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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 18 post(s)
MJ Maverick IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.10.20 22:00:00 - [1] Hopefully they have realised this and this post isn't needed but in case they haven't I'm going to post it anyway. With the new sov system comes the ability for anyone in the corp that puts up the claimers to offline/unanchor them with the basic Starbase Config roles. (=bad) Now you can probably see the problem here, but in case you can't. Spy + Sov managing corp + basic semi-trusting roles = BoB. I would strongly suggest to fix this, create a new role that Directors can give out to whoever they want to have this ability. Sovereign Starbase Manager. Please sign. -------------------- CCP arse kissing drones are not welcome in my threads. CCP are not perfect.
Joe College Gallente No Glory in Violence	Posted - 2009.10.20 22:46:00 - [2] I agree, there should be more distinct roles associated with this and not a shared role from a totally unrelated feature of Eve.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.20 23:38:00 - [3] This is pretty funny... Sovereignty manager does not solve anything, the problem will remain. Simply make the Marker unanchorable :-P
Kiviar Caldari Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.10.20 23:46:00 - [4] This is a symptom of a much larger problem however. With the current corp roles you can either do absolutely nothing or absolutely everything For Example, someone who has the ability to insert jobs in to a pos also has the ability to shut down all corp jobs. ---
Syberbolt8 Gallente Knights of Kador Freedom of Elbas	Posted - 2009.10.21 00:44:00 - [5] this is the same it is on tq right now anyway, starbase config will let you control sov of your towers. How does this effect anything differently? its the exact same thing? Support the DEAD HORSE POS's
Trustworthy Joe	Posted - 2009.10.21 01:38:00 - [6] all this means is that you drop sov with the holding corp of the alliance. want a sig? thats great! post it in response to my posts!
Rudolf Miller Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.10.21 01:42:00 - [7] This isn't a problem. The rules of the FLAGs say that only 1 beacon can be anchored per corp per system. So the only time a holding corp marker can mess things up is a dead end system, otherwise other corps in the alliance (should) also have beacons in the system as well meaning it would take a multi-corp infiltration to pull a BOB post dominion. Not signed/Not an issue

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:20:00 - [8] Originally by: Rudolf Miller This isn't a problem. The rules of the FLAGs say that only 1 beacon can be anchored per corp per system. So the only time a holding corp marker can mess things up is a dead end system, otherwise other corps in the alliance (should) also have beacons in the system as well meaning it would take a multi-corp infiltration to pull a BOB post dominion. Not signed/Not an issue Close but not right. To claim sovereignty you need to have a online beacon in the system, while it is true you can have multiple beacons anchored in a system, only one can be online and holding sovereignty. So yes a BoB disband is possible, but the spy would need to travel to each system and offline the beacons. This assumes that all space is claimed by beacons owned by one corporation. As each beacon can be owned by a separate corporation and claim space on behalf of there alliance. The most the spy could do would be to unclaim a few systems for the corp that the spy is in. Another feature is there is a mail sent to the alliance when sovereignty is lost. So chances are someone in the alliance would see systems un-claiming and go and investigate. Also you should be aware of the fact that the number of POS needed will go way down. you will no longer need 50 GAZILLION star bases to claim sovereignty. This will allow you to reduce the number of pilots that have starbase-config role. But it will always come down to giving roles to people you trust. Hope this clears up the situation.

Linianaria	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:33:00 - [9] Edited by: Linianaria on 21/10/2009 11:33:58 Well i kind of still agree with the fact that a problem still exists. Perhaps its time for CCP to have roles looked at again. Now that you divided POS and Sovr. why dont you create a new role to match this? Sovr. manager role as an example? That would solve the whole "mass sovr. loss by spy" thing and divide POS and sovr. FTW :)
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:35:00 - [10] 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
iP0D	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:37:00 - [11] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Rudolf Miller This isn't a problem. The rules of the FLAGs say that only 1 beacon can be anchored per corp per system. So the only time a holding corp marker can mess things up is a dead end system, otherwise other corps in the alliance (should) also have beacons in the system as well meaning it would take a multi-corp infiltration to pull a BOB post dominion. Not signed/Not an issue Close but not right. To claim sovereignty you need to have a online beacon in the system, while it is true you can have multiple beacons anchored in a system, only one can be online and holding sovereignty. So yes a BoB disband is possible, but the spy would need to travel to each system and offline the beacons. This assumes that all space is claimed by beacons owned by one corporation. As each beacon can be owned by a separate corporation and claim space on behalf of there alliance. The most the spy could do would be to unclaim a few systems for the corp that the spy is in. Another feature is there is a mail sent to the alliance when sovereignty is lost. So chances are someone in the alliance would see systems un-claiming and go and investigate. Also you should be aware of the fact that the number of POS needed will go way down. you will no longer need 50 GAZILLION star bases to claim sovereignty. This will allow you to reduce the number of pilots that have starbase-config role. But it will always come down to giving roles to people you trust. Hope this clears up the situation. That's all good and fine on paper. While the number of POS required for sovereignty will go down decently, this is not a sliding scale. A lot of systems with low moon counts will still need POS cover, since handing hostiles a free moon as a base is not a healthy thing. Besides that, from the state of changes sofar there will be a substantial need for larger POS networks for industry, in regards to moon mining on one hand and reactions on the other. The silly spam factor will be taken out yes, but that is just one variable. As for roles, metagaming is not a bad thing, but it is a bit over the top when someone is able to not just affect or kill sovereignty, but also cripple people's income on more then just one level, since the pos config role also lets you crack down on the moon money. It's fine to have a weakness in this regard, since people need to watch their affairs and stay on top of events, but this is a bit like two big strikes with one blow.
Linianaria	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:39:00 - [12] Edited by: Linianaria on 21/10/2009 11:39:35 "HeliosGal" ahh..very constructive comment..oh yes. helps alot...
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:47:00 - [13] POS will have no role in sov 3 strucutres on SISI atm on market 1) Fixed Link Annexation Generator 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 it is established is to seed override protocols into 51% of the stargates in a system simultaneously. This is done by using Sovereign Territory Override Platforms. 2)An Infrastructure Hub is the cornerstone of any empires expansion into nullsec territory. Once online, it allows the owner to cultivate the system it is placed in, by applying one of the numerous upgrades made available. These upgrades range from simple improvements to a systems financial infrastructure, to terrifying defensive weapons. As an added bonus, the Infrastructure Hub functions as a defensive structure as well, as sovereignty cannot be taken while it is still online. 3) This structure will interface with a nearby stargate and attempt to restore default operating protocols to it. This process takes twelve hours to accomplish. Once a successful override has been made, any Fixed Link Annexation Generators in the system will become vulnerable to attack.

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 11:49:00 - [14] 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.

Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:02:00 - [15] 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
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:06:00 - [16] 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

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:14:00 - [17] Originally by: Caldor Mansi 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 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.

Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:17:00 - [18] 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...
Ajurna Jakar Gallente Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:19:00 - [19] sounds to me like the roles system could use an overhaul... anyone?
iP0D	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:23:00 - [20] Originally by: CCP Incognito We are not going to make it so that you are immune to being stabbed in the back by your own coup mate. That is not what is being asked here, or even expressed as a concern. This is EVE, this goes hand in hand with it. What is being pointed out, is that it is fine to have a role based weakness for something, but that it is rather over the top to have the same role based weakness apply to a multitude of aspects. Remember, sovereignty, and the duality of income via space and pos. Besides, even keeping it the same name really bumps into immersion doesn't it. POS Config for a structure which may be grafted on to a POS but which is not a POS, right. Originally by: CCP Incognito 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, that's been clear for a while now. And it is an interesting scenario pushing mechanisms, both for attacking and defensive perspectives, but it is unrelated to having a single role in this EVE of specialisation control no longer a singular aspect, but a multitude of mechanisms.
Mithfindel Aseyakone	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:32:00 - [21] Dare I suggest the "Station Manager" role? That one at least should be a bit more rare that POS management? Or if wanting to make planting the things earlier, let them be anchored, unanchored and onlined by Starbase Managers, but offlineable only by Station Managers.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:33:00 - [22] 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.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:40:00 - [23] 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
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:48:00 - [24] 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.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:53:00 - [25] so ccp introduces and retains the ability for subter***e it fits the game design
McFly C0LDFIRE	Posted - 2009.10.21 12:55:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Incognito Also you should be aware of the fact that the number of POS needed will go way down. you will no longer need 50 GAZILLION star bases to claim sovereignty. I can hear the ice market crashing already
Jarnis McPieksu Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:06:00 - [27] Originally by: CCP Incognito What will happen to the upgrades is up to you to find out. This kind of attitude from CCP is so much fail. There is always a few unavoidably missed changes that sneak in with every patch - no set of patch notes is perfect - but on major features like this, "go find out" is NOT an answer. At the bare minimum, we should know how it is supposed to work as per design. Sure, hold back your design until it is finished. Hold it until the final patch notes if you insist, but then we kinda expect it to be perfectly tested by the internal QA with no outstanding problems. But as soon as you put it on a public test, not telling us how things are SUPPOSED to work, as a bare minimum, is just counterproductive. Or are you really just winging it all as you go along? If so, I must stock on some popcorn come 1st of Dec, as in that case I'd venture a guess that things will go boom. Call me cynic, but I've seen stuff like this go on in far too many MMOs over the years.

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:06:00 - [28] 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 current implementation, hitting sisi soon(tm), and will probably be what is shipped (90%). Will be that capital ship production will pause when sovereignty is lost. To destroy the job you would have to destroy the starbase that the CSAA is anchored at. So if the sovereignty is lost due to a traitor, and you defend your starbase and retake sovereignty, once the upgrade for capital construction is reinstalled then your titan production job will resume. TBH if the attacker can attack the system the fastest way to kill the titan job is to kill the starbase it is at.


CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:08:00 - [29] Edited by: CCP Incognito on 21/10/2009 13:09:29 Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu Originally by: CCP Incognito What will happen to the upgrades is up to you to find out. This kind of attitude from CCP is so much fail. There is always a few unavoidably missed changes that sneak in with every patch - no set of patch notes is perfect - but on major features like this, "go find out" is NOT an answer. At the bare minimum, we should know how it is supposed to work as per design. Sure, hold back your design until it is finished. Hold it until the final patch notes if you insist, but then we kinda expect it to be perfectly tested by the internal QA with no outstanding problems. But as soon as you put it on a public test, not telling us how things are SUPPOSED to work, as a bare minimum, is just counterproductive. Or are you really just winging it all as you go along? If so, I must stock on some popcorn come 1st of Dec, as in that case I'd venture a guess that things will go boom. Call me cynic, but I've seen stuff like this go on in far too many MMOs over the years. ok sorry for being cute... What happens is the upgrades are destroyed when the infrastructure hub is destroyed or un-anchored. TBH you probably could have guessed and been 90% right, we are trying to take the complexity out of the system.

HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:09:00 - [30] yes the fall in the ice market may be offset if planets require ice products to grow etc. Plus the amount of wormhole poses is multiplying by the day so with no ice belts in wormhole space ( which is needed perhaps limited amounts and sleeper spawns just to avoid breaking the game feel and storyline fit) then ice demand will probably hold fairly firm

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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