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)
Genevieve Mitsuda Perkone	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:32:00 - [31] One thing I don't understand is that you mention in the blog the attacker having to make a choice, Outpost or iHub, but in reality, why would he reinforce one when he can reinforce two and force the defender to make the choices. They can both be "shield rf'ed" at the same time? Right? So if I'm a defender and I have my RF windows set to approx. the same (my prime) time, and both get RFed, I've got to have defense in two places at once. There is no choice for the attacker to make.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:35:00 - [32] Originally by: CCP Abathur Originally by: Chribba Mmmm perhaps it is time to place a system under my tag Don't you already own Amarr or something? Yeah pretty much Problem is it says Sov belongs to Amarr Empire for some reason. But hey while you run that script can you make sure the TCU is anchored in Amarr for me then, since onviously it's some bug atm not stating Amarr under its true ownership. Thank you Secure 3rd party service

Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:35:00 - [33] 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. There is a thread in the test-server forum about that. Everyone can online SBUs, so if the defenders place their own SBUs at 50% of the gates and not onlining them, then they do the attackers some favour because they don't need to pay the couple hundred mil for each SBU However ... if they online them and start the (6h ?) counter they can then always offline them once online, interrupting the system vulnerability. I think this is going to be discussed internally already. An easy solution would be that you cannot offline a SBU once it got online.
Jondar Valador Intergalactic Crossing Core Factor	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:36:00 - [34] Originally by: Chribba Mmmm perhaps it is time to place a system under my tag A little birdy told me you were snooping around Providence in your mothership. I bet if you get a system there nobody will ever attack it, because ~everyone loevs Chribba~ It's gonna be the funniest **** 0.0 has ever seen. Please do it.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:39:00 - [35] Originally by: CCP Abathur 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. So if someone has juicy upgraded space, there's no actual incentive to capture that system, because it's an automatic scorched earth action.
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:41:00 - [36] Once the Outpost and Hub become vunerable and are reinforced, what happens to the SBU's? Can you unanchor them and reuse? The way I read it the mechanic is over, wouldn't adding a bonus to the attacker or defender who maintains/destroys the SBU's, keeping them involved in the process make more sense?
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:45:00 - [37] Thanks for the answer. Where can TCUs be anchored? Specifically, do they also need to be anchored at planets like iHubs (if so, what about systems with one planet?), or can they be anchored anywhere, including close to POSes as some people implied in some threads? Regarding prices, I posed the current SiSi prices (which can still change of course) in the appropriate thread, please discuss there. :-)
Arra Lith HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:48:00 - [38] Edited by: Arra Lith on 11/11/2009 14:54:51 This system seems much better than proposed previously. At least attacker needs to pay and install some structures to do some damage to sov (take outpost / destroy hub). And to just do some damage there are always some poses or station services to attack. I see some glitch in system: If hub is set to end reinforce at period between 16.00 and 24.00 and station set to 0.00 - 8.00 then defender gets 16 hours to destroy STOPs If hub and station is both set at same time (ie 16.00 - 24.00) then defender gets much less time. --edit-- Didnt notice outpost reinforce is at least 48 hours and hub is 24 hours - so first reinforce will never end at same time for both. Situation will happen only at second wave: hub exit 2nd reinforce and is destroyable and station finished first reinforce time. Also I really dont like solution for auto-placement of TCUs. They should be allowed to anchor by alliances (only by those who hold system - everyone else will get error message when trying to anchor them) during grace period (1st week). Once anchored and onlined indexes are copied from old system, hub can be anchored and upgrades installed. This way current sov holding alliances can choose place to install their flag, not some random place chosen by system. Unless all TCUs are always placed in some random place (ie cannot be placed near deathstar pos).
Tyler Rainez Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:50:00 - [39] Will there (there should be) bpo's for the TCU's and SBU's? This will give the industrial players and tiny alliances to build and cause havoc with out have to give up capital (isk). I only have two things in this world, my word and my balls and I don't break'em for nobody! -- Tony Montana
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:52:00 - [40] Originally by: Genevieve Mitsuda One thing I don't understand is that you mention in the blog the attacker having to make a choice, Outpost or iHub From the dev response above, you do not really have that choice - you have to do both, so the only "choice" you have is the order in which you do it, and then "do both" sounds like a sensible answer, because you either have superiority or not, rarely both. SBUs with 6h onlining time means you start attacking a system at 18:00, and at 24:00 you can start reinforcing the hostile outpost/iHub, and only then will your SBUs be invulnerable. Sounds ... a bit long.

Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:54:00 - [41] The new sov system would be more interesting if station ownership became contestable as soon as more than 51% of stargates have SBUs in place and online. You might consider adding it, just for a bit of blitzing capacity without completely throwing the system.
Sophie Daigneau CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 14:54:00 - [42] Any plans to extend the preferred reinforcement timer mechanic to starbases?
Baeryn 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:00:00 - [43] Originally by: "CCP Abathur" Sovereignty is a requirement to have an Infrastructure Hub and it is not be possible to have a scenario where a system has an Infrastructure Hub and no sovereignty. It is not be possible: New meme, I choose you! Role Playing Games by RolePlayGateway
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:01:00 - [44] Originally by: CCP Abathur In terms of pricing, SBU's will cost in the area of a large starbase tower. damn, there goes our 'run around behind hostile lines onlining throwaway SBU's everywhere just to be a ****' plan X( Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter
Marquis d'Carabas	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:05:00 - [45] Thanks for your dev blogs. Great news and interesting changes. An update on the costs would be much appreciated, as of now they are too tough to sustain for small alliances. Cheers.
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:05:00 - [46] Originally by: CCP Abathur Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe. So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless. Is that a correct assessment?
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:08:00 - [47] Originally by: Teck7 So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless. Is that a correct assessment? You decide what time the RF will end.
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:12:00 - [48] Originally by: Mashie Saldana Originally by: Teck7 So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless. Is that a correct assessment? You decide what time the RF will end. No, you do not, they get salted with a random variable so they can come out at any random time. More importantly, the defenders have zero control of the flow of the sov contest as the attackers dictate when the DEFENDERS are able to attack the sov blockers, making it very easy for the attackers to prevent the defenders from fighting in there peak times - at all. That is beside the point though, why should an offensive structure go invulnerable inside a defenders system just because the outpost/hub is reinforced - that is stupid beyond belief.
Crias Taylor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:14:00 - [49] One week only so close to Christmas? Welp. Is the **** going to be seeded well before?
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:22:00 - [50] Originally by: Teck7 No, you do not, they get salted with a random variable so they can come out at any random time. Currently, the variance is 1h, so if you say "come out at 18:00", it will come out between 17:00 and 19:00 - not that bad, really. And once iHub and/or outpost exit reinforce, the SUBs become vulnerable, too. So the defender defines that quite accurately.


CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:22:00 - [51] Originally by: Teck7 Originally by: CCP Abathur Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe. So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless. Is that a correct assessment? Somewhat, but that's how it works today as well. That's why we've added dual reinforcement timers to make sure you have ample occasions to defend your space. But yes, you can go to bed, wake up with a system full of SBUs. Just like you can go to bed and wake up to a system full of reinforced POSs :)

Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:24:00 - [52] Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:24:36 Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Teck7 Originally by: CCP Abathur Six hours currently, but we are looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe. So, in short (assuming 3 hours, even with current 6 but not as drastic). The defending alliance can go to bed, attackers come in, spam and online SBU on all gates, reinforce hub/station. The defenders wake up, everything is reinforced and consequently the SBU's are invulnerable per the specs in the blog, making the defenders prime time absolutely worthless. Is that a correct assessment? Somewhat, but that's how it works today as well. That's why we've added dual reinforcement timers to make sure you have ample occasions to defend your space. But yes, you can go to bed, wake up with a system full of SBUs. Just like you can go to bed and wake up to a system full of reinforced POSs :) YES but currently when you wake up you can go on the offensive and attack the attackers POS's, this is not the case with SBU's, the attackers dictate when you can attack the SBU's.
lylaal freelancers inc F A I L	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:27:00 - [53] but unlike pos you can always decide the aprox exit time so you can ensure its always around your prime
Mashie Saldana BFG Tech	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:28:00 - [54] Originally by: Teck7 No, you do not, they get salted with a random variable so they can come out at any random time. More importantly, the defenders have zero control of the flow of the sov contest as the attackers dictate when the DEFENDERS are able to attack the sov blockers, making it very easy for the attackers to prevent the defenders from fighting in there peak times - at all. That is beside the point though, why should an offensive structure go invulnerable inside a defenders system just because the outpost/hub is reinforced - that is stupid beyond belief. Originally by: Devblog Owners of the structures will be able to set a preferred time that they wish for them to come out of reinforced mode and then a random variable will be applied that determines the exact time they will exit reinforced. To me that sounds like the defender decide a time and then the variable can make it +/- 1-2h.
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:30:00 - [55] Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:32:25 Originally by: lylaal but unlike pos you can always decide the aprox exit time so you can ensure its always around your prime No, you can not, the timers are salted randomly as it says in the blog relative to the 24/48h timers. However lets for a minute ignore the previous, all you have the ability to do (as is the case on sisi) is add +/- 4hr to exit timers which, in the confines of even 24 and 48h timers, will still bring assets out of reinforced well within or very close to an enemies prime time that they chose to initially attack under. The point still stands, enemy dictate when you can attack the SBU, defenders are left sitting on there hands after an attack has started till the outpost/hub comes out of reinforced, removing the potential for any intermediate combat as the attackers have absolutely no need to stick around.
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:33:00 - [56] Originally by: Teck7 No, you can not, the timers are salted randomly as it says in the blog relative to the 24/48h timers. Originally by: Devblog Owners of the structures will be able to set a preferred time that they wish for them to come out of reinforced mode and then a random variable will be applied that determines the exact time they will exit reinforced. The "random variable" is the variance attribute on the structures. Was 1h on the last SiSi update, not sure what it is right now. hth :-)
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:39:00 - [57] question - what about NPC regions? Moons capped by blob alliances. are the capped moons still going to be in-effect?
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:39:00 - [58] Any chance of having the TCU's placed at empty moons some 70-100km from where the pos goes? So that people can put up deathstars for defense without losing their sov timers.
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:40:00 - [59] I like this system. It is well thought-out and designed. Now just make 0.0 income generation lucrative enough to lure people away from L4s so new alliances come out to play and we can actually use these new sov mechanics. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:40:00 - [60] Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59 You are doing a fine job of ignoring the point of each post. That once SBU's are onlined and the outpost and hub reinforced, the SBU's are invulnerable making the defenders unable to actually defend outside the confines of the reinforced timers - removing all necessity for intermediate combat or the defenders ability to actually DEFEND at a time of there choosing. Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed.



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.