most of eve ends with Dominion. -------------------------------- Bobby Smyth Chief Diplomat - Thorn Alliance Chief Executive Officer - 54th Knights Templar
Joscelline Angreal	Posted - 2009.09.13 14:18:00 - [541] One thing I've noticed in this thread is that people seem to assume that everything will be claimed, just more alliances will be doing the claiming. I imagine CCP wants to change 0.0 to a system where an alliance controls a small area (region), but in a lot of cases isn't directly bordering another alliance's sov. There will be small bubbles of sov space, seperated by tracks of unclaimed space. With big alliances not willing/able to hold the tracks of unclaimed space, and small alliances lacking the strength to hold it, these unclaimed areas would become hidden highways and no-mans land. Thats where the fun will be.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.13 14:18:00 - [542] We have enough info to guesstimate some of these so lets go: Originally by: Aquinzus 1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever? Presumably the various Sovereignty and Infrastructure Structures will be seeded to the market a week or two in advance, so spaceholding alliances will have the opportunity to plant them in preparation for the new system when it goes live. Quote: 2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ? One or more of the new Infrastructure upgrades. Quote: 3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ? One or more of the new Infrastructure upgrades. Quote: 4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ? Drop and fill the egg in any system you have sov in, same as now. Outpost ownership already exists seperately from system sovereignty, so control of existing outposts shouldn't be affected. Quote: 5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone? If economic infrastructure upgrades allow an alliance to make as much income from a single region (or constellation, or system) as previously required 2 or 3 regions, whilst r64 tweaks reduce the incentive to hold massive amounts of dyspro moons, what makes you think that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc will need to keep holding on to the massive sprawling (and largely deserted) empires they currently claim? Goonswarm currently holds Delve and most of Querious. 95% of us live in Delve, our Querious systems are virtually empty apart from the odd goon in a covops scanning out exploration sites, a handful of NPC corp macro-ravens, and a load of towers with expensive fuel bills. We hold Querious because a) its full of r64s, b) its full of Sov4 constellations to act as a buffer from invasion, and c) we need to secure the routes from Delve to Highsec for logistics purposes (such as moving POS fuel for literally thousands of towers from Empire every month). If, as expected, Dominion significantly reduces the value of all three of these factors, we might well decide that, you know what, we don't need both regions, just a token presence in a handful of Querious systems and we can drop the rest. (maybe) Quote: Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before. Its not about being 'able to walk into someones space', its about giving an incentive for existing space holders to drop the vast expanses of territory they need today and create vacuums that new entities can use. Maybe nothing will change and all today's big players will decide to hold on to everything, but at least that will be a player-driven choice rather than what we have today - where the current system forces us all to claim and hold vast swathes of systems we barely use so that we can hoover as many r64s as possible.
Cardiana	Posted - 2009.09.13 15:19:00 - [543] very nice ccp. it sounds like you are listening afterall.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.13 16:13:00 - [544] Edited by: Trent Nichols on 13/09/2009 16:14:33 I get the feeling that many people (Including the devs) think making life easier for smaller alliances trying to gain a foothold in 0.0 must involve some sort of hand holding or artificial mechanic. The solution is much simpler. By nature of the game, building up logistics and defenses in a territory of 1-3 systems should be exponentially faster and cheaper than doing the same in 10-30 systems. Combine this with the rising gate fees and I think you will see many new faces in 0.0. Construction usually becomes slower and more expensive over distance so its even realistic. There could be a "central logistics module' or similar to tie it in with the new system. I had hoped such a thing was what was being planned already but later Dev comments made me think otherwise. In fact, Treaties seem to be designed to facilitate the very kind of behavior that is making 0.0 dull right now. Colonies and Capitals
Marmios Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.09.13 17:50:00 - [545] The Goon is right imho. Large alliances control so much space cause of the current sov system and the distribution of wealth. In Dominion they will have ennough work to fortify their core systems. And if these systems support much more people then now, why should they pay for systems there is no use for? Sure alliances can then have like double+ (or even more) people in alliance with their current territory but this has to grow over time. Enough time for new entities to enter 0.0. Limiting diplomatic possibilites to force more fights is just stupid. Its like telling todays army to fight with sword and shield again because its more "personal". You wont call the NATO a giant napland are you? ;) EVE has evolved over years and will go on with that. The stoneage in EVE is over now, welcome to the middle-age.
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor	Posted - 2009.09.14 11:51:00 - [546] Originally by: Aralis Certainly this patch is all set to make life a lot harder for NRDS and gotta wonder if we can keep it up in these conditions. Aralis - what is is about the patch that makes you think that NRDS (specifically in Providence, I presume, but also in general if you like) is going to become harder? From reading the actual blog itself and the dev responses in this post, the only factual changes I can see are: POSes no longer determine sovereignty, it's done by some separate specific anchorable (which costs ISK instead of trade goods + ice to keep going) You can upgrade your systems in various ways with other anchorables Treaties will probably happen in future but will be vague All of these sound like good things for Providence and NRDS in general - less tedious tower fuelling to maintain sov, the ability to increase the value of Providence, and potentially more intricate cooperation with other non-red corps/alliances. I wonder if the line that has you worried is: Quote: ...raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc which I can see being alarming out of context. Yet in the context itself, it's also mentioned that defenders get better tools to help defend their space. Unless the risk:reward is hopelessly screwed in favour of the attacker (which is unlikely to be the goal), then Providence is likely to do better than most here. If anything, I find it more likely that the organised and populous local defence forces will gain more from the changes, than the attackers do from the new havoc opportunities. Overall the blog, and the forthcoming changes, seem to summarise to "it's going to be less worthwhile to hold large tracts of space that you don't really use, but it's going to be more worthwhile and viable to hold onto smaller, more developed areas of space." Providence definitely falls into the latter and as such I see nothing that would get me worried about its future viability. Looking at it another way, if Providence couldn't make the new "home improvement" stuff work, it's never going to work anywhere else.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.14 13:36:00 - [547] Originally by: Mara Intala QFT Personally I think the patch looks amazing. Made me and my corp. want to get a system or 2 in Sov. But of course what one would want, and what happens is very different. There is no way in H*LL that we would ever be able to get Sov. Not with out requiring a hundred+ PVP pilots and a cap fleet. The only way that we would eve be able to get into 0.0 is, A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. C. If, and only IF we met there requirements join an alliance that already has Sov, but that, itself defeats the purpose of trying to get Sov for our selves. Think about it for a second. All the large alliances need to do to keep all there space is to block the entry points. If you cant get in, you cant use the space, and in a sense they keep there space and donÆt need to spend any isk at all. /ends ramblings The only way I can see smaller alliances getting into 0.0 is if CCP adds a LOT more systems that lead to 0.0, so the large alliances wont have such an easy time blocking the entry way. NQFT No matter how large those alliances are, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. If there is one or two 100 man alliances claiming a handful of systems near goon space, they'll get crushed. When there's 200 of those hundred man alliances spread all around, all with the time to spend fighting for their home, even the large alliances will need to reconsider whom to kick out and whom to not bother with. With no sov claim in large parts of the map, it will end up as a Whack-a-Molle game. And it's going to be a time-consuming task requiring continuous effort even to kick out smaller alliances if CCP does the thing right. Obviously they will be kicked around, constantly having raids on their territory and risking being the next small alliance being kicked out for the fun of it. That only means you head for empire a couple weeks, find a new place and settle there.
riverini	Posted - 2009.09.14 14:27:00 - [548] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Mara Intala QFT Personally I think the patch looks amazing. Made me and my corp. want to get a system or 2 in Sov. But of course what one would want, and what happens is very different. There is no way in H*LL that we would ever be able to get Sov. Not with out requiring a hundred+ PVP pilots and a cap fleet. The only way that we would eve be able to get into 0.0 is, A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. C. If, and only IF we met there requirements join an alliance that already has Sov, but that, itself defeats the purpose of trying to get Sov for our selves. Think about it for a second. All the large alliances need to do to keep all there space is to block the entry points. If you cant get in, you cant use the space, and in a sense they keep there space and donÆt need to spend any isk at all. /ends ramblings The only way I can see smaller alliances getting into 0.0 is if CCP adds a LOT more systems that lead to 0.0, so the large alliances wont have such an easy time blocking the entry way. NQFT No matter how large those alliances are, they cannot be everywhere at the same time. If there is one or two 100 man alliances claiming a handful of systems near goon space, they'll get crushed. When there's 200 of those hundred man alliances spread all around, all with the time to spend fighting for their home, even the large alliances will need to reconsider whom to kick out and whom to not bother with. With no sov claim in large parts of the map, it will end up as a Whack-a-Molle game. And it's going to be a time-consuming task requiring continuous effort even to kick out smaller alliances if CCP does the thing right. Obviously they will be kicked around, constantly having raids on their territory and risking being the next small alliance being kicked out for the fun of it. That only means you head for empire a couple weeks, find a new place and settle there. Yeah, until word get out of how effective will a wardec be in hampering the effectivity of empire alliances to recoup loses and set sail for new horizons... you know, the opening multiple fronts strategy.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.14 15:47:00 - [549] Originally by: riverini Yeah, until word get out of how effective will a wardec be in hampering the effectivity of empire alliances to recoup loses "Not very" If a small alliance isn't talented, smart or organised enough to cope with money-making in highsec with a distant 0.0 alliance deccing them, how on earth would they be expected to take and hold space for themselves in 0.0 where they can be shot at by anyone and everyone?
Waagaa Ktlehr Amarr Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.14 15:59:00 - [550] Abathur is my favourite dev. :) Sounds like this could be a load of fun, and plenty of opportunity for mercs. :)
Zylawy	Posted - 2009.09.14 15:59:00 - [551] Is it just me or are these new structures going to replace POS's? (Flogging the deadhorse?) or are these outposts?
RockofLife	Posted - 2009.09.14 16:15:00 - [552] Edited by: RockofLife on 14/09/2009 16:16:10 i whould like full isk refund on all my pos's outposts and pos guns you now tell me i wasted all this isk you cant in goodfath tell me your changeing all of sov and not give us refund on all this useless gear than shell out move for new stuff it easy to refund just set npc buy oders for pos gear at all npc and outpost's for frist 90 days after this go live
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.14 16:44:00 - [553] Originally by: RockofLife Edited by: RockofLife on 14/09/2009 16:16:10 i whould like full isk refund on all my pos's outposts and pos guns you now tell me i wasted all this isk you cant in goodfath tell me your changeing all of sov and not give us refund on all this useless gear than shell out move for new stuff it easy to refund just set npc buy oders for pos gear at all npc and outpost's for frist 90 days after this go live It happens every expansion. Some things become obsolete and poeple loose moeny. Deal with it. Adapt or die.
gtcseller 1	Posted - 2009.09.14 16:48:00 - [554] true just never on this scale of isk waste
Sh'iriin	Posted - 2009.09.14 17:03:00 - [555] Originally by: CCP Whisper 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. will gates in claimed, but not paid system be deactivated? can allys keep sov in a system even when they don't pay for that system? cause if, allys will claim systems - not pay upkeep - and get a jump-accessable system-pocket with full access controll = end of 0.0 action.
Arte The Darkness Within	Posted - 2009.09.14 17:25:00 - [556] Control of Gates There is a lot of hoohah about the link between gate control and sov status (in whatever form it arises). I wonder if the following idea might bear the weight of scrutiny? If you have control of the gates, you have intel on who passes through them. This is passed into your local channel, therefore you can see who is in local if you are in the system with the gate control intact. If you lose control of the gates in whatever manner it takes, you lose visibility of who is in local unless they speak up. (currently known as delayed mode?) This could lead to local being changed to delayed mode with the ability to upgrade it by taking the sov level needed. It would give an advantage to defenders in the manner of intel it provides but many roaming gang scouts jump into systems blind at the moment anyway. Modifications to the scanning mechanism would alleviate the problem of only scanning 14-15au in one go, in the larger systems. Thoughts? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Whisper "So you're going to have to do some actual thinking..."
the plague Scoopex Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.14 19:43:00 - [557] Edited by: the plague on 14/09/2009 19:44:54 I'll wager that the net result of all these changes is that 0.0 wars will be even more vicious than they already are. There are plenty of alliances in EVE today that hold enough space that they can afford to lose a significant number of systems without getting too excited. But if it's only practical for an alliance to hold a relatively small number of systems, they'll likely fight tooth and nail for every inch! That will be especially true once an alliance has put a huge amount of ISK and resources into improving a particular system. There is still much we don't know so it's hard to reach many conclusions. That said, EVE might indeed be a more interesting place if there were lots and lots of small alliances fighting to the death to defend their little corner of New Eden rather than huge power blocs where most people don't even know each other. One other point to consider: If alliances are only going to be able to hold a small number of systems, then they will likely be faced with some difficult tactical choices as to which systems are worth holding and which ones aren't. Unlike today, it may not be practical to simply seize everything in sight, establish gigantic buffer zones, and then fortify the obvious choke points with 24/7 gatecamps. Instead, alliances may have to actually plan ahead and think a bit more strategically than has been necessary in the past.
Gogela Freeport Exploration	Posted - 2009.09.14 19:56:00 - [558] Do you know what this is going to do for pirates camping for transports? The best profession in EvE is looking a lot better! Get ready for the age of Pirate Alliances! ------------------------------------ "A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.15 00:55:00 - [559] Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea. Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc. Obviusly jump bridges , jump freighters are an obstacle. Logistics and moving forces around are way to easy right now. Hopefull for changes in THAT regard.
Darth Skorpius Crystalline INC Dead End Society	Posted - 2009.09.15 02:18:00 - [560] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea. Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc. you do realise that it would naturally cost money to maintain a gate? you have to keep it in a good working condition kinda like a road otherwise it eventually gets to the point where no one can use it safely ______________________________________________ Waiting for some random to make me a new sig
Corporal Smackaho	Posted - 2009.09.15 02:34:00 - [561] Sorry for being off-topic but I saw some talk about gates and was wondering one thing. Could an alliance hypothetically not pay their gate fees on purpose so that the gates would shut down, and then deploy their own JB network to replace it? Or if you don't pay your fee's what happens? Do they shut off? Do you lose sov?
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.15 05:29:00 - [562] Originally by: Corporal Smackaho Sorry for being off-topic but I saw some talk about gates and was wondering one thing. Could an alliance hypothetically not pay their gate fees on purpose so that the gates would shut down, and then deploy their own JB network to replace it? Or if you don't pay your fee's what happens? Do they shut off? Do you lose sov? No. Devs have already answered this.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.09.15 10:51:00 - [563] Originally by: Darth Skorpius Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea. Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc. you do realise that it would naturally cost money to maintain a gate? you have to keep it in a good working condition kinda like a road otherwise it eventually gets to the point where no one can use it safely You see i have bolded the most importent part. Paying for gates = ok. Paying more PER GATE as you get them more = bad. If you impose artificial rules like that people will just go around it. It will solve nothing. Thus we will be witnessing Goonswarm,Goonswarm2,Goonswarm3,Goonswarm4,Goonswarm5 etc.
Viae	Posted - 2009.09.15 11:24:00 - [564] Originally by: Junkie Beverage WTS - 2500 faction towers Best post I've seen in a while.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.09.15 15:34:00 - [565] Will the ideals of the dead horse finally be implemented? ===============
Zylawy	Posted - 2009.09.15 16:13:00 - [566] Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor Will the ideals of the dead horse finally be implemented? I really hope so!
Zendoren	Posted - 2009.09.15 17:35:00 - [567] I have to say that the total abandonment of POS' as Solv placeholders(Which from the looks of the dev blogs is the case) would cause the ISO market's bottom to fall out and thus causing the rise of Macro-ers to mine ore again and not ice. Unless CCP can come up with a sub-statue mechanism that will use products from the market as a way to "pay" for space, we will start getting numerous complaints from carebares on the forums with the title "sparse resources in high-sec" again! In Short, If this is done ICE will be drastically de-valued which IMO does not need to happen! (I'm bias I suppose) -++
Komaito AFK	Posted - 2009.09.15 18:02:00 - [568] For me, this blog sounds pretty promising. I think this is the first Eve expansion since I started playing that I am actually looking forward to! ------------------------------------ radiation... too much radiation...
the plague Scoopex Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.15 20:43:00 - [569] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Paying for gates = ok. Paying more PER GATE as you get them more = bad. If you impose artificial rules like that people will just go around it. It will solve nothing. Thus we will be witnessing Goonswarm,Goonswarm2,Goonswarm3,Goonswarm4,Goonswarm5 etc. Good. All those organizations will require leadership. And there will be at least some chance they will turn on each other at some point. There's no chance of that now. Nothing against the Goons. Just a statement of principle. EVE will be a more enjoyable place with tons of small alliances desperately fighting to hold their little corner of space rather than gigantic power blocs roaming around blobbing up space because they've nothing better to do.
Darth Skorpius Crystalline INC Dead End Society	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:19:00 - [570] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Originally by: Darth Skorpius Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Artificial means of restrictic alliances to the space they can hold (like some progressive upkeep depending of numebrs of gate f.e. more gates = more ukpeed PER GATE) is a bad idea. Restrictions should come from natural reasons like incresed in logistic , spreading forces to cover all area , domestic diputes etc. you do realise that it would naturally cost money to maintain a gate? you have to keep it in a good working condition kinda like a road otherwise it eventually gets to the point where no one can use it safely You see i have bolded the most importent part. Paying for gates = ok. Paying more PER GATE as you get them more = bad. ah, completely missread your post. but yes, paying more per gate because you have more gates is rather silly, but i believe that it is part of thier anti sprawl mechanics to prevent a isngle alliance from holding too much space ______________________________________________ Waiting for some random to make me a new sig
zelalot	Posted - 2009.09.16 08:11:00 - [571] This sounds fantastic but can we at least get more information on the Sov thing etc etc. CCP is doing a great job at building the hype but we still dont know how exactly the new mechanics are going to work.
fibergunner	Posted - 2009.09.16 11:09:00 - [572] I welcome the change. I will just spend my days not bashing poses but doing something else the Alliance has to do. To those that live in highsec this is not going to allow you to just waltz in and claim someones area. 0.0 mentality will not change mearly the mechanics will change. The weak will still live in highsec. The pirates will run around low sec killing nooblets and those who think they can own low sec.0.0 will be left for the big boys. After almost 6 years in this game I welcome the change. We will have up less poses to hold space. We will cut out the middleman and pay ccp directly. Will be much easier and less getting on peoples ass as command will get less pos spam for low fuel. Thank you CCP :). To those that think they will rip any space from a top 10 holder you will not. When you grab your balls and take in your 10 guys, make sure to have more ships. We want more kills to spash on our board. If your not in the big game you can go back to reading about it.If you can not get a 50 to 100 man fleet together within a very short time you wont make it in 0.0. Not just warm bodies but players who are flying the correct ships, listen to orders regardless of what they are. You do not bring frigates and cruisers to a t2 sniper BS fleet fight. Sorry but I am sure the vast majority of you would not cut it. Only soldiers in the end make it. The rest pick on nooblets in low sec or join failedteer and camp trading hubs waiting for nooblets that noone cares about. A 0.0 Alliance has neut JF pilots that do nothing but move product and sell or pass it to another neut account to sell. failedteer sits around getting tips about pwning miners..Your future is near, embrace it. Anyway Good Luck on that.
Alta Morbius Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.09.16 12:19:00 - [573] Edited by: Alta Morbius on 16/09/2009 12:20:41 The devblog mentioned 3 types of infrastructure upgrade. 1 - About Military Infrastructure Upgrades: Will it be possible to setup guns (maybe a new item) or some sort of defensive system around player outposts as we see in empire stations? What about around stargates? If a corporation/alliance has to pay the bill for a stargate makes sense to protect it's members when using the stargate. 2 - About Economic Infrastructure Upgrades: What sort of "Economic" upgrades are possible and what are it's effects? - Visibility of the goods on the station throughout the region? - Amount of goods on the market? - Outpost specific tax regulation to prevent market manipulation by members that have a jump clone in station from earlier sov. holding corporation or alliance? - Contract restrictions? 3 - About Industrial Infrastructure Upgrades: Is this about new belts/moons/instances/spawns)? Is there something more? Also treaties sound like a great idea. - Will there be mechanics to enforce them in gameplay or will a simple player be able to void the treaty or break it attacking another player? - Will alliances/corporation be able to negotiate with pirates within it's systems? Keep up the good work. Thanks for the new stuff
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.16 13:12:00 - [574] Well horrified as I have been by the info about the Dominion patch my annoyance reached whole new levels of outrage when I read this: "I will however say that CVA's apparent success in Providence was a big boost for us early on in this process as it showed that something like what we're aiming for could actually be done, even in the current environment." So you like what we've been doing so naturally you want to cut the ground from under our feet and make sure no one else ever does this again? And yet reading the first half of Greyscales devblog it sounds like your hearts are in the right place - you just have absolutely no idea how Eve works. So I'm going to waste some of my time telling you why and telling you what you should be doing. (Before I do that I'm going to point out my experience for this as I'm posting big talk. I've been playing Eve continuously since pre launch. I strongly suspect I've spent more time playing Eve than anyone on the planet (please check it for me). I have been a major player in CVA/Providence - the only successful NRDS grouping ever and it's leader for about 3 years.) You start out talking about "Emergence" and what a good thing this is. And you're absolutely right. This is what makes Eve different to, and far superior to, any other game out there. So things revolve around what players do and they reap the consequences of their actions. Well as long as they don't do too well - then you'll hit them hard! Alliances like Goonswarm and Pandemic Legion have hugely rich space that generates enormous income. So you want to undermine them by devaluing their moons. (It's not like you haven't done this before. Tech 2 BPO owners were deemed rich and successful so they got slapped down to appease the whiners.) Actually I don't see your attempts to undermine them being successful - quite the reverse. But why are you TRYING? They earnt those moons and that space. They fought for them. Why should they be taken off them? Providence is probably the poorest region in the galaxy - but you won't see me complaining about that or asking for extras. We got what we fought for. Stop undermining emergence! You say you want more people and more smaller alliances in 0.0. So why are you making it harder to introduce the thing that does the most for them? Cynodampers. Without cynodampers there is nothing to stop the big players landing in force at a moments notice. Cynodampers make small scale combat possible to a large extent. They also enable alliances to put a defence against a large opponent. Removing them will let larger alliances squash smaller ones much faster. Indeed since anyone will be hard put to defend it's likely Eve will become utterly dominated by a few mega alliances with huge capital fleets. You say you like NRDS. You have no notion what NRDS involves. It means letting every pirate you don't know have first shot. It means trying to track hundreds of groups despite the fact you won't let us have enough standings slots to do so. Now you propose to let these unidentifiable roaming groups have a free shot at doing multi billion isk damage to infrastructure (you said that not me) not just a free lunch at our ships. You say you want more people in 0.0. Currently there is more money to be made in high sec (for most people). Our Providence operation is supported by our high sec income - we're here for our RP and the Empire - not for profit. Despite this fact your attempt to encourage people to 0.0 means a tax on people to setup sovereignty - having to pay for gates that they will have no control over and would in fact be perfectly happy to see shut down. Removing sov 4 defence will mean the end of any serious 0.0 industry for most people - only the biggest alliances will be able to keep such things safe. And they will do so by splatting anyone within reach.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.16 13:56:00 - [575] You want to encourage people to invest in their space. How stupid do you think we are? You are making it easier for people to take the space off them - and those who have invested in the past are being seriously punished now. Billions in excess pos. Massive wars waged for devalued moons. Stations put in the wrong place. We've spent what - a trillion isk - on stations to give ourselves constellation sov across almost all our region and as many capitals as possible - and now those features are to be removed and we are to be left wishing all our stations were crammed together. What should you be doing? I think most of us agree that alliances and fleets have got bigger than is fun. Why is that? Mainly because it's natural. Whatever the enemy has you want to bring more. And more and more and more. What stops people bringing more to fight - the limit on how many people they can get there. And you have made it easier for people to get to the fight from wherever they are. Actually Eve is now too small for the players it has. By now more gates should have been put up and Eve should be at least six times the size it is. But worse than that you've made it artificially small by making it easier for people to get around. 5 things make it far too quick to travel around Eve. 1) Long range jump gates. Always a stupid idea I couldn't understand why you introduced them in the first place. They also cause the Jita problem. There is no real reason not to go there so Eve has one mega trade hub. What is the upside of that? The worse offenders are the inter empire super gates. Then the inter regional 0.0 gates particularly the ones around the edge of the map. The least bad are the internal empire ones. Ideally get rid of the lot but in that order of priority. 2) Jump clones. I want to be here now I want to be there. Press button. A common sense restriction: Make it so that when a player jump clones his old body is not installed as a jump clone unless the station he leaves would let him do so anyway. Why should having a jumpclone let him get around the stations rules? To make this effective you'd also need to prevent people putting their regular clones in any station other than the one they are currently in - or they'd just do the old style clone jumping. 3) Jump drives. Make installing cyno dampers easier not harder! 4) Jumpbridges. These are relatively short range so not too bad. And they aid the defender which is good. Leave them be. 5) Wormholes. Too random and short term to be a major problem. But also not a benefit. Remove the direct wormholes across known space. You want more people in 0.0. So make 0.0 more beneficial than Empire! 1) Make 0.0 more profitable. Make 0.0 ore better than empire ore. Not just the rare ores but higher quality veldspar with twice the yeild. Surely it's reasonable that these ores are not so heavily mined in 0.0 and thus of higher quality. It would also help with your macroer problem. Most of us are not as tolerant of macroers as concord. 2) Tax empire not 0.0. Who is collecting these taxes in unregulated 0.0?! Wouldn't empires charge taxes - and favour their own citizens? All stations should charge small docking fees on foreigners. Not on locals which both helps prevent this hurting noobs and makes nationality more meaningful. Adjustable by standings. Also of course stations should not let anyone with standings below -5 dock at all. Isn't it absurd that people get attacked by a nations navy - and can then dock at that navy's own station?! Similarly npc pirate factions shouldn't let anyone dock if they have any negative standing at all. Why are they letting people base in their stations to farm their ships? How about a bit of logic? 3) Make cynodampers easier to put up not harder! The small guys friend! 4) Create more routes out to 0.0 rather than a few choke points for people to get picked off by pirates.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.16 14:08:00 - [576] You want to encourage NRDS? 1) Give us more standings slots! 2) Give people the ability to copy another alliances standings if they both want. You want the 0.0 empires to allow more people to join them and live in their space? 1) Stop making recruitment such a nightmare. Give us proper security tools so every second rate idiot can't sabotage the alliance. For example why if you want to let someone do work on a pos do you have to let him work on every pos you own? 2) Stop the free lunch for alts. Currently they are a no risk tool for scammers and general scum. An answer - create an agent feature like the one for locating people - investigate known associates. Should come up with a name of a random character on that account now - even if the charter you are investigating has been killed off. 3) Allow corporations more control over their own shares. Should at least know who has them! (No this isn't something I have had a problem with personally it's a general problem.) 4) Stop making things so easy to sabotage. Was it sensible that one person could disband the BOB alliance? (Served them right of course but not the point.) Yes spies and traitors are part of Eve's "emergence" and as such a good thing. But spies and traitors traditionally sabotage with information. They don't press a few buttons and wipe one side out. It's way over the top. Heaven knows I can think of more to say but that is more than enough for now. Oh yeah that pos upgrade thing with more sensible graphics lets have that. :) Why are guns floating outside the pos? With this absurd indestructible structure? Lets make the armour of that! How about they float in the shield and pos pulls them in when they stop functioning? There are a thousand ways you could make Eve better and I haven't' started on the most fundamental problems. But this patch is the stupidest thing since you decided to upgrade tech 1 cargo expander bpos to tech 2 overnight.
Lrrp Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.16 14:25:00 - [577] Originally by: DETURK When Dominion is released, the answer is simple - if you want to control the space accessed by these stargates, you will be responsible for their monthly maintenance and upkeep. So if we pay for the Stargate we should be able to decide who can use our Stargate. Even if we control who uses gate, black ops will still be able to bypass the gate as perhaps a Titan bridge will
Insane Nutmunch	Posted - 2009.09.16 15:08:00 - [578] I'm still failing (Obviously) to work out how this patch opens up 0.0 to Alliances and Corporations, who have up until now, not been able to get into 0.0. There are still plenty of choke points and they will still be camped on a regular basis. No ones going to give up all those killmails just waiting to be posted. "If you're going to tug on a tigers tail, you better have a plan to deal with it's teeth" I doubt anyone is eyeing up some of the "Big Boys" moon goo POS's just because they may lose Sov. "yeah I'm just going to knock over PL's Dyspo moon cos they lost sov and they won't attack the POS I'm gonna put in its place duh!" NRDS is eve on hard, and if this is what CCP want in their sandbox then there should be extra rewards for running regions in this way. At the moment there are no mechanisms for this, maybe there should be a module / infrastructure which can be given to help an Alliance or Corp who operate in this way ?
Tiger's Spirit	Posted - 2009.09.16 15:36:00 - [579] I think its day came when the 0.0 games are ruined. I am waiting for laughing at a big one, when CCP dev team shows it again, how it is necessary to ruin something. More peoples to 0.0 ? They can't move this changes, but more superblob coming, when DD dissappear. New sov changes are ridiculous, that's change will nothing, just the big and rich alliances will win and the small alliances and corpes going to the hell or they will be part of a big ally. 1 or 2 big alliance will rule them all. Without DD and this idiot titan nerf (1 shot > 5 min) no one can stop, who bring somewhere a big +1000 or 2000 fleet. 30 frig can kill easily a BS, 30 BS will kill easily a worthy titan.
Jazz Scotch	Posted - 2009.09.16 16:13:00 - [580] Anything to get these large alliances to give up space is a great idea for me. One question, If I claim a system at a dead end, can I not pay the gate fees, and when it breaks, not get it fixed?
Mara Intala	Posted - 2009.09.16 17:09:00 - [581] Since CCP already stated that you cannot control who comes through the gates you are paying for. how about have all gates in claimable 0.0 have a jump charge? similar to docking fees, where you have a flat rate charged to you when you jump depending on what ship is being jumped. This jump charge should be paid to that ever alliance owns the gate, BUT will be effected by standings. Lets say you have Sov over a system and your allies have sov in the next system. you each have each other at +10 standings, so there would be no gate charge, +5 you are only charged 50% of the fee. neut standings get full charge. -5 gets 150% charge. -10 gets a 200% charge? I'm sure all the people who would rather roam across 2-3 regions a day looking for kills wont like this. but it would help alliances have some control over who or what comes through there space. Not to mention the momentary lag of having the "You have been sited XXXXX.XX isk to use this gate, would you like to proceed y/n" would give defenders a little bit of extra shooting time. Just my .02 isk worth.
Barwinius Ars ex Discordia	Posted - 2009.09.16 18:47:00 - [582] Originally by: Aralis Words. This is a high quality rant and generally accurate. I applaud you.
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.09.16 20:11:00 - [583] Edited by: RevrendStyx on 16/09/2009 20:16:00 Originally by: Mara Intala Since CCP already stated that you cannot control who comes through the gates you are paying for. how about have all gates in claimable 0.0 have a jump charge? similar to docking fees, where you have a flat rate charged to you when you jump depending on what ship is being jumped. This jump charge should be paid to that ever alliance owns the gate, BUT will be effected by standings. Lets say you have Sov over a system and your allies have sov in the next system. you each have each other at +10 standings, so there would be no gate charge, +5 you are only charged 50% of the fee. neut standings get full charge. -5 gets 150% charge. -10 gets a 200% charge? I'm sure all the people who would rather roam across 2-3 regions a day looking for kills wont like this. but it would help alliances have some control over who or what comes through there space. Not to mention the momentary lag of having the "You have been sited XXXXX.XX isk to use this gate, would you like to proceed y/n" would give defenders a little bit of extra shooting time. Just my .02 isk worth. FFS you must be joking right? Lets say it like this. A gang comes into your region to kill a few ratters. They are -10 to you. Per gate is what 1mill cause of the -10 standings. So this gang of 5 has now moved 8 jumps through your space. Costing the gang themselves 40mill. They kill a BS fitted with t2 in the 8th system in your region worth 140mill. His insurance pays out 100mill. Now his entire BS that he lost has just been completely paid for and 1/3 of it by the ppl that killed him. This patch is supposed to encourage small gang warfare and pvp. Your idea bud removes roaming all together. They also have to travel 8 jumps out. So in the big picture the more space you hold the more money you will make from the pvpers coming to kill you. Kind of Oxymoron imo.
ShadowandLight Amarr Hammer Of Light Praetorian Guards.	Posted - 2009.09.16 20:37:00 - [584] Changes that I think would be Positive for 0.0 space - Improvement in ISK Potential for holding on to space - Rewarding development, time, ISK with more features - not allowing an alliance that cant use space to hold on to it ( goons with 3 regions, unless they use the space they are holding ) - The next game mechanic that allows alliances to work closer together ( coalitions? ) - Love not having a titan kill a 200 person fleet anymore, that was a crap idea from the get go. I am worried about... - losing sov4 mechanics ( not the unbreakable systems part, but the ability to build super caps, get fuel discount for pos's etc ) - lack of standing slots for alliances wanting to rent space out SPQR Alliance - Commander
X4N4X Minmatar Blueprint Haus Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2009.09.16 20:43:00 - [585] Change.....it is what has kept CCP in business. Personally, I like what I am hearing (from the devs) so far. And I do not believe many are taking into consideration the "other" eve console game, and how those mechanics will play out along with this (or future) expansions. What I have gathered is that CCP has seen this game becoming a bit stagnant and in need of something to bring back the pew pew, new ways to make isk, and shiny new toys. POS's will still be an integral part of the game, just not the sov. mechanics. And when the devs said "think big" I cannot help remembering this new console game and planetary colonization. Quote: DUST 514 will figure prominently into the CCP Games strategy to revamp EVE Online's system of galactic control, called sovereignty. It was originally discussed in the current issue of EON magazine that planetary control would be an aspect of changing how EVE's player alliances gain control of territory. Apparently, what players can do in DUST 514 will also play a major role in EVE moving forward. Hilmar explained more about how the terrestrial gameplay of DUST 514 will be interconnected with the ship-centric gameplay of EVE Online. Currently, player alliance sovereignty (regional control) is tied to maintaining numerous player-owned structures across different solar systems to establish a territory as belonging to that alliance, and as shown on the game's star map. Since DUST 514 is set in the same galaxy as the core MMO, with the same planets, EVE players will have the option of contracting DUST (player) mercenaries to gain control of planets. Hilmar said, "DUST battlefields will dictate who control specific planets inside the EVE MMO. If a player contracts a DUST mercenary team to go and conquer this district of a planet. Then ultimately he will be able to control the planet, and therefore the solar system, and therefore the constellation, and the region." So there you have it! I believe this is where all of this is going. It will be interesting to say the least. I just wish I could find an angle on the current market! ôNow and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be piratesö -Mark Twain
The Constructerer Semitic Sciences GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 04:02:00 - [586] CCP, or whoever lackey parses through these threads, if at all: you should read what Aralis has to say. To Aralis: excellent.
Soupea	Posted - 2009.09.17 05:33:00 - [587] Originally by: Hoo Is I think they used FW as a alpha test. The Sov Flag will be the bunker... the upgrades will be the Beacons or whatever they are called... but rather than orbiting them, you have to pop them. Upgrade by making more spots they have to pop before taking out the main flag... Why oh why, does this give me understanding into why those formally known as "BOB", have decided to chuck it all and go play FW, (some insider info maybe).
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.09.17 06:43:00 - [588] Originally by: Soupea Originally by: Hoo Is I think they used FW as a alpha test. The Sov Flag will be the bunker... the upgrades will be the Beacons or whatever they are called... but rather than orbiting them, you have to pop them. Upgrade by making more spots they have to pop before taking out the main flag... Why oh why, does this give me understanding into why those formally known as "BOB", have decided to chuck it all and go play FW, (some insider info maybe). Yes and they not noticed it passed time, the FW it's failed. But they it is introduced to 0.0. :D Ubermegafail. But the BOB got a positive thing, they got a new AF with +75% speed in FW. MEGAUBERLOLFAIL again. Oh yeah, they will fly with an "AB user speedy interceptor AF" Grat CCP, you just introduce for players a new SWG model ruin.
Arra Lith HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 07:15:00 - [589] Dev blog "print 'hello, world'" at least give some details about new sov system (flowchart). Getting sov will require anchoring bunker (marker flag) and guarding it for 24h, till its invulnerable. To conquer sov attacker needs to plant disrupting fields and guard them for 12h (when destroyed challenge is lost). After that bunker goes voulnerable and sov can be destroyed (cycle begins from start - attacker needs now to plant their own bunker). I see some weak points in this system. Main is its not really time-zone proof. Defenders main activity is at 16-24 window (ie alliance is europeans heavy with people that got jobs). Attackers know this and start their attack at 1:00. Disrupting fields anchored at 1:30, onlined at 13:30. Attack on bunker is immediately followed, resulting in bunker destroyed before 16.00 - defenders didnt got chance to defend sovereignity at their time. If defender cant have chance to defend sov, system will promote attackers, who risks much less than defenders (only ships, while defender all their infrastructure and ships). That will result in system sov ping-pong. Defender should be able to configure bunker at witch time it goes vulnerable. Next condition is defenders should have at least x (lets assume 3) hours to organise defense. So if bunker is set to go vulnerable at 17:00 : a) Attackers plant disruption field at 1:00. Bunker will go vulnerable at 17.00 (16h later) b) Attackers plant disruption field at 15:00. Bunker will go vulnerable at 17.00 next day (26h later) To avoid abusing time should be changed rarely (at least 1 month "cooldown" till next change is possible, changes are not possible if bunker was shot at in last 5 minutes - to avoid changing it when its attacked).
Amarr Roman	Posted - 2009.09.17 08:41:00 - [590] I just wander if CCP will consider at lest parts from Aralis post. Just to ruin works of thousands people to see "just if works" is not an approach. CCP shuld read this, and more than this, to improve Eve, not to ruin it
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:40:00 - [591] Cyno jammers do not enable small alliances to protect their space from large ones. A large alliance can incap a cyno jammer with a BS fleet within 10-20 minutes. 20 minutes. That's how much protection your cyno jammer buys you.
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:05:00 - [592] It does protect you from hotdrops though. Which I rate as important as being able to defend sov. Obviously nothing helps if you are massively outnumbered, which in the end makes sense.
Fred0 Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:16:00 - [593] Hey Aralis, thanks for caring enough to make the points CCP needs to realise. :) --- "Cutting Edge 4 Life"
Suitonia Gallente HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:54:00 - [594] Restricting gates based on standings, or having to pay a tax to use gates in 0.0 is an absolutely awful idea, please stop suggesting it. If hostiles are roaming through your space the idea that they have to pay you is ridiculous. --- Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:46:00 - [595] Edited by: Niding on 17/09/2009 14:47:14 Ill just echo what Aralis said, plus; Higher population density in 0.0? Doubt it. I belive the NRDS project in Providence has the highest density in the game and that comes from stability and predictability. In addition to earned trust over many many years. That cant be emulated thru gamecode. The way I see this change is that there MIGHT be more sov claiming Alliances around 0.0, but there will be much more anarchy (i think) which will not encourage large scale industry or high density. Anarchy=bad for buissniss=ppl pack up and go back to high sec where they where left alone. Back to square one (or worse) for CCPs "empire building" theory.
m3rb3aSt Minmatar Advanced Component Research Enterprise GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:08:00 - [596] Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea! a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first. that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec.
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:15:00 - [597] Originally by: m3rb3aSt Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea! a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first. that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec. No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all.
LegendaryFrog Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:34:00 - [598] Originally by: RevrendStyx Originally by: m3rb3aSt Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea! a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first. that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec. No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all. It is a better idea to let an enemy dive straight into your most upgraded and central system and flip a station (locking most of your alliance out of most of their assets) during a single weekend? With larger alliances this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but what about small alliances who only have 10 or so systems, with only 1 in the center being upgraded and valuable. If they lose that one system on one foreign holiday where they have work and an attacking force does not, they should lose pretty much every asset they own? Also: to those talking about goonswarm having a sprawling empire. We have the second highest player per system owned ratio of any alliance in the game. We have a relatively small empire (2 regions) considering the fact that we also have almost twice as many members as the next largest alliance. AAA, Shadow of xXDEATHXx, and Atlas are far worse off in this regard.
Zendoren	Posted - 2009.09.17 18:28:00 - [599] Edited by: Zendoren on 17/09/2009 18:28:12 Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane 1. A lot of POS just used for claiming space will become useless. Although I think that's a good thing, that's a lot of capital destructed. Current 0.0 holding alliances won't like it much. Will there be a buy-back option? Just like to point out that with the drop of POS as the central part of solv mechanics, ICE will be devalued ALOT!!! My question is if CCP sees this as well?? Because: 1) Worried that CCP Dr.EyjoG will quit CCP =P 2) Macro miners will be mining more ORE then ice after Dominion 3) IMO ICE's profit margins should not be nurffed (Ice processing is a pain to train!!!!!) -++
Cathrine Kenchov	Posted - 2009.09.17 18:34:00 - [600] Originally by: Aralis Stuff Your post sir, it is full of win. CCP, yeah.... what he said. Seriously
Mister Builder SSI-Holding's SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2009.09.17 20:00:00 - [601] this is utter crap...here begins the death of eve and with dust coming aswell this mmo is well and truly ****ed...love who folks always wanna reward the mediocer
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.09.17 20:18:00 - [602] Originally by: LegendaryFrog Originally by: RevrendStyx Originally by: m3rb3aSt Edited by: m3rb3aSt on 17/09/2009 15:09:01 how about this idea! a corp/alliance can only anchor a sov disrupter and online it if the adjacent systems connected by stargates are either sov neutral or friendly. in order to contest someones sov you would have to do it from an adjacent neutral system or turn the neutral system over to your sov first. that way you would have to work your way towards conquering the space and you couldn't just roll up and drop a sov disrupter in every backend system. it would also make it worth it to have sov in an otherwise worthless system. if you didn't have sov an enemy could gain sov and use it as a beachhead towards attacking your sov. you could also disrupt sov if the adjacent system is NPC pirate sov or lowsec. No dude. This would be too predictable. You know exactly where your enemy would have to be to take the next system. Which would allow you to prepare waaaaayyyyy in advance. I dun like this idea at all. It is a better idea to let an enemy dive straight into your most upgraded and central system and flip a station (locking most of your alliance out of most of their assets) during a single weekend? With larger alliances this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but what about small alliances who only have 10 or so systems, with only 1 in the center being upgraded and valuable. If they lose that one system on one foreign holiday where they have work and an attacking force does not, they should lose pretty much every asset they own? LOL. What a troll this is. So your saying its not fair for another alliance too swoop in and take your space while your not looking? hmmmm cause I swear goons got some guy to push a button and disband a whole alliance and they lost all the space they own. Goons not only took the 1 good system bob had but 3+ regions, while they were at work too. Sigh...I feel for the goonies troll. I fail ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROLFORL
Alisaadi Chorster Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.17 20:18:00 - [603] Will an alliance or corp be allowed to anchor a POS in a system that a none friendly alliance holds? Will a corp/alliance with a treaty be allowed to anchor a POS and receive upgrade benefits to there POS? Example would be alliance A upgrades there system to allow capital and super capital ship building. Alliance B signs a treaty that lets them anchor a POS in that system and begin to build capital and super capital ships.
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 01:23:00 - [604] Edited by: Josh Silver on 18/09/2009 01:23:24 Please make sure a decent 0.0 system will be able to sustain more than ONE active player at a time, tia. (this means instanced belt rats or WAY faster respawn, higher quality overall, more static belts.. anything really)
Sworn Absent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 06:05:00 - [605] Originally by: Aralis WAH WAH WAH I DONT WANT ANY COMPETITION LEAVE ME BE
Phacia Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.18 08:13:00 - [606] Originally by: Amarr Roman I just wander if CCP will consider at lest parts from Aralis post. Just to ruin works of thousands people to see "just if works" is not an approach. CCP shuld read this, and more than this, to improve Eve, not to ruin it I hope CCP consider at least 80% of Aralis post. Just to remember CCP... please dont make EvE = Star Wars Galaxies DO NOT KILL THIS GAME!!!
Leon Vert	Posted - 2009.09.18 08:16:00 - [607] Originally by: Aralis horrified +1
Miklas Laces tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:22:00 - [608] Originally by: Aralis those who have invested in the past are being seriously punished now. Billions in excess pos. Massive wars waged for devalued moons. Stations put in the wrong place. We've spent what - a trillion isk - on stations to give ourselves constellation sov across almost all our region and as many capitals as possible - and now those features are to be removed Half of the things you train/buy/build/develop get nerfed at some point. ________________________________________________ CCP Claw > Sokata has been destroyed for boundary violation Drug Kito > Sokata you'll always be remembered as a noob in history of alliance tourname
AS0T	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:25:00 - [609] CCP take a look at Aralis's post and do it not just "yeah what ever".. don't try to make players in eve fight more, loose more isk, pay more $$$ (the ideea about paying for stargates it's below's a monkey's IQ). Improve EVE not ruin it.
Tiel Enim	Posted - 2009.09.18 10:53:00 - [610] Aralis is right, but at the same time i dont think anyone want sov working the way it is today... Everyone hates the POS-crap.
Charles Tyr Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.18 12:54:00 - [611] I agree with much of what Aralis says on this. Well summed up. CCP seems to contradict themselves a lot on the changes and their purposes. I for one am all up for new ways to have fun but this fun is coming at a huge cost which is a deterrence. Quote: I want to blow *%#$ up! No matter what happens, there will always be important things to shoot. The key is finding a balance between allowing smaller gangs of raiders to disrupt the day to day operations of your space against requiring massive battleship and capital fleets to actually remove you from the same space. Conquest of space in Dominion will differ greatly from what exists currently, as will the ability of roaming gangs to cause an æAFK Empire' no end of frustration. Just as raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc, aggressors intent on all out conquest will have to carefully weigh their plans and make decisions on what and where to attack first. Strategies that work in one system may completely fail in the next. Defenders of space in Dominion will have new ways of defending their space as well. These tools will not replace a proper defence force but they will provide new and exciting options which ensure that not every fight is the same and will reward investment in military infrastructure. source http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 why should raiders/pirates be able to disrupt our space dramatically (according to the blog) when already there are no tools to actually benefit the alliance in defending against these day to day pirates that pass through. And if we are to pay for the upkeep of stargates and enemies are free to use them without consequence (besides gathering a fleet) yet raiders would be able to come into alliance space and wreak havoc before a defence fleet is formed/makes it to the location. Will it be even worth living in 0.0 space if the day to day running is interrupted by pirates and the holders unable to make a profit.
Far Wanderer Gallente Dominium Brotherhood	Posted - 2009.09.18 13:09:00 - [612] Questions: To what degree will the new sovereignty rules apply (if at all) to currently sovereignty-less w_space? Are there any general ideas about sovereignty and w_space that have been discussed internally by CCP which can be shared at this point? Will the new sovereignty rules (if not the Dominion expansion in general) reveal more about the Sleeper backstory or perhaps allow players to manipulate wormholes themselves? :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Some ideas: (skip for those not interested in w_space) Since sovereignty and certain other aspects of regular 0.0 space activity are currently not available in w_space, are there other analogous benefits which can be made available to players who set up stations in w_space and attempt to improve the solar system they occupy? Could players improve a wormhole system such that they can afford to spend a fixed "mass budget" per day on any one wormhole they find that would allow for a very limited extension of the lifetime/duration for that wormhole. Maybe some sort of harvested sleeper tech that's modified at a POS to become an anchorable-near-a-wormhole, mass stabilizer that expires at some point? Could w_space players be allowed the option of manipulating the class of the next wormhole that spawns in their w_space? With some considerable effort, could players improve their wormhole system to the point where it perma-links with a low or null-sec system? Or scrap the lowsec part and instead offer the possibility of null-sec linking through a joint effort, where an alliance in k_space can choose to devote most of its system improvement efforts to linking with other alliance members who have actively improved a w_space system? This last idea might seem contrary to the inherently random and fleeting nature of wormholes. However I think it's one way in which players can finally expand the map (i.e. grow the sandbox) in Eve and bring true sovereignty to a wormhole system. Perhaps at this point moons would "unlock" in w_space and be available for mining? I think w_space tends to favor the home team. System improvements (with or without sovereignty) would seem to tip the scales even more. Can Sleepers be used to balance against or otherwise offset this home-base advantage? Maybe random, massed sleeper attacks on a corp's claiming module? Or once-daily missions required by players to harvest sleeper tech that is then used to "pay" for system upkeep? Or multiple wormholes opening in the system per day so other players have a shot at attacking or claiming some of the developed resources? Have a nice day and thank you for listening! :)
RedSplat	Posted - 2009.09.18 14:39:00 - [613] Edited by: RedSplat on 18/09/2009 14:39:42 Originally by: Charles Tyr I agree with much of what Aralis says on this. Well summed up. CCP seems to contradict themselves a lot on the changes and their purposes. I for one am all up for new ways to have fun but this fun is coming at a huge cost which is a deterrence. Quote: I want to blow %#$ up! No matter what happens, there will always be important things to shoot. The key is finding a balance between allowing smaller gangs of raiders to disrupt the day to day operations of your space against requiring massive battleship and capital fleets to actually remove you from the same space. Conquest of space in Dominion will differ greatly from what exists currently, as will the ability of roaming gangs to cause an æAFK Empire' no end of frustration. Just as raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc, aggressors intent on all out conquest will have to carefully weigh their plans and make decisions on what and where to attack first. Strategies that work in one system may completely fail in the next. Defenders of space in Dominion will have new ways of defending their space as well. These tools will not replace a proper defence force but they will provide new and exciting options which ensure that not every fight is the same and will reward investment in military infrastructure. source http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=691 why should raiders/pirates be able to disrupt our space dramatically (according to the blog) when already there are no tools to actually benefit the alliance in defending against these day to day pirates that pass through. And if we are to pay for the upkeep of stargates and enemies are free to use them without consequence (besides gathering a fleet) yet raiders would be able to come into alliance space and wreak havoc before a defence fleet is formed/makes it to the location. Will it be even worth living in 0.0 space if the day to day running is interrupted by pirates and the holders unable to make a profit. If your players aren't prepared to actively defend themselves they don't deserve to have space. If you cant defend all the space you currently have then abandon what you cant secure and defend what you can. CCP has been planning this for a long time, they aren't going to change anything drastically. Now you all just have to deal with the consequences. Originally by:* CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.18 15:02:00 - [614] Originally by: Sworn Absent Originally by: Aralis WAH WAH WAH I DONT WANT ANY COMPETITION LEAVE ME BE CVA would be NAPped to our more powerful neighbor -A- if we didn't want competition. Aralis is addressing inherent conflicts with what CCP claims to want to accomplish and the changes CCP is making. If CCP can successfully seperate logistical stability and the sov flag system, a lot of issues won't be conflicting anymore. But right now, all things "carebear" that would attract population density from high-sec are directly tied to sovereignty...and if sovereignty is meant to be inherently unstable, the density in 0.0 that CCP is looking for just won't happen. Human nature will keep people grinding high-sec missions for isk rather than investing time and effort in an inherently unstable venture in 0.0. Meanwhile, the system CVA currently has in place that CCP is apparently so optimistic about...CCP is about to turn it on its head and remove every mechanism that allows the system to work at all. I know it's fun to inaccurately summarize other peoples' posts in one sentence as a whine in order to quickly dismiss/discredit their ideas, but CCP needs to be addressing a lot of very real issues if they really want the vision they've shared to be realized.
Tiel Enim	Posted - 2009.09.18 15:03:00 - [615] Quote: If your players aren't prepared to actively defend themselves they don't deserve to have space. If you cant defend all the space you currently have then abandon what you cant secure and defend what you can. What you mouthbreathers fail to understand is that there is not a problem defending space right now, but there is a real ****ing big problem defending the industrials that are IN and USING that space. The only thing that works right now is to have moon mining POSs up and maybe one or two large scale "minerals-for-titans" mining ops. All other kinds of small scale industrial ops are doomed to fail in 0.0, leaving most of the population in EVE wondering why, since CCP give us all these new fancy 0.0 industry ships to play with, but no one is using.
Normin Bates	Posted - 2009.09.18 17:06:00 - [616] I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through.
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 18:19:00 - [617] The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad!
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 18:53:00 - [618] Originally by: Aralis Well horrified as I have been by the info about the Dominion patch my annoyance reached whole new levels of outrage when I read this: wordswordsWORDSWORDSWORDS cva is one of the oldest and most stable alliances in eve, and it hasn't ever come close to cascading as best as i can tell hrm Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 19:15:00 - [619] Originally by: Mr Bananas The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad! Their motives for complaining might be suspect, but I think CVA have other reasons to be worried. While CCP claim to have been inspired by their success at populating Providence, the main reason for that has been the relative stability provided by the current sov mechanics. The prospect of grinding through a thoroughly POS spammed region full of cyno jammed systems and Sov4s to claim a region of mediocre truesec and little moon mineral wealth has deterred any serious invasion attempts, and so the residents have been able to feel secure that they aren't going to have their base outposts taken away and their assets locked up. Under the new system, that stability is being pulled out from beneath them whilst at the same time the ability to upgrade space once you've taken it makes Providence a far more tempting target, so in Dominion highsec players looking to move out to 0.0 might find CVA's offer far less attractive than it is now. Obviously we don't have all the details yet and there will obviously be ways to enhance the defences of a system with infrastructure (I expect that what we currently know as Sov4 will still do something), but it would be ironic if, in seeking to replicate CVA's model CCP managed to turn Providence into a ghost-town.
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 19:26:00 - [620] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Originally by: Mr Bananas The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad! Their motives for complaining might be suspect, but I think CVA have other reasons to be worried. While CCP claim to have been inspired by their success at populating Providence, the main reason for that has been the relative stability provided by the current sov mechanics. The prospect of grinding through a thoroughly POS spammed region full of cyno jammed systems and Sov4s to claim a region of mediocre truesec and little moon mineral wealth has deterred any serious invasion attempts, and so the residents have been able to feel secure that they aren't going to have their base outposts taken away and their assets locked up. Under the new system, that stability is being pulled out from beneath them whilst at the same time the ability to upgrade space once you've taken it makes Providence a far more tempting target, so in Dominion highsec players looking to move out to 0.0 might find CVA's offer far less attractive than it is now. Obviously we don't have all the details yet and there will obviously be ways to enhance the defences of a system with infrastructure (I expect that what we currently know as Sov4 will still do something), but it would be ironic if, in seeking to replicate CVA's model CCP managed to turn Providence into a ghost-town. otoh it might turn into a completely balkanized pirate-topia, excepting a very small core set of systems that cva collapses to, though i don't expect they would be able to resist any serious attempt to dislodge them by that point ^_^
torN Deception GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 20:42:00 - [621] What about some sort of 'license' standing? I.e, a temporary standings change issued to a pilot/corp/alliance which only applies in certain systems/constellations/regions, and has the option to have the tax rate of the issuing entity apply to them when the license is active.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.18 21:21:00 - [622] Don't forget the fact that no one actually wants Providence because it isn't very good space. However, it'll be a lot more desireable once you can upgrade space. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Xiang Jiao	Posted - 2009.09.19 12:27:00 - [623] x up for provid-fense!
Wildcard Trek Caldari Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.19 12:52:00 - [624] Originally by: Mr Bananas The only reason CVA has money on an alliance level is that they churn out supercapitals from behind the complete safety of their sov 4s. Because it is not the space itself that is valuable, and dislodging a sov 4 is such a thankless task, nobody has bothered to put a stop to it. CVA's cash cow loophole is being fixed. After this patch, their space will be worth taking, their CSAAs will be vulnerable, and their position relative to empire will make things harder rather than easier. No wonder their alliance leader is mad! You Sir, Must truly be Bananas if you think the CVA hide behind Sov 4 churning out Super Capitals for any sort of profit. The CVA are not rich like the Alliances of -A-, Goonswarm, PL, B0B / Kenny / It, The CVA have never had any rock better than Hedbergite to mine, no rat until the patch were rats got a boost worth more than 950K, no R64s like that of Delve, Querious, Catch, and the rest. We literally live in the single poorest region of 0.0 in existance out of all of the 0.0. What makes Providence and the success of the CVA work is NRDS and the welcoming of the newer player to 0.0 with help and open arms instead of at gunpoint sending him back home. The CVA fight along side other great players that think that a meaningful kill(ie-a red hostile) is more important then an easy kill(ie-a noob). NRDS makes our pilots better pilots in my opinion since we only kill those that are prepared and looking for a fight then some poor noob who got lost so we can pad our killboard. Providence has for the longest time has been the most stable and populated region in 0.0, where everyone in Eve can come without fear and set up shop, and mine, rat, explore, join a defence gang to repell raiders, and immerse themselves in that sandbox that CCP so proudly braggs about. With the new changes, this is going to hurt everyone, not just the CVA, it seems more like a punishment patch for the spaceholding Alliances than anything else. The reason Providence works is simple, we dont allow you to shoot neutrals just for being neutral, everyone has a right to use the resources of the Amarrian Empire that God gave us to use. You dont have to pay any rent to avail yourself of Providence, your not required to X up and join any defence gangs, if you do decide to enjoy PVP you may only engage targets that are known hostiles, pirates, and terrorist that visit the area ( The KOS List). Trade is not restricted, refinery is not restricted, mining is not restricted, ratting is not restricted, plexing is not restricted, people have come to grow beyond neutral, blue, and red, and have become one big Providence Family. It is not about NAPs and Blues, it is about common respect for your neighbor, and common decency for the place you live. The market of Providence is almost as good of that in Amarr, we have several trade hubs in Providence where you can literally purchase anything. Living in Providence is probably the closest you can get to Empire low sec without actually going there. The mood, security, and stability is on that level. This patch from all acounts will just about destroy all of that. This patch is going to force everything industrial to Empire, it will cause Alliances to creat Alt Corps and Alliances just to build and sell thier wares. Super Cap prices will no doubt double and triple overnight with no one wanting to risk building them when Sov can be lost in a day, and jammers are no more. Nothing will stand in the way of a weekend war to kill Shipyards for the lulz of it, Nothing will stand in the way of a 20 man Titan driveby, with the ability to kill some Alliances Entire Capital Fleets in one engagement. And where will they be replaced from without stable 0.0 space and regions to build them? OOC: I personally see this patch as an Eve breaking patch where there will be no escape or return. My views are mine and not of my Corp and or Alliance.
Lrrp Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.19 13:39:00 - [625] Originally by: Normin Bates I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through. This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec.
wizardz Caldari	Posted - 2009.09.19 17:07:00 - [626] Originally by: Lrrp Originally by: Normin Bates I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through. This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec.
niroshido Caldari Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.09.19 23:14:00 - [627] Hello, i dont know if the following has been questioned yet but i have some questions regarding a few aspects of the new soverign system. As we all know, the face of claiming sov is been completely redone (and it sounds great), but the word redone comes with issues in my mind. Given the development of null sec within the past few years and how regions have changed hands from time to time. How will the new Soveriegn actually effect current space holders with the release of this patch? to simplify my question, an alliance has spent an entire year organising finances and setting up POS's to claim ownership, will the new sov mechanic wipe clean ALL the claiming done, as in will all systems in null sec excluding faction owned space (serpentis etc.) be set to no owner? The question above will also corrispond to the stations, will people find there stations on patch release to be open for capture? my next question regards the potential to "improve" systems. Regarding this are there stipulations excluding vast ISK and ownership blockading system improvement? lets say we have a station system. The station system consists of 24 belts, can we take 2 of those said belts and change them to icebelts?, can we litterally change the roids which spawn on those belts, and can we effectively alter what NPC spawns appear, both in composition and in size?. regarding these new markers, would i be correct in saying these "soveriegn markers" are purchasable, and in that regards are they supplied via Non player corp or will there be a blueprint to purchase from the given NPC's ? thanks in advance and hopefully the above is not something that has been questioned or written about.
Garreck Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.19 23:43:00 - [628] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Obviously we don't have all the details yet and there will obviously be ways to enhance the defences of a system with infrastructure (I expect that what we currently know as Sov4 will still do something), but it would be ironic if, in seeking to replicate CVA's model CCP managed to turn Providence into a ghost-town. This is my primary...concern? Observation? Something like that. CCP says one thing, but the changes they propose seem to indicate either different intentions or a fundamental misunderstanding of how their own game works (or rather how human nature manifests itself in their game.) CVA won't be the only space-holding alliance finding out what we're really made of when all this goes live. We've historically exceeded expectations...time to see if we've still got "it."
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.20 05:09:00 - [629] Originally by: Lrrp Originally by: Normin Bates I, for one, welcome the new SOV system. All the established alliances will be thrust out of their comfort zone. Hopefully CCP will ignore their whines & tears and follow through. This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec. When was the last time someone "built a corp" and managed to make an alliance from scratch and take space from anyone? 0.0 is held by a handful of entities, most doesn't use their space and no matter what will never let new players let alone corps in. Nor can any new alliance take and hold space since the moment they do the r64 iskies steamroll them. Sure this is a super duper solution to you and all other holders. You will never be challenged and can have your personal little circle.. (well you know). However in the long run the system is stagnation and with a ever increasing population where more want to go out to 0.0 the current system doesn't work. The current system also rewards "passive" isk generation several times above active. That's just wrong. The current system means that all power rests in combat, while you might like that it doesn't make sense. Power should be in economy, economy should be built on active not passive income streams. "carebears" as they are called are seen as freeloading parasites and in the current system they are. This is wrong. Sure works for you with your oodles of iskies from r64s but it doesn't work with an expanding population locking people from 0.0. So the choice here is, screw over the holders a short while (you will adapt and hold most of what you do anyway or you aren't as deserving of it as you claim) but in the long run make 0.0 into a dynamic place where new entities can be formed and get space which will lead to more conflict and more fun.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.20 10:28:00 - [630] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal The current system also rewards "passive" isk generation several times above active. That's just wrong. The current system also rewards "passive" character progression via real-time skill training, also wrong? Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal The current system means that all power rests in combat, while you might like that it doesn't make sense. Considering that EVE is founded on blowing ships up, I would say it makes sense. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Power should be in economy, economy should be built on active not passive income streams. "carebears" as they are called are seen as freeloading parasites and in the current system they are. This is wrong. You seem to mistake EVE for SimCity, I think. The fact you see carebears as parasites is your opinion. They are as important as PVPers. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Sure works for you with your oodles of iskies from r64s but it doesn't work with an expanding population locking people from 0.0. How are they locked out? I see 0.0 corps recruiting all the time.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.20 13:07:00 - [631] Originally by: Caldor Mansi 1. The current system also rewards "passive" character progression via real-time skill training, also wrong? 2. Considering that EVE is founded on blowing ships up, I would say it makes sense. 3. You seem to mistake EVE for SimCity, I think. The fact you see carebears as parasites is your opinion. They are as important as PVPers. 4. How are they locked out? I see 0.0 corps recruiting all the time. (added numbers for easy reference) 1. Passive income streams and non "xp" based training are two entirely different things. 2. It isn't founded on anything imo. It is a open ended sandbox mmo. PvP is a important part but so is industry and when you have "empire building" then you need to balance where the power is. 3. I don't see "carebears" as parasites. It is the common opinion held by most alliances, just look at the recruitments. Due to how they are funded by passive income streams anyone that is interested in building/mining is busy doing that rather than flying a bs in the defense fleets. As for the sim-city comment, nah I think eve is a sandbox mmo with significant portions of empire building. Empires are always based on economy which in turn gives the ability to have a military. Not the other way around. 4. 0.0 corps recruit from time to time yes, most of them are pets (which is a weird way to call it since the "owners" usually seem to dislike their "pets" while a pet usually is something someone likes or loves) or renters. However my comment was mainly aimed at this Quote: This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec. Helping a corp build up assets implies building a corp not joining a corp based in 0.0. And again as mentioned, when did the last 0.0 holder alliance corp (ie not pets/renters etc but the people actually owning 0.0) have open recruitment and of something not 100% combat?
Lrrp Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.20 14:19:00 - [632] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Quote: This from someone who more than likely never spent time helping a corp build up their assets, who never helped defend a area of space and whose most ejaculating moment was ganking a noob hauler in lo sec. Helping a corp build up assets implies building a corp not joining a corp based in 0.0. And again as mentioned, when did the last 0.0 holder alliance corp (ie not pets/renters etc but the people actually owning 0.0) have open recruitment and of something not 100% combat? Why would the larger alliances have open recruitment? They are selective in whom they want as a method to enhance their ability to keep and maintain their area of space. It may surprise you that no alliance based corp is 100% combat. It may surprise you that some alliance corps are more geared to logistics and some corps provide a strong industrial presences. The trick is for a CEO of a new corp to establish his corps credentials so a large alliances will actually want to have them. If you think the road to be recognized is in the order of months and you are looking for some sort of instant gratification then you are not in the game for long term. It will take you years to get to the point where your corp may become desirable for a large alliance to invite into their organization. You will have to join smaller alliances and work your way up...just like real life. If you view any and all recruitment as nothing more than being a "pet", I suspect you will never be invited.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.20 14:25:00 - [633] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 1. Passive income streams and non "xp" based training are two entirely different things. How come? Both achieve the same goal - utilize your time. You passively gain XP so you can do things you enjoy instead of wasting your ingame time for character progression. You gain passive income of ISK so you can defend and expand your space instead of space becoming a burden and you had to waste your time on maintenance. Both help the game to keep the dynamics and moves the game forward. I am not saying that oe or another they can't be improved but there is understanding of their purpose needed and considerated. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 2. It isn't founded on anything imo. It is a open ended sandbox mmo. PvP is a important part but so is industry and when you have "empire building" then you need to balance where the power is. Oh, sure it is. Whatever you do ingame, helps blowing ships up - more or less (in)directly(as far as game design goes). Even avid carebear that does nothing else but run missions in high sec is flooding market with salvage, minerals and fittings that are needed to either build things that will be blown up or used to blow up other ships. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 3. I don't see "carebears" as parasites. It is the common opinion held by most alliances, just look at the recruitments. Due to how they are funded by passive income streams anyone that is interested in building/mining is busy doing that rather than flying a bs in the defense fleets. As for the sim-city comment, nah I think eve is a sandbox mmo with significant portions of empire building. Empires are always based on economy which in turn gives the ability to have a military. Not the other way around. Don't know wheter you point at something in particular but I think this is just a matter of useage. Someone who will help do defend your space is logicaly more important than a miner who has no interest in fighting. There is no space without capabilitiy to defend it. There is a question needed to be asked: Why this miner want to get into 0.0 corp in first place? Empires are based on many things, not the economy or miliary only. RL examples are not really valid. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 4. 0.0 corps recruit from time to time yes, most of them are pets (which is a weird way to call it since the "owners" usually seem to dislike their "pets" while a pet usually is something someone likes or loves) or renters. However my comment was mainly aimed at this Still don't understand what's wrong here?
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.09.20 14:38:00 - [634] Originally by: Caldor Mansi Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 1. Passive income streams and non "xp" based training are two entirely different things. How come? Both achieve the same goal - utilize your time. You passively gain XP so you can do things you enjoy instead of wasting your ingame time for character progression. You gain passive income of ISK so you can defend and expand your space instead of space becoming a burden and you had to waste your time on maintenance. Both help the game to keep the dynamics and moves the game forward. I am not saying that oe or another they can't be improved but there is understanding of their purpose needed and considerated. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 2. It isn't founded on anything imo. It is a open ended sandbox mmo. PvP is a important part but so is industry and when you have "empire building" then you need to balance where the power is. Oh, sure it is. Whatever you do ingame, helps blowing ships up - more or less (in)directly(as far as game design goes). Even avid carebear that does nothing else but run missions in high sec is flooding market with salvage, minerals and fittings that are needed to either build things that will be blown up or used to blow up other ships. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 3. I don't see "carebears" as parasites. It is the common opinion held by most alliances, just look at the recruitments. Due to how they are funded by passive income streams anyone that is interested in building/mining is busy doing that rather than flying a bs in the defense fleets. As for the sim-city comment, nah I think eve is a sandbox mmo with significant portions of empire building. Empires are always based on economy which in turn gives the ability to have a military. Not the other way around. Don't know wheter you point at something in particular but I think this is just a matter of useage. Someone who will help do defend your space is logicaly more important than a miner who has no interest in fighting. There is no space without capabilitiy to defend it. There is a question needed to be asked: Why this miner want to get into 0.0 corp in first place? Empires are based on many things, not the economy or miliary only. RL examples are not really valid. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal 4. 0.0 corps recruit from time to time yes, most of them are pets (which is a weird way to call it since the "owners" usually seem to dislike their "pets" while a pet usually is something someone likes or loves) or renters. However my comment was mainly aimed at this Still don't understand what's wrong here? Hmm... Ok I'll explain the difference between passive income streams and "no XP based gameplay". Passive income means that there is a disparity which is impossible to do anything about between established alliances and new ones. Dysp/Prom ends up being the end all and be all of holding space. "no xp based gameplay" means that you don't get xp for playing. Firstly one is alliance based one is character based. Secondly, "doing something more enjoyable ingame" if there were XP based gameplay you would get xp for playing regardless what that may be. That means doing what you like. I didn't say that someone wasn't going to help defend, but take a look at what the 0.0 entities are looking for. It isn't someone that helps defend (a miner would do that as well when needed) it is 100% pvp:ers. This is a direct effect of having "passive" isk. You don't need anyone that builds, mines or anything. RL examples are valid, if nothing else since CCP uses them from time to time. But more than that since the game tries to mimic/simulate a "real world" in many aspects. A bad RL example or complaint of RL would be to complain about the physics, this isn't physics but regards the economy and politics which are fairly similar to the RL. As for you don't understanding the difference between corp and alliance recruitment well, can't help you there.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.20 15:40:00 - [635] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Hmm... Ok I'll explain the difference between passive income streams and "no XP based gameplay". Passive income means that there is a disparity which is impossible to do anything about between established alliances and new ones. Dysp/Prom ends up being the end all and be all of holding space. OK, might be true but it is not related to passive income. If there is an issue, it is the resources distribution and value - that's what you are actually saying here, I guess. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal "no xp based gameplay" means that you don't get xp for playing. Firstly one is alliance based one is character based. Secondly, "doing something more enjoyable ingame" if there were XP based gameplay you would get xp for playing regardless what that may be. That means doing what you like. Agreed on that one. 'Doing enjoyable' and gaining exp is not mutualy exclusive. However, while they are both different, they server the same purpose in EVE implementation. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal I didn't say that someone wasn't going to help defend, but take a look at what the 0.0 entities are looking for. It isn't someone that helps defend (a miner would do that as well when needed) it is 100% pvp:ers. Dunno...Seems more of personal experience and individual 'issue' rather than something needing to address. What's your point here? 0.0 corps having too high recruiting requirements? So what? Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal RL examples are valid, if nothing else since CCP uses them from time to time. But more than that since the game tries to mimic/simulate a "real world" in many aspects. A bad RL example or complaint of RL would be to complain about the physics, this isn't physics but regards the economy and politics which are fairly similar to the RL. No, RL examples aren't used as an argument. The are used as description of ingame mechanics. You can't say because RL empires are based on economy, EVE empires should be based on economy too. Because something works in RL does not mean it will work in EVE too, and that is what you are saying here. Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal As for you don't understanding the difference between corp and alliance recruitment well, can't help you there. Well, I can't help you either and I doubt anyone else can because you don't really say what is supposed to be wrong or improvent and why.
Ivan Zhuk	Posted - 2009.09.21 13:38:00 - [636] I would simply like to see a CCP response to Aralis rant earlier... Its about the most educated angry rant on the current blogs/proposals made by CCP id like to understand how it wont turn to crap as soon as the new patch comes through
Farlo Truan	Posted - 2009.09.21 21:03:00 - [637] Stargates are also importantly supposed to be important in FTL communication networks between systems and their duty crews watch over who jumps in and out of system through them. This can be seen with unknown Wormhole space, which lack Stargates. In such systems a ship must broadcast first to establish comms with other vessels in the area. So... if your Alliance controls a particular system, could you potentially 'hide' members of your alliance from the Local channel there, unless a pilot breaks communication silence on Local? If black ops and other ships that jump into the system rather than through the stargates were removed from Local as well, that might create some interesting dynamics.
DR jekyle Anonymous Alcoholics Wrath.	Posted - 2009.09.22 00:32:00 - [638] i enjoyed eve in beta. i enjoyed eve in 2005. i enjoyed eve today... although briefly before this mid-day shutdown and news of tomarrow's 'database maintenance' threw my corp's plans out the window again seems daily i find myself rolling my eyes at ccp's odd idea of how to improve a game that doesent need any moar improvements ! srsly, between t2 and capships being released (rmr/rev2), the game was already too overcomplicated. now your making it worse AND adding another game to the complexity of it all? CCP fail imo, your good at internet spaceships, dont kid yourselves by thinking you can step onto a battlefield like FPS games and walk away with your playerbase intact. i guess when Ford finds problems with a new model of car, they rather just scrap it and build a whole new car too right? neg. they recall and repair all damages, and this old-school player would rather see CCP recall eve than watch it failscade the way i think it's about to... sincerely, me_teh_troll -Anonymous Alcoholics recruitment thread-
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.09.22 12:05:00 - [639] When a system changes sov ownership, there needs to be an immediate degrading effect on all of the upgrades, otherwise I can see large powerblocks stealing smaller alliance's efforts. ===============
Doddy The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.22 12:51:00 - [640] Originally by: Aralis 3) Make cynodampers easier to put up not harder! The small guys friend! I agree with pretty much all of what you say except this, which is totally wrong. A jammer takedown is not even a stretch for a big alliance, it doesn't protect anything from them. Meanwhile smaller alliances can't effect a takedown so are held off by a few pos gunner alts from a big alliance who doesn't even need to be in the same region. So jammers protect big alliances from small alliances not the other way round. Could a small alliance take even a single jammed system in providence?
Doddy The Executives IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.22 12:57:00 - [641] Originally by: Tiel Enim Quote: If your players aren't prepared to actively defend themselves they don't deserve to have space. If you cant defend all the space you currently have then abandon what you cant secure and defend what you can. What you mouthbreathers fail to understand is that there is not a problem defending space right now, but there is a real ****ing big problem defending the industrials that are IN and USING that space. The only thing that works right now is to have moon mining POSs up and maybe one or two large scale "minerals-for-titans" mining ops. All other kinds of small scale industrial ops are doomed to fail in 0.0, leaving most of the population in EVE wondering why, since CCP give us all these new fancy 0.0 industry ships to play with, but no one is using. I think you have been doing it wrong tbh, can i has ur space?
Maj Disaster	Posted - 2009.09.22 15:11:00 - [642] This change has little to do with improving EVE and fixing some of the past mistakes of sovereignty and alliances and more to do with changing the mechanics to align with the new game they are developing and to force people to pay subscription to said new game. In order to gain access to the more useful "infrastructure" (read: content you already have ie. cyno jammers, jump bridges etc.) you will need sovereignty. To gain sovereignty you will need to control a PLANET. The only way to control a planet is to....... play the new game you will need to subscribe to. Oh yeah, and you'll need to buy a console too of course. http://www.massively.com/2009/08/18/ccp-games-reveals-new-eve-online-console-mmo-dust-514/ the hint (i believe) was on the second page of this thread in the post by CCP Abathur Quote: Think bigger.
RevrendStyx Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.09.22 16:12:00 - [643] Originally by: Maj Disaster This change has little to do with improving EVE and fixing some of the past mistakes of sovereignty and alliances and more to do with changing the mechanics to align with the new game they are developing and to force people to pay subscription to said new game. In order to gain access to the more useful "infrastructure" (read: content you already have ie. cyno jammers, jump bridges etc.) you will need sovereignty. To gain sovereignty you will need to control a PLANET. The only way to control a planet is to....... play the new game you will need to subscribe to. Oh yeah, and you'll need to buy a console too of course. http://www.massively.com/2009/08/18/ccp-games-reveals-new-eve-online-console-mmo-dust-514/ the hint (i believe) was on the second page of this thread in the post by CCP Abathur Quote: Think bigger. imo I don't think CCP has a big conspiracy against its players like you do. DUST 514 may play a bit of a role in sov. But I highly doubt it will be the main mechanic it revolves around. That wouldn't be fair to those that only play eve. So I would suggest you stop making accusations until you know exactly how DUST will affect sov ok.
Maj Disaster	Posted - 2009.09.22 16:57:00 - [644] Originally by: RevrendStyx Originally by: Maj Disaster This change has little to do with improving EVE and fixing some of the past mistakes of sovereignty and alliances and more to do with changing the mechanics to align with the new game they are developing and to force people to pay subscription to said new game. In order to gain access to the more useful "infrastructure" (read: content you already have ie. cyno jammers, jump bridges etc.) you will need sovereignty. To gain sovereignty you will need to control a PLANET. The only way to control a planet is to....... play the new game you will need to subscribe to. Oh yeah, and you'll need to buy a console too of course. http://www.massively.com/2009/08/18/ccp-games-reveals-new-eve-online-console-mmo-dust-514/ the hint (i believe) was on the second page of this thread in the post by CCP Abathur Quote: Think bigger. imo I don't think CCP has a big conspiracy against its players like you do. DUST 514 may play a bit of a role in sov. But I highly doubt it will be the main mechanic it revolves around. That wouldn't be fair to those that only play eve. So I would suggest you stop making accusations until you know exactly how DUST will affect sov ok. I dont think its a conspiracy, its already been stated as the objective as far as i can see. From the announcment: Hilmar said, "DUST battlefields will dictate who control specific planets inside the EVE MMO. If a player contracts a DUST mercenary team to go and conquer this district of a planet. Then ultimately he will be able to control the planet, and therefore the solar system, and therefore the constellation, and the region." He explained more about the interplay between EVE Online and DUST 514. Hilmar said, "You will increasingly have to fight with your fleet [in EVE Online] but you will also have to contract people who play DUST, the console MMO, which then feeds into the sovereignty control system of EVE. Then EVE feeds back into that again by funding the mercenaries, giving them goals." I hope your right tbh and i'm being a pessimistic conspiracy nut, after all it's us PC players that have been funding the development of this CONSOLE ONLY game with our subscriptions for the last 3 years.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.22 17:09:00 - [645] Originally by: Maj Disaster I dont think its a conspiracy, its already been stated as the objective as far as i can see. From the announcment: Hilmar said, "DUST battlefields will dictate who control specific planets inside the EVE MMO. If a player contracts a DUST mercenary team to go and conquer this district of a planet. Then ultimately he will be able to control the planet, and therefore the solar system, and therefore the constellation, and the region." He explained more about the interplay between EVE Online and DUST 514. Hilmar said, "You will increasingly have to fight with your fleet [in EVE Online] but you will also have to contract people who play DUST, the console MMO, which then feeds into the sovereignty control system of EVE. Then EVE feeds back into that again by funding the mercenaries, giving them goals." I hope your right tbh and i'm being a pessimistic conspiracy nut, after all it's us PC players that have been funding the development of this CONSOLE ONLY game with our subscriptions for the last 3 years. Oh, not this again. Plantes are not even implemented yet. It is completely unknown what role they will play in EVE or if they will be a part of sovereignty system. The term 'control' can just mean anything since sovereignty will only mean as much as a color dot on the map after the Dominion is released. However, if it goes the way it is now, there will be no one left who would care about 0.0 at the time this will get through anyway...
Kepakh	Posted - 2009.09.22 22:42:00 - [646] I have a proposal. Since soveriegnty will become meaningless with Dominion expansion, why not applying planned changes to low sec instead? Let people upgrade the low sec space, make it more attractive for all kind of folks and see how it evolves. From there, you will get very solid stuff you can build 0.0 overhaul on, instead of this blind shot messing up 0.0 space.
speedcat Gallente Human Liberty Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 03:09:00 - [647] Originally by: Aralis best post since a long time... CCP... PLEASE read his post... really. cheers
Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 10:13:00 - [648] When Will you be posting what Sov will give players? what are the rewards for fighting over systems? What are the benifits of SINKING billions of isk into systems. So far all you have said is nothing. If you have some clue you'd atleast tell ppl what they can expect from "sov" changes. Why should we as alliance put forth effort into claiming space. We should atleast be able to see/hear the rewards/tiers/levels bonus to Sov and our efforts in EMPIRE building. When can we hear these things? The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun
Mr Pikey	Posted - 2009.09.23 11:09:00 - [649] Why (at the moment) can only an æAllianceÆ claim Sov in a system? I ask because for an example (may be silly on numbers but it is only an example), someone may have a corporation of say 200 members but they canÆt claim Sov in a system, however a number of small corporations can join together and make a 200 (in total) member alliance and they can claim Sov in a system. Why donÆt CCP make it possible for a corporation when it reaches a given number of members, eligible to claim Sov in a system? This would achieve two of their stated goals 1, get more pilots to join a player corporation as said corporation would actively recruit members to reach the number required and 2, would allow an active corporation to move to 0.0 and establish Sov thereby filling in some of the space not used by the big alliances. Holding the space would be another matter but at least a corporation could try and with the right mix of members and a suitable system they might just get established and become an alliance in the future.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.23 11:50:00 - [650] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus When Will you be posting what Sov will give players? what are the rewards for fighting over systems? What are the benifits of SINKING billions of isk into systems. So far all you have said is nothing. If you have some clue you'd atleast tell ppl what they can expect from "sov" changes. Why should we as alliance put forth effort into claiming space. We should atleast be able to see/hear the rewards/tiers/levels bonus to Sov and our efforts in EMPIRE building. When can we hear these things? In order to answer this, you have to understand the development cycle. I can't say more but there is lots of veldspar and beer included.
Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 12:29:00 - [651] Edited by: Equinox Daedalus on 23/09/2009 12:35:11 Edited by: Equinox Daedalus on 23/09/2009 12:32:33 Originally by: Caldor Mansi Originally by: Equinox Daedalus When Will you be posting what Sov will give players? what are the rewards for fighting over systems? What are the benifits of SINKING billions of isk into systems. So far all you have said is nothing. If you have some clue you'd atleast tell ppl what they can expect from "sov" changes. Why should we as alliance put forth effort into claiming space. We should atleast be able to see/hear the rewards/tiers/levels bonus to Sov and our efforts in EMPIRE building. When can we hear these things? In order to answer this, you have to understand the development cycle. I can't say more but there is lots of veldspar and beer included. So instead you jsut insite panic and market crashing? Clearly, that is so much better. I've never understood CCP's "backeneded" politics, always a step BEHIND all the incidents, brushing things under the rug. Tbh /frank if BOB was still alive, I'd believe this to be a major ploy to get them to gain the ability to get thier space back. Clearly CCP would never do anyting that would benfit one allince, such as giving them good rats, or moving good npcs spawns around. That is just nonsense, right?. You go on saying "we have this great awesome new car" and then there are leaks rumors that this car runs no on gasoline but on air. Speculation ensuses, someone is selling all thier air, and someone is buying all the gas. wagering on what is and isn't happening. Rather than come out with what is really going on the car company is, well, buying all the gas up and selling all the air it can, maximizing profits. Clealy I hope thats not CCP's intent. For all those ppl who work hard, DEVOLPING a region, only to at the drop of the hat have things go upside down with little to know idea of what is / will be going on makes hard to plan any sort of thing as an alliance. I don't mind change, haven't complained one time about any patch, or changes to eve as a whole, even enjoy eve for what its worth. But CCPs constant dropping the ball on some things makes me wonder whats the point to eve, cept to just make ppl freak out. The main issue is to me CCP saying "we are changing SOV" but then not saying what its becoming. How long have they been working on this like a week? was it just some random decision? clearly I'd think they have more than just we'll we will just decide on the fly what it is that we'll be doing. Isn't that what got us into the mess in the 1st place? The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.23 12:46:00 - [652] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 23/09/2009 12:47:06 Originally by: Equinox Daedalus So instead you jsut insite panic and market crashing? Which option do you prefer? 1) You release no information, people will complain the changes were too sudden, people start panic and market crashes. 2) You release partial information you have, people go rage and panic, market crashes. CCP does not have any specific details about the changes. They really start to work on it only a while before the dev blogs where published. The beer involved in developement process does not make it much faster either.
Equinox Daedalus Caldari The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 13:13:00 - [653] Originally by: Caldor Mansi Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 23/09/2009 12:47:06 Originally by: Equinox Daedalus So instead you jsut insite panic and market crashing? Which option do you prefer? 1) You release no information, people will complain the changes were too sudden, people start panic and market crashes. 2) You release partial information you have, people go rage and panic, market crashes. CCP does not have any specific details about the changes. They really start to work on it only a while before the dev blogs where published. The beer involved in developement process does not make it much faster either. or 3, sensable post of all information at the same time? Not really going to argue it much anymore as its isn't really worth my rl effort. The Legion of Spoon : Upon wings of wax I fly, never to close too the sun
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.23 13:26:00 - [654] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 23/09/2009 13:27:08 Originally by: Equinox Daedalus or 3, sensable post of all information at the same time? That is option no.1 actually... I was offering the options from current time perspective. As I said earlier, you are asking for information about things that were not thought-out more than they were hinted in released dev blogs. CCP gave you all information they have. What more you want?
Rahnaar Amarr	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:02:00 - [655] Originally by: Caldor Mansi As I said earlier, you are asking for information about things that were not thought-out more than they were hinted in released dev blogs. CCP gave you all information they have. What more you want? Personally I would prefer if CCP had a long since thought out plan on implementing drastic changes to game mechanics years after said mechanics have been established. The notion that CCP has actually no idea, no plan, what those changes will be some 60 days before they go live is frighting and honestly completely unbelievable considering that per CCP Hilmar DUST was in development for 3 years. It follows that for the past three years CCP knew that they had to plug DUST into the EVE universe somehow. Maintaining that no information is given because that information doesn't exist is like the Iraqi Information Minster saying there are no foreign troops in Bahgdad while there's a US tank rolling through the frame in the distance. Delaying the release of information will not stop the inevitable, but at least those EVE players who will still be around can start making informed decisions, which I believe would be in the best interest of those players (paying customers) and EVE as a whole.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:30:00 - [656] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 23/09/2009 15:32:19 Originally by: Rahnaar Personally I would prefer if CCP had a long since thought out plan on implementing drastic changes to game mechanics years after said mechanics have been established. The notion that CCP has actually no idea, no plan, what those changes will be some 60 days before they go live is frighting and honestly completely unbelievable considering that per CCP Hilmar DUST was in development for 3 years. It follows that for the past three years CCP knew that they had to plug DUST into the EVE universe somehow. Maintaining that no information is given because that information doesn't exist is like the Iraqi Information Minster saying there are no foreign troops in Bahgdad while there's a US tank rolling through the frame in the distance. Delaying the release of information will not stop the inevitable, but at least those EVE players who will still be around can start making informed decisions, which I believe would be in the best interest of those players (paying customers) and EVE as a whole. Why unbelieveable? Speed changes were introduced in similar manner. While they were a bit longer on the test server, Apocrypha was on Sisi even shorter and this trend just continues. So no, they just do things ad-hoc - break something here, fix something there. No messing with details like how the changes will affect the game. If their changes were a bit thought-out they wouldn't need to think how to fix something they broke a year or more ago...
Ex Mudder Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.24 01:17:00 - [657] Ok, I have a couple of simple questions. 1) Will space holding Alliances be able to keep the Sov they already have? 2) Will Space Holding Alliances be able to cynojam the systems they presently cynojam? If the answer is no, then you are all Haargoth and this expansion will be the biggest cluster---- since he betrayed BoB. EVERY region will become a free for all of caps killing everything in sight, including each other. Is that how you plan to deal with all those extra useless POSs? TotalHellPurge? Do unto everyone what Haargoth did unto BoB? If the answer is Yes, but Cynojammers and Sov can be attacked, then it is up in the air just how good the new mechanics are vs the old. I will be happy to stop feeding excess useless POSs, especially if I can sell back the non faction towers and mods. I will not be happy if there is no point to dropping a POS because you can't cynojam the systems they are in, and dreads can drop by, enter siege, and rf the POS in 10 minutes they way they now do in NPC space.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.24 11:09:00 - [658] Originally by: Ex Mudder Ok, I have a couple of simple questions. 1) Will space holding Alliances be able to keep the Sov they already have? 2) Will Space Holding Alliances be able to cynojam the systems they presently cynojam? If the answer is no, then you are all Haargoth and this expansion will be the biggest cluster---- since he betrayed BoB. EVERY region will become a free for all of caps killing everything in sight, including each other. Is that how you plan to deal with all those extra useless POSs? TotalHellPurge? Do unto everyone what Haargoth did unto BoB? If the answer is Yes, but Cynojammers and Sov can be attacked, then it is up in the air just how good the new mechanics are vs the old. I will be happy to stop feeding excess useless POSs, especially if I can sell back the non faction towers and mods. I will not be happy if there is no point to dropping a POS because you can't cynojam the systems they are in, and dreads can drop by, enter siege, and rf the POS in 10 minutes they way they now do in NPC space. I guess you will be able to keep current space but you won't be able to maintain it(pay the upkeep), most likely. The cynojammers... While bridges will be forbidden to ships with jump drives and cynojammer will be anchorable only in systems with station, where will you park those? :) Currently you needed to spam your systems with POS in order to take or defend your space. The POS are excluded from sovereignty mechanics now, meaning less POS to erect and take down.
AJ Deathwing	Posted - 2009.09.25 01:02:00 - [659] Aralis - Spot on. This game is epic right now. True nobody likes fuelling hundreds of towers but ffs these people have worked to get the fuel to keep this mighty set of structures in place and spent the ISK to get them in the first place!! Okay increasing the value of systems naturally will encourage more PVP but again why the ** are we going to spent so much resource and time to then have it destroyed within 24hrs, if you ask me the current sov holding mechanic is realistic to an extreme, you have say 10 planets with 2-20 moons on each, potentially say 30-60moons. The bigger you are the more moons you can spam the safer your sov is. the bigger the counrty the stronger it is. Are the developers all from some unknown little dictatorship in the pacific somwheres of the known map?????? True it can be hard to get out to some good space and all the best space is locked of or taken by soe big alliance, wha wha wha wha. Do what we did, fly for a few months, get a good group of people who you know and trust and build yourself from there, when you get big enough to play with the big boys out in 0.0 speak to an alliance that you know of and state your case. You bring a reasonable and non-suspect group of peeps to a major alliance and if ur upto the task your in. The idea of increasing a yield in space is the major natural factor inshrinking the major alliance bases power and supporting more midlevel nap'd alliances which will lead to more natural wars over time with chance for tensions to rise to new levels before the kickoff. We hold a part of our region but if everyone decided to go ratting we'd have the same problem as the goons or any other major alliance, space wont support the numbers, why the hell you think we hold so much of it???? Dont destroy the hard work of many, its true there are a lot of improvements but improve the things people have been complainging about for years, like pos and corp security mechanics and this i trust you with one thing i trust you will all. It dont work that way in real life so for the true sandbox system and the evolving universe you want make it more secure. There is still opportunity for a top level spy to ruin your eve lifes work but a lot less chance of the new guy in the office bringing down a multi-million dollar corporation with one phonfecall to his mates and an impromptu housparty with an elephant and a chimp. And if anyone is wondering about that last bit well i thought it fitting to end the main rant with something that makes about as much sense as 80% of the changes you are suggesting CCP Ive said it before and ill say it again, DUST needs to be PC & Console if its to affect eve but with the current sov mechanics it would seem to fit contributing towards the fuel of towers to assist wars of attrition, however you add DUST and this in together and your going to send all your powerbloc players, even the likes of CVA towards the outstretched arms of JGE The Epic thing you have done is set this world where we can build empires of epic scale, or pirate in the murky areas of lowsec or live in the relative warm cuddly safety of empire and change the way the world works. "Many creatures that the younger gods made were marred and imperfect. These the younger Gods saught to unmake, But UL stretched forth his hand and prevented them, saying "What you have wrought may you not unmake. Know however, In the day that one thing which you have made is unmade, All shall be unmade" Your not gods, only game devs, but if gods shouldnt ** with stuff then why should you. 2 Things to improve 0.0 1)Allow increase resources via new machanics to increase relative value of system allowing fewer to support higher density than currently will automatically shrink current holding in most .00 2)Create a new swath of 0.0 and make more entrancepathways to any 0.0 area encouraging active interplay between lowsec and 0.0 All other suggestions from the devs i would have to refer you to Aralis's rant
Insane Nutmunch	Posted - 2009.09.25 08:31:00 - [660] Originally by: Equinox Daedalus <Asks lots of sensible questions> When can we hear these things? Obviously they will be announced at FanFest. It will give CCP something useful to talk about other than why walking in stations hasn't been released yet. A couple of weeks and after the Gosh/WOW factor at FF2009 we can then look at the "Benefits" and decide whether its worth multi billion ISK investment for 0.0, or if it will turn null sec into the ghost towns a lot of low-sec has turned into. This will be a game breaking/making patch and the silence of details coming from CCP is deafening.
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.25 11:08:00 - [661] The silence is causing a lot of strange rumours to go around. I'd like to think these are so stupid we could ignore them but since we seem to have a team in Iceland running around taking axes to the game we can't rule anything out. Here's a couple of the stupider ones I'd really like to have officially denied: 1) The cost of maintaining sov will be in proportion to the number of systems you hold, going up the more you have. 2) The amount of high end moon mineral stuff needed will be downgraded and the amount of low end upgraded so that all moons have similar values. It ought to be laughable but in the current scenario anything seems possible.
Jim Aaltra Minmatar Off-Axis Response	Posted - 2009.09.25 22:36:00 - [662] Will WH systems change in any way?
Jalsharra	Posted - 2009.09.26 01:17:00 - [663] I would like to speak with you Abathur about an idea that you may like as you seem to be running in that direction. If you can contact me in game or out of game that would be appreciated. I know its taking your valuable time to do so but I hope the idea will spark some interest with you and the other designers. I think its going to get the smaller corps where they want to be and the larger alliances are going to be needing a lot more members to control thier regions, thereby opening the way for true co-operation in the outer regions in order to survive. Once again 0.0 space will be a very perilous place in which to base yourself and it wont be the threat from other alliances or pirate corps that are the reason. If you are interested I'm waiting for your call. Yours sincerely Jalsharra
HottyChick	Posted - 2009.09.26 10:23:00 - [664] Originally by: Scatim Helicon Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 09/09/2009 13:25:32 Originally by: ArmyOfMe sadly with the income the larger alliances gets from moons they will have no issue paying for the upkeep of all the regions if they wanted. meh, no different than now, it just means that todays cycle of: farm r64 > haul r64 minerals to jita > sell r64 minerals in jita > buy POS fuel in Jita > haul POS fuel to 0.0 > fuel sovereignty towers in 0.0 is replaced by: farm r64 > haul r64 mminerals to jita > sell r64 minerals in jita > pay sovereignty tax Also now that nobody needs to keep hundreds or thousands of POSs running the market for ice products is going to tank like you wouldn't believe Quote: i hope you make the cost of owning more then one region insanly costly. hopefully u will have to pay more and more for every constelation u own That would just mean we'll use alt alliances to hold the extra space v0v You will still have to fuel ur towers(unless you can moon mine without them) Sov tax/charges will be another isk sink and sov wise I dont think much will change. Big alliances will place their pets in their systems before the patch,after patch they ''place flags'' and job done. And like in rl money=power=control and so in eve as long as r64 ect bring insane amount of isk, BIG alliances will defend them and even if map shows its not their sov in fact it is. And roaming small ganks cant disrupt ISK printers and thats wat matters for all r64 ect farmers. If ccp wanna change sov than nerf moons and you will see the changes pretty fast.
Jim Aaltra Minmatar Off-Axis Response	Posted - 2009.09.27 17:55:00 - [665] IMHO it seems pretty obvious that a lot of changes happening are to facilitate cohesion with DUST 514. This expansion of the Eve uninverse could be the best thing in gaming history since the conception of Eve. I haven't got the time to take on another gaming project though and I seriously hope that Eve won't be dumbed down to match a console style game or neglected when the new baby arrives, or before for that matter.... Hopefully it'll all work brilliantly, be loads of fun and make CCP mega-Iskies to spend on us pod pilots.
Kerfira	Posted - 2009.09.28 21:34:00 - [666] Originally by: HottyChick If ccp wanna change sov than nerf moons and you will see the changes pretty fast. A moon nerf IS supposedly in the package Will it be big enough? Probably not.... 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.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.09.29 02:27:00 - [667] put all sorts of moons in wormhole space and problem solved
Fenious	Posted - 2009.09.30 19:49:00 - [668] Originally by: HeliosGal put all sorts of moons in wormhole space and problem solved Or better yet, make moon mats a depletable resource. Over mining = Bad
Nepech Al'akir Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.09.30 19:56:00 - [669] Originally by: Aralis How to prevent SWG: New Gaming Experience Some very very good points Aralis. I really want to see how CCP came to the conclusion that more people will move to 0.0 with these changes. Theres only x amount of PvPers or dedicated enough players to handle 0.0(CTAs and the like) in EVE and changing sov system won't change that.
Soyemia Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.09.30 20:22:00 - [670] CCP really should answer to Aralis' post. CCP's been very unanswering anyways. Communicate with your playerbase, damn it!
Twelve Jackals Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.09.30 21:26:00 - [671] Originally by: Aralis You want to encourage NRDS? 1) Give us more standings slots! 2) Give people the ability to copy another alliances standings if they both want. You want the 0.0 empires to allow more people to join them and live in their space? 1) Stop making recruitment such a nightmare. Give us proper security tools so every second rate idiot can't sabotage the alliance. For example why if you want to let someone do work on a pos do you have to let him work on every pos you own? 2) Stop the free lunch for alts. Currently they are a no risk tool for scammers and general scum. An answer - create an agent feature like the one for locating people - investigate known associates. Should come up with a name of a random character on that account now - even if the charter you are investigating has been killed off. 3) Allow corporations more control over their own shares. Should at least know who has them! (No this isn't something I have had a problem with personally it's a general problem.) 4) Stop making things so easy to sabotage. Was it sensible that one person could disband the BOB alliance? (Served them right of course but not the point.) Yes spies and traitors are part of Eve's "emergence" and as such a good thing. But spies and traitors traditionally sabotage with information. They don't press a few buttons and wipe one side out. It's way over the top. Heaven knows I can think of more to say but that is more than enough for now. Oh yeah that pos upgrade thing with more sensible graphics lets have that. :) Why are guns floating outside the pos? With this absurd indestructible structure? Lets make the armour of that! How about they float in the shield and pos pulls them in when they stop functioning? There are a thousand ways you could make Eve better and I haven't' started on the most fundamental problems. But this patch is the stupidest thing since you decided to upgrade tech 1 cargo expander bpos to tech 2 overnight. ****ing awesome post mate. You are my new forum hero. - Sok.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.01 03:21:00 - [672] all will be reveealed by saturday ( fanfest promo is the big dominions launch) if ccp doesnt include presentations on youtube then we will get drips and draps over the weekend as fanfest gets nderway
Elyss D'Haunchy	Posted - 2009.10.01 10:38:00 - [673] What do you need to get the game a better experience is really easy: do it more REAL. It is a nonsense that i can go to the 'better' agent of a corp and ask for a mission and get the nth copy of 'angel extravaganza'. The goodness of an agent need to be dinamic, the missions need to change on the NPC corp activities. The 'real' thing should be that you go to the 'better' agent asking for a mission and he will respond that all his missions are currently being running by other pilot. It is a nonsense that you can 'rat' on everywhere of the universe everytime. The perfect alliance really is Serpentis and Angel whose manufacturers seems to be able to do thousands of ships, ammo (and even clones for their pilots) every hour. But in the same way it is a nonsense that the 0.0 will be 0.0 FOR EVER. The logical destiny of a frointer is become a core of a new civilization. The logical destiny of 0.0 is become EMPIRE, new empires with new rules, new agents and missions, and new kinds of cares... If the alliances cannot transform even a little pieces of wild space into REAL SECURE space, why are they fighting? For nothing? It is a nonsense. The war is boring. Lots of hours of planification and hard work to 30 minutes of action. Fight for ever in the wildlands is a nonsense. Fight in the wildlands to create your dreams, to create your brand-new NATION is GREAT. Do everything DINAMIC. Transform your almost perfect game in a really big space-social-simulator. Make tools of COLONIZATION of the space and forget the big-bloody-boy with big-bloody-gun idea. Allways will be anarchists and pirates ready to attack the colonies and have a short and hot life; but if the colonies are impossible the pirates will be really alone out there flying in empty space. Do that thing realistic and you will destroy for ever the hubs and the abnormal situations.
Veldya Guristari Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.10.01 13:54:00 - [674] Well, I in general like that something has finally been done about Sov, it has failed EVE. However, I do have some concerns. CCP doesn't have a great record in terms of listening or interacting with people. I think the nature of the change seems very, chaotic. I think holding space will become a 24/7 job. You will just have to cover your space from constant minor interference which does empower the weak but if the game degenerates to World of Gatecamping then this is probably a more diabolical change from POS shooting. The only thing worse than POS shooting is gate camping. In such, I believe a small number could hold hostage to bigger numbers forcing them to patrol and secure all their systems, all the time. This would make it next to impossible for an entity to go to war long-distance against another entity. As others have posted, the reason small entities suck is because it is hard to create worthwhile relationships, there haven't been the tools to help with that. I'd love to see things change so you have a lot more smaller entities holding small regions of space and having closer to 50/50 split in population, but the People Management tools are essential for this to happen and they have been non-existant to date. There are more scammers than honest people because the consequences are non-existent. If you want greater social order it can only come with greater social responsibility. These alliances are largely closed off because they don't trust anyone else, for good reason.
Otin Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.10.01 14:56:00 - [675] Quote: If you are going to penalise an entity for the space they control you will just see a big entity control 40 systems. 40 systems with valuable automated moon mining income. The rest of the territory is largely worthless. Very true. Also, once the big alliances get their important (read profitable moon)30+ systems, they will still charge "rent" to smaller corps/allaince to live in the region or they will grief them out of existance. This won't really change a great deal as far as opening up null-sec to new players. Of course, i could be way off-base ... we'll just ahve to wait and see. Nothing especially witty to say at this time.
Kiri Serrensun	Posted - 2009.10.01 17:41:00 - [676] Originally by: HeliosGal put all sorts of moons in wormhole space and problem solved Put all sorts of mineable moons in space, and within a week, there will be POS's (harder to take down than in known space, remember) squatting on them from the usual suspects.
Chirinako Caldari H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.10.02 11:43:00 - [677] Would just like to add my opinion that Aralis' post is the best I have ever seen on the Eve forums, and the devs would be slightly ******ed to ignore it.
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.03 17:32:00 - [678] Your post was quite good and well articulated Aralis, but I don't agree with you on at least a couple of points; Moon mining nerf - are you kidding me ? You actually think the way it is now is acceptable ? Don't see any problems at all with PL making what 700 billion ISK a month off a few dozen moons for pretty much no work and all play.. (pvp pvp pvp) How is anyone supposed to catch up with them unless they already have their own source of nearly limitless ISK already ? I agree they and other alliances/coalitions fought for the moons and earned them, doesn't mean the game mechanic isn't ridiculous. (I'm totally jealous btw) Same with T2 BPOs (only they were actually worse since once you got them there was no way to lose them without being an utter moron) "Hey let me enter this lottery and with no work and a little luck become absurdly wealthy forever with zero work involved, that makes sense."
Tigertalon	Posted - 2009.10.04 15:27:00 - [679] Hi CCP Dev Team... I see tons of new stuff changing everything, making to much worst case regardless if you are a carebear or full enthusiastic player. New stuff is great, yes, because boring content is changing, BUT don't forget to fix the stuff you have untouched for years. Examples: Rights Management, to inflexible and comes with tone of security holes. Overview, after each jump in to a new system, i have grayed out the system informations of the parent system i was in. Starting tractor beam on an wreak in front of me, the wreak is for seconds behind me. And so on and so forth... When you start fixing this??? (and Yes, i started to each a Bug Report) Think about it before you start adding new stuff, with new problems...
Emily Tong	Posted - 2009.10.06 13:20:00 - [680] If sov4 is gone, will there be infrastructures available to make POSes invulnerable in a system?
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.10.06 14:19:00 - [681] Originally by: Emily Tong If sov4 is gone, will there be infrastructures available to make POSes invulnerable in a system? no. It repeatedly said at fanfest that invulnerable pos are gone and not coming back
Wildcard Trek Caldari Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.08 11:41:00 - [682] Originally by: Doddy Originally by: Aralis 3) Make cynodampers easier to put up not harder! The small guys friend! I agree with pretty much all of what you say except this, which is totally wrong. A jammer takedown is not even a stretch for a big alliance, it doesn't protect anything from them. Meanwhile smaller alliances can't effect a takedown so are held off by a few pos gunner alts from a big alliance who doesn't even need to be in the same region. So jammers protect big alliances from small alliances not the other way round. Could a small alliance take even a single jammed system in providence? Yes they could, and they have before. But we have always been able to recapture, and defend. But taking down cyno jammers is not a problem in Providence, Providence is worthless space, some Empire low sec is more valuable to be real frikin honest about it, as we are NRDS which means any small Alliance could move in tomorrow and avail themselves of the area without fear of the CVA and Holders killing them for showing up. That is what makes Providence attractive and sucsessfull, that is the whole key to everything. IF other Alliances were not greedy, and allowed neutrals in thier space you wouldnt have to rely on Moon Goo for income, you would have a vast market, minerals from miners, people to sell to instead of taking everything to Jita. Providence is succsessfull for this sole reason, only those who are known to be hostile Pirates, Outlaws, and Terrorists are the only ones we shoot, everyone else works together for the common good. We dont demand anyone join a defence gang, people do so on thier own, or they demand to be Xed up in intel channels, the reason they do this is because they as a resident living here have a staked interest in the area, they pay no rent, no tax, nothing, they simply do it because it is now thier home as well requardles of whos name is on the upper left hand Sov ticker. If the other major Alliances would of ever considered a system soemthing like ours they too would have and still could enjoy what Providence is all about and reap 100X over the benefits for the effort. And I am sure if any Alliance Leader ever wanted to know how to make it work someone from CVA would graciously sit down with them and help them make it work in thier area of 0.0 as well.
Zey Nadar Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.10 09:12:00 - [683] Edited by: Zey Nadar on 10/10/2009 09:13:26 Originally by: Emily Tong If sov4 is gone, will there be infrastructures available to make POSes invulnerable in a system? Sov 3 and 2 are are also gone. There will be 'just' sovereignty. And seeing as having sov makes sov markers invulnerable until disruptors are planted, I suspect it will make other structures invulnerable as well, wouldnt be a stretch anyway. Every system in Eve can be claimed within that 36 hour period. That should make things more dynamic... Nobody is going to be defending their space 24/7 the whole year.. Natural fatigue and RL issues will make for smaller fleets. I suspect it can be possible at some point for a single pilot in a viator to kill sov in uninhabited systems. In this light, after some time congesting these changes I think they are going to be interesting. What remains to be seen is whether the 0.0 systems resources will be buffed enough. Having only upgraded sovereignty systems buffed may not do it, as not only is it hard in theory to defend it (any system could in theory be taken in the 36-48 hours) and there will propably be much more 'scorched earth' tactics due to spamming disruption beacons. Scorched systems will be of little use to anyone. And we are yet to find out what will happen to stations. World is based on trust. I hope devs know how much SECURITY affects peoples behaviour. To understand this, they only need to look at current population levels between highsec and 0.0. Risk vs reward does not work as a whole. Most people still want no risk at all if they have the choice. I second some of the earlier posters...its unlikely anything will change for smaller entities like corps and small alliances.
Kell Braugh Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.10.20 20:34:00 - [684] Well, we obviously need a more detailed, even if not completely confirmed, overview as just telling us the whats and whys without the hows is kinda pointless and just leads us all in a tin foil hat frenzy. Some people are saying no sov 4 style invulnerably-- period. Some are saying its a generic upgrade now, some say upgrade, but only in station systems. Which is it? Secondly, rollout. How will this change happen? I know its step like #1540 and we are at Step 5, but as others have hinted to... rollouts of big changes to EVE isn't exactly CCP's strongsuit. I noticed the new mods/platforms are on sisi and things appear to be using the new system, are we to assume that this will be yet another undocumented part of eve with wide-reaching affects that is left to the players to figure out like pretty much anything involving a pos is now? - In essence, any combat related activity involving damage has been 'speed nerfed' to just take 6 times longer with a predetermined outcome coined balance by CCP.
Adamai Gallente Naval Protection Corp True Intentions	Posted - 2009.10.21 22:01:00 - [685] i would like to see details on how taking space form some one fits in. before it was mind numbing pos warfare. what will it be this time. and i wander if they will put the carriers back how they used to be with a good sized cargo hold. 675m3 is a joke also i think i would like to see propper scaleeing of ships too. seeing a domi and a mega sit nice and snug in a thanatos is out ragious all 3 ships are more or less the same size visualy. also the hyper is bigger than the thanatos but i can still cram a hyper inside it. their too concerned with reducing ways for people to make ingame isk, that they have sid of course with the more important things like ship scale. give us back our cargo holds on carriers and make them look like the size their supposed to be, if that means making outposts look bigger too then so be it. carriers are supposed to be too big to go through a star gate... they look like they fit pretty nicely to me. infact i reckon i could push 2 through a star gate with a hyper inside each of them lol.. so yea clearly some other things that need sorting out before more expantions. ive always said that scale is so so off in this game and it needs to be fixed. i think the new super carrier idea is going to work a treat i just hope their price tag comes down as its the price tag that renders them unusable. who in their right mind will risk 20 bill of ship that is pretty crap for its price tag in a fleet battle. looking forward to seeing the new bomber drones in action. please fix the scale of ships and structures so it atleast looks realistic. please.
Adamai Gallente Naval Protection Corp True Intentions	Posted - 2009.10.21 22:15:00 - [686] lmao so what happens to all those sov holding pos towers that alliances have speant billions of billions of hard earned isk on ????????????? im talking about the trillion faction towers currently securing 0.0 sov. will they get a refund ??????? you know like a 14 day money backscheme. if so they dont need to worry about exspences, those refunds will cover the cost of all gates in eve for wel ever i geuss. hahah brilliant. cant wait to see how it transpires. when i was in 0.0 we had like 12 pos towers with death star config as you are all aware thats quite the sum of small change. and i doubt the maint fee's of the new system are going to dent that. what is it 900k for a standard deathstar pos and 1.3 bill for a faction plus what ever money the corp makes from mining and what ever other means. that combined with easier sov taking hell eve will be owned by goons over night lol nice. why dont you just restrict the space to be claimed by a simple skill. so sov skill gives 5 systems for every level or 10 systems per level to a max of 50, 1 system maybe 2 is more than enough for a single corp to live in. why would an alliance need 500 systems ???? wouldnt it be nice if other people could actually move out to 0.0 and try live there. why should massive gaming community alliance's hold so much damn space just for one alliance. it would take some pretty overwhelming odds to relinquish space from goons wouldnt it. not having a nock at goons, just wandering while on the subject as to why alliance's need so much space when smaller alliance's could be given a chance to go out their and get involved in the 0.0 polotics and pvp. we all know with current mechanics small alliances have to be pets of just get rolled. i think that should change limit the space an alliance can take. even if its 100 systems thats more than plenty.
NexExigo	Posted - 2009.10.23 02:46:00 - [687] Edited by: NexExigo on 23/10/2009 02:49:21 Edited by: NexExigo on 23/10/2009 02:48:35 It makes sense to me to mirror real-world warfare with: - Battle lines that must be moved at the point of conflict - Potential for deep strikes/harassment To that end, I'd think a master flag could be planted in a capitol system and surrounding systems have secondary flags. The master flag grants sov bonuses to directly connected systems that have secondary flags planted. The amount of the bonus provided by the master flag is affected by three things: 1) Distance from the master - This allows large territories to be held but makes it harder to do so. 2) Number of surrounding systems that have flags. This makes exposed systems vulnerable and also makes it possible for a 'deep strike' to strategically weaken an area by killing the flag. The master flag would be invulnerable similar to the manner proposed by CCP except with neighboring systems determining invulnerability rather than markers within a system. 3) Secondary flags lose bonuses if cut off from the master. That allows farther areas to be chopped in pieces, but the sov bonus provided by the master to nearby secondary systems would make it hard to chop off a huge chunk close to the capitol. If a flag is killed it will retain a 'memory' of its former sov level that (fairly rapidly) weakens over time. Whoever plants a flag gets sov at that level (similar to capturing a castle or city). One key is that the capitol system (with the master flag planted) is invulnerable or nearly so as long as it has enough surrounding systems with secondary flags planted (which prevents capitols in deadend systems--also limit capitols to 2 or 3 jumps from lowsec space). That means barred gate access to -5 and lower standings to the sov owner in the capitol system and that gives havens/hubs that can be supplied by Empire carebears. Also, allow system upgrades as proposed by CCP (whatever they are) so capitol and protected systems become valuable and attract more carebears for their mission running. That's a rough idea--I'm an EVE noob so feel free to chop this up. Oh yeah, keep the taxes since it's basically turning bits of 0.0 into Empire, albeit without Concord interference.
Korizan Red Mercury Incorporated	Posted - 2009.11.09 15:01:00 - [688] As I think about this perhaps decreasing the the cost across the board is not the answer. Well yes and no. In order to get SOV 4 alliances where forced to drop 3 stations per constellation Now that same mechanism is going to bankrupt them. So perhaps CCP would be better served if the alliances got a discount for having that 3 third station in the constellation. Say full price for 1 and 2 station in a constellation and if they drop 3 they are given something for free. THis is another way of saying stay together it costs less but if you are spread out it will cost you ALOT more. You could also take it even further by extending discounts to a entire constellation. This would encourage an alliance to develop that constellation. The rest is maybe..... I suppose you could take it even further by saying costs change based on distance from the capital if you needed to, basically the farther away from the core you get the higher the cost on some things not across the board. Of course that would mean alliance would have to tag a capital constellation. probably too late for this kind of change. Something along those lines might work, and would help enforce the idea of staying together is better then spreading out.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2009.11.09 18:36:00 - [689] Quote: Your post was quite good and well articulated Aralis, but I don't agree with you on at least a couple of points; Moon mining nerf - are you kidding me ? You actually think the way it is now is acceptable ? Don't see any problems at all with PL making what 700 billion ISK a month off a few dozen moons for pretty much no work and all play.. (pvp pvp pvp) How is anyone supposed to catch up with them unless they already have their own source of nearly limitless ISK already ? I agree they and other alliances/coalitions fought for the moons and earned them, doesn't mean the game mechanic isn't ridiculous. (I'm totally jealous btw) Same with T2 BPOs (only they were actually worse since once you got them there was no way to lose them without being an utter moron) "Hey let me enter this lottery and with no work and a little luck become absurdly wealthy forever with zero work involved, that makes sense." I am on my phone so I hope I didn't butcher that statement above. Let me set you straight tyrax thorx or whatever you name is. Get over your jealousy. Why? Because if eve DID NOT have these aspects of the game you despise then the game would not exist as you see it today and would be utter drizzle. Having everyone the same is not my idea of a good game but what do I know...some of you guys are socialist pigs so u suck just because of that alone.
Zixie Draco Gallente The Queue	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:01:00 - [690] Originally by: Adamai carriers are supposed to be too big to go through a star gate... they look like they fit pretty nicely to me. infact i reckon i could push 2 through a star gate with a hyper inside each of them lol.. ive always said that scale is so so off in this game and it needs to be fixed. please fix the scale of ships and structures so it atleast looks realistic. please. seriously? __________________________________________ ~"Oh bother", said Pooh as he chambered another round.~

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