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)
Your Host	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:09:00 - [31] Edited by: Your Host on 21/10/2009 13:11:46 Why would a FLAG be unanchorable? Why would someone bring a FLAG in a system, anchor it, and decide to unanchor it? For what reason would you not want SOV? And if you didnt want the sov, couldnt you just allow another alliance take the system by force?

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:13:00 - [32] Originally by: Your Host Why would a FLAG be unanchorable? For what reason would you not want SOV? And if you didnt want the sov, couldnt you just allow another alliance take the system by force? 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.

Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:21:00 - [33] 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?
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:23:00 - [34] 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
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:30:00 - [35] 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.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:42:00 - [36] Originally by: CCP Incognito TBH if the attacker can attack the system the fastest way to kill the titan job is to kill the starbase it is at. The fastest way would be for the spy to cancel the build. Anyway, you're still ignoring that with a single role, intended for something completely different back in the day, you can now not just metagame for sovereignty, but also for income. It is POS Config role, after all. This way the amalgam of roles is going to spin even more, and will ultimately require its own mini expansion to address.
Jarnis McPieksu Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.21 13:48:00 - [37] Originally by: iP0D Originally by: CCP Incognito TBH if the attacker can attack the system the fastest way to kill the titan job is to kill the starbase it is at. The fastest way would be for the spy to cancel the build. Anyway, you're still ignoring that with a single role, intended for something completely different back in the day, you can now not just metagame for sovereignty, but also for income. It is POS Config role, after all. This way the amalgam of roles is going to spin even more, and will ultimately require its own mini expansion to address. POS permissions are fubared beyond belief anyway. Basically you can't allow anyone except a very small and trusted circle to do anything except perhaps fuel POSes and you trust these people with all your marbles. This also means that in big organizations, you either have to allow random altcorps into alliances, or only these "bigwigs" can run POSes at all - and with low end moon mining apparently becoming more profitable, this is a real problem. The whole age-old concept of "POS = corporate asset" should be deep sixed already. Infrastructure hubs and FLAGs should be corporate/alliance assets, but plain old starbases should not. Which would also mean that they should have separate permissions. Anyone should be able to pop up a personal POS without having access to stuff like infrastructure hubs or next door CSAAs.
Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.21 14:06:00 - [38] Originally by: CCP Incognito Edited by: CCP Incognito on 21/10/2009 13:09:29 What happens is the upgrades are destroyed when the infrastructure hub is destroyed or un-anchored. And the roles for determining who can unanchor or online Hubs are the same as FLAGs?
Relyen Foundation Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.10.21 14:18:00 - [39] Edited by: Relyen on 21/10/2009 14:22:49 Originally by: CCP Incognito 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. Originally by: CCP Incognito What happens is the upgrades are destroyed when the infrastructure hub is destroyed or un-anchored. So not only can the lone guy open the gates for the enemy, he can destroy your entire infastructure with the click of a button. Pure win. Can we at least suggest mails be sent out when a structure is started to unanchor and include who is unanchoring it. Plus, the ability to cancel the unanchor. This could at least give people a chance to react to sabotage and not be completely defenseless against it. ________________________________ I am own.
Kaahles Kentucky Fried Capitals	Posted - 2009.10.21 14:30:00 - [40] Okay let’s see what we got here. Currently there are TWO roles for working with starbases. “Config Starbase Equipment” which basically allows you to do everything with them and the “Starbase Fuel Technician” which allows people just the refuelling part of it. I just skipped the defensive role because that’s not really important here right now. And then you got this little, very interesting window in the control towers management menu that reads “Access” (for those who never used it, it’s under the “Structures” tab). Oh what’s that? Here you can setup access rights for the modules. Now let’s make some wild assumptions here. You configure the modules upon setting up the POS to allow people with the “Fuel Technician” role to use all that stuff. Now they can work with the POS, take from silos and all that stuff but they do NOT have the rights to put the tower down ergo they do not have the rights to take claim markers offline BUT they can still work with the POS and refuel it and everything. So for what do you need the “FULL” starbase access now? I think just for setting them up in the first place, to take them down again if required, and for managing the claim marker. So the number of people who actually can damage something is very very small compared to the amount of people who can work with the stuff without causing massive damage, unless the spy is someone with the “full” access rights or a director, but that’s not CCP’s problem if you give those roles to everyone and their grandmother, who really don’t need them at all. FFS use your brains just this one time. ----------------------------- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! Contract me all your stuff so I can save it!
iP0D	Posted - 2009.10.21 14:31:00 - [41] Originally by: Wulfnor Originally by: CCP Incognito Edited by: CCP Incognito on 21/10/2009 13:09:29 What happens is the upgrades are destroyed when the infrastructure hub is destroyed or un-anchored. And the roles for determining who can unanchor or online Hubs are the same as FLAGs? Correct
Draco Argen	Posted - 2009.10.21 14:46:00 - [42] Edited by: Draco Argen on 21/10/2009 14:48:12 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. Lol Incognito you get points for Alpha geeking HeliosGal. Can I presume we are at the limit of the binary flag? Ie there is already no space for more roles? Or are you just close enough to be picky? I would suggest leaving SOV permissions attached to POSes as an unwise legacy move. As I understand the design remit it is to break that link with POSes. Unless you have an overhaul destine for perms (they REALLY stink, no offence) then I'd ask you reconsider having no separate role for Sov. Sov IS very important. It also just doesn't sit right as a gut feeling linking the perms unnecessarily. (I trust my gut in code and design) Only my tuppence. Also, thanks for saying Titans will pause. Wanted to ask, will the source of the upgrade stats (number of rats killed, ore mined etc) wipe out when the hub is lost? i.e. if you loose hub and sov, but "win" the battle and reclaim it will you have to start from scratch? I can see some arguments for either. If so, hub loss could be catastrophic damage to inflic. (both a pro and con)
Shizah Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.21 14:48:00 - [43] Originally by: Kaahles Okay letÆs see what we got here. Currently there are TWO roles for working with starbases. ôConfig Starbase Equipmentö which basically allows you to do everything with them and the ôStarbase Fuel Technicianö which allows people just the refuelling part of it. I just skipped the defensive role because thatÆs not really important here right now. And then you got this little, very interesting window in the control towers management menu that reads ôAccessö (for those who never used it, itÆs under the ôStructuresö tab). Oh whatÆs that? Here you can setup access rights for the modules. Now letÆs make some wild assumptions here. You configure the modules upon setting up the POS to allow people with the ôFuel Technicianö role to use all that stuff. Now they can work with the POS, take from silos and all that stuff but they do NOT have the rights to put the tower down ergo they do not have the rights to take claim markers offline BUT they can still work with the POS and refuel it and everything. So for what do you need the ôFULLö starbase access now? I think just for setting them up in the first place, to take them down again if required, and for managing the claim marker. So the number of people who actually can damage something is very very small compared to the amount of people who can work with the stuff without causing massive damage, unless the spy is someone with the ôfullö access rights or a director, but thatÆs not CCPÆs problem if you give those roles to everyone and their grandmother, who really donÆt need them at all. FFS use your brains just this one time. So you are saying: 1. We can control who can unanchor the flag or the hub thru a pos, or.... 2. The flag and the hub have management tabs like poses do?

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.21 15:33:00 - [44] Originally by: Draco Argen Can I presume we are at the limit of the binary flag? Ie there is already no space for more roles? Or are you just close enough to be picky? Close enough to be picky. I am looking into the if we can change the roles a bit, but have to clear it with design. Originally by: Draco Argen Also, thanks for saying Titans will pause. You are welcome :) Originally by: Draco Argen Wanted to ask, will the source of the upgrade stats (number of rats killed, ore mined etc) wipe out when the hub is lost? i.e. if you loose hub and sov, but "win" the battle and reclaim it will you have to start from scratch? I can see some arguments for either. If so, hub loss could be catastrophic damage to inflic. (both a pro and con) I have the answer, but want to check to see if we are going to speak about it, or if it will be in a dev blog.

Kaahles Kentucky Fried Capitals	Posted - 2009.10.21 15:39:00 - [45] Originally by: **ah Originally by:** Kaahles wall of text So you are saying: 1. We can control who can unanchor the flag or the hub thru a pos, or.... 2. The flag and the hub have management tabs like poses do? I am saying, that in addition to the CEO and the directors of a corporation only a really small number of people really requires that role anyway which means there is absolutely no reason to get a special role for that. And I’m also saying if you give people roles they don’t need, in this case the “config starbase equipment”, just because you are to lazy to set up your stuff properly so it can work without lot’s of people having said role, you probably deserve running a massive risk in loosing sovereignty somewhere due to spies. ----------------------------- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! Contract me all your stuff so I can save it!
Waz Weh	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:15:00 - [46] Edited by: Waz Weh on 21/10/2009 16:14:58 What are all the corner cases that result from the system? 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?
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:29:00 - [47] 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.
Shizah Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:40:00 - [48] Originally by: Mynas Atoch 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. signed
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 16:54:00 - [49] 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.
Ihavewindage	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:18:00 - [50] Can a single corp hold sov in the new setup? Does this mean only Alliances can hold sov? Thanks
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.21 19:32:00 - [51] 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.
Elisean Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.10.21 23:36:00 - [52] 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. it should be ZERO POS YOU ****er! DON"T YOU DARE BRING POS BACK INTO THIS! sorry I lost my self there for a moment. If I have to ever shoot a pos to bring down sov again I will quit.
Ophichius Es and Whizz	Posted - 2009.10.22 00:09:00 - [53] 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. Freudian slip much? CCP Incognito thank you for taking the time to both inform us of why the roles cannot easily be subdivided, and giving us feedback on the sov mechanics. Interesting to note that you use a relatively small bitmask, but not surprising. Ah well, impossible to future-proof everything, no? As for some of the issues raised here, would it be possible to require a FLAG password to interact with it, as an additional security level? While this might tilt the meta-game away from spies and saboteurs, it seems like a reasonable concession to the security-minded, and still lets a spy or saboteur sweet-talk/fast-talk someone out of the password, or guess it if it is a weak PW. On the drama and laughs side of things, it would allow for some wonderful 'My CEO is an idiot and forgot our FLAG password' stories to crop up. -O I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers. That way I wouldn't have to have any goddam stupid useless conversations with anybody.
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.22 01:08:00 - [54] 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. 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. Deny. With POS not affecting Sov, the number of POS needed will go way down, but I expect POS use to go up as corporations will be able to allow more members to have a "personal" POS to stage out of in systems without stations. Thus, starbase-config roles will go up in usage. It is a horrible idea to link starbase-config roles with the new sov system. They're not starbases, they are sovereignty claiming devices.
Ex Mudder Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.10.22 03:11:00 - [55] Originally by: Etien Aldragoran 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. 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. Deny. With POS not affecting Sov, the number of POS needed will go way down, but I expect POS use to go up as corporations will be able to allow more members to have a "personal" POS to stage out of in systems without stations. Thus, starbase-config roles will go up in usage. It is a horrible idea to link starbase-config roles with the new sov system. They're not starbases, they are sovereignty claiming devices. Agree completely. If you really want to encourage private moon mining, research, and manufacturing, you need to completely decouple the "roles to have a POS" from "roles to handle Sov." And the number of towers to handle Sov will not go down as much as you say. Under the current system, you need a minimum of 6 online large towers. Under the new one, you will need at least 3 - 2 JB towers, and 1 Cyno + FLAG protector. Plus all of the large reaction towers, various sized moon mining towers, and large cap ship towers, will need to stay up. That is not "way down." Not even close, if you force corps and alliances to keep a stranglehold on who get POS roles due to it impacting Sov. And if you cluster it in a single placeholder corporation, you risk another BoB debacle where a single director can STOP PAYING ALL THE BILLS and cost the alliance Sov that way. Or even doing it by accident, if someone forgets a deposit. Why not at 16 or 32 or 64 alliance bits instead of corporation bits? And a wallet while you are at it.
Arronicus Dirt Nap Squad	Posted - 2009.10.22 03:41:00 - [56] From the best of my understandings so far Originally by: Waz Weh Edited by: Waz Weh on 21/10/2009 16:14:58 What are all the corner cases that result from the system? What happens when a corp holding flags leaves the alliance? Should be the same result as when a corp changed alliances before, IE, sovreignty changes to the new alliance the corp joined. if the corp does not join any alliance, i would imagine the flags will go offline. What happens when a corp holding flags is kicked out of the alliance? See above When the alliance gets disbanded, do all flags go offline? Based on everything we know, including when a real alliance disbands, Yes. Is there any effect if the alliance government is changed? Please elaborate. If I understand the question correctly, so long as the corp who controls the flag maintains control, and remains within the alliance, there will be no change to the flags. Can a malicious corp hold onto flags even though the alliance wants this situation stopped but finds themselves unable to kick the corp? By the sounds of things so far, it SOUNDS like any flag transfer has to be willing on the part of the corp, so yes. Kicking out a corp is going to be a VERY big blow to your alliance if they hold important system/s Is there any effect if two corps holding flags in the same alliance online them at the same time, etc? Whichever flag becomes online first, down to the second, gets sov, and the other fails to online. Hope it helps.
Agent Known Caldari	Posted - 2009.10.22 04:45:00 - [57] Originally by: Arronicus From the best of my understandings so far Originally by: Waz Weh Edited by: Waz Weh on 21/10/2009 16:14:58 Is there any effect if two corps holding flags in the same alliance online them at the same time, etc? Whichever flag becomes online first, down to the second, gets sov, and the other fails to online. Hope it helps. That's actually a bug on SiSi. The intended method is that you cannot anchor another FLAG if there's one already anchoring...at least afaik. On another note, I also have an annoying sig. inaftertimeflux
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.10.22 05:25:00 - [58] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Your Host Why would a FLAG be unanchorable? For what reason would you not want SOV? And if you didnt want the sov, couldnt you just allow another alliance take the system by force? 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. Quick suggestion, CCP Incognito, for your system-bill discussion: make the number of stargates one of the major scaling factors in the bill. This would make more defensible systems more expensive (more gates, more structures needed to disrupt the FLAG = more cost). It would also make more sense, if what's being paid for is gate maintenance, in essence. As for the OP discussion, I think it's been answered well by the existing roles, plus the ability to shift FLAGs into a holding corp. Your executor corporation will always have the power to screw up the alliance--quickly or slowly, depending. Don't expect to get away from that. Second suggestion along these lines, however: let the FLAGs be configurable as to which alliance corporations receive messages when they are threatened, shot, offlined, etc. This would make management of security much easier. --Krum --Krum
R Mika	Posted - 2009.10.22 06:31:00 - [59] 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. Hopefully with the new treaty system coming in this variable will be changed into a 64 bit one. There are quite a few roles missing right now that forces one to make directors of people that simply don't need it (particularly when it comes to diplomacy). And as the original poster pointed out, Sov beacons really have nothing to do with POS management. They should be separate, anyway.

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.22 07:55:00 - [60] 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,...


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.