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
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,...


CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.22 07:57:00 - [61] Originally by: Ihavewindage Can a single corp hold sov in the new setup? Does this mean only Alliances can hold sov? Thanks A corp must be a member of a alliance to online a flag. A lone corp can not claim sovereignty in a system.


CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.22 08:03:00 - [62] Edited by: CCP Incognito on 22/10/2009 08:05:13 Originally by: R Mika 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. Already is, you don't see all the roles in the UI. I believe it is on the long term plans to rework it but not on this release. I guess you could say soon(tm) to soonish(tm)

Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 08:57:00 - [63] 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?
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:42:00 - [64] Originally by: CCP Incognito A corp must be a member of a alliance to online a flag. A lone corp can not claim sovereignty in a system. This is a joke, right? Only alliances can claim sov and corps can't?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:46:00 - [65] 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.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.22 09:57:00 - [66] yes once setup there really is only the 2 mil per corp alliance fee, so thats a good thing alliances now claim sov
Cadde Gallente FireworX	Posted - 2009.10.22 10:11:00 - [67] Edited by: Cadde on 22/10/2009 10:12:42 Originally by: CCP Incognito stuff May i suggest that instead of making more bit-flags or reiterating around the same concept we have today. Each and every "role" rather has a root structure tree? Like this for example: Now, please allow me to explain that image just in case it isn't obvious! If a member have read access to a role this is denoted by a green checked icon as shown in the image. If a member has access to alter/grant a role the read option is ON by default denoted by the gray checked icon. Each role belongs to a parent category. If a pilot or a group of pilots have read/alter/grant access in a parent category the rights will be applied per default to all of it's sub categories/roles. This is denoted by the blue dot in the image. (It is/should be possible to DENY access to a certain sub role or category though) Now why would there be a read option for "Flag anchoring" you might ask... Well, this is just to keep things simple in code and in this specific case it does nothing useful. But as an example, having read access on flag anchoring could allow the pilot to see what pilot is anchoring or unanchoring the flag for authoring purposes. (Find out who the spy/defector is) Furthermore, having read access might let the pilot show WHO has what rights in regards to anchoring flags IF the authoring pilot also have the "Role authoring" read right. (Complex but has it's uses) Having grant access to the category "SOVEREIGNTY ADMIN" but being denied to alter/grant on flag anchoring will deny that pilot from messing with this certain element of SOV administration. In this case, someone who ISN'T denied in this field will have to grant the pilot access to this role for him to ever be able to mess with it. Per default, the CEO of the corp will ALWAYS have ALL rights everywhere, no need to set any rights for the CEO and attempting to deny the CEO a right will just show an error message and even if it did work due to a bug... It would have NO effect! You might have noticed the "Groups" tab, it's just like the pilots tab but instead of pilots you add groups. These groups hold any number of pilots in them and quite simply makes things easier to manage! ------ So how does this work in code? Well, i can't say i know how the eve clusters code looks like or what your database structure is like in regards to the current role management system but instead of checking for a bit-flag for a certain role... The server checks that certain role's "roleID" for a pilot or any group that the pilot is in. It will then find a bit-flag that looks like this: 0 - No access 1 - Read access 3 - Alter access 7 - Grant access 8 - Read by inheritance (Some parent category allows this) 24 - Alter by inheritance (Some parent category allows this) 56 - Grant by inheritance (Some parent category allows this) If the pilot has no rights assigned anywhere then the search will simply return NULL which also means NO access. You might also notice how i per default gave read/alter access to the alter and grant flags. This is assigned when roles are defined by the pilots with grant access. When someone grants access to a certain category or role it will iterate through all child categories and roles and check for a role, if no bit-flag exists (NULL) it will insert that inheritance bit-flag there. The same applies for removing the rights... It iterates downwards checking for inheritance flags that match and NULL's them. You get the idea. Now, performance wise. Assigning roles will have a bigger performance impact than before. Checking for rights will only have the extra overhead of looking up the roleID and checking if the pilot and the groups that the pilot is in has access. I feel it's worth it! EDIT: Broken quote... My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.22 10:30:00 - [68] the last poster makes a lot of sense , the data strucutre would work and the role are acecptible. Thoughts

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.22 13:42:00 - [69] Originally by: Cadde Edited by: Cadde on 22/10/2009 10:12:42 Originally by: CCP Incognito stuff Lots and Lots of Stuff with pretty pictures Yes what you are describing has been around for ever since there where BIG-IRON mainframes. it is call user access control. We have good idea how we want to do it, But it takes time and we have bigger fish to fry than reworking half the game (the flags are used for allot of things, and hence allot of code would need changing). We will when we are able, we recognize there are bottle necks that are annoying to you, and limiting for us. :( It will be changed in due time, not even going to say soon(tm).... Doh! :)

Draco Argen	Posted - 2009.10.22 13:59:00 - [70] Er I appreciate that people are identifying the bit flag as a bad Idea. There are lots of great replacement ideas. But don't think that CCP haven't had these ideas already. (There likely written on CCP Iceland's bathroom walls) If they can design a meta data email system, they can design an object orientated or relational permissions system. The significance is "legacy" issue. It was a bad first idea when they first came up with it 3 years ago. It saves space and seems logical. But it was non extensible and limiting. It is also THERE, and works. Unless CCP has time to trawl through the code it would affect they can't consider redesigning, for now. It will happen, i'm sure. Just a case of getting your ducks in line and shooting them in the right order. With 6 weeks to go there not going to redesign the Database, handling code, integrity/validation checks (essential for permissions) and the UI. Then QA it all.
Nuts Nougat Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.10.22 14:36:00 - [71] Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 22/10/2009 14:44:40 edit: wrong thread sorry. ---
Jarne Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations	Posted - 2009.10.22 14:47:00 - [72] Originally by: Linianaria 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 :) This. Surprises me to see that CCP hasn't thought this through. Why should anyone that is allowed to do something completely unrelated to Sov automatically be allowed to affect Sov?! - Success=Achievements/Expectations
Cadde Gallente FireworX	Posted - 2009.10.22 15:17:00 - [73] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Cadde Edited by: Cadde on 22/10/2009 10:12:42 Originally by: CCP Incognito stuff Lots and Lots of Stuff with pretty pictures Yes what you are describing has been around for ever since there where BIG-IRON mainframes. it is call user access control. We have good idea how we want to do it, But it takes time and we have bigger fish to fry than reworking half the game (the flags are used for allot of things, and hence allot of code would need changing). We will when we are able, we recognize there are bottle necks that are annoying to you, and limiting for us. :( It will be changed in due time, not even going to say soon(tm).... Doh! :) 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? My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.22 15:56:00 - [74] 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.

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.23 07:54:00 - [75] Originally by: Cadde Alt+0153 on the numpad... Ghee all these devs that don't know how stuff is done Thanks, didn't know the number for it.


CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.23 08:05:00 - [76] 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. This is a good approach in theory, but they tend to die really slow and for along time you end up maintaining two systems. In my experience it is better to Chain saw out the old and inject the new. This lets the other developers on the team get one email that says "Do it this way from now on" and they can't be lazy and say "well I know how the old works I will just use it, and let someone else change it later" Originally by: Cadde 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? Yes that would be a nice idea, several reasons why it would not work, but keep dreaming. The reason for limits on the number of items is simply DB performance. I am not a expert on this and this is just how I understand it. If you have 1000 items it take X time but if you have 2000 items it takes X*2.1 time, this is all do to what the DB server keeps in the cache. so we put a in game limit on the containers so that some evil bugger in Jita doesn't take 100m trit and make stacks of 1. Them opens and closes his inventory to lag out every one else in the station. Just remember every time you see a arbitrary limit on something like this there is probably a performance reason behind it. Like having population limits on Jita. I do like the idea of being able to grant someone else access to a hanger, like your alt access to your mains hanger and so on. I will make sure I mention it when we get to redoing it.

HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.23 08:06:00 - [77] alt access to a mains hanger is a good idea
Cadde Gallente FireworX	Posted - 2009.10.23 09:43:00 - [78] Originally by: CCP Incognito Really good answers Thanks Incognito, we like this from you fellas. I know about the maintaining two systems at once. My brother used to work for a company that had 12 - 15 of them at the same time, i worked there too but i never had to mess with those systems directly. However, i still had to assist my brother both mentally and in coding from time to time as it was a real mess. It all ended up with my brother (without ever being asked to or getting paid for it) made his very own system, He called it the "Multimanager" and it dealt with EVERY single system and combined them all under one "API" kinda. Maybe you guys at CCP could do that? Just make an API that can communicate with each and every different approach until they are exterminated. This is what DirectX does with graphics card drivers so you guys don't have to. There was this other cool thing that the Multimanager could do. You asked it for a phone number (The company was in the Internet and telephone business) and it would not only reply with what type of hardware was behind that phone number but it would also (Where applicable) connect to the VoIP hardware and gather the most relevant data from it in real time. I am getting to the second thing here, database management. Instead of storing EVERYTHING on one database you can split up the databases into item manager and "the rest" and let ONE server work as a router to channel all these requests so it would seem like one database but in reality the actual reading and writing is done in several places at once, thus splitting up the workload. This also makes it possible to split the JITA database from the rest of the cluster. The "multimanager" knows what is in JITA and whats not in JITA because it can tell the difference by the solarsystemID or even regionID if splitting it up by regions. So how does one deal with requests that would go to all regions? If regionID is missing in the request, meaning ALL regions in the query then the multimanager simply asks all databases and merges the result sets sending them back in one big batch. In essence, one powerful machine handles all the communications with all the (relatively) slower databases thus streamlining the process. The company where my brother worked adopted this system and where reliant on it for their day to day operation as they grew in size faster than ever before. One could say this was because of the work my brother did. However, bad leadership in the company was it's demise and now he works at Tele2 doing the very same thing he did for the other company. Building insane SQL queries that can do more than just one thing. On a final note, the containers are not only limited by the number of stacks you can have but by the amount of M3 you can put in them. One stack of 10,000,000,000 tritanium will fill a station container. But in the database it's just one entry. That is what is wrong with containers! The hangar floor doesn't have a M3 limitation and you can have some five thousand stacks in it before eve complains. I rarely have 5,000 items sitting on my hangar floor, actually i use freight containers and split it up by T1, Meta4, T2, Meta >= 6, Ammo, Drones and so on... But replacing those containers with folders would be far superior. Especially if the folders where listed side by side with the item window. Then we can use those folders for the suggested access system. ♥♥♥ //cadde My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
Tairon Usaro The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.10.23 10:51:00 - [79] well my biggest problem with the proposed sov system is - based on the information i have right now - that it has nothing to do with sovereignty ... the appropriate term is ping-pong-flavor-of-the-day-pwnage /sarcasm_off i understand why CCP wants to make sov more volatile but the proposed mechanism will not promote this. it will just lead to a situation where builders loose interest in building their own empires and move back to empire, while PvPers in the long run will loose their targets after having had some fun in short termed fast paced but completely meaningless gankage. if you can contest ANY system at ANY time within 12 hours sovereignty does not have a meaning nor does it provide the defensive basis for any building activty. it would be a completely different story if the override platforms could only be installed at gates that are linked to systems, which are either unclaimed, high/low sec or claimed by the contesting entity. Thus the conquerer must take the systems one by one from the outer space and can not persue a hit and run strategy on core systems, only causing damage without serious amibitions to take over the space. The restriction to conquering from the borders of the space would give the whole mechanism a strategical depth without rendering it to the static POS warefare we have ..... but so far, i have no indication that this idea is shared by the designers. All i know right now is mechanism that so plain and simple that it has no complexity at all and that renders space claiming to complete meaninglessness. ________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ...
Kravek Lamb Federation Navy C0VEN	Posted - 2009.10.23 11:16:00 - [80] Edited by: Kravek on 23/10/2009 11:19:13 Originally by: Tairon Usaro if you can contest ANY system at ANY time within 12 hours sovereignty does not have a meaning nor does it provide the defensive basis for any building activty. Remember that STOPs can`t be placed if Hub is online. So hypothetically if Hub will be pimped taking sov will be not something very easy to do.
Miyamoto Uroki Caldari Black Thorne Corporation	Posted - 2009.10.23 11:36:00 - [81] Originally by: Kravek Edited by: Kravek on 23/10/2009 11:19:13 Originally by: Tairon Usaro if you can contest ANY system at ANY time within 12 hours sovereignty does not have a meaning nor does it provide the defensive basis for any building activty. Remember that STOPs can`t be placed if Hub is online. So hypothetically if Hub will be pimped taking sov will be not something very easy to do. Is this a confirmed fact? you always have to take down the active hub before you can start the onlining of STOPs? Anyone knows if the hub also have reinforced timers, like outposts? Oh, and reinforced timers of POSes are still there, right?
Kravek Lamb Federation Navy C0VEN	Posted - 2009.10.23 11:46:00 - [82] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Originally by: Kravek Edited by: Kravek on 23/10/2009 11:19:13 Originally by: Tairon Usaro if you can contest ANY system at ANY time within 12 hours sovereignty does not have a meaning nor does it provide the defensive basis for any building activty. Remember that STOPs can`t be placed if Hub is online. So hypothetically if Hub will be pimped taking sov will be not something very easy to do. Is this a confirmed fact? you always have to take down the active hub before you can start the onlining of STOPs? Anyone knows if the hub also have reinforced timers, like outposts? Oh, and reinforced timers of POSes are still there, right? I personally check that. When Hub of another ally is online in system I was unable to online STOPs. AFAIK have hubs reinforced mode but I'm sure.
Shinma Apollo Shut Up And Play	Posted - 2009.10.23 14:50:00 - [83] Any plan to make Hubs, STOPS, and FLAGS show on directional and probing, or are hubs intended to be a game of hide and go seek? Trying to test the hubs when having no idea where to find them is pretty useless. Sidebar, another smartbomb nerf, you can't smartbomb FLAGS (which isn't bad, because you could hypothetically destroy the new sov system)

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.23 16:01:00 - [84] Originally by: Shinma Apollo Any plan to make Hubs, STOPS, and FLAGS show on directional and probing, or are hubs intended to be a game of hide and go seek? Trying to test the hubs when having no idea where to find them is pretty useless. Sidebar, another smartbomb nerf, you can't smartbomb FLAGS (which isn't bad, because you could hypothetically destroy the new sov system) Have you logged into SISI? STOPS and FLAGs are global, you can see them from anywhere in the system. Hubs have to be at planets like outposts. I don't think probes are required :)

Rainus Max Fusion Enterprises Ltd	Posted - 2009.10.23 16:53:00 - [85] Edited by: Rainus Max on 23/10/2009 16:54:15 Im curious on this scenario, so Ill put it forward: Alliance A has a constellation with a dead end system, all systems in the constellation have sov. Alliance B drops a STOP in the constellation. If alliance B drops it in the other systems they have to drop STOPs on 51% of gates, is there any special setup within the new system to stop alliances just wandering in and knocking out a dead end? Something along the lines if all neighbouring gates lead to alliance A's claimed space then you cant contest a system.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.23 17:21:00 - [86] Currently certain things prevent STOPs from being onlined unless other things are gotten rid of first. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Shinma Apollo Shut Up And Play	Posted - 2009.10.23 19:54:00 - [87] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Shinma Apollo Any plan to make Hubs, STOPS, and FLAGS show on directional and probing, or are hubs intended to be a game of hide and go seek? Trying to test the hubs when having no idea where to find them is pretty useless. Sidebar, another smartbomb nerf, you can't smartbomb FLAGS (which isn't bad, because you could hypothetically destroy the new sov system) Have you logged into SISI? STOPS and FLAGs are global, you can see them from anywhere in the system. Hubs have to be at planets like outposts. I don't think probes are required :) Actually the first post was done with the new browser on sisi :P And yes, it's somewhat important because if you're trying to do recon on a STOP or a FLAG, it's nice to be able to directional scan to see what it is you're warping into, like a bubbled FLAG. More to the point, infrastructure hubs are just covops bait atm, with nothing stopping someone from simply sitting at a planet at a time of invasion with a small bubble, a smartbombing bs, and a small glimmer in their eye, or, like, you know, not having to run 13 planets in a system to find out there is no hub.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.10.23 22:48:00 - [88] Mad props to CCP Incognito for communicating things, instead of the usual "wait for the devblog" response.
Zaethiel D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.10.24 03:55:00 - [89] I have to agree that the roles needs to be redone. It is fairly confusing and is not very customized to the various situations where you need give people roles. I also love seeing devs discussing topics such as gameplay with the community and taking our feedback into consideration. Now to get the ability to lock my Aeons corp hanger and ship bay from everyone would be nice. People can still play hot potato with my ships if they are in fleet. -----
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.24 05:18:00 - [90] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 24/10/2009 05:19:45 Originally by: Shinma Apollo Actually the first post was done with the new browser on sisi :P And yes, it's somewhat important because if you're trying to do recon on a STOP or a FLAG, it's nice to be able to directional scan to see what it is you're warping into, like a bubbled FLAG. Even if for some reason it wasn't on the directional scanner, you can see it from anywhere, and see how far away it is. Therefore, you could obviously figure out what is there regardless. Your other point doesn't even make any sense. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.25 02:36:00 - [91] yes it needs looking at no more patch ccp fuzzy wuzzy to enable funny things to happen make it clear before dominions
Kazara Isatoh	Posted - 2009.10.25 03:07:00 - [92] wow i wish i had found this thread soon, answers some questions i have had about corp roles and why they are structured the way they are in relation to the code. Im sure the programmer had his reasons at the time but with all the stuff you guys are adding to the the game it seems like only 64 roles possible is going to limit your design choices. In this thread Cadde kind of beat me to it, but i had a similar idea for fixing corp roles Idea Omnibus #2 - Idea #1 hopefully CCP sees the role system as its designed now as a roadblock to further development and chooses to fix it relatively soon. it kind of makes me wish i was on the CSM and had signed a NDA so i could see what exactly you guys are doing with that 64 bit role flag

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.25 09:03:00 - [93] Edited by: CCP Incognito on 25/10/2009 09:03:34 Originally by: Kazara Isatoh it kind of makes me wish i was on the CSM and had signed a NDA so i could see what exactly you guys are doing with that 64 bit role flag, in both the server code and the database code. You should run then, then you could come visit Iceland :) There is some roles that the average player never see. For instance there are roles for the bug hunters that let them do things like teleport anywhere int eh universe... Yes we see it starting to become a limitation. But we have not had a sufficient compelling reason to rework it. It is one of those tasks that would take a programmer a fairly short time to do, but QA would spend the next several mounts testing everything that it touches. The only way to make sure that things that are important didn't break. Some of the things that roles touch (not a complete list) space assets, wallets hanger access bills recruitment bug hunters outposts star bases voting S&I From that I bet you can expand that into a list of features as long as your arm for things that would have to be retested. and that my friends is not "one line of code" :)

HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.25 10:05:00 - [94] 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
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.10.25 10:11:00 - [95] 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.

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.25 12:54:00 - [96] Ok back on topic... I have gotten the designers to agree with the compremise sugestion presented here. You need star base equipment config role to Anchor and online FLAGs and Hubs. You need additionally need the Station Management role to offline, and un-anchor the FLAGs and Hubs. Not a perfect solution, but acceptable?

Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.10.25 14:10:00 - [97] That sounds a lot more reasonable, at least for now. It doesn't solve the role nightmare we currently have, but at least it doesn't worsen it. ---------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
MJ Maverick IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.10.25 23:55:00 - [98] Originally by: CCP Incognito Edited by: CCP Incognito on 25/10/2009 14:54:33 Ok back on topic... I have gotten the designers to agree with the compremise sugestion presented here. You need star base equipment config role to Anchor and online FLAGs and Hubs. You additionally need the Station Management role to offline, and un-anchor the FLAGs and Hubs. Not a perfect solution, but acceptable? Result! Thank you, hopefully that will last until you get round to a role overhaul. :) -------------------- CCP arse kissing drones are not welcome in my threads. CCP are not perfect.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.10.26 02:02:00 - [99] The issue I see. Currently a big force can simply online and let a pos go offline once sov has been claimed. The offline pos then holds sov. So the actual cost to holding sov in worthless systems is 0 pretty much. Nobody wants to siege a pos if the system is worthless. In the new system. The more systems you have. The more is costs. AND there's a cost on valuless systems. Take this system for example. It's in paragon soul. So practically the furthest u can get from empire or anything. It has -0.03 truesec. 2 belts and 4 moons. It's a totally worthless system. Why would anyone want to pay isk to hold sov in this system? The possibility of there being a moneymoon there is pretty small but even if there is. Moons dont matter for sov anymore. So lets say that alliance who holds it now simply wont claim it. Instead they will simply have informal ownership of the space. The thing is... what happens when there are big areas simply not claimed but some big force has informal sov of the entire constellation? Also why do these systems even exist? 2 belts at that truesec that far from empire? Makes no sense. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.26 06:22:00 - [100] Edited by: An Anarchyyt on 26/10/2009 06:23:12 Originally by: Jason Edwards The issue I see. Currently a big force can simply online and let a pos go offline once sov has been claimed. The offline pos then holds sov. So the actual cost to holding sov in worthless systems is 0 pretty much. Nobody wants to siege a pos if the system is worthless. You're also wrong. If all towers go offline sov will go neutral. But you really have no idea what you're talking about. The basic idea is you have sov in systems you actually use. Not you just have sov to have sov. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.10.26 07:40:00 - [101] Originally by: Jason Edwards Why would anyone want to pay isk to hold sov in this system? The possibility of there being a moneymoon there is pretty small but even if there is. Moons dont matter for sov anymore. So lets say that alliance who holds it now simply wont claim it. Instead they will simply have informal ownership of the space. The thing is... what happens when there are big areas simply not claimed but some big force has informal sov of the entire constellation? Also why do these systems even exist? 2 belts at that truesec that far from empire? Makes no sense. Yep, they will have informal ownership of that space. And, like now, ninja-ratters, macros, and miners will come and attempt to make use of the space. So, the "owning" alliance will need to make periodic sweeps if they wish. Or in other words, it's a no-mans land up for grabs--if you can keep it. On a practical note, I point out that the mentioned "worthless" system has as much chance to spawn exploration sites or wormholes as any others, and that Dominion will provide (according to current info) upgrades that may increase the probability of site spawns. So... not exactly useless. Oh yeah, and it's easier to scan down a tiny system. In general, we can expect that the "better" systems will still be better, but that we can actually make terminally mediocre space livable. Sounds fine to me! --Krum --Krum
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.10.26 21:16:00 - [102] 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. It's not so much about adding new roles, but revisiting system in a whole. Take a look at usual patterns, as you said you did while you've been adding NPC corp tax. I doubt (highly) that many corps use more than 3-4 wallets actively. Same with other things. The number "8" is a bit overkill. Also, when we can get the same tools for corp channel as ones we have for custom channels? Corp MOTD, anyone? -- Thanks CCP for cu
Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.10.27 00:24:00 - [103] Originally by: CCP Incognito I have gotten the designers to agree with the compremise sugestion presented here. You need star base equipment config role to Anchor and online FLAGs and Hubs. You additionally need the Station Management role to offline, and un-anchor the FLAGs and Hubs. Not a perfect solution, but acceptable? agreed, not perfect but it will do. Thanks for taking us seriously. Myn
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.27 01:46:00 - [104] Yes its omething that does need visiting but i think its low down on ccps wishlist

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.27 08:25:00 - [105] Originally by: Mynas Atoch agreed, not perfect but it will do. Thanks for taking us seriously. Myn I always take you guys seriously. When I read form posts that seems intresting, I run a few operations on it first :) I take a form posts and run it through a de-whine filter. Then it is spun to remove the BS. Next it goes in a cold bath to let the angst, rage, and emo cool off. Finally I poke it with a sharp pin to let the egos deflate. What is left is usually an empty message, but sometimes there is a nugget of gold left.

Cyberman Mastermind	Posted - 2009.10.27 11:02:00 - [106] Originally by: CCP Incognito When I read form posts that seems intresting, I run a few operations on it first :) I take a form posts and run it through a de-whine filter. Then it is spun to remove the BS. Next it goes in a cold bath to let the angst, rage, and emo cool off. Finally I poke it with a sharp pin to let the egos deflate. What is left is usually an empty message, but sometimes there is a nugget of gold left. Could you perhaps integrate this with the auto-censor? Then it would be useful after all. -------------------------------------------------- I'm a rich person. How I know? I can afford to be a miner.
HeliosGal	Posted - 2009.10.27 11:11:00 - [107] so where is ccp at we have a sudden lull in new information regarding the whole sov system. Supercapital testing seems to be done. We have early sov upgrades but next to no info or devblogs. Is ccp working on graphics or dust 514 this week :P
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.10.27 12:23:00 - [108] Quote: You're also wrong. If all towers go offline sov will go neutral. Unless this was changed very recently... you are wrong. My alliance held like 2 ** constellations with pretty much all offline pos. With the exception of 1 thulium moon. Quote:** But you really have no idea what you're talking about. The basic idea is you have sov in systems you actually use. Not you just have sov to have sov. Ok so you're a goon. So lets take a look at querious. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/K-Z0V4 1 person has even gone to that system in the last 24 hours. Killing no rats at all. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/K-B8DK 25 jumps in the last 24 hours. killing 9 rats in the last 24 hours. Fair enough holding sov in those 2 systems is due to money moons. However that's the point. Nobody is going to willingly pay for the sov in these systems otherwise. As goons clearly have no interest in these systems. Sorry An Anarchyyt you really have no idea what you're talking about. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.10.27 12:38:00 - [109] Quote: Yep, they will have informal ownership of that space. And, like now, ninja-ratters, macros, and miners will come and attempt to make use of the space. So, the "owning" alliance will need to make periodic sweeps if they wish. Or in other words, it's a no-mans land up for grabs--if you can keep it. Nothing seems to be changing though from this sense. It doesnt take a sweep to see if someone has claimed sov in your space. So you cant claim sov as a ninjaratter. So you also cant upgrade the space thusly. So really to a ninjaratter the sov changes dont change anything. The sov changes only are applicable to those who want to setup shop. However those informally owning the space can come kill you. For literally no reason. As I proved above. Even goons wont use their space. The uber broken truesec of querious-delve and they dont use them. Quote: On a practical note, I point out that the mentioned "worthless" system has as much chance to spawn exploration sites or wormholes as any others, and that Dominion will provide (according to current info) upgrades that may increase the probability of site spawns. Oh without a doubt. However if you think about it. People are holding sov in space with the only value of the system is in the possibility of exploration sites. That's worthless to me considering you could go for a week without a single site. Quote: So... not exactly useless. Oh yeah, and it's easier to scan down a tiny system. In general, we can expect that the "better" systems will still be better, but that we can actually make terminally mediocre space livable. Sounds fine to me! I'm just thinking that these systems really should get either fixed truesec for better ore in the belts or a crazy number of belts. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Darth Felin	Posted - 2009.10.27 13:07:00 - [110] Originally by: Jason Edwards Quote: You're also wrong. If all towers go offline sov will go neutral. Unless this was changed very recently... you are wrong. My alliance held like 2 ** constellations with pretty much all offline pos. With the exception of 1 thulium moon. Quote:** But you really have no idea what you're talking about. The basic idea is you have sov in systems you actually use. Not you just have sov to have sov. Ok so you're a goon. So lets take a look at querious. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/K-Z0V4 1 person has even gone to that system in the last 24 hours. Killing no rats at all. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/K-B8DK 25 jumps in the last 24 hours. killing 9 rats in the last 24 hours. Fair enough holding sov in those 2 systems is due to money moons. However that's the point. Nobody is going to willingly pay for the sov in these systems otherwise. As goons clearly have no interest in these systems. Sorry An Anarchyyt you really have no idea what you're talking about. Both systems that you linked have 2 belts according to dotlan. Of course noone hunt there with the current system.
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.27 13:36:00 - [111] Originally by: Jason Edwards 25 jumps in the last 24 hours. killing 9 rats in the last 24 hours. Fair enough holding sov in those 2 systems is due to money moons. However that's the point. Nobody is going to willingly pay for the sov in these systems otherwise. As goons clearly have no interest in these systems. Sorry An Anarchyyt you really have no idea what you're talking about. It's too early to say that. Right now that system has sov because its a free boost to moon mining - towers claim sov, sov reduces fuel use, then provides defense bonuses to help run the towers. The fact that the system is being mined means it is "used" - I'm not sure why the number of rats killed per day should be the sole factor in determining if it's "in use". We still don't know how expensive it will be to hold sov and upgrade space. It could well be that dropping a basic sov claim in that system will cost less than the money saved on fuel. Perhaps the specific minerals mined there (I didn't check what they are) will increase in value with Dominions market changes, making a cynojammer upgrade worthwhile. Uncoupling sov from starbases doesn't change how systems are used, it just changes how cost effective it will be to have a label saying "this is mine".
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.10.27 16:19:00 - [112] Originally by: Jason Edwards Unless this was changed very recently... you are wrong. My alliance held like 2 ** constellations with pretty much all offline pos. With the exception of 1 thulium moon. Since xttz already summed up the rest, "pretty much all offline pos" and "all offline pos" are not the same. If there were all offline pos but one, then that's fine, there is still an online pos holding sov. However, if all pos go offline, sov will go neutral. This is not even a question, this is what will happen and what does happen. Feel free to find an empty system and try it out. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.10.27 16:25:00 - [113] Quote: It's too early to say that. Right now that system has sov because its a free boost to moon mining - towers claim sov, sov reduces fuel use, then provides defense bonuses to help run the towers indeed. which is why i said Fair enough holding sov in those 2 systems is due to money moons. Quote: The fact that the system is being mined means it is "used" a system existing just so u can moonmine. Sure isnt ideal to me. Boosting them such that people can actual do something in them. OTher then the once a month activity of clearing out the silos. Quote: I'm not sure why the number of rats killed per day should be the sole factor in determining if it's "in use". I mentioned the number of jumps to the system also. IF people literally dont jump into the system. Then... it isnt being used. Furthermore 500 people could jump into the system. Could be a 450 man gang jumping into a 50man gang. The system is still not being used. So thusly rats. Quote: We still don't know how expensive it will be to hold sov and upgrade space. It could well be that dropping a basic sov claim in that system will cost less than the money saved on fuel. I so hope not. Unless there are ALOT of towers. These idle money cows that just print out isk with no effort at all is insane. Quote: Perhaps the specific minerals mined there (I didn't check what they are) will increase in value with Dominions market changes, making a cynojammer upgrade worthwhile. I hope they make it so u can only have, jammer-bridge-beacon. Only 1 of the 3 can be online. Quote: Uncoupling sov from starbases doesn't change how systems are used, it just changes how cost effective it will be to have a label saying "this is mine". That was my point. Your alliancemate disagreed with me. Also remember. The dev blog said that the number of systems controlled vs cost is exponential. So the cost of holding that system will be much higher then a smaller alliance holding 1-2 only. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.10.27 16:52:00 - [114] Originally by: An Anarchyyt Originally by: Jason Edwards Unless this was changed very recently... you are wrong. My alliance held like 2 **** constellations with pretty much all offline pos. With the exception of 1 thulium moon. Since xttz already summed up the rest, "pretty much all offline pos" and "all offline pos" are not the same. If there were all offline pos but one, then that's fine, there is still an online pos holding sov. However, if all pos go offline, sov will go neutral. This is not even a question, this is what will happen and what does happen. Feel free to find an empty system and try it out. Nope. several systems had no pos actually online; still held sov. Recently had friends kill an offline pos in a system and then it lost sov. The crazy thing is that it was a thulium moon. Anyway. Regardless of the mechanics now. POS no longer matter. My point is that there are several systems which most likely nobody will have any interest paying the bill for. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Supreme Feather Indigo Rising	Posted - 2009.10.29 06:50:00 - [115] Others that have noticed the price of having sov have gone up massively?

CCP Incognito	Posted - 2009.10.29 06:53:00 - [116] Originally by: Supreme Feather Others that have noticed the price of having sov have gone up massively? Yes we are getting more balanced numbers in, they might still change. The rate of patches to Sisi might increase between now and release as we get more balanced numbers and want to gather feedback.

Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.10.29 06:58:00 - [117] Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Supreme Feather Others that have noticed the price of having sov have gone up massively? Yes we are getting more balanced numbers in, they might still change. The rate of patches to Sisi might increase between now and release as we get more balanced numbers and want to gather feedback. Better than nothing _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Acharan Knights of the Silver Dawn	Posted - 2009.10.29 07:33:00 - [118] Roles need an overhaul. There needs to be 2 levels that should be established on stuff regardless of if it's POS or Sov: Administration and Usage. Administration would be stuff like offlining and unanchoring said markers. Anchoring and Onlining for the corp should require a lesser degree when it comes to roles as these cannot hurt anyone except your competitors. The same goes for POS's as we have people who use storage, hangers, and other modules. Being able to add to fuel or ammo bays should go under a mid level, being able to take away from those same bays should be high level access. Low level access should be for running jobs at those POS's like research or manufacturing. This is one of several major issues plaguing allainces in 0.0 space. Others include but are far from being limited to: Being able to make research or manufacturing slots truly public (for profit) is another issue that should be adressed as part of the idea is to bring more players out to 0.0 space with Dominion. Without profit incentive why would people want to come out and set these things up except for thier own personal use? This would also allow more pets or holders or even nuetrals to use the space that the Sovereign Alliance is administering/renting. Having a limit of 300 standings for an organization doesn't work, it needs to be greatly expanded. Especially an issue when you need to double up on standings between Alliance and Corporation to keep things secure. While this may be more of an issue for NRDS Alliances, it will also concern ALL OTHER 0.0 space organizations when more groups of blues start showing up that you want to use your space so u can tax the hell out of them.
Supreme Feather Indigo Rising	Posted - 2009.10.29 08:11:00 - [119] Edited by: Supreme Feather on 29/10/2009 08:11:21 Originally by: CCP Incognito Originally by: Supreme Feather Others that have noticed the price of having sov have gone up massively? Yes we are getting more balanced numbers in, they might still change. The rate of patches to Sisi might increase between now and release as we get more balanced numbers and want to gather feedback. From 16k ISK to 280m ISK for a rather random system seems harsh tho' Great with the flag timer change btw.
Zerakix Minmatar LEAP Corp	Posted - 2009.11.04 11:33:00 - [120] I'd almost rather have a full rework of permissions and roles and new tools for corp and alliance management then what is most likely going to be a pointless feature namely Incarna well outside of the eye candy factor anways. I fail.
Sunaria	Posted - 2009.11.04 12:33:00 - [121] Originally by: Supreme Feather From 16k ISK to 280m ISK for a rather random system seems harsh tho' 280m ISK ? per week or per month ?? cause quite frankly that amount is ridicoulous low. I would make it at least 1 bil. You can personally make 280m chain ratting on a saturday starting 2hours before DT to 8hours after DT. (a regular saturday of gaming). Since keeping sov should be a teamplay thing 280m is laughable. That won't stop big alliances from keeping a lot of space. They just yawn, go to their silo's and unload the dysprosium and are set for 5 more months for about 50 systems ....
Guru Woopatang Primary.	Posted - 2009.11.04 14:18:00 - [122] Originally by: Sunaria Originally by: Supreme Feather From 16k ISK to 280m ISK for a rather random system seems harsh tho' 280m ISK ? per week or per month ?? cause quite frankly that amount is ridicoulous low. I would make it at least 1 bil. You can personally make 280m chain ratting on a saturday starting 2hours before DT to 8hours after DT. (a regular saturday of gaming). Since keeping sov should be a teamplay thing 280m is laughable. That won't stop big alliances from keeping a lot of space. They just yawn, go to their silo's and unload the dysprosium and are set for 5 more months for about 50 systems .... Its ok to start low if its scales up.. is it going to scale up per system? "Mind Over Matter: If I don't mind, it don't matter." WWW.EVE-WOOPATANG.COM
Sunaria	Posted - 2009.11.05 07:40:00 - [123] Originally by: Guru Its ok to start low if its scales up.. is it going to scale up per system? yeah but is it ??? I've been waiting on a dev log with A LOT more details since first Q october. I keep hearing a dev log is in the works and will be here soon ... but ... it's getting old. Any change you can like post your specs ? Maybe your SVN repository ... :) I'll make some improvements here and there myself then
Supreme Feather Indigo Rising	Posted - 2009.11.05 09:53:00 - [124] Aye Sunaria, the 280m pricetag seems fine. It was more a post of "wtf from 16k to 280m" you know. I really wish we could get a dev blog explaining some stuff soon. Got a rather large sheet put together by now. Would be nice to have some of it confirmed, can't believe everything on these forums afterall. :)
Cadde Gallente 221st Century Warfare	Posted - 2009.11.05 10:25:00 - [125] Originally by: Sunaria Originally by: Supreme Feather From 16k ISK to 280m ISK for a rather random system seems harsh tho' 280m ISK ? per week or per month ?? cause quite frankly that amount is ridicoulous low. I would make it at least 1 bil. You can personally make 280m chain ratting on a saturday starting 2hours before DT to 8hours after DT. (a regular saturday of gaming). Since keeping sov should be a teamplay thing 280m is laughable. That won't stop big alliances from keeping a lot of space. They just yawn, go to their silo's and unload the dysprosium and are set for 5 more months for about 50 systems .... Not all alliances own a dyspro... Not all newcomer alliances are ready to churn out that amount of ISK on top of actually fighting the established alliances. Maybe I'm wrong though but it's ISK and smaller alliances like their ISK. My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
Sunaria	Posted - 2009.11.05 11:01:00 - [126] Originally by: Cadde Not all alliances own a dyspro... Not all newcomer alliances are ready to churn out that amount of ISK on top of actually fighting the established alliances. Maybe I'm wrong though but it's ISK and smaller alliances like their ISK. You REALLY don't need dysprosium moons to churn out 1 bil a month as an alliance. Like I said I used to make in the good old days in 0.0 200+ mil for one saturday of gaming solo. Work together with 10 pilots and what do you get ? 2 bil+ so really 1 bil a system isn't in the grand scheme of things all that much. Even small alliances can handle this ... ok IF they work together to make some isk ofcourse ... selfish small alliances might not make it :D
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.05 14:28:00 - [127] Originally by: Cadde Not all alliances own a dyspro... Not all newcomer alliances are ready to churn out that amount of ISK on top of actually fighting the established alliances. Maybe I'm wrong though but it's ISK and smaller alliances like their ISK. And here it comes, :effort: is the reason smaller alliances won't start popping up all over the place. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Draco Argen	Posted - 2009.11.05 15:15:00 - [128] Originally by: CCP Incognito Edited by: CCP Incognito on 25/10/2009 14:54:33 Ok back on topic... I have gotten the designers to agree with the compremise sugestion presented here. You need star base equipment config role to Anchor and online FLAGs and Hubs. You additionally need the Station Management role to offline, and un-anchor the FLAGs and Hubs. Not a perfect solution, but acceptable? Late to the party (Dev finder isn't working any more, boo) But yes, this is a fairly reasonable compromise. Its like putting the chickens feet up its nose (ie it not what it was intended for and looks silly), but it provides an "expansive easy" "retraction harder" permission style. Which serves the purpose we are harping on about. Thanks Incognito.
Reyar	Posted - 2010.01.29 01:34:00 - [129] Originally by: CCP Incognito Edited by: CCP Incognito on 25/10/2009 09:03:34 Originally by: Kazara Isatoh it kind of makes me wish i was on the CSM and had signed a NDA so i could see what exactly you guys are doing with that 64 bit role flag, in both the server code and the database code. But we have not had a sufficient compelling reason to rework it. It is one of those tasks that would take a programmer a fairly short time to do, but QA would spend the next several mounts testing everything that it touches. The only way to make sure that things that are important didn't break. I'm working on RBAC implementation based on the NIST standard for RBAC. I don't see any reason why this should not work pretty well in Eve, but I think there might be performance issues. I have not done any serious benchmarks of my prototype code yet, but it worked very well with 400.000 permissions so far. What is the issue with testing? I don't know your code, but are you not using any kind of unit testing? So write a test for the current implementation, the expected result should be known, and then refactor the program to work with RBAC and pass the tests? Well, I agree it's a good amount of work but it's also a pretty interesting and funny task - IMO :)
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2010.01.30 14:27:00 - [130] Originally by: Reyar Originally by: CCP Incognito Edited by: CCP Incognito on 25/10/2009 09:03:34 Originally by: Kazara Isatoh it kind of makes me wish i was on the CSM and had signed a NDA so i could see what exactly you guys are doing with that 64 bit role flag, in both the server code and the database code. But we have not had a sufficient compelling reason to rework it. It is one of those tasks that would take a programmer a fairly short time to do, but QA would spend the next several mounts testing everything that it touches. The only way to make sure that things that are important didn't break. I'm working on RBAC implementation based on the NIST standard for RBAC. I don't see any reason why this should not work pretty well in Eve, but I think there might be performance issues. I have not done any serious benchmarks of my prototype code yet, but it worked very well with 400.000 permissions so far. What is the issue with testing? I don't know your code, but are you not using any kind of unit testing? So write a test for the current implementation, the expected result should be known, and then refactor the program to work with RBAC and pass the tests? Well, I agree it's a good amount of work but it's also a pretty interesting and funny task - IMO :) Nice necro! _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

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