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

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)
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:32:00 - [121] Concord stations in empire.
Bidnessman	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:35:00 - [122] Originally by: Farrellus Cameron Where are the i-hubs going to be seeded? Can we get them seeded in 0.0 outposts? nothing's ever seeded in 0.0 outposts, not even station warehouses (which are 10000000m3 and you can't transport so if your 0.0 post has no assembly lines you'll never have audit cans in that outpost. ever. lol.) but it's just 0.0 so who gives a ****. keep working hard and you might match the Return on investment of macro running L4s in empire while you watch tv
Pah Triac BlackSheep Squad	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:36:00 - [123] If at all possible, could there be a hologram emitter, like the news screen in empire space with the logo of the alliance, holding the claim at the other side of the Gate? Sig under construction People are stupid. They will believe anything they want to be true or fear to be true. Sheep on
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:39:00 - [124] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 17:43:21 Originally by: ardik IF YOU DONT WANT BIG ALLIANCES TO HOLD A LOT OF SPACE, THEN REMOVE GRINDY DUMB SOV MECHANISMS THAT GIVE DEFENDERS WEEKS TO DO TZ WARS etc. IF BIG ALLIANCES CAN'T DEFEND IN LESS THAN A DAY OR TWO AGAINST ~30 BS JUST SHOOTING SOMETHING, THEN THEY LOSE THEIR **, THAT SHOULD BE YOUR GOAL, not this gay anchoring ** that's basically pos spamming with another name basically, reinforcement timers on outposts should be enough Guess what? This is for all alliances, small and large, I think its 10X better tbh. Though it depends on the strength of the objects. Btw, CCP is trying to avoid steamrolling and/or AFK alliances holding onto their space for too long. Got a better suggestion than just screaming loudly? I might add your in the minority. Also, its 48 hours without an outpost, what do you freaking want? --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Hertford Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:43:00 - [125] So on Dec 1st we're going to get a bunch of free TCUs placed god-knows-where at the whim of a CCP script, and if we want them elsewhere (like somewhere defensible) we lose the backdated sov counter. And then once that clustercopulation is over, people get to look at upgraded systems with ten (yes! ten!) anomalies and think "if only we could capture that instead of having to burn it to the ground removing any financial incentive to actually invade".
Smurphy1 Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:46:00 - [126] One question that a lot of people seem to be asking is what happens to the upgrades when you take a system from someone? I think that if you take a system you should have to put up a new infrastructure hub but the activity levels(except for time of course) are still there from the previous owner. The levels will have degraded somewhat due to the fighting but the conqueror should not have everything destroyed. Or possibly make it like looting a ship, some mods got destroyed and some are in the wreck.
Professor Dumbledore Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:51:00 - [127] Originally by: CCP Soundwave Well how you can defend a system is relatively situational, in a low mooncount system you might not get the option to do what you're describing. I'm also not a big fan of the defender and attacker fighting in different windows. In the new system, attackers and defenders will have parallel windows, which will hopefully result in more confrontation. Edit: Remember that the defender sets the reinforcement timer too. Go ** yourself soffer you clearly aren't ing thinking nor do you recall time zone wars. This will ruin every single ing 0.0 alliance and will destroy this game hope this helps. These numbers will cost what 1.2b per month per system with a jump bridge and cyno jammer ontop of pos costs ontop of ing around with freighters to do every single ing little thing for the sov system. Its clear you guys are **ing idiots and dont really think things though.
Pelleaon	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:54:00 - [128] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore Originally by: CCP Soundwave Well how you can defend a system is relatively situational, in a low mooncount system you might not get the option to do what you're describing. I'm also not a big fan of the defender and attacker fighting in different windows. In the new system, attackers and defenders will have parallel windows, which will hopefully result in more confrontation. Edit: Remember that the defender sets the reinforcement timer too. Go ** yourself soffer you clearly aren't ing thinking nor do you recall time zone wars. This will ruin every single ing 0.0 alliance and will destroy this game hope this helps. These numbers will cost what 1.2b per month per system with a jump bridge and cyno jammer ontop of pos costs ontop of ing around with freighters to do every single ing little thing for the sov system. Its clear you guys are **ing idiots and dont really think things though. U mad?
Maximillian Ramius	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:05:00 - [129] Originally by: Pelleaon Originally by: Professor Dumbledore Originally by: CCP Soundwave Well how you can defend a system is relatively situational, in a low mooncount system you might not get the option to do what you're describing. I'm also not a big fan of the defender and attacker fighting in different windows. In the new system, attackers and defenders will have parallel windows, which will hopefully result in more confrontation. Edit: Remember that the defender sets the reinforcement timer too. Go ** yourself soffer you clearly aren't ing thinking nor do you recall time zone wars. This will ruin every single ing 0.0 alliance and will destroy this game hope this helps. These numbers will cost what 1.2b per month per system with a jump bridge and cyno jammer ontop of pos costs ontop of ing around with freighters to do every single ing little thing for the sov system. Its clear you guys are **ing idiots and dont really think things though. U mad? Oh, yea... he mad alright...
Emerald goldeye Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:10:00 - [130] Breaking the chains LOL Just as raiders will be presented new opportunities to create havoc, aggressors intent on all out conquest will have to carefully weigh their plans and make decisions on what and where to attack first. Strategies that work in one system may completely fail in the next. Defenders of space in Dominion will have new ways of defending their space as well. These tools will not replace a proper defense force but they will provide new and exciting options which ensure that not every fight is the same and will reward investment in military infrastructure. Defenders will have to kill SBU only once in 4 days. Raiders will have to kill hub and useless stuff for three time in 4 day. And all this timers will be done by defenders. There is no chance for raiders =) Thats same old apocrypha. x
Rigeborod	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:21:00 - [131] With the 3 hours timer you will get the systems' timezone ping-pong... for all the systems without infrastructure hub. That's ridiculous. For all other systems you will get HUB/OUTPOST reinforced/killed by epic blobs and only the size of the fleet matters as killing 50% (if 100% of gates have SBU's onlined) of SBU's takes time. If you can't fight such a big fleet as agressor has, you won't probably be able to use capitals so you won't just have enough time to destroy SBU's. So you don't get any defense bonuses AT all. The most big wins EVE?
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:21:00 - [132] Originally by: Hertford So on Dec 1st we're going to get a bunch of free TCUs placed god-knows-where at the whim of a CCP script, and if we want them elsewhere (like somewhere defensible) we lose the backdated sov counter. And then once that clustercopulation is over, people get to look at upgraded systems with ten (yes! ten!) anomalies and think "if only we could capture that instead of having to burn it to the ground removing any financial incentive to actually invade". Your incentive to take over more space is having more space. If that isnt what you're interested, maybe 0.0 isn't for you. Try Motsu, I here you can run level 4s there. With more space, you can have more people making money and doing things, and you have more opportunities to get attacked, which is more opportunities to blow people up. Remember, EVE is not about having the biggest wallet. It's about having fun, via taking over the world. Oh yeah, and you get to keep all the new systems moons. This new system is clearly much worse then the old system, where all you get was moons.
sue denim	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:23:00 - [133] Originally by: Rigeborod With the 3 hours timer you will get the systems' timezone ping-pong... for all the systems without infrastructure hub. That's ridiculous. For all other systems you will get HUB/OUTPOST reinforced/killed by epic blobs and only the size of the fleet matters as killing 50% (if 100% of gates have SBU's onlined) of SBU's takes time. If you can't fight such a big fleet as agressor has, you won't probably be able to use capitals so you won't just have enough time to destroy SBU's. So you don't get any defense bonuses AT all. The most big wins EVE? uh yah.... people with better fleets are going to win, what did you expect them to force 10v10s or something? If you can't beat someone fleet wise and control your system your going to lose. Why would it be any other way?
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:23:00 - [134] Originally by: Professor Dumbledore Originally by: CCP Soundwave Well how you can defend a system is relatively situational, in a low mooncount system you might not get the option to do what you're describing. I'm also not a big fan of the defender and attacker fighting in different windows. In the new system, attackers and defenders will have parallel windows, which will hopefully result in more confrontation. Edit: Remember that the defender sets the reinforcement timer too. Go ** yourself soffer you clearly aren't ing thinking nor do you recall time zone wars. This will ruin every single ing 0.0 alliance and will destroy this game hope this helps. These numbers will cost what 1.2b per month per system with a jump bridge and cyno jammer ontop of pos costs ontop of ing around with freighters to do every single ing little thing for the sov system. Its clear you guys are **ing idiots and dont really think things though. Umm, use T2 Industrials perhaps to pick up the modules? Inty mark 5? Oh no, that would be too tough. Also, this won't destroy alliances. Keep crying, the tears are so rich. --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:24:00 - [135] Originally by: Maximillian Ramius Originally by: Pelleaon Originally by: Professor Dumbledore Originally by: CCP Soundwave Well how you can defend a system is relatively situational, in a low mooncount system you might not get the option to do what you're describing. I'm also not a big fan of the defender and attacker fighting in different windows. In the new system, attackers and defenders will have parallel windows, which will hopefully result in more confrontation. Edit: Remember that the defender sets the reinforcement timer too. Go ** yourself soffer you clearly aren't ing thinking nor do you recall time zone wars. This will ruin every single ing 0.0 alliance and will destroy this game hope this helps. These numbers will cost what 1.2b per month per system with a jump bridge and cyno jammer ontop of pos costs ontop of ing around with freighters to do every single ing little thing for the sov system. Its clear you guys are **ing idiots and dont really think things though. U mad? Oh, yea... he mad alright... he posts like that about literally everything v0v
Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:25:00 - [136] Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Originally by: sg3s Edited by: sg3s on 11/11/2009 16:34:43 I made a chart that is simpler to understand, tbh the blog chart doesn't look at it from a players perspective even though it is the same, it tells people what they want to know. http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5080/sovindominion.png It's not pink... edit: do tell me if I ****ed up somewhere. Very very nice. The Hub outpost reinforcement thing is hard to make clear. If everything in a system is reinforced, the SBU is invulnerable. otherwise they are vulnerable. The and/or statement might be confusing for defender. two questions 1 can the hub and station be attacked at the same time? 2 if a HUB is attacked and put into reinforced mode this makes the SBUs invulnerable to being attacked?
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:29:00 - [137] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 17:43:21 Originally by: ardik IF YOU DONT WANT BIG ALLIANCES TO HOLD A LOT OF SPACE, THEN REMOVE GRINDY DUMB SOV MECHANISMS THAT GIVE DEFENDERS WEEKS TO DO TZ WARS etc. IF BIG ALLIANCES CAN'T DEFEND IN LESS THAN A DAY OR TWO AGAINST ~30 BS JUST SHOOTING SOMETHING, THEN THEY LOSE THEIR **, THAT SHOULD BE YOUR GOAL, not this gay anchoring that's basically pos spamming with another name basically, reinforcement timers on outposts should be enough Guess what? This is for all alliances, small and large, I think its 10X better tbh. Though it depends on the strength of the objects. Btw, CCP is trying to avoid steamrolling and/or AFK alliances holding onto their space for too long. Got a better suggestion than just screaming loudly? I might add your in the minority. Also, its 48 hours without an outpost, what do you freaking want? Well, i think you're a ing moron. my suggestion is that instead of some gay mods that take ing 6 hours to online then instead we fight over resources and let sov be dependent on a single strucutre orbiting the sun that has 2 reinforcement timers. that's it. no complicated gay grindy **, instead, it'll depend on player interactions!
Adam Ridgway Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:33:00 - [138] Edited by: Adam Ridgway on 11/11/2009 18:35:42 I don't like much the mandatory 'scorched earth' regarding i-hubs, removes incentive to attack tbh. This should be, at least, optional. I know you don't weant more undestructible structures like outposts, but there is an option that when i-hub enters 25% hull acts like if it was destroyed (all upgrades are disabled) until structure and armor are again at 100%? Do this and make upgrades worth it (right now industrial and 'military' upgrades are not worth it) and we may have incentive for conflict, which is nice. People crying about grinding... it all depends on how much HP all thse steeps have (some copy&paste from SISI?), you can't remove reinforce timers and you can't make them too soft, otherwise it would become extremelly easy to disrupt them, maybe a dream for Jade, but not much of a dream for anyone with a brain or interested in having real conflicts.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:36:00 - [139] Originally by: Hertford 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. That would be in place to curb alliances from allowing smaller entities to build up an area, and then swooping in to reap the benefits of their time and labor. I agree with you though, it would have added an interesting dynamic. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Raketefrau Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:36:00 - [140] Originally by: CCP Sisyphus 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. So POS gunners will be useless in sov wars, and for everything but defending moon miners, pretty much. Quite a waste of skill time now.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:37:00 - [141] Edited by: sg3s on 11/11/2009 18:37:56 Originally by: Wulfnor Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Originally by: sg3s Edited by: sg3s on 11/11/2009 16:34:43 I made a chart that is simpler to understand, tbh the blog chart doesn't look at it from a players perspective even though it is the same, it tells people what they want to know. http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5080/sovindominion.png It's not pink... edit: do tell me if I ****ed up somewhere. Very very nice. The Hub outpost reinforcement thing is hard to make clear. If everything in a system is reinforced, the SBU is invulnerable. otherwise they are vulnerable. The and/or statement might be confusing for defender. two questions 1 can the hub and station be attacked at the same time? 2 if a HUB is attacked and put into reinforced mode this makes the SBUs invulnerable to being attacked? 1. Yes, assuming they are vulnerable. 2. Only if there is no station in system, if there is both a hub and a station present then they will both have to be in reinforced for the SBUs to be invulnerable.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:37:00 - [142] Are there any limits to how many SBU's you can anchor in a day, ala 5 pos per system per day per alliance?
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:38:00 - [143] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 18:39:36 Originally by: ardik Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 17:43:21 Originally by: ardik IF YOU DONT WANT BIG ALLIANCES TO HOLD A LOT OF SPACE, THEN REMOVE GRINDY DUMB SOV MECHANISMS THAT GIVE DEFENDERS WEEKS TO DO TZ WARS etc. IF BIG ALLIANCES CAN'T DEFEND IN LESS THAN A DAY OR TWO AGAINST ~30 BS JUST SHOOTING SOMETHING, THEN THEY LOSE THEIR **, THAT SHOULD BE YOUR GOAL, not this gay anchoring that's basically pos spamming with another name basically, reinforcement timers on outposts should be enough Guess what? This is for all alliances, small and large, I think its 10X better tbh. Though it depends on the strength of the objects. Btw, CCP is trying to avoid steamrolling and/or AFK alliances holding onto their space for too long. Got a better suggestion than just screaming loudly? I might add your in the minority. Also, its 48 hours without an outpost, what do you freaking want? Well, i think you're a ing moron. my suggestion is that instead of some gay mods that take ing 6 hours to online then instead we fight over resources and let sov be dependent on a single strucutre orbiting the sun that has 2 reinforcement timers. that's it. no complicated gay grindy **, instead, it'll depend on player interactions! Thanks for putting up a suggestion. See? Isn't it better than screaming loudly? As per your idea...its kinda what they put up right now. (Just remove the Outpost and bingo, your idea. Except CCP added a module that disrupts its invulnerability) --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:41:00 - [144] Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 18:39:36 Originally by: ardik Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 17:43:21 Originally by: ardik IF YOU DONT WANT BIG ALLIANCES TO HOLD A LOT OF SPACE, THEN REMOVE GRINDY DUMB SOV MECHANISMS THAT GIVE DEFENDERS WEEKS TO DO TZ WARS etc. IF BIG ALLIANCES CAN'T DEFEND IN LESS THAN A DAY OR TWO AGAINST ~30 BS JUST SHOOTING SOMETHING, THEN THEY LOSE THEIR **, THAT SHOULD BE YOUR GOAL, not this gay anchoring that's basically pos spamming with another name basically, reinforcement timers on outposts should be enough Guess what? This is for all alliances, small and large, I think its 10X better tbh. Though it depends on the strength of the objects. Btw, CCP is trying to avoid steamrolling and/or AFK alliances holding onto their space for too long. Got a better suggestion than just screaming loudly? I might add your in the minority. Also, its 48 hours without an outpost, what do you freaking want? Well, i think you're a ing moron. my suggestion is that instead of some gay mods that take ing 6 hours to online then instead we fight over resources and let sov be dependent on a single strucutre orbiting the sun that has 2 reinforcement timers. that's it. no complicated gay grindy , instead, it'll depend on player interactions! Thanks for putting up a suggestion. See? Isn't it better than screaming loudly? As per your idea...its kinda what they put up right now. (Just remove the Outpost and bingo, your idea. Except CCP added a module that disrupts its invulnerability) --Isaac i already put that idea in the first post you ing imbecile and no, it's nowhere near the dumb piece of ** ccp thought up
Nightbird SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:52:00 - [145] Originally by: Wulfnor two questions 1 can the hub and station be attacked at the same time? 2 if a HUB is attacked and put into reinforced mode this makes the SBUs invulnerable to being attacked? 1. If you have SBUs up on 51% of the gates, then the system becomes vulnerable. If you have two fleets and want to hit the iHub and Outpost/Station simultaneously, go right ahead... same as if you wanted to attack two POS simultaneously as SOV stands right now. 2. In order for a SBU to be invulnerable, ALL structures must be in reinforced. If the station is reinforced but the iHub isn't, then the SBUs are not-invul. If there is only an iHub (and no outpost) in the system, then yes... reinforcing the iHub will make the SBUs invulnerable.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:53:00 - [146] Conceptually, this new sovereignty system isn't clearly superior over the current one. Maybe they're equal, or maybe its even worse, I don't know yet. All I know is that concept and ideas are seldom as important as their execution. People complained about POS warfare for a long time but its problems have always been one of little details that were never once addressed properly - despite repeated attempts. I was open to a systematic reset of gameplay despite believing it to be completely 100% unnecessary. I even rejoiced a bit after seeing the upkeep costs. But you've gone and reduced them based on self-interested player lobbying which has no purposeful goal above making their daily lives a tad easier and a tad wealthier. Maybe for the vast majority of people, change brings freshness and is always justifiable even if the net gains to the game don't really exist. But what happens when that freshness ends and you're left with a system where: - people lose less structures, and of the ones they lose, they are cheaper to replace - people have less incentives to field capital ships - people have less incentives to deploy (and pay for) large numbers of starbases - upkeep costs are a fraction of what they currently are - upkeep logistics are almost entirely gone with fewer resource and structure management needs I know, a bit melodramatic over a 'few million per day' difference. Though, given the number of systems and alliances involved, its enough to kill hope that your new system will provide a serious isk sink to endgame warfare without raising consequences and barriers to entry significantly. Even assuming this is a hundred times more fun than POS bashing (because shooting different structures is so much better), its not good for the already-lousy macroeconomic situation in EVE.
Darth Sith Genbuku. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:02:00 - [147] Edited by: Darth Sith on 11/11/2009 19:06:16 IMO, while we still don't have all of the needed facts to make a solid decision on like or hate for the new system, I have to admit that I am a fan of the new mechanic. It may not completely remove the sov grind nor does it fully address how resources can be scaled completely to meet an alliance confined to a small space, but it takes the currently boring and broken system, turns it on it's head and gives it a good old shake. I personally \o/ for the compression of the timeline in battles. This new system will force heavy fighting to occur DAILY and a) force the defender out of the pos' to the gates to defend so they can be shot by the attacker while b) providing targets beyond fleets for the defender to respond to. Throw in the removal of Doomsday devices to hid behind and toss in a dash of capital killing "Super Carriers" (if they get the nerfing under control ;) ) and we have a recipie for a lot of fun this fall while we all work out the softspots in the mechanic ... Darth Darth for CSM
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:06:00 - [148] Originally by: Darth Sith IMO, while we still don't have all of the needed facts to make a solid decision on like or hate for the new system, I have to admit that I am a fan of the new mechanic. It may not completely remove the sov grind nor does it fully address how resources can be scaled completely to meet an alliance confined to a small space, but it takes the currently boring and broken system, turns it on it's head and gives it a good old shake. I personally \o/ for the compression of the timeline in battles. This new system will force heavy fighting to occur DAILY and a) forced the defender out of the pos' to the gates to defend so they can be shot by the attacker while b) providing targets beyond fleets for the defender to respond to. Throw in the removal of Doomsday devices to hid behind and toss in a dash of capital killing "Super Carriers" (if they get the nerfing under control ;) ) and we have a recipie for a lot of fun this fall while we all work out the softspots in the mechanic ... woah, you're really dumb
Darth Sith Genbuku. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:08:00 - [149] Edited by: Darth Sith on 11/11/2009 19:09:17 Originally by: ardik Originally by: Darth Sith IMO, while we still don't have all of the needed facts to make a solid decision on like or hate for the new system, I have to admit that I am a fan of the new mechanic. It may not completely remove the sov grind nor does it fully address how resources can be scaled completely to meet an alliance confined to a small space, but it takes the currently boring and broken system, turns it on it's head and gives it a good old shake. I personally \o/ for the compression of the timeline in battles. This new system will force heavy fighting to occur DAILY and a) forced the defender out of the pos' to the gates to defend so they can be shot by the attacker while b) providing targets beyond fleets for the defender to respond to. Throw in the removal of Doomsday devices to hid behind and toss in a dash of capital killing "Super Carriers" (if they get the nerfing under control ;) ) and we have a recipie for a lot of fun this fall while we all work out the softspots in the mechanic ... woah, you're really dumb And how can I possibly rebuke such a solid, fact filled response..
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:09:00 - [150] Ok last update to the chart I made showing how the system works. In this version I clarified that assault still needs SBU majority to make the TCU vulnerable. http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5688/sovindominionv14.png Unless there are big mistakes in the process this will be my last update.

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.