EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Dominion--Storming the Gates

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Dominion--Storming the Gates

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 19 post(s)

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:08:00 - [1] By now, you are probably aware that we are making changes to EVE's sovereignty system in our next expansion, Dominion. CCP Abathur's newest dev blog gives us the conquest lowdown and details the new structures and how they can be used in New Eden. You can read all about it here. Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us

Fatsam Madhatters Inc. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:23:00 - [2] Where can hubs be anchored? Are they at planets or can they be anchored next to POS to give some defence to them? How much do these new structures cost and where will they be seeded? I hope you will include them in NPC 0.0 stations to ease the logistic burden on existing alliances. What are the hit point values of these structures? I am very pleased that I won't have to shoot at undefended sponge POS anymore, but disappointed that I have to shoot at stations to capture them and also the infrastructure hub.....twice.....each. Also you indicated dreads would be utilised more than present, I just don't see that here but depends on the hit point values of the structures. Hopefully you won't make them massive to try and justify the existence of dreads. The biggest problem in existing sov mechanics is that the enemy does not have to fight, only anchor POS, and with sponge POS this was extremely tedious to keep or break sov. So hopefully you have made the new mechanics so that undefended space can be taken quickly and without much tedium so you can skip over those empires to the people that actually do fight. As no-one cares about taking space per se, they care about the fights with other players that result from this. Blowing up unmanned undefended structures, no matter what they cost, is not fun.

CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:30:00 - [3] Edited by: CCP Sisyphus on 11/11/2009 13:30:28 Originally by: Fatsam Where can hubs be anchored? They can only be anchored at planets that do not have an outpost or conquerable station there. The current values are on Sisi right now. The intention was to encourage "active defense". If there are no defenders then you will be able to take a system easily, although you will have to wait through the reinforcement timers - we didn't want suprise midnight takeovers, the defenders will have time to respond to a system where they have built up infrastructure.

Kanuo Ashkeron Capital Construction Research	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:38:00 - [4] When are the SBUs becoming invulnerable? After both, the outpost and the Hub, are in shield reinforcement mode? Kanuo
Yon Krum The Knights Templar R.A.G.E	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:39:00 - [5] Unless there is some other, hidden info, then destroying enough of the SBU in the system you are defending does not "end the attack"--it only gives you a minimum 6 hours grace period before the next SBU is online and your I-hub and Outpost are vulnerable. Nothing prevents the attacker from immediately dropping another SBU and starting that 6-hour timer. I assume this is the correct mechanic, and that if you really wanted a "respite" of a longer period of time, you'd have done something like given the SBUs wrecks that timed-out and meanwhile prevented another from being anchored in their place. --Krum --Krum
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:40:00 - [6] Pretty good. Except that if someone owns some really juicy upgraded space, you can't actually capture it without making it worthless. An awesome motivator for keeping 0.0 exciting and dynamic.
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:43:00 - [7] So .. if I understand that correctly, that means we will not be able anymore to focus on the outpost independant of focusing on the sovereignty elements, to provide a much needed extra element of forcing both presence and the hand of the conflict?
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:43:00 - [8] A few key issues: 1) Since no one will have hubs on Dec 1st, will all systems be immediately vulnerable to SBU spam + TCU destruction in a short space of time? Is there any mechanic to protect or preserve existing sov from attack during this grace period? 2) Does having sov still provide a fuel bonus to starbase fuel usage? 3) Can TCUs be physically moved within system without disrupting sov? Obviously if they are automatically placed the owning alliance may want them moved to a better location. Who will get ownership of the TCU in each system, the alliance executor?
Inara Tyana	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:43:00 - [9] Is there anything stopping defenders from placing SBU's strategically within their own space? Whether offline, or placing them at >51% of gates (set to expire in the defenders prime time) then taking them down as soon as structures become vulnerable?
Kanuo Ashkeron Capital Construction Research	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:46:00 - [10] Originally by: Inara Tyana Is there anything stopping defenders from placing SBU's strategically within their own space? Whether offline, or placing them at >51% of gates (set to expire in the defenders prime time) then taking them down as soon as structures become vulnerable? Maybe a SBU makes any Outpost and Hub vulnerable, not only those of your enemies.

Papa Digger OEG GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:48:00 - [11] Quote: Systems with Sovereignty òIf a Outpost owner has sovereignty, the station is invulnerable. To change the state to vulnerable, the attacker must place SBU(s) at 51% (or more) gates in the system. Just anchor or online? How long SBU onlining? ---- ex-CEO.
Fuzzy Duck	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:50:00 - [12] Question, will the invulnerability that SOV4 provides to structures still apply till the 8th? or does this fall away on the 1st?
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:50:00 - [13] Originally by: xttz 1) Since no one will have hubs on Dec 1st, will all systems be immediately vulnerable to SBU spam + TCU destruction in a short space of time? Is there any mechanic to protect or preserve existing sov from attack during this grace period? An easy way to enforce the grace period would be to NOT seed SBUs and TCUs onto the market until the grace period ends. Existing Sov claims get the automatically placed TCU, and nobody can claim or contest Sov until the grace period expires.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:54:00 - [14] Originally by: xttz 1) Since no one will have hubs on Dec 1st, will all systems be immediately vulnerable to SBU spam + TCU destruction in a short space of time? Is there any mechanic to protect or preserve existing sov from attack during this grace period? Sovereignty Blockade Units (SBUs) will not be seeded until the following week after launch giving everyone a grace period for transition before we will add them to the market.

Mynas Atoch UK Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:54:00 - [15] Does reinforced work the same way? i.e. down to 25% to trigger the timer but can't change any parameters under 50%. And then on exit, rep to 50% and everything is cool again? Myn
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:59:00 - [16] Originally by: Mynas Atoch Does reinforced work the same way? i.e. down to 25% to trigger the timer but can't change any parameters under 50%. And then on exit, rep to 50% and everything is cool again? Myn It's say right in the blog. You specify an actual exit time, and the outpost/hub exits at that time plus or minus a random amount.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:08:00 - [17] Mmmm perhaps it is time to place a system under my tag Secure 3rd party service

Shasz Planetary Industry and Trade Organization	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:09:00 - [18] Is there a limit to only one SBU per stargate? If so, it sounds like placing your own defensive SBU at 50% of the gates would add one more layer of defense to holding sov - at least for systems with an even number of stargates. And even for the odd-numbered gate systems, it would force attackers to put the SBUs where you want them. PINTO is now hiring **
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:11:00 - [19] Originally by: Shasz Is there a limit to only one SBU per stargate? If so, it sounds like placing your own defensive SBU at 50% of the gates would add one more layer of defense to holding sov - at least for systems with an even number of stargates. And even for the odd-numbered gate systems, it would force attackers to put the SBUs where you want them. Except that any and all online SBUs count for making sov vulnerable.
John Zorg Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:14:00 - [20] Originally by: Chribba Mmmm perhaps it is time to place a system under my tag Claim Amarr Prime Chribba :>


CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:15:00 - [21] Originally by: xttz A few key issues: 1) Since no one will have hubs on Dec 1st, will all systems be immediately vulnerable to SBU spam + TCU destruction in a short space of time? Is there any mechanic to protect or preserve existing sov from attack during this grace period? Been answered. No SBUs during the grace period. Quote: 2) Does having sov still provide a fuel bonus to starbase fuel usage? yes, 25% Quote: 3) Can TCUs be physically moved within system without disrupting sov? Obviously if they are automatically placed the owning alliance may want them moved to a better location. Who will get ownership of the TCU in each system, the alliance executor? Sortof - But when you unanchor a TCU you loose the strategic index (the "sov claim time"), and will start again from 0 once you reanchor. Currently the Executor will have ownership of all TCUs for an alliance. This means that the executor corp will have to pay all bills. Please note that the 1st bill will have already been paid. But - You are able to change ownership of a TCU (and associated hub) to another corp in the same alliance. This will not reset the sov time and will transfer all bills/infrastructure etc to the new owning corp.


CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:16:00 - [22] Originally by: Hertford Except that any and all online SBUs count for making sov vulnerable. Yes - an online SBU will count towards making the system vulnerable - no matter who owns it.

Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:21:00 - [23] Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Quote: 3) Can TCUs be physically moved within system without disrupting sov? Obviously if they are automatically placed the owning alliance may want them moved to a better location. Who will get ownership of the TCU in each system, the alliance executor? Sortof - But when you unanchor a TCU you loose the strategic index (the "sov claim time"), and will start again from 0 once you reanchor. Currently the Executor will have ownership of all TCUs for an alliance. This means that the executor corp will have to pay all bills. Please note that the 1st bill will have already been paid. But - You are able to change ownership of a TCU (and associated hub) to another corp in the same alliance. This will not reset the sov time and will transfer all bills/infrastructure etc to the new owning corp. So basically, "no, you can't move TCUs without disrupting Sov".
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:22:00 - [24] Ok. In a system with both an outpost and an iHub, does the TCU become vulnerable when either the outpost is captured or the iHub is destroyed (as the text implies), or do you need to capture the outpost and destroy the iHub to make the TCU vulnerable (as the flowchart implies)?
Genevieve Mitsuda Perkone	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:24:00 - [25] Are we any closer to addressing the costs of sov and JBs/Cyno(jam/gen) equipment? In a monthly fashion, I mean? And what the upgrades will cost per month? I expected this blog to be a big reveal to the adjusted costs. Being only two weeks away and having 0 info on budget makes planning near impossible for alliances in 0.0

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:25:00 - [26] This came into mind. Since everyone will get a TCU for free, would there be any market implications to said item when the alliance decide not to pay for the structure, unanchor it and sell it (free ISK)? And, are the TCU's scoopable now? I know last time I anchored a TCU and then wanted to scoop it as someone else claimed the system while I was asleep, then I couldn't scoop it due to freighters not able to scoop in space. Risk of TCU spamming? And finally, have there been any word on the prices of all things? Secure 3rd party service


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:25:00 - [27] Originally by: Arkady Sadik Ok. In a system with both an outpost and an iHub, does the TCU become vulnerable when either the outpost is captured or the iHub is destroyed (as the text implies), or do you need to capture the outpost and destroy the iHub to make the TCU vulnerable (as the flowchart implies)? Need to take the outpost and destroy the IH to take sov.


CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:26:00 - [28] Originally by: Papa Digger Quote: Systems with Sovereignty òIf a Outpost owner has sovereignty, the station is invulnerable. To change the state to vulnerable, the attacker must place SBU(s) at 51% (or more) gates in the system. Just anchor or online? How long SBU onlining? Online. Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe. Also, SBU's are 2500m3, so honor tanked Vagabonds shouldn't be spamming them. In terms of pricing, SBU's will cost in the area of a large starbase tower. Originally by: Fuzzy Duck Question, will the invulnerability that SOV4 provides to structures still apply till the 8th? or does this fall away on the 1st? Sov 4 is gone on Dec 1st. Happy CSAA hunting. Originally by: Chribba Mmmm perhaps it is time to place a system under my tag Don't you already own Amarr or something? Originally by: Arkady Sadik Ok. In a system with both an outpost and an iHub, does the TCU become vulnerable when either the outpost is captured or the iHub is destroyed (as the text implies), or do you need to capture the outpost and destroy the iHub to make the TCU vulnerable (as the flowchart implies)? AND. As in, you have to take out both targets before you can move on to the TCU.


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:27:00 - [29] Originally by: Genevieve Mitsuda Are we any closer to addressing the costs of sov and JBs/Cyno(jam/gen) equipment? In a monthly fashion, I mean? And what the upgrades will cost per month? I expected this blog to be a big reveal to the adjusted costs. Being only two weeks away and having 0 info on budget makes planning near impossible for alliances in 0.0 Based on feedback from the upkeep/infrastructure blog, we have made certain changes that will be available soon. Hopefully the feedback from this thread will add to that and we can present a more comprehensive set of changes.

Jondar Valador Intergalactic Crossing Core Factor	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:30:00 - [30] The FLAG/STOP gimmicks were cool. **** Blocking Units sound weird.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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