| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Solidatus
   |
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:29:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Solidatus on 17/09/2009 00:31:25
Shamelessly stolen from SHC (many thanks to Vanden for digging this up):
On Sisi right now:
Territorial Claim Marker
This unit contains a large fluid router array. By establishing an alternate data route to CONCORD networks, it grants de-facto administrative control of the system it's in to its owners.
Once online, it installs defensive protocols into the local data net, which cause targeting systems to consider it an invalid target. The only way to remove this structure once established is to seed override protocols into all stargates in the system simultaneously, using System Restore Hubs.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/W4lly/capture2.png
System Restore unit-
This computing unit will interface with any nearby stargate, and attempt to restore default operating protocols to it. This process takes twelve hours to accomplish, and will only succeed when all stargates in the system have been overriden in this manner.
Once a successful override has been made, any Territorial Control Units in the system will become vulnerable to attack.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/W4lly/capture3.png
|
Zilnam Haa
Gallente
Brood of Redemption
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:32:00 -
[62]
A welcome change to SOV for us younger players - Well Done CCP 
To the test days with skills @ lvl 5 & test a "SuperCap"  - \o/ Thx Weirdfish
The game evolves......as only EvE does.
See you on Sing  |
Niitsitapi
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:42:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Niitsitapi on 17/09/2009 00:43:08
read it wrong
|
Notorious Fuzz
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:46:00 -
[64]
Is it just me, or does it seem too easy for a roaming gang to drag a whole bunch of disruptor fields with them and drop them all over an opposing alliance's space? I presume they have enough HP to make them difficult to take down, but so should a sov marker. How many disruptor fields are needed? There should need to be a considerable amount to counteract sov based on the value of the system itself. Perhaps institute a roll-back system, the more valuable the system, the longer it takes to make the sov marker vulnerable.
|
ShadowMaster
Gallente
No Limit Productions
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:49:00 -
[65]
 Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
Originally by: ShadowMaster
Every one needs to keep in mind that this is a part of how to conquer a system. Remember Dust 514? CCP has stated before, on multiple occasions, that they intend on having more options in how you conquer a system. What they are testing here is clearly just part of the system. Fairly certain that if it was the WHOLE sov system they would have had a dev blog dedicated just for it, not a section of one. Please calm down... wait, nvm asking internet people to calm down is pointless.
Anyways, yea, more to the sov system. They gave us all the information we need to test this part of the system. Most of your questions, are probably the same questions CCP has (how disruptors can an alliance place?) and is why they want to have a 5 day testing of the system.
Yes please let another game interface with this game and then determine though a magical set of numebers something in this game? what you think that's a ****ing great idea?
Yea, um what? Again, it is ONE of the options, Dust is another OPTION. One thing that must be done is to ensure that all options work on their own. Hence the testing of this option on its own with no other factors involved. If they suddenly introduced everything for testing, this, dust 514, all the planet control mechanics, any other ways to take/effect sov all at once **** would hit the fan. Finding bugs and balance issues becomes increasingly more difficult and yea. And no I do not think magicly having one game effect another through an unknown set of variables is a good idea. However I have no doubt that CCP will inform us how that all works when the time comes, AFTER they get the first options working.
Some Eyes Demand Respect, Some Eyes Demand Fear, Mine ..... Mine earn it
The Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
COFFEE.EXE Missing - Insert Cup and Press Any Key |
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 00:50:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore
And this does nothing to stop timezone wars you idiots. Make it longer then 12 hours.
They already know that you idiot. they went with 12 hours for SiSi because they want to see how it works without haveing to wait 2-3 days for all of this to work. but then you obviously have never put your nose into sisi or you would realise they already do all kinds of weird **** on it that never makes it in game (instant granting all skills to 5 for example in stead of makeing the people who show up on Sisi train them from nothing ) because they want people to test things in a reasonable amount of time. They left the 24 hours cycle alone because they want to make sure that disrupters work properly in the first place(no droping unscanable disrupters in an unclaimed system just to keep said system from being instantly vulnerable) Right now we dont know if there final goal is for it to take 24 hours 12 hours or 12 miliseconds.
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense. |
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:04:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 17/09/2009 01:05:06
Edited by: Steve Thomas on 17/09/2009 01:04:36
ok let me spell it out for all the clueless whiners trolling this thread.
the people who are whining about how 12 hours is not enough time dont realise that they already know.
NEWS FLASH SISI IS NOT THE LIVE SERVER. Anything on there now will not be that way a month from now let alone when it goes live
They have also already said that this will not go live for 2-3 months
just to give one example if Wormholes and T3 production worked the way they did originaly on SiSi T3 production would be a fraction of what it is now.
or to spell it out
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Good morning, thread. I'd like to start off by saying a few things that you all should consider in your feedback.
Dominion is not being released tomorrow or next week; it's still 2-3 months from deployment. We have no intention of springing changes on the player base at the last minute. One of the reasons we are putting out so much information now is that we want to get this stuff onto the test server and allow you all to play with it and provide feedback.
We appreciate the scope of the changes we are implementing and are not just planning to just ignore your concerns. At this stage of development, there are still quite a few things we can alter in terms of balance. We want to include you in the process and the Dev team will be following these threads, and subsequent ones on the Test Server forum, very closely.
Please bear this in mind in your replies. 
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense. |
Tetragammatron Prime
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:14:00 -
[68]
12 hours is too short!
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:27:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Sentinel Eeex on 17/09/2009 01:29:49
Originally by: Daedalus II
What's wrong with the 12 hour timer?
Attackers: If they can't maintain a presence in a system for 12 hours they shouldn't be able to get it anyway.
Defenders: If someone leaves their entire empire open for attack during 12 whole hours they shouldn't have it anyway.
Even if all defenders are in the same time zone, given that a normal person sleeps 8 hours each night, that should mean 4 hours where the defenders are able to mount a resonably large fleet. What are you complaining about?
Hehe. This was a really good troll
e: I still can't decide what is a better troll - this one here, or CCP's flowchart with new sov mechanics. Both are work of art.
|
Avatoin
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:39:00 -
[70]
ok i got it... the disruptor modules have to be anchored to a POS...
wait then you got the POS problem again...
ok... the disruptor's don't have to be anchored to a POS and can be anchored anywhere within say 20 AU of the system's star and have to be probed out. (Issue remains, although modified)
OK....
SOV/CMs:
òSOV is claimed via Claim Markers (CMs) which are large POS modules that have an effective HP equal to that of one small POS.
òUp to three CMs may be placed in a system at a rate of no more than one CM per downtime period per alliance.
òThe resistance of CM shield is relative to the number of CMs in a system, the length of time the CMs have been in system, and the number of neighboring systems with alliance CMs in them.
òCMs have 100% shield resistance when there are three CMs in a system and all neighboring systems and the CMs of system and all neighboring systems have been online for no less than 24 hours. Otherwise the highest resistance capable of a CM module is 85%.
òCMs emit an area of effect ECM, dampener, tracking disruptor, and missile defenders at a range of no more than the number of CMs that have been online for no less than 24 hours times 75kms that effects pilots who are ranked not higher than 3.0 to the alliance, are not allied to the alliance, or who do not have the POS's shield password.
òAlliances that are allied to the alliance or have a treaty with the alliance with an official term being the sharing of SOV.
Disruptors
òDisruptor modules are medium and large POS modules that have an effective HP equal to that of one-half of one small POS with a base Shield resistance of fifty percent.
òUp to 6 disruptor modules may be placed in a system at a rate of no more than two disruptor modules per system per downtime cycle per alliance.
òDisruptors may only be placed in low-sec and alliance systems.
òDisruptors disrupt the shield resistance and area of effect of CMs of neighboring systems except those of the alliance, the alliance's allies, Non-Aggression Pacted alliances, and other alliances that who have treaties with the alliance with an official term being that the treaty alliance will not be effected by the disruptors.
òThe shield resistance and CM defenses of neighboring systems will be reduced by a factor of the number of CMs in system minus one divided by the number of neighboring disruptors [(CMs-1) / Dis].
òThe disruptors must be online for no less than four hours and the effected alliance must be an effectible alliance for no less than seventy-two hours before CMs are affected.
Removing SOV:
òTo remove SOV from a system all of the CMs must be removed or destroyed.
òSOV is lost at the succeeding downtime.
òThe removal of CMs will immediately affect the CMs of neighboring system, causing the lost of the full defense bonuses.
òAlliances may sign treaties that include the exchange of SOV ownership which will take effect after the downtime that occurs after 24 hours after the signing of the treaty.
Treaties
ò
òPossible treaty agreements involving SOV.
òNeighboring systems will not be effected by disruptors and will act as if no disruptors were in the systems.
òNeighboring systems will share SOV so that CMs will be able to receive the full resistance/defense bonus as if the systems were owned by the same alliance (this treaty implies compliance to the previous treaty).
òSOV may be exchanged between the two alliances with the agreed corporation(s) receiving ownership of CM POSs (the exchange will take place after the downtown that occurs after 24 hours of the signing of the treaty).
òAn alliance may take management of the agreed systems, receiving all of the privileges/responsibilities of SOV in addition to the New Eden map showing the managing alliance as the owning alliance of agreed systems in exchange for compensation. The managing/renting alliance may make decisions that effect the agreed systems second only to the owner.
|
Sentinel Eeex
Caldari
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:40:00 -
[71]
System Restore Unit is 90m3 atm? Heh. This is a good one too.
|
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:41:00 -
[72]
First of WOOT!  Lvl V Cap fest day on the weekend of the 25-27th lol. I've actually just moved a camping holiday so i can be around for the friday at least :D
Second the new sov claim mechanism sounds fine. Set up, takes 24 hours, online. Ok. Harder when done under fire, but nothing I don't think you should expect to handle for the sake of claiming a system.
But I have to admit, attacking a claimed system worries me  . Especially given the Sisi item description kindly posed above, how you can legitimately "attack" by placing as many disruptor as there are stargates and defend ALL these disruptor's for 12 hours. Even if the defending alliance is asleep when you start. In fact its more likely you will be asleep when they attack your disruptor's. Ok, so I could get back from work, and begin at 18:00 eve time, after 6 hours I will die from exhaustion and my US mates can try and take over for the rest. Or spend my whole Saturday trying to to A) die, B) let any of the disruptor's die
Slight side note: If disruptors need one per gate as described above, 9UY in providence is going to be impenetrable I must say, which fits with some places being higher or lower quality spots, regardless of player "improvements" installed. Which I like. I love the idea of tying to gates. It actually flips current thinking (one gate, easy to defend) on it's head. Or at least balances how vulnerable "gateway" systems traditionally are.
I can only hope there is a more complex mechanic for the disruptor's, perhaps an oscillating window of weakness. eg Every two hours it becomes vulnerable. While I see what those who have said "you need to be international alliance or die" mean, I'm not sure that's what CCP meant by the new system. I do not see how making this a requirement, and changing the required duration on an attack from a few hours POS bashing to 12 hours defending Multiple gate based aggression modules, makes 0.0 more accessible to small alliances.
I have said elsewhere I have NO idea how you can make a sov fight timezone proof. My own ideas began down a similar route as above, then died on the very issue I have hi-lighted. I hate to propose a problem, without offering a better solution. (Anything else is just whining). But I am seriously short of ideas.
So help people, what is a constructive alternative to a 12 hour defence slog?
Perhaps the disruptor should become "incapacitated" not destroyed, allowing the attackers to rep it up again.
Would making the disruptor's health really strong or weak help?
Or should it genuinely be this hard to conquer a system by force? Is the ISK rent meant to be a bigger reason to drop a system than a pure attack? Will this have the effect we all want on 0.0? Has anyone got battle strategies (Drag bubbles would work well here i suspect) that would make defending disruptor's easier?
Perhaps if a dev could pipe up and just reassure us there is more to it than what we have presumed here. Don't have to tell us what yet, if you haven't decided, but a calm, knowing nod would help. I think the person(s) that have said we might just need to wait for the test, are right though.
I think this could work VERY well, but it needs polishing.
Dev blogs coming thick and fast, great stuff guys. Thanks for involving us.
|
Steve Thomas
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 01:44:00 -
[73]
yes it has to be ancored at a pos. but is indestructable so long as they dont drop a disrupter.
Basicaly the whole marker-disrupter thing is Wardec 4 nosec.
the attacker has to decide if they are going to disrupt first then attack or attack and drop a disrupter.
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.*
Stop freaking worrying about why things the developers did 5 years and more ago no longer make sense. |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 02:00:00 -
[74]
How do you break the statemate of two alliances fighting in different timezones. I see:
-Alliance A knocks down enemy marker, plants their own (takes 24 hrs) and goes to sleep
-Alliance B wakes up, knocks down enemy marker and plants their own (takes 24 hrs) and goes to sleep
And that repeats pretty much forever. I am assuming there will be some defensive enhancements in order for the defenders to utilize in order to combat a larger or stronger force but after the sov goes neutral I assume all defenses will be hell purged after the first 12 hrs when the first claim marker goes down.
I see a move from "Okay guys, we set our towers to this time, we gotta blob up at that time or it is over" changed to "Okay guys we just need to wait and blob the attackers once during the next 24 hrs and we'll be ok"
Defenders need to honor every attack into their systems, but they still just need to gather up at their strongest and blob the enemy and win. Still seeing this as a system favorable to blobbers.
Originally by: CCP Whisper
So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Henri LeChasseur
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 02:46:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
I see a move from "Okay guys, we set our towers to this time, we gotta blob up at that time or it is over" changed to "Okay guys we just need to wait and blob the attackers once during the next 24 hrs and we'll be ok"
Defenders need to honor every attack into their systems, but they still just need to gather up at their strongest and blob the enemy and win. Still seeing this as a system favorable to blobbers.
See, you're smart. You're smart because you say "blobbers" and that has this negative ring to it. And then everyone goes, "Yeah, i hate those blobbers too!"
But lets dispense with that term, just for a sec here. Lets use a factual statement.
This system favors those with superior numbers. Wait what?! How outrageous!!! In what sort of strange world does combat favor the larger force? People cry of fairness in 0.0, but what is more fair than the most people with the biggest guns win?
|
Cayleu
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 02:49:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Solidatus
System Restore unit-
This computing unit will interface with any nearby stargate, and attempt to restore default operating protocols to it. This process takes twelve hours to accomplish, and will only succeed when all stargates in the system have been overriden in this manner.
Once a successful override has been made, any Territorial Control Units in the system will become vulnerable to attack.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/W4lly/capture3.png
If this screenshot is accurate, then it appears that it takes 24 hours to online a disruptor. If thats the case, we are talking about 36 hours to lose sov.
|
Darkdood
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:20:00 -
[77]
I'm sorry but I've said this 2-3 other times. Making it based on gates is a mistake. Some systems have 5 gates others have 1. It just moves the blobs from the POS's at the moons to the gates and then later the sov beacon. What good does this do anyone? I thought the whole point was the change sov not rehash it so it works the same with different objects to fight over.
|
Vorononv Circut
The Maverick Navy
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:38:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Vorononv Circut on 17/09/2009 03:39:56
Originally by: Cayleu
If this screenshot is accurate, then it appears that it takes 24 hours to online a disruptor. If thats the case, we are talking about 36 hours to lose sov.
Awesome, 36 hours is very reasonable. Now I wonder what they'll do to prevent people from dropping your sov right before patch downtimes? 
Edit: I mean during... whatever; you get the idea
|
Pyrhus Taavi
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:40:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Sentinel Eeex
System Restore Unit is 90m3 atm? Heh. This is a good one too.
u scared?
|
Cayleu
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:44:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Cayleu on 17/09/2009 03:45:07
There's another critical piece of information that we do not have. What, if anything, will system sov really mean? What do you get? We are still thinking in terms of how sov works today. Remember this blog? (Scroll down to "where we're going with this")
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=695
The way they describe it, they seem to want system sov to be just the flag you plant in the ground to declare that you won and control the system, but not necessarily that system sov will be extremely important. The big unanswered question is how do you control and take away docking rights? It may not necessarily be by system sov anymore, we just dont know how this works yet.
|
Vorononv Circut
The Maverick Navy
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:47:00 -
[81]
Quick thoughts after seeing the item description.
- 36 hours to drop sov is very reasonable.
- It's a tiny mod... small enough for a hac gang to drop, which is a mixed blessing.
- If there's really no resists it's got 200k EHP. That's one volley from a larger roaming BS gang. My first comment (page 1) still stands then. This thing is going to be hard as hell to defend when disrupting sov.
- What skills will it require to drop? I'd hope the same as POS ecm mods (anchoring 3) just to prevent complete sov-spam by every member of a roaming fleet.
|
Vorononv Circut
The Maverick Navy
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:55:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Cayleu
There's another critical piece of information that we do not have. What, if anything, will system sov really mean?
He mentioned stuff like JBs and cynojammers still being around. Although he said *maybe* cynojammers would only be allowed in outpost systems, etc. So I think sov will prettymuch function exactly the same as it does now, but with additional statistics/intel tools, maybe gate fees, etc. The real kicker is potential lack of sov4.
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:01:00 -
[83]
as long as its not 3 stress tests in disguise again 
|
Toksyuryel
Gallente
Domestic Tentacle Supply
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:01:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Henri LeChasseur
Originally by: Vaal Erit
I see a move from "Okay guys, we set our towers to this time, we gotta blob up at that time or it is over" changed to "Okay guys we just need to wait and blob the attackers once during the next 24 hrs and we'll be ok"
Defenders need to honor every attack into their systems, but they still just need to gather up at their strongest and blob the enemy and win. Still seeing this as a system favorable to blobbers.
See, you're smart. You're smart because you say "blobbers" and that has this negative ring to it. And then everyone goes, "Yeah, i hate those blobbers too!"
But lets dispense with that term, just for a sec here. Lets use a factual statement.
This system favors those with superior numbers. Wait what?! How outrageous!!! In what sort of strange world does combat favor the larger force? People cry of fairness in 0.0, but what is more fair than the most people with the biggest guns win?
Guerrilla warfare. |
Mskpath3
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:41:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Mskpath3 on 17/09/2009 04:44:27
Originally by: Vorononv Circut
36 hours to drop sov is very reasonable.
Ok. Unless there's a mechanic here I'm missing, what's stopping an offensive alliance from placing disruptors in -every- system you have sov in simultaneously?
There's two possibilities I see here.
- The timing and cost of placing disruptors is high and is a serial operation. In this case, it becomes a different form of POS warfare.
- The timing and cost of placing disruptors is low and is a parallelizable operation across multiple systems. In this case, no one holds space ever. Or alliances hold 2-3 systems and can provide precisely zero incentive to their members to stay.
There's middle ground in there somewhere. But the bottom line is, unless the disruptor thing is inherently a serial operation (one system at a time, per alliance or something) this will obliterate all space holding entities.
Right now space is held by hardcore players. After this it will require some sort of race of robots to be awake in force at all hours to hold just a fraction. Carebears and the "ooh, this is so GREAT!" cheerleaders will stand about 1/100th of the chance they do these days.
I don't like to join the sky is falling crowd, but this has a potential NGE factor of about 8.5
|
Vorononv Circut
The Maverick Navy
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:59:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Vorononv Circut on 17/09/2009 05:01:24
Originally by: Mskpath3
Ok. Unless there's a mechanic here I'm missing, what's stopping an offensive alliance from placing disruptors in -every- system you have sov in simultaneously?
I honestly don't see the problem with that. If they want to go drop one sov beacon per gate per system they can.
So - ccp thinks we'll have fewer systems. Ok, let's say 20. I'll take a random guess of 2.5 gates (on average) per system.
So... some alliance with nothing better to do drops 50 sov disruptors. Not hard to do, it would take one hac gang roaming through the territory.
Now what? Are they actually going to defend them?!? No. If the attacking alliance only has to remove one disruptor per system, it becomes trivial to 'reclaim' your space.
In fact, I'd argue that an attacking force would need to maintain a near constant presence in the system over 36 hours to keep the assault going. If they lose ground for even a few minutes a BS (or even stealth bomber - lol) gang will quickly level a disruptor. In fact... if the 200k EHP is accurate, they'd basically need to keep logistics on it, just to prevent a 100-man bs gang from warping in, popping the thing and warping off, enemy fleet be damned.
edit: 'while' != 'will' *proofread*
|
Tetrix Akuta
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:59:00 -
[87]
I think some folks are missing the point here. One of the ideas that keeps getting repeated in all of these DEV Blogs is that after Dominion hits its going to be to your advantage to have people other than the ones just in your alliance in your space. That the mentality of NBSI will be some what gone.
This Sov system is proof of that. Here we have a system that could be "gamed" by time zone in the current nullsec atmosphere, however if I am not mistaken in the new post-Dominion world having more people in your space other than just your Alliance will be a good thing. If you are providing a home for corps, and they like your rule they will want to help defend it. If you are careful to seed your space with people from more than one time zone you have around the clock protection.
Honestly some of you sound like carebears that say they can't defend themselves from canflippers/ninjas/pirates. You can, you just have to man up and wardec someone or hire some mercs that have the balls to shoot people.
|
Mskpath3
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 05:06:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Tetrix Akuta
I think some folks are missing the point here. One of the ideas that keeps getting repeated in all of these DEV Blogs is that after Dominion hits its going to be to your advantage to have people other than the ones just in your alliance in your space. That the mentality of NBSI will be some what gone.
I don't understand why you would think this. What -exactly- would be the advantage to have non-alliance people in your space?
If they're not defending sov for you, they are pointless (in fact, worse than pointless). They are in fact basically just squatters, so why not shoot them?
If they -are- defending sov, they're more or less in your alliance. As it is now, larger alliances hold more space. If this new system comes in....larger alliances hold more space.
A bunch of 0 effort carebears doesn't fit into either side of that picture.
|
Mskpath3
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 05:13:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Mskpath3 on 17/09/2009 05:14:26
Originally by: Vorononv Circut
Now what? Are they actually going to defend them?!? No. If the attacking alliance only has to remove one disruptor per system, it becomes trivial to 'reclaim' your space.
I suppose this is true. As long as the sov-claimer EHP is way high compared to the disruptor EHP. Otherwise, imagine rolling waves of disruptor anchorings + sov-claimer attacks at 2 hour intervals.
- Place disruptors in system.
- 2 hours later, place disruptors in another system far from the first.
- Repeat continuously. Heck, do it for days on end. Send a little squad of alts with viators into a region with thousands of the things.
- As defenders tire and start failing to destroy the disruptors, start blowing up the sov-claimers. Take your pick which one - you've got them in 60 systems.
Requires very little effort on the part of the attackers, but -extreme- super vigilance on the part of the defenders. With the proposed timescales, that would be nearly impossible to sustain. People will start to reminisce about the lazy days of POS bashing :)
Seems like it would require some extreme number jiggling to offset that sort of advantage.
|
DRACO selen
The Executives
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 05:17:00 -
[90]
Edited by: DRACO selen on 17/09/2009 05:17:08
serious question incomming
Does it take 24h or 24h+next dt to claim sov?
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |