EVE Search - Big over looked problem with new Sov System

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Big over looked problem with new Sov System

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 18 post(s)
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.20 23:38:00 - [1] This is pretty funny... Sovereignty manager does not solve anything, the problem will remain. Simply make the Marker unanchorable :-P
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:02:00 - [2] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: HeliosGal ah so basically it comes down to lazy and fast programming by ccp and not wanting to expand the role range ingame. Thats fair enough and understandable they want to leave open the otpion for subterfuge Actually if you want to know the technical reason about the roles. They are a bit flag, and a bit flag is limited to the number of bits in data type stored, for instance a 32 bit integer can store a number between 0 and 4bilion and some, while if the number is signed it is +- 2 billion and some. But that same 32 bit integer can store 32 flags (or roles in this case), moving to 64 bit number gives us a few more bit flags, but we are still limited so have to chose really good reasons to add a new role. Yeah, but I guess it is possible to separate and attach the Marker anchoring to other already existing role... I believe this is more important than you think. And investigating after damage is done is not much of help. The whole concept is based on making your space more valuable thus the damage of unanchoring the marker is even bigger than it was ever before with any other unanchored structure. The Marker holds more power than any other POS before and you treat it with same level of security. ie. what will happen once sov is gone? What about your infrastructure upgrades? However, I still think it is better to have Marker unanchorable :-P
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:17:00 - [3] Originally by: HeliosGal so thers a max of 64 roles or 32 roles ingame. Why not just create a new subgroup of roles relating to sov strucutres, u can then push the new roles into the CEO - director allocations and done . or is this not possible with python This is not because of Python but SQL database. Making structure changes to database ain't that easy...
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:33:00 - [4] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 21/10/2009 12:33:36 Originally by: CCP Incognito What will happen to the upgrades is up to you to find out. We are not going to make it so that you are immune to being stabbed in the back by your own coup mate. Alliances will have complete control over which corps hold what FLAG structures. If you have the same corp owning the POS as the FLAG then you trust the members in the corp to act responsible. There is nothing stopping the alliance from requiring all FLAG be transferred to the executor corp or a SOV holding corp that only has a single member. Yes FLAG can be transferred between corps in the alliance without taking them offline. As posted above there are a number of safe guards in place to prevent your system being taken by the enemy, but the lone guy opening the city gates for the enemy is always possible. I think I have just expressed the concern of people who think that getting whole alliance lost via 'Unanchor'..erm, 'Disband' button might need some attention. Also, I can't argue your opinion if you think that losing the space in mass scale or even a single system due corp/alliance/POS mechanics is fine.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:48:00 - [5] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 21/10/2009 12:49:15 Originally by: HeliosGal ok so essetially alliacnes becme more the level that delegate roles to corps that they trust to hold sov for alliance, corps can defect and take sov with them. Well at the very least it will make 00 space much more emo driven and also fire up coad when alliances collapse. Maybe its a good thing that sov can switch around, as long as loosing sov doesnt disrupt titan and mothership production - that area remains quiestionable until ccp devours more information to the public The FLAG transition is pointing out at corporation structure within alliance, not a game mechanic. ie. you will create 1 corp or several corps with trusted members only who can control the FLAGs in across owned space. This is not much different from system that is used by players now and what caused BoB to lose their space.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:21:00 - [6] Originally by: CCP Incognito Because there is a hefty bill attached to holding a system. Before you asked the numbers are still being tweaked, so I won't say anything on that. But you may want to give up sovereignty in a system that you are not using and hence save your self the bill for having that system. Giving up sovereingty might be done via different mehanics though... Extending voting system would be nice addition to the corp mechanics. Voting could initiate sovereignty reset to start with maybe?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:30:00 - [7] Originally by: HeliosGal theres more reward in holding fewer systems that are more developed now. Less remote pos bashing more system to system fighting. Which is about time. Now some bigger alliances can hold 800 systems and pay something like 20 trillion + isk a month and leave most system unused :) id like to see em survive a while Not neccessarily. It is only reasonable to fill up systems with POS just to protect your space from anchoring enemy structures. This will pretty much be the same as it is now or it might be even more important because there will be no cyno jammers apart from systems with stations. So in fact, this change might not really help you from POS bashing. Also, you will most likely need more POS to supplement T2 BPO changes.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:54:00 - [8] Originally by: Mynas Atoch Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 21/10/2009 16:43:10 We really need you to separate the roles for sovereignty maintenance from the roles for POS. You won't find an alliance in the game that won't support this. You can do it via establishing Sovereignty Holding Corporations filled with alts.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:32:00 - [9] Originally by: Ihavewindage Can a single corp hold sov in the new setup? Does this mean only Alliances can hold sov? Thanks A corporation is erecting sovereignty claim maker - Fixed Link Annexation Generator for the alliance and only alliance can hold a sovereignty over the system.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 08:57:00 - [10] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Waz Weh Edited by: Waz Weh on 21/10/2009 16:14:58 What happens when a corp holding flags leaves the alliance? What happens when a corp holding flags is kicked out of the alliance? When the alliance gets disbanded, do all flags go offline? Is there any effect if the alliance government is changed? Can a malicious corp hold onto flags even though the alliance wants this situation stopped but finds themselves unable to kick the corp? Is there any effect if two corps holding flags in the same alliance online them at the same time, etc? [] The flags offline [] There flags offline [] Yes all the flags go offline [] No [] Yes [] The first one to get to online wins, the other flag will revert back to anchored, "there can be only one" flag online. When a flag goes offline then all structures that depend on them also go offline, IE the Infrastructure Hub, CSAA will pause jobs, Jump bridges will offline,... From this it does not seem to be that difficult to make offlining a Flag submited to corporation voting... Any will to look at it?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:46:00 - [11] Originally by: Slobodanka This is a joke, right? Only alliances can claim sov and corps can't? It is not. It was this way since sovereignty control was introduced. Only natural step from: Lone player -> Corp and POS -> Alliance and Claimed space. Nothing wrong here, make an alliance with a single corp if you want to claim a space.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 15:56:00 - [12] Originally by: Cadde Ok... Ever heard about starting small? I don't know how you guys operate at CCP (either) but why continue adding MORE code that revolves around the problem? Then it will never be fixed because the code just grows and grows and the issue is therefore pushed further and further back the line because of the magnitude of such a change. So may i suggest... Starting to work with "THE" new access system on anything new you implement and let the two work side by side, while OFC gradually reworking the old system. It will be confusing at first for both you guys and us but the means justify the ends. I know this won't happen for Dominion but the next expansion, whatever it may be, better start working on this old system that is so obviously flawed in design. Just to give one example, all the idiots giving director roles because the role system as it is now doesn't work as intended nor is it easy to understand in the first place. And it is too much access to give away just for something small such as doing material efficiency research using a pos. Which requires a host of different permissions that also give access to other stuff the researcher doesn't need access to. Also, while you implement the new permission system we (many players) would love to have, instead of hangars, folders, subfolders and then some ... in our corp hangar where we can define who gets access to what WITHOUT having to use stupid secure cans with passwords and making silly workarounds for everything that isn't working well. Like making holding corporations... It's not only adding more work for the players, it's also very heavy for the servers with all the unlocking items, moving items, locking items, constantly opening several cans (because each container can only hold so much) to see whats in them and so on. There is no limit to how many cubic meters of stuff you can have in a station anyways... So why would we need containers with those limitations? Meh, just do it mmkay? Would that mean losing a 4 month beer drinking summer period between expansions? Sorry, not going to happen.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.25 10:11:00 - [13] Originally by: HeliosGal so its one of htose things that requires deep deep changes, well i guess ccp can add it ot the to do list for post incarna Not really, this is exactly one of those things that are "well I know how the old works I will just use it, and let someone else change it later"... So unless it is really a pain, they won't touch it.

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.