| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
   |
Posted - 2009.11.05 14:51:00 -
[1]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 05/11/2009 14:56:56
1. Does a corp or alliance have to put up all the stops for the disruption to take place. Example.
- Corp A not in an alliance puts up a stop on one gate.
- Corp B puts up a stop on another gate in a 2 gate system.
- Corp A and B are not in the same alliance. Corp A is not in any alliance. ( tested this corps can place and online stops with out being in an alliance)
- Will the flag become open to attack with all the stops being from different people.
- In other words are the stops generic and stop sov no matter who puts them up.
2. Corps are allowed to put up stops but not allowed to place flags. Will the devs ever allow a singel corp to claim sov or will it always be an alliance?
3. Stops take 5 min to anchor and 6 hours to online. When will the defensive 10 mil shield and 10 mil armor be in effect. Will it be there during the online process or will these things go pop fast during the online process? Iam hoping onlining just effects sov and the hit points are there during the process.
4. Can you set up multipul stops on gates. A alliance can set up a defense of stops by an alt corp by setting up off line stops on gates and forcing an attacker to kill them first before starting there own attack?
|
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 15:05:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: DNSBLACK
1. Does a corp or alliance have to put up all the stops for the disruption to take place. Example.
- Corp A not in an alliance puts up a stop on one gate.
- Corp B puts up a stop on another gate in a 2 gate system.
- Corp A and B are not in the same alliance. Corp A is not in any alliance. ( tested this corps can place and online stops with out being in an alliance)
- Will the flag become open to attack with all the stops being from different people.
- In other words are the stops generic and stop sov no matter who puts them up.
Very good question. It would be good if the STOPs do not require the same alliance to be effective, then we can have "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenarios.
CCP devs?
Originally by: DNSBLACK
2. Corps are allowed to put up stops but not allowed to place flags. Will the devs ever allow a singel corp to claim sov or will it always be an alliance?
It has been stated elsewhere by Devs that it was never intended that Corps can/will be able to claim Sov on their own. It is unlikely to happen. The ownership of Flags etc are simply a mechanic. Similar to the way an Alliance cant own a POS but a corp can.
Originally by: DNSBLACK
3. Stops take 5 min to anchor and 6 hours to online. When will the defensive 10 mil shield and 10 mil armor be in effect. Will it be there during the online process or will these things go pop fast during the online process? Iam hoping onlining just effects sov and the hit points are there during the process.
Hah, they reduced it to 6 hours, excellent, hadn't noticed that.
afik The Shields will online as soon as its anchored (after the 5 mins). Not sure about before.
Originally by: DNSBLACK
4. Can you set up multipul stops on gates. A alliance can set up a defense of stops by an alt corp by setting up stops on gates and forcing an attacker to kill them first before starting there own attack?
Dont know if you can anchor multiples, i suspect not. Why not try it :)
But as to your reasoning (alt corps) how would this help? If you anchor a stop by an alt corp/alliance as a defence you will open your own FLAGS to attack  So as defensive as taking off all your cloths in a battlefield.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 17:47:00 -
[3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Can you set up multipul stops on gates. A alliance can set up a defense of stops by an alt corp by setting up stops on gates and forcing an attacker to kill them first before starting there own attack?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont know if you can anchor multiples, i suspect not. Why not try it :)
But as to your reasoning (alt corps) how would this help? If you anchor a stop by an alt corp/alliance as a defence you will open your own FLAGS to attack So as defensive as taking off all your cloths in a battlefield.
-----------
1.You do not effect the flag until you online it.
2. Alt corp A who is friendly to an alliance set up a stop on all gates and anchors it ( not online it). Does not online it ever. This puts a 20 mil hit point blocker on all gates that an attacker has to destroy first ,before setting up his own stops in its place to online and disrupt sov flags. This give the defender more time to come and stop an attack
3. If they would allow multiple stops on gates then this would in effect not happen. You should be able to put stops on gates regardless of who has one there already.
|
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:25:00 -
[4]
I see your point.
In which case the solution is to allow Multiple "anchored" STOPs as you suggest, but allow only one online at any given gate.
While The scinario you suggest "if only one anchored STOP at each gate" is true, is actually a clever additional defence mechanism that players could do. It's not intended and imo would strengthen an already very strong defensive position.
That said, its only 10mil, compared to the nightmare of the Hub it really isn't that bad :P Let alone any of the new upgrades adding defence :P
I will try and anchor two stops at the same gate tonight and see what happens.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:52:00 -
[5]
Cool let me know. We will be testing this tonight also. iam at work right now just thinking of questions I had after testing last night.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 23:00:00 -
[6]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 05/11/2009 23:05:59
OK Test number 2.
1. Placed stop on gate
2. Stops that were jettison, anchoring, onlining, and online had full Hit points and resistences no matter what the state. ( The effective hit points 12,500,000 shield and 10,000,000 armor).
3. You can only anchor one stop per gate. It did not matter if we were from the same corp or different corp or alliance. You could only anchor one on a gate.
4. Anchoring 5 min Onlining 6 hours
5. Systems do not become contested when the stop is just anchored. The stop must be put online
6. Not sure if an alliance can anchor stops of their own in there own system. Couldnt test that.
Conclusion: These are being made with the intent that an allaicne cant anchor stops in there own system. If they can all you have to do as an alliance is anchor your own stops on your own gates and not online them
Leader of alliance A starts a one man Alt corp we will call it corp B (B is nto part of the alliance). Corp B goes to alliance A home system and place stops on every gate and anchors them. Corp B does not online them. The alliance just put up a 22.5 mil hit point defense system buffer on each gate. The attacker has to kill the stops before he can place his own stops. If the defender quick jettisons a stop after his first is gone and starts the anchoring before the attacker does it starts all over again
To prevent this please allow multipule stops by different corp or alliances to be placed on the gates but only allow one to be online at anytime. Stops were ment to be an attacker weapon not a defenders buffer tank. |
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 12:07:00 -
[7]
Still looking for some input
|
Ancy Denaries
Caldari
The Confederate Navy
Forever Unbound
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 14:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: DNSBLACK
To prevent this please allow multipule stops by different corp or alliances to be placed on the gates but only allow one to be online at anytime. Stops were ment to be an attacker weapon not a defenders buffer tank.
Agreed!
----
The Demigodess with a Conscience - An EVE IC Blog
Personal Killboard |
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 14:23:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 06/11/2009 14:26:19
Originally by: DNSBLACK
6. Not sure if an alliance can anchor stops of their own in there own system. Couldnt test that.
Conclusion: These are being made with the intent that an allaicne cant anchor stops in there own system. If they can all you have to do as an alliance is anchor your own stops on your own gates and not online them
Yes, you can anchor STOPs in your own systems. Yes it is a buffer and it does appear to be intentional. It is very simple to fly around in a blockade runner and drop STOPs all over the place. This can cause the defending alliance a lot of time, not spent making ISK, shooting at 10 mil HP STOP for relatively little risk to the STOP dropper.
Having your own STOPs in your own systems forces an enemy to make something of a commitment rather than dropping stops for lols. It is however not with out some risk. Someone in the corp, in your alliance, that dropped the STOPs, and with the appropriate rights, could online the stops and end up placing your own system into a vulnerable state. Offlining them does appear to be rather quick, so the risk is somewhat mitigated.
My experience on SiSi, in the test alliances is that, an enemy will drop STOPs all the time, you will always be in a vulnerable state and spending a lot of time shooting STOPs and not much else unless you deploy your own STOPs to counter "Ninja STOPing". IMO, this is a good thing. I suspect most people do not want a recreation of POS grinding for STOP grinding.
If you, or your enemy, wants to try and take Sov from someone, there should be a commitment to the activity, instead of one guy dropping STOPs all over just to waste someone else's game time.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 14:36:00 -
[10]
Some thoughts:
- A set of onlined STOPs allows *anyone* to attack the system, i.e. it doesn't matter who onlines a STOP.
- If you allow unlimited numbers of STOPs to be anchored at gates this will lead spamming of endless numbers of non-onlined STOPs littering the map all over 0.0 since the anchoring time is so short. The server would probably not like that either and it would undoubtedly lead to another garbage cleanup initiative like the one CCP did a year ago or so.
- the fact that the sov-holding alliance has anchored a STOP at their gates should be a minor issue. If you have the firepower to take out outposts/hubs etc., then the EHP of STOPs won't make more than a few minutes difference. And in any case, you have to wait 6 hours for your STOPs to online, so it's not like you had any element of surprise anyway.
- If you wanted to eliminate perma STOPs, you could just make them self destruct after a certain number of days, or maybe only after a few hours if they were just anchored. But tbh I don't see the need.
- The devs have said repeatedly that FLAGs are only for alliances. If a single corp wants one they can press the "create alliance" button.
- STOPs have their full EHP while onlining on Sisi atm and I would expect that to stay; anything else would make them too fragile.
|
|
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 14:50:00 -
[11]
1. Stops have 22.5 mil effective hit points not 10 mil
2. A one man alt corp of the leader can anchor the stops eliminating the risk of the stops
3. This new system was ment to allow smaller alliances to have a chance to fight.
4. All stops are ment to do is make the system contested. Remeber the flag can still be placed at a death star POS.
5. To prevent stop dropping all you have to do is make them weaker during the onlining process. This way a defending fleet can com in once a stop is down and kill it. Let the full defensive of 22.5 mil hit point go active once the stop is on line.
6. large alliance will still hold alot of space if you allow them the current method on sisi to go live. They intended this system to make people develope there space and have people living in it and defending it. If you can get a force together in 6 hours to kill an attack then you should not be in 0.0.
7. You will need to have a dread fleet to blow one of these up or a huge blob. things we are trying to go away from. The sad part is you cant even bring in a dread fleet to kill a stop if a cyno jammer is in place.
8. Stops should be something simple and easy to kill until it is online. Or at least be a progression. anchor gives it 20 % of it defenses. online gives it 100%.
9. We are trying to go away from the grind of POS bashing but we are now looking at stop bashing.
10. Even if a attacker can blow up the defensive stop a defender can also nija drop a new one and anchor it right in front of an attacker and the defender can never get his stop up no matter what level of commitment they have.
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:02:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 06/11/2009 15:03:23
Easy fix to this problem:
STOPs, like POS modules from a destroyed tower, can be repaired, unanchored, and stolen/destroyed by attackers; that should help prevent alliances from anchoring them. Also, reduce unanchored HP (not anchored/onlining/online HP, that should be full) to something killable by a roving gang, say around 5k shield/armor/hull with no resistance. 15k HP should be enough that a gang under attack can get the mod launched and onlining before it is destroyed.
------------------------
Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: DNSBLACK
9. We are trying to go away from the grind of POS bashing but we are now looking at stop bashing.
Who should be responsible for the grind, the defender or the attacker? As it is, STOPs are very easy to deploy. So easy that with out a counter to it, alliances will be constantly grinding STOP bashing in their own space. As you say, the FLAG can be at a death star anyway ... so why even have STOPs at all if that is the counter to the potential to always being in a vulnerable state?
Keep in mind, the Hub will not be at a POS but at a planet, so it would then always be vulnerable. The cost in time, ISK and effort to upgrade appears to be considerable.
Your point number seven however is a good one. Perhaps STOPs have too many HP when anchored but not online. Such a solution would be a compromise to both sides of the argument.
Perhaps reduce the HP of STOPS, and then give them a resistance boost when they are online. This would both stop ninja STOPs, and mitigate the an attacker's need for dreads during the initial assault.
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:57:00 -
[14]
Originally by: DNSBLACK
5. To prevent stop dropping all you have to do is make them weaker during the onlining process.
The way I understand it, the way the database is structured, items have the EHP they are given, and it's not straightforward to have that change depending on whether things are anchored or not. That's why the "weaker during anchoring" idea is unlikely to be implemented.
With regard to the repping/unanchoring idea, that was just mentioned, that won't work unless STOPs cost as much as faction tower mods.
|
Jalum Krayal
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 16:28:00 -
[15]
I imagine the whole point of this reworking of nullsec is to get people to use the space they claim. Therefore, if you're dropping STOPs, it should either be to claim the space that your targets have or to remove them and leave the space empty. One person should not be able to drop a 22.5mil hitpoint problem at each gate in 5 minutes.
Please make the STOP 6 hours anchoring time, 60 seconds online. This is the new alliance warfare, so you did bring your alliance to protect you while you anchor the STOP to contest the system, right?
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 19:17:00 -
[16]
Lets Look at the 2 sides.
Defender:
1. Home field advantage (Station in system or close by)
2. HUD Defence systems
3. Cyno Jammers
4. Jump Bridges (To aviod Gate camps)
5. Capitals in system
6. Defensive stops on gates 22.5 million hit point buffers. Early warning system.
7. Death Star POS defending FLAG
Attacker: ?????????????? By putting defensive stops on gates you take away the only advantage attackers have. Surprise. The fact remains the defender has alot of advatages. They dont need to have the stops on gates also.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 20:25:00 -
[17]
I was hoping to get some clarification by a dev.
1. Is this the intended role of stops.
2. If an alliance is allowed to place stops on gates as a defence, Then I would ask that flags not be allowed to be placed near a POS. The fight to get a system to be come contested is going to be tough with the stops as is.
3. If stops are allowed then why not just make dread and carriers capable of going thru gates so an attacking alliance can bring its entire fleet to a fight or eliminate cyno jammers.
4. With the pressent system on sisi all a defending alliance has to do is crash the NOD when they see one of their defensive stops being hit and bam attack is over and the defending alliance wins due to ****ty game mechanics. If they crash it during an onlining attacker offensive stop then they are hurting themselves.
|
Draco Argen
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 03:08:00 -
[18]
One small note in all this.
FLAGs can be anchored AT a deathstar POS, not in. You do not have to blow away the WHOLE pos to destroy the flag. a RR BS gand can tank POS guns long enough to blow away a flag, without the grind of blowing away the guns and shields, etc.
On while the idea of using STOPs defensively is intriguing it really does not sway the battle that much even if the defender does this. a large mobile warp disruptor has 100k HP (40k shield and 60 Armour), a med disruptor has 25k hp (10k shield, 15k armor). It 20kHP really is not much for a STOP. Seriously, the HUBs are effing huge, this is the least of their worries.
|
Deva Blackfire
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 05:28:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Draco Argen
It 20kHP really is not much for a STOP. Seriously, the HUBs are effing huge, this is the least of their worries.
So is it 22k or 22mil? Coz its quite effin huge difference
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.08 20:42:00 -
[20]
1. Stops are 22.5 MIL I repeat 22.5 million
2. Dont ofrget that a flag can be remote repped while it is being killed. Also the changes to mother ships and titans will create alot of enjoyment as the 1 volly your battle ship gang at the POS.
3. Again i would like to repeat for the last 2 posters 22.5 mil effective hit points.
|
|
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:23:00 -
[21]
Well, we looked at this and saw it as a minor problem.
A STOP (or Blockade unit as they are now called) is meant to be used for one purpose only - to make a system vulnerable.
To that end we already had a feature - an online STOP will always count towards making a system vulnerable - ie, if the sovereign holding corp onlined enough STOPs then the system becomes vulnerable to being attacked.
Since this defensive buffer came to light - we've added another step (which you will seee on sisi tomorrow): An anchored STOP can be onlined by ANYONE (even if they are in a differen corp/alliance).
So anchoring a bunch of STOPs at your gate is just giving the enemy a free ride into taking your system.
|
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:48:00 -
[22]
Who can offline it then?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
SXYGeeK
Gallente
do you
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:51:00 -
[23]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Who can offline it then?
a goon with a gun ?
-We So SeXy |
Kaahles
Kentucky Fried Capitals
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:52:00 -
[24]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Who can offline it then?
That’s a good question. Logic however would dictate that whoever onlines it becomes the new owner of the evil device then.
-----------------------------
OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!
Contract me all your stuff so I can save it! |
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:53:00 -
[25]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Who can offline it then?
The person who onlines it takes ownership, and only they can offline it.
If you are attacking - you will drop a STOP, anchor it, and as soon as it is anchored you online it. Planting a STOP is not meant to be a sneaky activity - its a battering ram pounding on the door. You should have a fleet jump in with you and protect you while you are anchoring the flag.
Even if the "wrong person" onlines the STOP, they cant "cancel" onlining, and you can still defend and keep them away from offlining it again 
|
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:56:00 -
[26]
Just to be clear here, you mean, literally just that person, or any person with the proper roles in their corp?
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:58:00 -
[27]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Just to be clear here, you mean, literally just that person, or any person with the proper roles in their corp?
sorry - clarification - the CORP takes ownership, and anyone with correct roles can then offline it.
All sov structures are corp owned when they are in space.
|
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 21:00:00 -
[28]
Good that's what I thought.
As far as the rest of this thread. 2 sieged dreads will take out a STOP in 1.5 cycles. 3 will do it in under 1 cycle. A medium sized gang should have no problem with a STOP. An unhardened Minmatar pos already has 45mil Shield base. As well as a whole host of defenses. One or two gunners make a pos infinitely harder to even shoot. One or two people defending a Stop are just gonna lose their ship.
The two really aren't comparable.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 21:10:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Gnulpie on 10/11/2009 21:15:06
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
A STOP (or Blockade unit as they are now called) is meant to be used for one purpose only - to make a system vulnerable.
To that end we already had a feature - an online STOP will always count towards making a system vulnerable - ie, if the sovereign holding corp onlined enough STOPs then the system becomes vulnerable to being attacked.
Since this defensive buffer came to light - we've added another step (which you will seee on sisi tomorrow): An anchored STOP can be onlined by ANYONE (even if they are in a differen corp/alliance).
So anchoring a bunch of STOPs at your gate is just giving the enemy a free ride into taking your system.
I am not sure if I understand everything, but I will try my best. (can't test it currently, meh  )
Assume the following scenario:
A defending ally in a system. They have anchored STOPS on all gates. The also online all STOPS except the last one which is necessary to break immunity.
Now ...
As soon as someone onlines the last missing STOP, the defending ally will just offline one of their own other STOP's (and onlining them directly again), thus buying 6 hours. Then after 2 hours, they offline the next STOP (and again online it immediately again so that they still have the ownership), buying in total 8 hours time. And so on. Giving enough gates (at least 4), they can always cycle through the STOPs so that NEVER all STOPs can be online at the same time.
Therefore I don't see that others being able to online a STOP will help against defensive STOPs.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 21:23:00 -
[30]
An onlining STOP may not be able to be offlined, however you can just blow it up and put your own STOP. Or you can simply prevent them from offlining it.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |