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) |
Altaree
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 11:54:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Rhonnen Any chance of making the outpost able to be destroyed? If I took a system that I knew I couldn't keep I wouldn't want them to have a chance to take back the outpost.
I figure it's like a bridge in war. If you can't prevent the enemy from taking it, you blow it up to holy hell so they can't use it.
If you watch closely, CCP also seems to have some sort of internal play to have player built stations spread all though 0.0. The last thing they want is those stations to start popping... --Altaree
|
Altaree
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 12:00:00 -
[242]
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Astal Atlar Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses
I don't think that's necessarily bad. There has to be some point of focus that draws attacker and defender into a situation where they fight each other. The issue with the old system was the 12 hour POS shooting grind ops. The new system means that when a system is reinforced the time you have to dedicate to taking the system comes in small spurts of combat. Hopefully this system retains the incentive for conflict, but cuts down on the hours players have to spend shooting at stationary objects.
POS shooting will magically disappear? Do you mean that if you take SOV you get control of all POS in system or just that they all go boom? Or do we still have to go shoot those damn POS's? Is there a POS shooting benefit to sov holders? --Altaree
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 12:13:00 -
[243]
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU reinforced.
wait what? TCU reinforced??
shouldn't it be:
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU vulnerable. - kill TCU
------------------------------
Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
test2354
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 12:31:00 -
[244]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Ahhh, this one again! I'll give the answer we gave at Fanfest.
There are no plans to ever allow Outposts to be 'destroyed' but what we have looked into is allowing them to be 'wrecked'. The new dual reinforcement timers have you chew through shields and then armor before the station can be captured. What is possible is that you could then finish the structure off, be rewarded with a nice kaboom and then you have a station wreck model.
All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. Rebuilding the station would be possible by simply anchoring the proper 'egg' there and filling it back up with XX materials needed to repair the station wreck.
There is no ETA on something like this, I just thought I would share that we have actually considered it. Maybe if we ever get the TotalHellDeath expansion...
ah so that would be the trash Providence for ****s and giggles expansion
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 12:32:00 -
[245]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. Rebuilding the station would be possible by simply anchoring the proper 'egg' there and filling it back up with XX materials needed to repair the station wreck.
This is actually a great idea. Just make it so that a "wrecked" station is ownerless, meaning just about anyone can dock in it, because if your alliance have failed protecting it it may also have disbanded during your abscence, and you may have to dock in it several times to get your stuff out.
A ownerless outpost would also leave some interesting tactical options for roaming squatters, explorers, pirates, people that want to rebuild their once thriving system etc.
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:06:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Typhado3
wait what? TCU reinforced??
shouldn't it be:
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU vulnerable. - kill TCU
Ooops, sorry - TCU (FLAG) is never reinforced, it gets killed. You are right.
|
|
GMUGRA
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:10:00 -
[247]
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
Originally by: xttz A few key issues:
Quote:
2) Does having sov still provide a fuel bonus to starbase fuel usage?
yes, 25%
I don't really get this point. Is it not need anything except TCU in the system to get 25% fuel bonus? With claim cost 30кк per month it make sense to claim the system if you have something more than usual Medium Control Tower there. Without any needs to have there iHub and really live there.
It is not a secret, that at least half of systems in 0.0 space have only couple of POSes and claim only to get fuel bonus. With 30кк per month for claim and 25% fuel bonus nothing will changed.
Why not to make 25% fuel bonus same way like other "old" claim features: Strategic upgrade for iHub? (even with 0кк daily cost and 1 day claim as requirements)
Other point that 1кк per day for claim is over cheep. Same way like 20кк before was over expensive. 1кк per day and 0кк per day in fact the same. Such cost together with 25% fuel bonus will not change situation when allinces claim systems without any real useage of them except moon harvesting...
|
Hjakona
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:30:00 -
[248]
I have seen this question go unaswered here in the thread before, but I would like to see an answer if possible.
Where can TCU be placed? Planet? Moon? Restrictions to Placement? Can it be placed at a Safespot?
Will there continue to be any benefits to Contellation Capitals or are 3 station constellations now wasted isk?
Imho the Constellation Capitals should have some benefits. If nothing else then the same requirements to take them down as in the current system. No SBU can be onlined in a Constellation Capital system as long as the Alliance controls 50% of systems in the constellation etc.
Maybe give Constellation Capitals 50% bonus on POS fuelcost as well. Encourage station building in 0.0!
|
Orny
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:39:00 -
[249]
What happend with JB then I-H in reinfors? Is it still online?
|
GMUGRA
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:42:00 -
[250]
Edited by: GMUGRA on 12/11/2009 13:42:09
Originally by: Hjakona I have seen this question go unaswered here in the thread before, but I would like to see an answer if possible.
Where can TCU be placed? Planet? Moon? Restrictions to Placement? Can it be placed at a Safespot?
Will there continue to be any benefits to Contellation Capitals or are 3 station constellations now wasted isk?
Imho the Constellation Capitals should have some benefits. If nothing else then the same requirements to take them down as in the current system. No SBU can be onlined in a Constellation Capital system as long as the Alliance controls 50% of systems in the constellation etc.
Maybe give Constellation Capitals 50% bonus on POS fuelcost as well. Encourage station building in 0.0!
TCU can be placed anywhere, including deep spot or near the POS ( 50km or more from the tower, like jump bridges now)
"Sov 4 is gone on Dec 1st. Happy CSAA hunting." (c) CCP Abathur Link
|
|
Col Callahan
Caldari The Lazy Boys
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:48:00 -
[251]
Soon the sky will come falling "down down down in to a blazing ring of fire".
I <3 you dev's. I heard you the last time. |
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:51:00 -
[252]
Know what really gets me. Why does ccp have to nerf ice miners. Ice miners werent rolling in the isk. Now the big alliances wont be using 50 large towers per system and their enemy isnt using TONS of stront to kill those 50 large towers.
Ice products are going to be super cheap; due to that... they will move from ice to other empire ores and that will make ores cheap and insurance fraud will be rampant.
If insurance is fixed to where you more or less cant do insurance fraud. This will be good.
Furthermore. What happened to the scaling dynamic sov costs that are supposed to impose big limitations on big alliances and force them to make goonswarm1, goonswarm2, goonswarm3... ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 13:53:00 -
[253]
Reading the blog, it all seems like very good, solid, common sense stuff. I had an idea for the reinforced timers though. I like the idea that a minimum of two days notice is given before the hub is lost but if I'm understanding this correctly, the proposed system has a flaw. The outpost reinforced timer would be fine in the current system as described in the blog because it's ALWAYS got a minimum of 24h to go until it hits reinforced. But if the hub is attacked 2 hours before its reinforced time, defenders would have practically no notice before it can be put into second reinforced. That gives the defender only have one chance to defend instead of two. And you know people will use spies and alliance peak times to find out or estimate the selected reinforced time.
So how about we augment the new dual reinforced timer system by adding minimum reinforced periods to each timer. The new reinforced time would be calculated by having a minimum guaranteed period of 12 hours reinforced (24 for outpost). Essentially, if it's attacked within the 12 hours leading up to the timer, it skips around to the next day.
Case 1: Timer is set to 1600 and it's attacked at 1400. Current time: 2 hours reinforced. New time: 26 hours reinforced. Case 2: Timer is set to 1600 and it's attacked at 1700. Current time: 23 hours reinforced. New time: 23 hours reinforced. Case 3: Timer is set to 1300 and it's attacked at 0100. Current time: 12 hours reinforced. New time: 12 hours reinforced. Case 3: Timer is set to 1300 and it's attacked at 0200. Current time: 11 hours reinforced. New time: 35 hours reinforced. So instead of a theoretical minimum for the first stage of attack of as little as 0 hours 1 minute, there's a new minimum of 12 hours. And the current theoretical maximum of 23h 59min is replaced with a potential maximum of 35h 59 min. So occasionally people will get more reinforced time to prepare but they'll never get less than 12 hours for hubs. This brings it in line with the inherent minimum of 24h on the outpost 48h timers.
Or have I misunderstood the proposed system? Has this been tackled already?
Originally by: Lord Eremet
Originally by: CCP Abathur
All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. Rebuilding the station would be possible by simply anchoring the proper 'egg' there and filling it back up with XX materials needed to repair the station wreck.
This is actually a great idea. Just make it so that a "wrecked" station is ownerless, meaning just about anyone can dock in it, because if your alliance have failed protecting it it may also have disbanded during your abscence, and you may have to dock in it several times to get your stuff out.
A ownerless outpost would also leave some interesting tactical options for roaming squatters, explorers, pirates, people that want to rebuild their once thriving system etc.
That's genius. So a wrecked station would be one anyone could dock at and they'd have hangers there but nothing else. All clones and jump clones moved/destroyed, all station services gone (including fitting). Pirates could use them for staging posts because hangers and a docking port is the bare minimum they need and they'd have to find somewhere else to refit ships or use a carrier for that. I think that's an absolutely epic idea, that a destroyed station could become a den of piracy.
Then someone comes along, anchors an outpost reconstructor and fills it with minerals. Rebuilding a wrecked station would fix it back up and give them ownership of it, and it would cost less than building a new outpost. So there's incentive for people to reclaim lost territories and a cost associated with taking them. It would certainly remove station ping pong, that's for sure!
|
Esheleen
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:04:00 -
[254]
I'm a bit worried with the variation in the timers for things to exit reinforced. When do you find out when something is coming out of reinforced, is this imemdiately when it goes into reinforced?
If there is a four hour window in which it might come out I can see that, instead of spending four hours shooting poses we are going to have to spend up to four hours sat doing nothing just to make sure we are there to defend / attack when the timer decides to drop. |
Teck7
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:04:00 -
[255]
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 in short if an alliance wants a TCU moved to an armed pos we are completely screwed in doing so without completely losing the strategic index? Could ccp programmers not create a few precheck functions within the script that will run during the expansion and if the owning alliance has an existing large tower that is online the TCU gets put there instead? I know it is not that difficult to actually accommodate in python (which if i recall is the standard that ccp programmers develop in with a pinch of C).
i.e: if free moon, place legacy tcu there if no free moon but alliance has existing large tower online, place legacy tcu there else place legacy tcu where you were originally (at a planet? was never indicated)
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:16:00 -
[256]
Someone mentioned having more than one outpost per system and it got me thinking. If we want more people living in one system, we may end up needing more than one outpost per system. Way back when I was in ISS, I remember the debates over what types of outpost to build and where. We ended up making a refinery several jumps from the current one to open up other systems for mining but I had been a supporter of a gallente outpost near the current refinery for one very important reason - offices. Organised corps NEED offices and having more of them supports increases in the carrying capacity of a star system.
So what if the limit on outposts per system was revised, but not removed? What if we could upgrade a system to allow a second outpost? It could be done by just making an infrastructure upgrade that permits a second outpost to be used and then if it ever goes offline the docking and/or station services go offline. Alternatively, it could be done by simply allowing everyone to anchor a second outpost in all systems but applying some debilitating factor to them like no reinforced timers. Then an infrastructure upgrade could be introduced to counteract those debilitating factors. Whatever way it's done, a system could then have a gallente outpost for offices and one other (such as a factory or a refinery) for specialised utilities. Thereby supporting the planned increases in system carrying capacity.
|
Sunaria
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:21:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Nyphur Someone mentioned having more than one outpost per system and it got me thinking. If we want more people living in one system, we may end up needing more than one outpost per system. Way back when I was in ISS, I remember the debates over what types of outpost to build and where. We ended up making a refinery several jumps from the current one to open up other systems for mining but I had been a supporter of a gallente outpost near the current refinery for one very important reason - offices. Organised corps NEED offices and having more of them supports increases in the carrying capacity of a star system.
So what if the limit on outposts per system was revised, but not removed? What if we could upgrade a system to allow a second outpost? It could be done by just making an infrastructure upgrade that permits a second outpost to be used and then if it ever goes offline the docking and/or station services go offline. Alternatively, it could be done by simply allowing everyone to anchor a second outpost in all systems but applying some debilitating factor to them like no reinforced timers. Then an infrastructure upgrade could be introduced to counteract those debilitating factors. Whatever way it's done, a system could then have a gallente outpost for offices and one other (such as a factory or a refinery) for specialised utilities. Thereby supporting the planned increases in system carrying capacity.
Why not remove the station restrictions alltogether ??? just forget about the racial specific stations. Or give each station all services just give the racial more of X service then the other. That racial difference in station was a mistake from the get go imho.
|
Pelleaon
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:25:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Teck7
So in short if an alliance wants a TCU moved to an armed pos we are completely screwed in doing so without completely losing the strategic index? Could ccp programmers not create a few precheck functions within the script that will run during the expansion and if the owning alliance has an existing large tower that is online the TCU gets put there instead? I know it is not that difficult to actually accommodate in python (which if i recall is the standard that ccp programmers develop in with a pinch of C).
i.e: if free moon, place legacy tcu there if no free moon but alliance has existing large tower online, place legacy tcu there else place legacy tcu where you were originally (at a planet? was never indicated)
Guess it would be cool if CCP could define some sort of name for the control tower where the TCU should be placed near to, like "Place TCU here". So CCP could check against the control-tower name to get the position where to anchor the TCU.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:27:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Sunaria Why not remove the station restrictions alltogether ??? just forget about the racial specific stations. Or give each station all services just give the racial more of X service then the other. That racial difference in station was a mistake from the get go imho.
I think you can technically do this currently with outpost upgrades. You can give a gallente station a refinery service, for example, but it won't be as good as a minmatar one with the same upgrade. There's a lot of choice there but I'd still rather see multiple outposts per system to support outpost specialisation and increase system carrying capacities. It's an inevitable requirement as population densities increase, so they'll have to do it eventually. Might as well add the capability to add a second outpost to systems now or soon after the expansion goes live.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:46:00 -
[260]
well... would an attacking force have to double-reinforce all stations then...? - putting the gist back into logistics |
|
Emerald goldeye
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 14:56:00 -
[261]
Eve still remains boring. Same eve news about amarr empress or some tales about khanid fleet. If there is 90 perc players living in empire, why conquering sov so hard. If small alliances from empire could harass bigger alliances, would be fun and great news for eve. Six hour onlining sbu -is aprox 360 eve jumps. -is flight from NY to London. -GM building hundreds of cars. and little alliance in this time -1/3 attackers fell to sleep. -1/3 attackers went to pub. -1/3 attackers is already bored and drunk. After that -improbable amount of reinforces. -attackers have to attack three times, while defenders defend only once. More -defenders choose preferred time that they wish for them to come out of reinforced mode. Solutions -end of timezone wars (simple random 1 - 24 hours reinforcement timer). -not 2*24 and 2*48 (only 2*24 or 1*24). -not 6 hours sbu onlining (30-60min). PS Big alliances can always take that sov back, same way. We will see a lot of fights across 0,0 space. Big alliances will not hold space, they will not want fight for. x |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:12:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider well... would an attacking force have to double-reinforce all stations then...?
Yeah, I think it makes the battlefield a bit more interesting by giving more targets to choose between during the battle. It would give more targets for attackers to attack and more points that the defenders have to defend. It actually weights the battle slightly toward the attacker but systems with multiple outposts should have more people defending. If they need to increase the carrying capacity of their system so much that they need to add another outpost or so, they should have a lot of pilots to help defend.
|
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:19:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Tairon Usaro A) the first SBU in a system can only be placed on a gate if the system linked to this gate is either claim by the offending alliance or completely unclaimed B.) other SBUs can placed once the first one is anchored
=> Player empires can only be attacked from the borderlines
This. You need this CCP. This would in turn "force" alliances to take sov all over their territory simply because it would make their soft underbelly invulnerable until attackers reach that very system.
This and balance sov cost a bit to a wardeck cost model and you've figured out how to make alliances not claim too much space. Now all you need to do is give those alliances decent upgrades so they'll be able to recruit empire carebears to do the PVE and mining we hate oh-so very much for rent and we're all set!!
P.S.: Obviously if you just do the sov bit and forget about the upgrades bit I will be very very angry and will fart in your general direction!!!
|
Kernok
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:27:00 -
[264]
so wait, is this why u guys werent replying in the feedback thread about how horrible the upgrades were? u realize a cloaky afk empire can shut down another systems upgrades just sitting in their anomalies cloaked preventing them from respawning right? do u rly think that risk should result in a reward on par with lvl 4 income?
|
Arganato
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:31:00 -
[265]
Nice blog and nice system :)
Will you consider to make poses slighly more vunerable now, as that will no longer cause the system ping pong?
Exept for the reduction in expensive moon material demand, is there any other plans to reduce the huge passive moon mining income?
|
King KLoWn
The Confederate Navy Forever Unbound
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:35:00 -
[266]
Interesting
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:55:00 -
[267]
Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 12/11/2009 16:01:01
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The military and industrial indexes are preserved though will continue to decay as normal through time, only the strategic index will reset when system sovereignty changes hands. Whilst the system is contested it is highly unlikely there will not be as much resource gathering going on so you may lose a level or two depending on how long it takes to conquer the system. You could find yourself seizing a system with a high index level and good combo of base level resources or location value/gate count combo.
This is the second mention Ive seen of a decay mechanic, which has yet to be detailed with any clarity. I was hoping for some clarification during the sov-levels and upkeep cost blog, but got nothing, so Ill ask again here.
Quote:
It was mentioned by CCP Sisyphus in this thread that there would be a decay mechanic in place. Some questions:
How will decay be implemented?
Will there be a way to know what the actual point accrual will be per-action?
Will we be able to see the points required for the next level?
Will the points-per-level be a static value like the number of days with sov, or will it scale based on the available resources per-system (# belts, ore quality, truesec, etc)?
This is kinda important to know, because if the decay is too quick, there's no point in conquering a system for its upgrade levels since they will all deteriorate. Furthermore, if its an outlying system, the holder might just let it go because its not worth it to try and recover all the lost levels. The concern here is either 0.0 will become a wasteland with few small islands of productivity or a NAP-fest...
Edit: If decay is high, it seems more worthwhile to camp a roaming gang in a constellation and just kill off the ratters (or force them to hide in-station) for a week to destroy the upgrades than to actually try and conquer the system. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Jordan Musgrat
H A V O C Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 16:02:00 -
[268]
He said depending on the length of the siege, you might lose 1 or 2 levels. It won't be that many, because it would be ******ed to lose a level if you didn't rat for 1 day. I'm guessing, given 10 max levels, you might lose 1 per 4 days-1 week with no activity. That would be fine. If you blitzed someone's space, you'd get everything.
Stations being wrecked is a great idea. TBH it should be in the January expansion, or the very next one. That has the most potential to change the way we play the game of anything I've heard yet, and for the better too. -----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Treelox
Amarr Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 17:12:00 -
[269]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Treelox CCP you still need to make it possible for attackers to actually go past the tap to conquer a Outpost and let them have the option to actually totally destroy an Outpost.
Ahhh, this one again! I'll give the answer we gave at Fanfest.
There are no plans to ever allow Outposts to be 'destroyed' but what we have looked into is allowing them to be 'wrecked'. The new dual reinforcement timers have you chew through shields and then armor before the station can be captured. What is possible is that you could then finish the structure off, be rewarded with a nice kaboom and then you have a station wreck model.
All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. Rebuilding the station would be possible by simply anchoring the proper 'egg' there and filling it back up with XX materials needed to repair the station wreck.
There is no ETA on something like this, I just thought I would share that we have actually considered it. Maybe if we ever get the TotalHellDeath expansion...
While I personally feel that total outpost destruction is more in keeping with the deep ebil darkness that is the core of eve, I can understand why CCP would be reluctant to go with such a total scorched earth approach. So, I look forward to this idea of TotalHellDeath of Outpost.
Thanks for taking the time to give answers.
Sig Zone
Signature picture is inappropriate. Please change. ~Weatherman
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 18:26:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Nyphur on 12/11/2009 18:26:02
Originally by: Slobodanka
Originally by: Tairon Usaro A) the first SBU in a system can only be placed on a gate if the system linked to this gate is either claim by the offending alliance or completely unclaimed B.) other SBUs can placed once the first one is anchored
=> Player empires can only be attacked from the borderlines
This. You need this CCP. This would in turn "force" alliances to take sov all over their territory simply because it would make their soft underbelly invulnerable until attackers reach that very system.
Absolutely agreed on this and the implementation presented is actually very feasible. I've been pushing for a sov system with real, functional borders for years. I don't know why CCP has insisted on having a borderless system with every iteration of the soverignty system, borders are an exciting possibility. What's even better is that with this new sov system it would be extremely easy to implement functional borders and buffer zones.
As Tairon explained, you can just put a restriction on SBUs so they can only be online if EITHER: 1) There is already an SBU online in the system. or 2) The system on the other side of the gate you're anchoring it at is owned by your alliance or unclaimed.
I had considered modifying this idea to allow anchoring if the system on the other side of the gate is disrupted but still claimed. However, under the system described in the devblog a disrupted system's TCU can just be destroyed if that system has no hub or outpost. So all you have to do is destroy the TCU once the system's disrupted to hit the systems next to it. This means to disrupt a system in the middle of someone's empire and make it vulnerable to attack, you'd need to actually knock down at least one system surrounding it. That creates functional borders that must be pushed back to reach your goal.
If this went live, alliances would claim systems around their core dominion as a kind of buffer zone. That way they'd get warning of an incoming attack because they'd see systems falling in their buffer zone. I think that'd be a fantastic mechanic! Real, functional borders and buffer zones. It's an exciting possibility and I'd hate for it to be wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |