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.

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.

Jokus Balim Minmatar Rising Sun Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:40:00 - [61] Edited by: Jokus Balim on 11/11/2009 15:42:12 Originally by: Teck7 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. This paragraph from the Dev Blog sounds pretty much like you give a specific time of the day, let's say 1600 server time, around which the reinforced mode ends: Quote: 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. EDIT: Oh no! They renamed the FLAG and STOP modules to some generic boring technobabble!
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:42:00 - [62] Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe? Also this: Quote: Vulnerability states SBU(s) are vulnerable while being anchored and onlining. Once an Outpost and/or Infrastructure Hub is reinforced, the SBU(s) enter a parallel reinforcement cycle. That means that the SBU(s) are invulnerable as long as there are no vulnerable structures in system. If the Outpost and Infrastructure Hub are vulnerable, so is the SBU(s). If the Infrastructure Hub is vulnerable and the outpost is not, then the SBU(s) are vulnerable. If the Outpost and Infrastructure Hub are vulnerable, so is the SBU(s). My brain does not parse this very well... Is it possible to get a simplified examples for us dumber folks? System has: 1. FLAG 2. FLAG+outpost 3. FLAG+outpost+iHub Do you now have to reinforce the lot (everything in there) to be able to take sov? And how do invul timers fit in here?
Nightbird SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:43:00 - [63] What happens if the Resource Hub or Outpost are in reinforced (but not both), and the SBUs are taken below 51% coverage? Does the Outpost or Hub automatically end reinforced and become invul again (and able to be repped), or do you have to wait out the reinforced timer before you can repair the Outpost/Hub? I just have this vision of a sieging alliance reinforcing a Hub... offlining and onlining their SBUs to break reinforced on the hub, then shooting the hub. Paranoid, I know.... But I can just see the "this is now classified as an Exploit" notification in my mind....
Smurphy1 Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:48:00 - [64] Originally by: Teck7 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. But thats kind of the point. By making the defenders have to come when the timers come out this system promotes more about fighting people and less about fighting the mechanics.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:49:00 - [65] Originally by: Slobodanka Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe? Learn to read? There's no exploit of such sort.
lylaal freelancers inc F A I L	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:50:00 - [66] Originally by: Smurphy1 Originally by: Teck7 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. But thats kind of the point. By making the defenders have to come when the timers come out this system promotes more about fighting people and less about fighting the mechanics. someone who sees it the same way \o/
Nightbird SiN. Corp Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:50:00 - [67] Originally by: Slobodanka Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe? They stated that if 51% of the gates were disrupted, the outpost and iHub were vulnerable. They didn't indicate that ownership of the SBUs was important. In a 5-gate system, 3 different alliances could place an SBU on different gates and meet the "51% or more" requirement to disrupt sov.

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:51:00 - [68] Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 11/11/2009 15:51:40 Originally by: Teck7 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. 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.

Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:51:00 - [69] Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:52:25 This whole expansion is a joke, CCP lazy programming at its finest - avoid giving titans roles, avoid fixing true sec, fighter bombers generate too much lag? nerf mom drone counts (it is now only +1 drone per lvl instead of 3), a lazily implemented new sov system with even more lazy mechanics bleh bleh bleh
Orthaen	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:52:00 - [70] Edited by: Orthaen on 11/11/2009 15:53:55 Originally by: Teck7 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. No one taught the poor Atlas goon-wannabe how to troll! Poor guy, here's the guideline you ignored...you're only allowed to ignore your complaint being completely debunked 2 times max before you have to move on to a new imaginary complaint. Otherwise, everyone knows you're trolling, and you lose all hope of getting your precious e-rage. New sov looks fun, even if replacing POS spam with equally expensive SBU spam seems a little counterproductive. Then, I suppose 4 days is less work then 7 days. Edit: See, there you go, you got it! Complain about supercaps in the sov thread, that's a good start. Offtopic, AND different from making up things about reinforced timers. Remember, when someone points out that supercaps are now cap-killers, you can only ignore it twice, then you should move on.

Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:53:00 - [71] Is it possible to change the mechanic so that when the I-Hub hits ~5% structure it goes offline like POS guns? Then if the attacking alliance secures Sov they can then online as their own or the defending alliance drives off the attack and kills the SBU's and it remains theirs.
Gordon Red SteelVipers Ev0ke	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:53:00 - [72] What will each structure cost on the npc-market?
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:54:00 - [73] Originally by: Nightbird What happens if the Resource Hub or Outpost are in reinforced (but not both), and the SBUs are taken below 51% coverage? Can't happen - once either of them is reinforced, the SBUs become invulnerable, too. Also, once either of them exits reinforced, SBUs are vulnerable again. I.e. the attacker decides when to do the first attack, during which the attacker is vulnerable (SBUs) for 3h/6h (not decided yet). Then both the attacker (SBUs) and defender (iHub/Outpost) are vulnerable. Then both are invulnerable until the time the defender picked (iHub/Outpost reinforce time). Once that time happens, again both attacker (SBUs) and defender (outpost/ihub) are vulnerable. Defenders have 4 chances to get the timing right to be stronger than the attacker during their preferred time (2 reinforce timers for both ihub and outpost).
PaulTheConvoluted	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:56:00 - [74] Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59 You are doing a fine job of ignoring the point of each post. I have to reveal here that I've never bashed a POS, but afaik you cannot rep a POS while it is in reinforced. If that is indeed the case, how is waiting for the reinforced timers on an outpost of hub other than those on a POS? The way I see it, the defender get _more_ control over when they can actually defend stuff, as in both cases they have to wait till the reinforcement timers expire before they can shoot stuff (if the attackers show up to finish the POS, currently), but instead of a time relative to the attack (how much stront to put in the POS to have it come out at $TIME ? That is, if you're in time to adjust the amount of stront...) you can set an absolute time (with a 1hour bit of randomness it seems), so you can always have the timer expire in your prime. 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.
zelalot	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:56:00 - [75] This bit sounds exciting - sort the 0.0 so it is lucrative, sort out the amount of capped moons that only serve the blob alliances by lining thier pockets and we might actually have a way or model for alliances big and small to enjoy livining in null sec.
Stefan Lehmann	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:56:00 - [76] Originally by: Teck7 Edited by: Teck7 on 11/11/2009 15:40:59Attackers get to attack when they choose but defenders do not, that seems flawed. Originally by: Wikipedia Tactics, then, are isolated actions or events that take advantage of opportunities offered by the gaps within a given strategic system, although the tactician never holds onto these advantages. Tactics cut across a strategic field, exploiting gaps in it to generate novel and inventive outcomes. Tactics are usually used to spoil the running context. Wikipedia entry on tactics
Slobodanka	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:00:00 - [77] Originally by: Nightbird They stated that if 51% of the gates were disrupted, the outpost and iHub were vulnerable. They didn't indicate that ownership of the SBUs was important. In a 5-gate system, 3 different alliances could place an SBU on different gates and meet the "51% or more" requirement to disrupt sov. So, what if they anchor SBUs but don't online them? AFAIK only owners with proper roles can (un)anchor/(off)online structures now... In other words: Is there a way to spam potential attackers out of having 51% SBUs online? (other than killing them)
RandomNack	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:01:00 - [78] Hi, got a few questions regarding the flowchart. What happened when the iHub is destroyed and the outpost is still in reinforced mode, think this could happen a fair bit with the 48 vs 24hr reinforced timers, will the SBU's lose invulnerability? if so this mean that the attacker will have to control the system for the entire remaining time with sufficent numbers to defend the SBU's from attack, quite a challenge for anything bar the largest alliances with multiple timezones. Also if the IHub is destroyed and the station is reinforced are the defenders prevented from achoring and onlineing another? this would make attacking very time consuming if not. Do the upgrades to the Ihub remain if its destroyed and able to be claimed and used by the attackers to upgrade there Ihub once they have captured the system, would give the attacked something to gain from capturing the system instead of having to destroy everything.
fuze Gallente Quam Singulari Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:02:00 - [79] It's not like adjusting loot drops and belt respawning in 0.0 is a hard thing to do really. That is a step in the right direction IMHO.
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:04:00 - [80] Looks great and very interesting. While it does remove POS's from sov, won't attackers deploy at least one POS to stage out of, which intern will cause defenders to fill up low moon systems leading back to POS shooting?

Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:10:00 - [81] Originally by: Pnuka Looks great and very interesting. While it does remove POS's from sov, won't attackers deploy at least one POS to stage out of, which intern will cause defenders to fill up low moon systems leading back to POS shooting? maybe but at least now you have the option of fighting over sov while ignoring those pos 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
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:11:00 - [82] Originally by: Slobodanka Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe? Everyone can online SBU regardless who anchored them. The ownership of the SBUs doesn't matter for breaking invulnerability. Only the total amount of SBUs do count. But a question... If the attacker is successful in capturing the system and planting their own TCU and gaining sov, what happened then with the SBUs? Will the go offline and can they be collected afterwards? Will the explode and just vanish? What happens to them?

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:15:00 - [83] Edited by: CCP Soundwave on 11/11/2009 16:15:18 Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Slobodanka Just one question on SBU spamming: Is it possible (under current mechanics) for an alliance to place it's own (lets say an alt alliance or alliance created specially for that reason) SBUs, thus denying attackers to even anchor and online theirs? Like 33% alliance 1, 33% alliance 2 and 33% allaince 3. Neither will have 51% so system should be safe? Everyone can online SBU regardless who anchored them. The ownership of the SBUs doesn't matter for breaking invulnerability. Only the total amount of SBUs do count. But a question... If the attacker is successful in capturing the system and planting their own TCU and gaining sov, what happened then with the SBUs? Will the go offline and can they be collected afterwards? Will the explode and just vanish? What happens to them? The SBUs effectively prohibit putting structures down, so the attacker will have to secure the system (which can be reasonably assumed since he/she has the force to take down the TCU), offline the SBUs and put the TCU up.

Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:20:00 - [84] Edited by: Virtuozzo on 11/11/2009 16:21:53 Nm, Sisi ftw.
Nikita Alterana Gallente Clearly Compensating Da Orkz	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:20:00 - [85] Originally by: Hertford 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". sure you can, from what I gathered it would look something like this: Corp one(executer) has the TCU corp two (also in Alliance) puts up their own TCU Corp one transfers control to corp two making their TCU valid Corp one then repositions their TCU and they swap back. __________________________________________________ All Glory to the Goat Gods!

CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:22:00 - [86] Slight correction to misinterpretations. Case1: Claim marker (TCU/FLAG) only - 51% of gates have an online blockade == FLAG vulnerable. - kill TCU - no reinforcements of any kind. Case2: TCU (FLAG) + outpost - 51% gates blockaded = Outpost vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot outpost -> outpost reinforced (2x48hours) + blocades reinforced - take over outpost + 51% gates blocaded -> TCU vulnerable - kill TCU Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU reinforced. Case 4 - TCU + iHub + Outpost - 51% gates blockaded = outpost AND iHub vulnerable. - shoot at either iHub or outpost to get the reinforced timers. - blocades only invulnerable if BOTH iHub and Outpost are in reinforced. IF ANY SOV STRUCTURE (OUTPOST, IHUB, TCU) IS VULNERABLE, THE BLOCKADE CAN BE SHOT - once outpost taken AND iHub destroyed, TCU vulnerable - kill TCU.

Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:22:00 - [87] Are SBU's just big dumb strategic objects with little real time tactical benefit to the side who anchored them or do they provide bonuses, logistics defence etc? You mentioned 24/48 reinforced timers, does that mean up to 24/48 hours, or do the attackers decide when they structures come out of reinforced? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:23:00 - [88] Hm. What happens if the SBUs die - do you lose all your progress, or just part of it? Say, you took over the outpost. Then the iHub exits reinforced mode, and you lose SBU majority. Do you lose the outpost, even if you can anchor enough SBUs a bit later? That would mean it's never sensible to take the outpost first. SBUs are somewhat flimsy at the moment, and defenders having 4 chances to determine fight times as opposed to attackers only having 1 timing chance seems to make it rather difficult to keep SBUs.
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:23:00 - [89] Are SBU's just big dumb strategic objects with little real time tactical benefit to the side who anchored them or do they provide bonuses, logistics defence etc? You mentioned 24/48 reinforced timers, does that mean up to 24/48 hours, or do the attackers decide when they structures come out of reinforced? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
crack'me'up	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:24:00 - [90] Question: is there any plans to "free" systems in npc space? like outer ring, stain and other npc regions? i dont mean the systems with stations, but the empty ones, or at least some of them? it's ridiculous if you look at outer ring almost no stations and 100% npc sov

Crias Taylor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:31:00 - [91] Edited by: Crias Taylor on 11/11/2009 16:35:33 Generally this looks fine. The mechanics should make defenders and attackers just not try to out dps eachother. I mean those attackers better have reps on the blockades. Not just firepowert. My only problem is you are giving us one week to do this. 2 weeks would be more resonable. Some of us have Christmas shopping to do and little Johnny didn't ask for a hub.

CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:32:00 - [92] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Are SBU's just big dumb strategic objects with little real time tactical benefit to the side who anchored them or do they provide bonuses, logistics defence etc? You mentioned 24/48 reinforced timers, does that mean up to 24/48 hours, or do the attackers decide when they structures come out of reinforced? SBU are what allows you to even hurt the iHub and Outpost. If defender has sovereignty, then their hub and outpost are invulnerable. The defender can set the desired time window for when the hub and outpost come out of reinforced - if there are no attackers at that time they get to repair their structures. - if you destroy the hub, or take the outpost and then loose your blockades, you get to keep the progress you made so far.

sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:34:00 - [93] 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.
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:35:00 - [94] 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. Mayority
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:36:00 - [95] I understand the strategic benefits they bring, but is that all they do? Just something to shoot at? Do they effect the environment their placed in (beyond sov mechanics) in any meaningful way? And don't you think they should? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)

CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:38:00 - [96] 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.

Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:40:00 - [97] They are a battering ram, they wedge the door open for you to contest sov in the system. If you lose your majority then the defenders close the door on you and you can't take sov. That is their purpose.
Mr Opinions	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:44:00 - [98] Edited by: Mr Opinions on 11/11/2009 16:44:59 Edited by: Mr Opinions on 11/11/2009 16:44:21 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. Your defense chart misses a bit out on a subtlety of when the SBUs are invulnerable. Basically BOTH the outpost AND the hub (if they are present) need to be in reinforced for the attacker's SBUs to be invulnerable. btw that also means that the defender could potentially have a bit of fun by staggering the timers between the hub and outpost, not only making the encounter more drawn out but also causing the SBUs to have to be defended for more time. edit: CCP beat me to my first comment. :P
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:46:00 - [99] I think people are just not getting the difference between tactics and strategy. Installing a POS in the old system as a gave both tactical and strategic benifits to the aggressor. All I'm seeing with SBU's is a big fat "shoot me sign" with little actual tactical utility that would have otherwise interested groups probably not interested in this kinda stuff currently. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Altaree The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:47:00 - [100] WTB Faction SBU's that alter the system's stats for 10x the base cost. (like in WH's) or maybe just act as cyno jam killers, or cyno beacons, or ....head explodes --Altaree

sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:47:00 - [101] Updated the chart. I knew that both needed to be in reinforced for the SBUs to be invul, put that in a note. Majority spelled right :-/
Urulok Lamb Federation Navy C0VEN	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:48:00 - [102] if there will be any seeding of sov structures like hubs, upgrades, tcu etc in player outpost at last for first week?
kyrieee Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:49:00 - [103] Edited by: kyrieee on 11/11/2009 16:50:34 What happens to your SBUs after you've taken over a system? Do they stay on the gates? Does an attacker have to blow up SBUs aleady on gates before they can anchor their own?
Jack bubu Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:51:00 - [104] Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Originally by: Pattern Clarc Are SBU's just big dumb strategic objects with little real time tactical benefit to the side who anchored them or do they provide bonuses, logistics defence etc? You mentioned 24/48 reinforced timers, does that mean up to 24/48 hours, or do the attackers decide when they structures come out of reinforced? SBU are what allows you to even hurt the iHub and Outpost. If defender has sovereignty, then their hub and outpost are invulnerable. The defender can set the desired time window for when the hub and outpost come out of reinforced - if there are no attackers at that time they get to repair their structures. - if you destroy the hub, or take the outpost and then loose your blockades, you get to keep the progress you made so far. What about Station services, do they behave like before?
Zastrow GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:51:00 - [105] Originally by: Crias Taylor Edited by: Crias Taylor on 11/11/2009 16:35:33 Generally this looks fine. The mechanics should make defenders and attackers just not try to out dps eachother. I mean those attackers better have reps on the blockades. Not just firepowert. My only problem is you are giving us one week to do this. 2 weeks would be more resonable. Some of us have Christmas shopping to do and little Johnny didn't ask for a hub. yea but automated TCU anchoring should for the most part keep me from ****ing killing myself. At least now I only have to deal with ihub upgrades 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
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:53:00 - [106] Edited by: sg3s on 11/11/2009 16:53:22 Originally by: Pnuka Edited by: Pnuka on 11/11/2009 16:48:04 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. Mayority reinforment invulrable vulnrable
Pnuka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 16:59:00 - [107] Originally by: sg3s Edited by: sg3s on 11/11/2009 16:53:22 Originally by: Pnuka Edited by: Pnuka on 11/11/2009 16:48:04 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. Mayority reinforment invulrable vulnrable armour
ropnes	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:02:00 - [108] Edited by: ropnes on 11/11/2009 17:02:11 Originally by: Teck7 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. You choose when the structures come out of reinforced and that is when you fight Dumb much?
Anahid Brutus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:06:00 - [109] AWESOME YOU DUMB MOTHER **ER REPLACING ONE DUMB NPC STRUCTURE ANCHORING/SHOOTING GRIND WITH ANOTHER YOU **ING MORON
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:07:00 - [110] Edited by: xttz on 11/11/2009 17:07:02 Originally by: CCP Sisyphus - if you destroy the hub, or take the outpost and then loose your blockades, you get to keep the progress you made so far. How is this progress preserved for outposts? Say the attacker takes the outpost after its second reinforcement timer, but the hub is still intact. Can outposts be ping-ponged back once taken if the system is still contested, or do they go invulnerable and remain owned by the attacker until SBUs are destroyed?

Ukucia Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:07:00 - [111] So, attacker anchors his SBUs, and successfully conquers the outpost. Defender comes back from vacation, drives off the attacker and destroys all of their SBUs. How does the defender take back the outpost? Do they have to anchor SBUs, thus making their own iHUB vulnerable?
Emerald goldeye Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:14:00 - [112] In Dominion, both Outposts and Infrastructure Hubs will have a dual reinforcement timer, one for shields and one for armor. 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. So, if its +- 8 hours random timer. Lets say timed 1200 eve time, it will come out of reinforce from 400 till 2000. Is it correct? Btw how this +- 8 hours random timer will be calculated? x
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:15:00 - [113] 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
Telender Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:20:00 - [114] This seems interesting and I will certainly give it a shot before making a formal opinion. One thing I am VERY concerned with is the fact that we will have billions worth of sov towers laying around that literally NOBODY is going to want to buy while at the same time needing to purchase the equivalent worth of upgrade hubs and upgrades to claim sov in our existing systems (all while freightering it from highsec in the 1 week window when many of us have finals and such). That CCP is not allowing some sort of structured buy-back of sov towers at NPC prices seems more than a little unfair to me.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:22:00 - [115] Updated my chart yet again. Clarified that SBUs can be placed by anyone and that the system loses invul when the defenders loses majority. Finding the option to change language in Visio was an impossible for me task so I might still have missed some Pnuka, suck it. Originally by: Pnuka Originally by: sg3s armour Don't get too picky eh, lemme guess, British?
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:25:00 - [116] Originally by: sg3s Updated my chart yet again. Clarified that SBUs can be placed by anyone and that the system loses invul when the defenders loses majority. Finding the option to change language in Visio was an impossible for me task so I might still have missed some Pnuka, suck it. Originally by: Pnuka Originally by: sg3s armour Don't get too picky eh, lemme guess, British? Great, but still pink. ≡v≡ [red]Please resize sig to a file size
Rage Trade	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:25:00 - [117] LOL randon reinforced timers. LOL the defender can't take the fight to the attacker because attacking structures are invulnerable inside the defenders system. "Hey guyz! we were attacked during the night and all our s* is in reinforced. What do we do now?" "Just go ratting because we can't do s* for about 24h." And we still don't have a figure for the costs of anchoring and maintaining the TCU and SBU.
0dos0 H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:25:00 - [118] Lets not have to destroy the inf HUB, please?
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:26:00 - [119] Originally by: Rage Trade LOL randon reinforced timers. LOL the defender can't take the fight to the attacker because attacking structures are invulnerable inside the defenders system. "Hey guyz! we were attacked during the night and all our s* is in reinforced. What do we do now?" "Just go ratting because we can't do s* for about 24h." And we still don't have a figure for the costs of anchoring and maintaining the TCU and SBU. Hi, I have no idea what I just read and am going to make a random dumb post. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Farrellus Cameron Sturmgrenadier Inc Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.11.11 17:27:00 - [120] Where are the i-hubs going to be seeded? Can we get them seeded in 0.0 outposts? ----------------------------------------------------

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.

EVE's WeekendWarrior	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:10:00 - [151] Some quips: 2x and potentially 4x timers to blow through? The hitpoints on the stations and hubs better not be massive. It should be "shoot for 30 mins" and it's reinforced". Will edit later and link to details with a blog post. * * * * * Tony "EVE's Weekend Warrior" Blog @ evewarrior.com Twitter @ twitter.com/evewarrior
Virtuozzo The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:10:00 - [152] Originally by: sg3s 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. Great chart man, don't let it be the last update :-) Also, still epicly pink ...
Quesa Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:20:00 - [153] Edited by: Quesa on 11/11/2009 19:24:50 I'm a bit displeased that the new structures are too large to be transported in even a maxed out JF. This seems like the addition of artificial hindrances to those alliances who live at the very outskirts of New Eden. JF's were built to help with deep nullsec logistics and simply bypassing their purpose seems downright vindictive. The ability for attackers and defenders to give a time range for structures to come out of RI provides too much control. A set timer was much better because it allowed for groups to come into a system and "ninja" RI a POS with the hopes that a) the defender didn't have a stronter near to adjust the timer and b) give yourself a reward for alarm clocking for a favorable timer. I'd much rather see this current mechanic adopted in the new system. SBU's should not run parallel RI timers with the other structures in the system. An attacker should be forced back to the system intermittently to maintain SBU control. The maximum amount of time an SBU should be invulnerable is 24 hours. This would provide more fights, which I assume is the purpose of the system.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:21:00 - [154] Originally by: Smurphy1 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. 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 count combo.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:26:00 - [155] I hope all the newer space-holders are reading this, you have some serious work to do before Dec. 1st. Minerals to mine, isk to make - spam outposts like there is no tomorrow. Blot out the 0.0 Suns with your freighters! Up to four extra days of defence/offence with a station present - per system. Better get to work minions! Sounds like it might be able to spawn some pretty intense fighting in station systems - now all CCP needs to do is find some way to ensure that whomever blobs the hardest doesn't automatically win and we can rename 0.0 to "Paradise".
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:28:00 - [156] From the blog: "Your own alliance logo will be proudly displayed for all to see" Will it just display the default Star thingy in the blog picture or does this mean say the custom image will be displayed that some alliances have. If it is the custom image, does this mean you've finally fixed the process so those without a custom image can submit and finally get them accepted and in game? Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:29:00 - [157] 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 count combo. Wow, this is information that was totally unavailable prior to this comment, and might actually make assaults attractive--assuming you guys fix the upgrades to something worthwhile. Eve is totally the best-documented MMO out there. :brofist:
Wu Phat	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:33:00 - [158] 1. How about if you anchor a SBU it stays online only until A. the defending forces TCU is destryed where the SBU's auto's offline. B. You have 3 hours grace period to anchor and online the next SBU if not done on time the SBU auto's offline and goes into 12 hour waiting period before it can be turned back on. It can also be destroyed and another SBU can not be depolyed in it's place.If There is another attackers SBU in system that one goes into a reinfocred mode for the 12 hours making it invulnable. 2. Defenders should beable to deploy SBU's but not in the same way as attackers. Example: Attackes have SBU's on 2 of the 4 gates to slow him down I depoly 2 SBU's on the others. But my SBU's Only last for 4 hours and Auto's offine. For doing this Overloads my sov systems gate network and I can not depoly SBU's on thoose gates for 72 Hours. By defending my SBU's I have effectively stoped my attackers advance for 12 hours and mybe destroyed the none reinforced SBU. Giving me more time and mybe making my attacker rethink his idea of conquest over my system. If I win battle after battle that is.
Smoke Adian Caldari League of Gentlemen Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:36:00 - [159] I know you guys have an aversion to cool/logical names (i.e. disregarding the often suggested GalNet vs. "New Eden" for the social network), but FLAG and STOP were nice names and seemed to be popular with the community. Why change the names to something boring and uninteresting?
iP0D	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:40:00 - [160] Originally by: Smoke Adian I know you guys have an aversion to cool/logical names (i.e. disregarding the often suggested GalNet vs. "New Eden" for the social network), but FLAG and STOP were nice names and seemed to be popular with the community. Why change the names to something boring and uninteresting? Probably thought it was less roleplaying or boardgame like.

Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:46:00 - [161] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Smurphy1 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. 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. Super important information, that should of been in the blog. Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. -Mitnal
Eint Truzenzuzex	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:47:00 - [162] Edited by: Eint Truzenzuzex on 11/11/2009 19:48:16 Greetings to the hive, have to rewrite it
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:47:00 - [163] On the topic of system upgrades, if I got this (and the sov upgrade) blog right, the way to take out cynojammers, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. is to kill either the hub or the outpost. Is this correct? In other words, if the hub is gone, is the ability to use the upgrades lost, and do the respective achorables go offline? Likewise, if the outpost is lost, will the anchorables — and the effects they confer — be lost as well? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:56:00 - [164] Originally by: Tippia On the topic of system upgrades, if I got this (and the sov upgrade) blog right, the way to take out cynojammers, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. is to kill either the hub or the outpost. Is this correct? In other words, if the hub is gone, is the ability to use the upgrades lost, and do the respective achorables go offline? Likewise, if the outpost is lost, will the anchorables ù and the effects they confer ù be lost as well? You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. But yes your other options are destroy the hub which will offline anything which requires an upgrade (the important change here is we pause, not cancel S&I jobs unless the array is destroyed or unachored at which point the job is lost). There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline.

Henri LeChasseur	Posted - 2009.11.11 19:58:00 - [165] This looks awful.
Hyperforce99 Gallente Infinite Covenant Xenogenesis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:00:00 - [166] 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. Damn,I was hoping they would be near the sun. Perhaps the glare would make combat there to hard... then again we do get the new shiny planet graphics Perhaps not so bad after all.. --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Fuujin GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:04:00 - [167] Originally by: CCP Chronotis You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. But yes your other options are destroy the hub which will offline anything which requires an upgrade (the important change here is we pause, not cancel S&I jobs unless the array is destroyed or unachored at which point the job is lost). There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline. Serious question here: when should we expect the sov upgrade/maintenance devblog Mk II? This claiming/disputing system looks fairly solid on the surface, but without worthwhile upgrades the point of the system gets lost--plus the existing 0.0 people need to plan for the "week of hell" where infrastructure needs to be built up, and waiting until the 11th hour to release that info will make for very unhappy people (and you thought they were upset now? )
Darth Sith Genbuku. Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:10:00 - [168] For clarity: In order to online a supercap array you need to have a) sov b) resource hub c) capital upgrade. Even though the resource hub is invulnerable, will the capital upgrade remain invulnerable as well ? So if I understand this correctly, to produce a supercap, an alliance has to get sov, anchor resource hub, anchor capital upgrade and pay a monthly premium for the priviledge but to destroy said capital in build requires only that a superblob (read goon jehad) come into your system, reinforce the tower in question and pop it the next day. Maybe (and hopefully) I am over-simplifiying the situation but this does not seem balanced. Could we maybe replace the sov ticker on a pos with a capital ticker that can only be checked with the upgrade in place to maybe give the tower an extended reinforcement timer if a supercap array is present ?
Dharh Gallente Ace Adventure Corp	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:20:00 - [169] This looks awesome.
Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:23:00 - [170] Originally by: Darth Sith For clarity: So if I understand this correctly, to produce a supercap, an alliance has to get sov, anchor resource hub, anchor capital upgrade and pay a monthly premium for the priviledge but to destroy said capital in build requires only that a superblob (read goon jehad) come into your system, reinforce the tower in question and pop it the next day. you are correct to destroy a CSAA all that is needed is to destroy the POS. The new sov mechanics make this easier.

Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:25:00 - [171] Originally by: CCP Chronotis You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. […] There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline. Ah, I somehow took the upkeep blog's mention of anchoring those upgrades "at starbases" as meaning at outposts and making them part of that set of targets, which would make them hard to knock out without a full-on system attack, but that clears things up. Thanks. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:32:00 - [172] Is this the new 'emo rage' thread? /me wonders how long this thread will take to reach 100 Why are goons crying the most over the new sovereignty changes?
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:32:00 - [173] I will admit this might be slightly less of a grind than POS warfare but structures that can only be shot after a set timer runs out are just as bad an idea as they are under our current sov mechanic. A tug of war capture mechanic I came up with for my own suggestion for SOV a while back would likely work better in dominion. The defending alliance's structure has a timer with 12-18 (or something) hours on it. When another alliance shoots the structure that timer begins to count down. If the timer reaches 0, ownership switches to the attacker and the timer begins to count upward. The key here is that the defender can, at any time, shoot the structure and move the timer back in its favor. The attacker can, of course, take it right back. Under this mechanic the holding alliance will be pushed to control the timer as long as possible even past their prime. The other alliance would be pushed to take control as soon as possible, even before their prime. Fights would be far more likely. In dominion, just like now, fleets would have time to size each other up before the reinforced timer runs out and the smaller fleet will most likely back down leading to another booring POS...er TCU grind. As a bonus, using such a timer for TCUs would make the extra complication of SBUs unnecessary. Simplicity FTW. Colonies and Capitals
Mithfindel Aseyakone	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:32:00 - [174] It's funny how people can't comprehend a system that is this simple. At least if you've read the test server thread. Siege: The siege is active when the majority of the gates are covered by blockade units. Otherwise, the siege is inactive. The units can be owned by anyone, and any offline units can be online by anyone. Onlined blockade units are always the property of the corp which onlined them, so anchoring offline units means you're effectively inviting someone to steal your large POS-priced space epeen and disrupt your sov. Stuff(tm): Station and/or infrahub, as applicable. Sov(tm): An online territorial control unit. Your Stuff can be shot if the siege is active and the Stuff in question is not reinforced. Your Sov can be shot if you don't have any Stuff in the system. Even if the defender counter-spams an infrahub, there's a time window equal to the infrahub anchor + online time to shoot the sov down. If the sov is down, the defender's infrahub can't anchor and/or online. Blockade units can be shot if the siege is inactive, the unit is not online or there is shootable Stuff or Sov in the system. Strategic level of the system: How long the sov (unit) has been online? Sov down -> reset Military/industrial level of the system: How much the system is used? If unused -> decays. If infrahub down -> NOT reset. If the capture does not disrupt the activity level, increased system value does persist and the new owner can instantly install upgrades to the infrahub. Technically, this would allow for someone to rat, mine and do profession-stuff to "build" the system, and then sell the system, or in a more likely case, transfer developed systems between alliances in the same block by an alliance voluntarily unanchoring their sov, made easier if the corp owning the station jumps alliances in the process? If the infrahub cannot be unanchored when offline (offlined by unanchoring the TCU in this case) then things become a bit more complicated as it must be shot. (Unless the builders do their magic without an infrahub.) Also, decay means that the defending alliance does have a possibility of burned earth tactics - if they have no chance on keeping the system, stop everything related to the military and industrial indices, and harass anyone trying to improve the indices for a while, and the system loses its added value. And finally, the infrastructure not mentioned above (like POS) are invulnerable only when reinforced. This means that any CSAA's can be shot anytime, since there is no "make my POS invulnerable" upgrades like sov 4 was. Naturally, shooting said supercap POS will be easier after your fleet has shot down the cynojammer and you can have caps, too. If you're strong enough to try to take the system (i.e. destroy the infrahub), reinforcing the POS should be pretty much an afterthought, so shooting down the infrahub only to disrupt CSAA's does sound nonsensical. (At the same cost you could kill the TCU and likely plant your own.) The only unclear bit to me is the status of stations in systems with no sov. If I am reading right, there's no reinforcement timers, only ping pong? Because if there's reinforcement timers, having sovereignty in station systems where you don't plan to build any upgrades becomes useless, unless you want to pay six million per day (TCU + infrahub) more for two extra reinforcement timers. So, the alliance in question would save 6M a day for stations they want to keep solely for "scorched earth" purposes or "ghetto sov" (it's not officially mine, but you die if you come there) in empty regions. Of course, if I'm correct and no sov = no reinforcement timers, then this tactic doesn't work, since you can technically have any corporation come and shoot your station to capture it. (Fallback to the pre-sov mechanic when there's no sovereignty in the system.) Naturally, if the sov comes with statistics (hinted when renting was mentioned) then it might be a valuable intel tool.
Rigeborod	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:36:00 - [175] And BTW let us imagine alliance A having prime time at 10 and other alliance (B) having prime time at 13-14. For Alliance A they will need to kill TCU in the Alliance B prime time (I'm talking about systems with only TCU in it, no HUBs or Outposts) cause of 3 hours online time. On other hand Alliance B can easily destroy TCU as SBUs would be online when everybody in A is sleeping. That's not fair as A is equal to B.
Jordan Musgrat H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:42:00 - [176] Originally by: Altaree WTB Faction SBU's that alter the system's stats for 10x the base cost. (like in WH's) or maybe just act as cyno jam killers, or cyno beacons, or ....head explodes This would be sooooooo awesome :) ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:44:00 - [177] Originally by: Quesa I'm a bit displeased that the new structures are too large to be transported in even a maxed out JF. This seems like the addition of artificial hindrances to those alliances who live at the very outskirts of New Eden. Consider that any attacker will face the same problems and therefore will think twice or even more often if it is really worth to attack there. So the longer distance and higher logistics will be more annoying. But they give you the benefit that it gives you also more protection - at least a bit more. Because people do not like increased logistics and will attack elsewhere first. The 'it is unfair because it means more logistics for us' is only a narrow view of the situation and doesn't take into account the side-effects.
Jordan Musgrat H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:54:00 - [178] Edited by: Jordan Musgrat on 11/11/2009 20:54:54 Originally by: Trent Nichols I will admit this might be slightly less of a grind than POS warfare...... I hate to come in here and defend CCP, since they've still got alot of work to do, and there's other parts of Dominion that need superfixing, but it's not at all your post. There's 1 TCU, there's 2-4 SBUs in most systems. So while a high moon count system would mean that you might need 30 poses to take it, on top of killing that many, or maybe more, you know that an attacker is going to try to put 2-4 SBUs down, that after they're online, he'll want to attack your outpost/ihub, and after that, your 1 (single) TCU. The timeframe is acceptable, and on the whole, it's lightyears better than the current system, especially if you take into account the awesomeness they'll be able to add later as we or they think of it. So it might not be perfect yet, but it's a huge step in the right direction. That's all we can expect, and at least on this mechanic level, that's what's being given to us. Now if they can only fix the upgrades, the sov part of Dominion will be epic indeed. I'm already getting the Navy Dominix this expansion, so I can't bring myself to complain too much. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Sauer Hase	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:54:00 - [179] Two guestions: What happens to the hub and outpost HP when SBUs are destroyed and they become untargettable? do they get full hp or stay damaged (and unreppable as you can't target them)? If they stay damaged killing them just became much easier as you can dictate when they can be repped. Also second question: how much do you need to rep a hub / outpost for it to get it's reinforce timers back?
Katrinazinski	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:56:00 - [180] Improved "Lawless Space." Coming to a SandBox near you soon. DO NOT ENTER "Lawless Space" before reading all of its special rules and regulations, including the fine print. There is no law here. - - - - - - Please try to follow the K.I.S.S. principle with the new toys, even if this is a Beta test.

Smurphy1 Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.11 20:59:00 - [181] Originally by: Sauer Hase Two guestions: What happens to the hub and outpost HP when SBUs are destroyed and they become untargettable? do they get full hp or stay damaged (and unreppable as you can't target them)? If they stay damaged killing them just became much easier as you can dictate when they can be repped. Also second question: how much do you need to rep a hub / outpost for it to get it's reinforce timers back? This is the next big question that needs answering. I think probably the best solution is that they repair themselves over a 24 or 48 hours period. Instant repair seems too overpowered and having them sit damaged is not a good choice either.
Inferno Styx Caldari Division of Dying Stars Solyaris Chtonium	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:06:00 - [182] 24 hours sounds like a solid number to me. It gives an active attacker the chance to come back and finish the job while at the same time allowing an active defense the ability to fight of occasional attacks
Ma'al Raer Failswarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:07:00 - [183] The most stupid thing about this system is that it limits the amount of player decisions and interaction in terms of defence and attack times. Now you put x amount of stront for x amount of time reinforced, and when you tower is being attack you can go in and take or add stront to try and define your strategy in terms of reinforced time. The attackers can "kite" the towers to try and end this manipulation of stront an get the timer to they time zone. Now you will have a clock with a random var in the mix ... wtf? Either the random var is going to be huge and the defenders get shafted by it or its going to be so small that its a constante ping pong of time zones because a EU alliance will always put their timer for EU and a US alliance will never get it to US time, they haven't got a single chance of trying to manipulate the final result. The game is no longer a sandbox you just have to accept what it tells you to do.
Czix Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:23:00 - [184] Originally by: Ma'al Raer [snip] The game is no longer a sandbox you just have to accept what it tells you to do. As opposed to now?...
Elisean Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:28:00 - [185] This is the perfect time to make warp speed important/varied. hint hint just based on what your talking about with splitting up opponents and what not. I don't know what it is but there is something about warp speed that makes it seem like if a battleship enters warp, and then I enter warp in an interceptor, we both come out at sorta the same time. it would be cool if I came out far beforehand, or something like that. ALso, you're confriming with this we can lose all of the upgrades? Please give an intensive for grinding up for a 100 days to get level 4 mission income that can be lost in a war.
gttwo	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:30:00 - [186] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Smurphy1 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. 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. So, there's absolutely no point in a small-ish corp going out to 0.0 and securing a bit of space under the umbrella of a larger alliance and investing in say, the military and industrial upgrades of a system...cuz the sponsoring alliance will simply wait for the system to get fat (like a cow on a farm) and send the little corp to the slaughter house (like a cow on a farm). amirite?
Hyperforce99 Gallente Infinite Covenant Xenogenesis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:34:00 - [187] So, will upgrades be structures that attach to the IHub maybe much like the complex structures we tend to see in deadspace? Or will they be scripts or something of the kind we need to install in the IHub? --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/
Nick Bison Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:39:00 - [188] Originally by: gttwo So, there's absolutely no point in a small-ish corp going out to 0.0 and securing a bit of space under the umbrella of a larger alliance and investing in say, the military and industrial upgrades of a system...cuz the sponsoring alliance will simply wait for the system to get fat (like a cow on a farm) and send the little corp to the slaughter house (like a cow on a farm). amirite? Not sure but, can a corp do any of this space holding? From what I recall, it was for alliances. I'll go back and re-read but would appreciate any clarification.
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:50:00 - [189] Originally by: Teck7 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. I'm sorry if someone already got to this post before i read it and responded.... BUT HAVE YOU ANY CLUE ABOUT WARFARE? the defenders NEVER get to choose when its convient for them to defend their space. DUH! this ain't lets make warfare nice and even so the defenders have a chance to hold their space. No your chance is the timers so you know your being attacked and can rally to counter it. Not to baby you and let you fight on your time.
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 21:52:00 - [190] Edited by: Bilbo II on 11/11/2009 21:52:46 Nothing changed there. Only alliances can claim sov. I'm sorry if someone already got to this post before i read it and responded.... BUT HAVE YOU ANY CLUE ABOUT WARFARE? the defenders NEVER get to choose when its convient for them to defend their space. DUH! this ain't lets make warfare nice and even so the defenders have a chance to hold their space. No your chance is the timers so you know your being attacked and can rally to counter it. Not to baby you and let you fight on your time.

Wacktopia Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:06:00 - [191] This is getting me all excited. Screw butterfly effect videos and stick to flowcharts! \o/ Looks like Dominoes will be an interesting release!
Venzon 2003 Beach Boys Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:08:00 - [192] 1. Is it possible to use system jammers in every system or just in station systems? 2. Can u set specific hour for RF timer or u define it like atm for poses?
Gil Danastre Amarr Aeon Of Strife	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:14:00 - [193] Edited by: Gil Danastre on 11/11/2009 22:14:35 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. So to clarify, if say Alliance X has an ihub with a level 5 industry mod in it. Alliance Y comes in, blows the hub up and takes control. They then put their own hub online. They will have the ability to put a level 5 upgrade in right away?(assuming no decay) If so, it makes sense. The incentive to take a highly upgraded system is still there, it just costs the attacker some isk to replace the destroyed hub + mods.
CynoNet Three	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:16:00 - [194] Originally by: Venzon 2003 1. Is it possible to use system jammers in every system or just in station systems? 2. Can u set specific hour for RF timer or u define it like atm for poses? 1. Every system, so long as you have a hub with the relevant upgrade 2. You set a time of day in the management window for hubs and outposts. For example if I set 14:00. A random interval is added or subtracted from that, which was up to 4 hours on the last patch I checked. This means the reinforcement timer would be randomly between 10:00 and 18:00.
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:19:00 - [195] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Tippia On the topic of system upgrades, if I got this (and the sov upgrade) blog right, the way to take out cynojammers, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. is to kill either the hub or the outpost. Is this correct? In other words, if the hub is gone, is the ability to use the upgrades lost, and do the respective achorables go offline? Likewise, if the outpost is lost, will the anchorables ù and the effects they confer ù be lost as well? You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. But yes your other options are destroy the hub which will offline anything which requires an upgrade (the important change here is we pause, not cancel S&I jobs unless the array is destroyed or unachored at which point the job is lost). There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline. I'm kicking myself for reading/typing so slow. I had just realized that this might very well be the case, and was composing a post to inquire about it when I came across this post. I missed my one and possibly only opportunity to look smart. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:26:00 - [196] How does it really matter if industrial and military upgrades remain or not? They will decay anyway if the winners of the fight dont pay enough attention to it, and with the announced cost of them (50M-500M) it wont be worth it to start an invasion for some upgrades.
VonRijSE Phoenix Tribe Cult of War	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:30:00 - [197] now that outposts can also be a danger and a (to big?) cost to an alliance to protect and even more could be build ( you do have taken action to get more people in 0.0), will it ever be possible to destroy outposts?
SpaceMonkey99	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:33:00 - [198] I might be missing something, and it is unrelated to the soverignty holding/disruption mechanic which you guys are talking about, but when the TCU's go online based on the sovereignty held prior to dominion launch, due to the script that looks at ownership retrospectivley. Will the soverignty holding alliances start incurring the associated bills immediatley under the new mechanic?
Mr Opinions	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:41:00 - [199] Originally by: Venzon 2003 2. Can u set specific hour for RF timer or u define it like atm for poses? On Sisi, both the hub and the outposts have separate RF "clock" you set to some GMT time. The random effect is some +/- couple of hours or so around that time. That applies to both RF timers. So as a defender, you have rough control over when the hub/outpost comes out of RF regardless of when it is attacked.
Tommy Blue Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:56:00 - [200] Originally by: Raketefrau 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. They are useless for defending hubs, but they can still defend the TCUs, unless new restrictions on where they can be placed have been added.

Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:56:00 - [201] Who is supposed to get the mails for attacks on Hubs, stations, TCUs or when SBUs are anchored? Corp or alliance?
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 22:58:00 - [202] Originally by: Tommy Blue Originally by: Raketefrau 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. They are useless for defending hubs, but they can still defend the TCUs, unless new restrictions on where they can be placed have been added. As well as the now much more vulnerable CSAAs. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:06:00 - [203] Maybe it's just me, but this new system seems overly complicated and could probably be slimmed down a bit to improve the fun factor. The previous dev blog on the sov system seems more like the way to go....simple and achieves the same goal. Also Abathur, stop by the supercarrier thread please and let us get some feedback! Thanks
kamdem Caldari Solitude Empires	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:12:00 - [204] Originally by: Hertford 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. Well the way i read it, you can place the SBU's take the outpost and leave the Ihub. Its not your system as such but you own the only place to dock and its got some juicy upgrades. Might have a bit of a station ping pong though :D
Crias Taylor GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:13:00 - [205] Originally by: gttwo Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Smurphy1 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. 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. So, there's absolutely no point in a small-ish corp going out to 0.0 and securing a bit of space under the umbrella of a larger alliance and investing in say, the military and industrial upgrades of a system...cuz the sponsoring alliance will simply wait for the system to get fat (like a cow on a farm) and send the little corp to the slaughter house (like a cow on a farm). amirite? If the renters decided to boot you it's either because are becoming a threat, didn't pay rent or just annoying. Otherwise they would just own the system fr the start.
Rhonnen Arctic Flying Penguins Hellstrome Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:22:00 - [206] 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.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:31:00 - [207] Edited by: Isaac Starstriker on 11/11/2009 23:35:17 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. CCP has said no to this due to Database reasons. Its why you can't build more than 1 outpost in a 0.0 system. They are looking into it though, but don't count on anything. @all those who keep saying there is less tactics. Umm, so yeah, flying to a moon and shooting an object multiple times is....tactful? lol...since its restricted to at most 6 stargates (not sure on this...) it makes seige and defending a lot easier than currently. Also, there are many different tactics that are involved in this now. Just because you can't figure it out isn't CCP's fault. --Isaac --Isaac Signature is now under construction: check back in a couple weeks. AMAAR VICTOR! "You just can't fix stupid"
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.11 23:48:00 - [208] It was stated in the blog that sov time will be backdated for the purpose of wether you had sov long enough to anchor the cynojammer for instance. will the index's also be backdated the same way? ie: If there has been a whole lot of rat killing going on in the system ,will it be possible to immediatly upgrade to lvl 3, 4 or even lvl 5 on the rat magnet on day 1 of dominion?
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:41:00 - [209] Edited by: Kanatta Jing on 12/11/2009 00:44:26 Originally by: Furb Killer How does it really matter if industrial and military upgrades remain or not? They will decay anyway if the winners of the fight dont pay enough attention to it, and with the announced cost of them (50M-500M) it wont be worth it to start an invasion for some upgrades. Early projections point to 10,000 ships destroyed to make Military level 1, the hardest level to gain, because after that you have no limit of ships to blow up. It is nothing to do with the ISK value of the upgrades but in not having to rat 10,000 ships to start everything rolling. Edit - Especially in a 3 belt system
Treelox Amarr Evolution IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 00:51:00 - [210] Will SBUs require "fuel"? Will SBUs and TCUs be something of an ideal sig radius for Dreads to shoot at, or are Dreads even more niche(useless) than before? So it is possible for an attacker to gain control of the outpost(docking rights), without having gained sov(killing the TCU)? 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. Sig Zone Signature picture is inappropriate. Please change. ~Weatherman

Altaree The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:08:00 - [211] Can I place defenses around a TCU like I do with a sov claiming POS? Can those defenses be manned? PLEASE!?! --Altaree
SXYGeeK Gallente do you Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:13:00 - [212] Originally by: Altaree Can I place defenses around a TCU like I do with a sov claiming POS? Can those defenses be manned? PLEASE!?! you can place the TCU anywhere, try near a POS, It needs to be outside the POS control range (50km i think) but you should be able to defend it there with POS guns. -We So SeXy
Altaree The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:36:00 - [213] Originally by: SXYGeeK Originally by: Altaree Can I place defenses around a TCU like I do with a sov claiming POS? Can those defenses be manned? PLEASE!?! you can place the TCU anywhere, try near a POS, It needs to be outside the POS control range (50km i think) but you should be able to defend it there with POS guns. Except for all the default ones unless there is a way to move the TCU's without losing Sov... --Altaree
Xikorita Mob Thought	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:58:00 - [214] The way I am seeing this, the only purpose to destroy an oppo sov in system is to **** with their upgrades etc and nothing to the attacker. I propose that when you win and put your upgrade structure down, it gets the loser stats -1 or -2 on each item. So at least we wont have to grind it over.
Anikadir DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 02:56:00 - [215] I don't think there will be any minimalism to the tactics needed to take systems. You will still need firstly, the logistics of getting anywhere from 2500m2 to 10000m2 worth of SBU's to the system that is the target (not much different from deploying a large sov gaining POS or two), and then secondly, getting them all positioned and on-lined within a defined period of time (which is longer than onlining POS's). And all the while doing this under-fire from the defenders in the system under attack and in the pipes leading to that system. And looking at some of the other changes in the Dominion pack, I wonder how much damage a death ray firing Titan will do to an onlining SBU? First there was Meh, now there is Bleh.
Trabber Shir Caldari 5I Incorporated	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:25:00 - [216] Originally by: sg3s 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. There is one really big mistake. the first note says that defense can place SBUs and needs to maintain a majority. In fact, all SBUs, regardless of who placed them, count for the attackers. Only 'empty' gates count toward defense.
Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:42:00 - [217] Originally by: SpaceMonkey99 I might be missing something, and it is unrelated to the soverignty holding/disruption mechanic which you guys are talking about, but when the TCU's go online based on the sovereignty held prior to dominion launch, due to the script that looks at ownership retrospectivley. Will the soverignty holding alliances start incurring the associated bills immediatley under the new mechanic? yes they will but the first bill for all sov will have already been paid.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.12 04:13:00 - [218] yep... 750,000 m¦ of hub will be a piece of cake for aspiring entities fp - putting the gist back into logistics
gnome blood	Posted - 2009.11.12 04:51:00 - [219] Originally by: Roemy Schneider yep... 750,000 m¦ of hub will be a piece of cake for aspiring entities fp Sweet, blowing up that freighter will also make the damn thing just disappear with the wreck! No moving stuff from a can to cargo in a freighter, remember? Good thinking!
Arronicus Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2009.11.12 05:11:00 - [220] Originally by: Xikorita The way I am seeing this, the only purpose to destroy an oppo sov in system is to **** with their upgrades etc and nothing to the attacker. I propose that when you win and put your upgrade structure down, it gets the loser stats -1 or -2 on each item. So at least we wont have to grind it over. Great job on not actually reading through the dev posts. As it currently stands, what you are suggesting IS the case. If a system has military level 5, and industry level 5, and strategic level 5, and an enemy takes sov, the military and industry level will only drop to what they would have decayed to over the period of lessened ratting and mining activities. it is ONLY the strategic level that will drop to 0.

Mioelnir Minmatar Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik	Posted - 2009.11.12 07:50:00 - [221] Originally by: gnome blood Originally by: Roemy Schneider yep... 750,000 m¦ of hub will be a piece of cake for aspiring entities fp Sweet, blowing up that freighter will also make the damn thing just disappear with the wreck! No moving stuff from a can to cargo in a freighter, remember? Good thinking! There are actually a few exceptions to a freighter's locked cargo in space. - 50km around an online control tower - launching an outpost egg - 5km around a freighter wreck
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:04:00 - [222] Edited by: Teck7 on 12/11/2009 08:06:56 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)
Barqs Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:12:00 - [223] Agreed, Why not save us hours and pointless hours moving POSs. Barqs-

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:25:00 - [224] Originally by: Treelox Will SBUs require "fuel"? No. Originally by: Treelox Will SBUs and TCUs be something of an ideal sig radius for Dreads to shoot at? Yes. Originally by: Treelox So it is possible for an attacker to gain control of the outpost(docking rights), without having gained sov(killing the TCU)? Yes. Quote: 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...

Virgo I'Platonicus 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:41:00 - [225] Edited by: Virgo I''Platonicus on 12/11/2009 08:41:34 This would have been bloody awesome. (referring to the considered possibility of outpost totalhelldeath) <3
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:48:00 - [226] IBTT (in before the Threadnought) reading blog now, comments to come "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:00:00 - [227] Originally by: CCP Abathur ... we have looked into 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. ... Now this is a feature that I see as holding true to philosophy of Eve. ===============
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:12:00 - [228] Just putting this out there, but if "consolidation" is the order of the day why not look into removing the limit on one outpost per system.
Tairon Usaro The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:14:00 - [229] i do not like the new mechanism because it lacks strategical depth. As long as you can pick each and any system on the map for an attack this system is still far too volatile and will not server the purpose. this is a dead foal ..... What CCP calls "dynamic" is something i call "arbitrary". To my eyes there is few benefit for builders to build player empires if the mechanics is that volatile. if give you hint about how flawed this mechanic is: Sov shown on the map will not tell you anything about influence. We will end up will knowledge based, hand drawn maps that show the claims and influence of player alliances, because the sov mechanic does not give you a hint (like before 2007). it is totally dubious that a dead end system can be more easily taken than a hub system having many gates ..... it is illogical that alliances will claim only spots of systems and engross the space in between these spots out-of-game but ingame-mechnicwise unclaimed To fix this, a simple addition to the placing rules of SBU (STOPS) would help 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 With this mechanism the rules for attacking stations and hubs and need not be as tight as presented in the blog. The claimed system that are not enforced with outposts or hubs serve as strategical buffer. Sov claims on the map would mean something and show the true size of a player territory. Yes it would not be as "dynamic" as CCP likes to see it but it would not be as static as the POS warfare. In the end my fear is that the current mechanics will end up in a EXODUS part 2 mess, because all the builders see no point in living in 0.0 As a consequence the PvPers will be missing targets and thus PvP will have no deeper motivation and crippled to the non-sense PvP we see in so many other MMOs ________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ...
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:17:00 - [230] It was stated in the blog that sov time will be backdated for the purpose of wether you had sov long enough to anchor the cynojammer for instance. will the index's also be backdated the same way? ie: If there has been a whole lot of rat killing going on in the system ,will it be possible to immediatly upgrade to lvl 3, 4 or even lvl 5 on the rat magnet on day 1 of dominion?

Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:17:00 - [231] Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 Hm i kept reading the blog several times,and spoke with few corp mates,but still one thing bugger me. Ok outpost and tcu are to be 2x reinforce time,but those reinforced time will end randomly,yeah you will be able to set time but with deviation,and what part of the actual time the deviation will take off or add. Before you were actualy able to set the pos timers exactly as you want them,now we have unknown variable in the equatation... And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses

CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:30:00 - [232] 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.

FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:41:00 - [233] God this system seems complex. Although POS Sov was flawed, at least it was as basic as knifey-spoony. At the moment, it seems easier to take chokepoint systems than hub systems, which appears to be oxymoronic. What I do the rest of the time
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:42:00 - [234] Originally by: FireFoxx80 At the moment, it seems easier to take chokepoint systems than hub systems, which appears to be oxymoronic. counter-intuitive at the least. "Misina Arlath GIRL = Guy In Real Life MMORPG = Many Men Online Role Playing Girls."
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.12 10:16:00 - [235] Repeating this because it is a potentially key issue, and CCP seem to be reading this thread now. How is progress preserved for outposts? Say the attacker takes the outpost after its second reinforcement timer, but the hub is still intact. Can outposts be ping-ponged back once taken if the system is still contested? Is the defender able to shoot the outpost and retake it so long as the hub is alive? Can they then rep it and make the attacker reinforce it again? Are SBUs still invulnerable once the outpost is finished off and captured?
Zargyl Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 10:41:00 - [236] Just as a side not from someone not involved with this sov thingy: Sounds interesting and the pic of the TCU is neat! Especially the integration of the respective alliance logo is great (with the default alliance logo in the one posted)! Making it more like a true "flag" (seems to me the next best thing to being able to name "your" systems).
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:10:00 - [237] Quote: 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. Yeah just that you still need to maintain 23/7 control on the system just to make sure your sbu are safe and to bully the defender,as there is no set mark of total tcu you can anchor lets imagine. The system gets attacked and we have 3 markers and 8 poses,so to make things harder we just anchor 5 more on our poses,and why we should anchor them on stargates,when on deathstar pos with gunners and support fleet we may run the attacker ragged. And yeah what will this system change from now,we will still have systems with cynojamers with capitals under it,oh yes no more dd,but a lot more tcu and ect to shoot. And 1 more thing we will still need to shoot the poses in the systems just to clear and to remove the danger for warp ins on us from them and to remove the enemies ability to ss on them of course. And yeah this thing with timers with unknown variable is weird.
Raphael Scoria Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:12:00 - [238] I'd hoped that the new system would shrink empires and encourage new, smaller alliances out into 0.0. To do this it needed to ensure the following: - Make it hard to defend and pay for lots of space. - Make it (relatively) simple to hold and defend small amounts of space, to give the little guys a chance and an incentive to rebuild even after being hammered to a single system. - Make it really profitable to have your people concentrated into an area that's just a bit bigger than what is easy to hold. You bottled it on the first point by shrinking away from high payments. If you'd upped the profitability instead of cutting the payments and given bonuses on space held (as well as penalties that work by a different curve, to give a "sweet spot", you'd have satisfied the third criteria. This sov system will let the big guys (us, Atlas, AAA and the NC in particular) headshot any newbies that turn up, while also letting us maintain sov across huge areas that will be a horrendous grind to take, the attackers always having to hope for a lucky roll of the random element to edge the timers towards them, and passing on the times that they don't. Still, this system could work, if balanced with all alliances facing holding far less space, and with it just marginally more in favour of the defender, to shield the little guy a bit.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:13:00 - [239] Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: FireFoxx80 At the moment, it seems easier to take chokepoint systems than hub systems, which appears to be oxymoronic. counter-intuitive at the least. Think of it as a paratroopers drop (or helicopter landed troops) behind enemy lines to create a bridgehead. After all it will require to cino your invasion force after you have infiltrated a ship with a cino generator.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:44:00 - [240] 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. wait, I thought TCUs had to be on planets? can you put them behind pos shields?

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! EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
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. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
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. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
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 224 and 248 (only 224 or 124). -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. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
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. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.

Megan Maynard Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:29:00 - [271] So let me get this straight...... 1. CCP has added MORE bunkered up structures to spend hours on shooting. (More now with a 48 hour timer.) 2. You cannot shoot anything now unless you drop the equivilent of a large pos, in most cases more then one of them, into a system and anchor it. So before it was: 1. Large hitpoint structures that protected some things. 2. Everything else could be shot at. So essentially, CCP is making people shoot at even MORE non-piloted items, for even more time, and you have to drop multiple large pos's in order to shoot at anything. Awesome failure..... Originally by: F'nog Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down. Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:49:00 - [272] Assume that I have an iHub or outpost coming out of reinforced in a system with two gates, both of which have STOPs. If I destroy a STOP as soon as the iHub comes out of reinforced, will that render the iHub/outpost invulnerable again? Also, how does invulnerability work? Are the invulnerable structures untargetable? If so, in the situation above, how do I rep my structure?
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:06:00 - [273] Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:08:57 I was thinking about how these changes could possibly work in the Eve universe. Why are we paying taxes to Concord? How do we put up structures that increase rat numbers etc. Here is a suggestion to explain this and help to balance some things out. Concord still partially patrol 0.0 and keep down the various rat Empires. By putting down military structures we are taking over some of Concords jobs - and because Concord are not patrolling there is an appropriate increase in rat numbers. We should then be paid by Concord for this - allowing alliance/corp income (whoever is paying the sov bill). This should take the form of a reduction in the sov bill for the system. At military upgrade 5 all sov costs should be zero - because Concord no longer come here at all and we are back to being genuinely independent - a proper nation with no wretched outside interference. This would give some RP logic to this horror. It would help to generate some real alliance income/savings and a reason for them to encourage people to rat in their space. (I'd still prefer you put it all on hold and did this properly from a real RP in game perspective that doesn't assault the sandbox.)
Gideon Kross Caldari Kross Industries Ltd	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:17:00 - [274] Originally by: Aralis Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:08:57 I was thinking about how these changes could possibly work in the Eve universe. Why are we paying taxes to Concord? How do we put up structures that increase rat numbers etc. Here is a suggestion to explain this and help to balance some things out. Concord still partially patrol 0.0 and keep down the various rat Empires. By putting down military structures we are taking over some of Concords jobs - and because Concord are not patrolling there is an appropriate increase in rat numbers. We should then be paid by Concord for this - allowing alliance/corp income (whoever is paying the sov bill). This should take the form of a reduction in the sov bill for the system. At military upgrade 5 all sov costs should be zero - because Concord no longer come here at all and we are back to being genuinely independent - a proper nation with no wretched outside interference. This would give some RP logic to this horror. It would help to generate some real alliance income/savings and a reason for them to encourage people to rat in their space. (I'd still prefer you put it all on hold and did this properly from a real RP in game perspective that doesn't assault the sandbox.) CONCORD was Never out there... DED was. DED setup the gates (and maintained them). This is why even in the depths of 0.0 you get DED rated Complex Anomalies... They did the Exploration, and still maintain the gates (proprietary hardware/software), this is why the Upkeep is being paid to Them (DED)... Not CONCORD. ... Just say'n. - Build a man a Fire, and he'll stay warm for as long as the fuel lasts. Set a man Afire, and he'll stay warm for the rest of his very short life. -
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:22:00 - [275] Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:23:10 DED = Direct Enforcement Division (I think) of Concord. Neither Concord nor DED or any such set up the gates. They were done by the various alliances in the old days. Mostly the Gallente and the Amarr. Maybe DED/Concord maintain them - who knows?
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:30:00 - [276] Originally by: Tairon Usaro Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 12/11/2009 09:19:15 i do not like the new mechanism because it lacks strategical depth. As long as you can pick each and any system on the map for an attack this system is still far too volatile and will not server the purpose. this is a dead foal ..... To fix this, a simple addition to the placing rules of SBU (STOPS) would help 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 your logic is flawed. First off for point A. this would completely kill the expansion as is because then in order to attack someone you would need the space next to you enemy claimed or open. All an alliance has to do then is get friendly alliances to surround their space and then they would have no worry of losing their sovereignty to war. to point B. no point to this. mainly because if your going to attack someone you want to lay as many SBU as you need to threaten their system as quickly as you can. This is an actual rule in warfare, element of surprise grants initiative which in turn makes it easier for you to fight. the timers are there to allow the defenders to respond to an attack which should be enough of a span to rally and counter attack. it breaks the station ping pong people hated and still allows for a similar combat system for attacking systems. ALSO, if you make it that you have to attack their borders then you completely kill practically all strategy in system warfare. I understand there is logistics involved in trench warfare but look at WWI. they spent months fighting for meters of land. IF you make it limited to attacking borders and not per say flanking your enemy and going after one of their core systems you take an element of warfare out that really makes it emergent and alive. Originally by: Raphael Scoria Edited by: Raphael Scoria on 12/11/2009 11:18:48 You bottled it on the first point by shrinking away from high payments. No they didn't. they made it more accessible to claim space now. To make sure in keeping with you first point all they have to do is scale the cost of holding more space appropriately and it will work. simple math equation can do that.
Leumas Kharzim Amarr	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:32:00 - [277] Edited by: Leumas Kharzim on 12/11/2009 19:34:37 nvm
Kernok	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:36:00 - [278] if your going to make changes to the game at least make changes to IMPROVE the game and its gameplay
Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:53:00 - [279] Two easily implemented suggestions that I think most people would agree would be useful/nice: 1. Please can you allow Sovreign system holders the ability to create/edit an auto-post 'Message of the day" type post that is seen by pilots jumping into that Local. This would be very useful and allow individual alliances the ability to inform others of their Sovreign politics/policies like "NRDS/NBSI","No ratting","Contact X for mining rights... etc". 2. Please make the new structures have associated blueprints (or purchasable BPCs) rather than seeding them directly on the market. Two reasons for this are: i) Hauling structures to Deep 0.0 regularly (like SBUs) is a chore and stops real immersion into 0.0 ii) It would give 0.0 based Manufacturers a decent market and another incentive to produce something in 0.0 rather than resellers always ruling the roost. I'm still reading the blog, but I wanted to suggest these simple additions before I forgot them! Cheers, Vyk. *****s
Manuka	Posted - 2009.11.12 20:23:00 - [280] Originally by: Megan Maynard So let me get this straight...... Unfortunately you got it twisted ...

Joe Starbreaker The Fighting Republicans	Posted - 2009.11.12 20:30:00 - [281] Originally by: Megan Maynard So let me get this straight...... 1. CCP has added MORE bunkered up structures to spend hours on shooting. (More now with a 48 hour timer.) 2. You cannot shoot anything now unless you drop the equivilent of a large pos, in most cases more then one of them, into a system and anchor it. Yeah, point #2 especially stands out. Let's look at the chart of prices for PVP content: 1. Factional warfare = free. 2. High-sec corporate war = 2 million/week 3. High-sec lliance war = 50 million/week 4. ??? 5. 0.0 warfare = BILLIONS per month per system in upkeep, multiple BILLIONS in SBUs every single time you want to attack/harass somebody. Clearly there's something in the middle price range that you're missing. This expansion is supposedly intended to attract more people to 0.0, but all I see it doing is shutting out small corporations and alliances entirely. When you have to lay out billions of ISK in large-POS-equivalent SBUs just to attack, you're definitely not going to take a chance at fighting anybody you aren't already sure you'll beat. I like that CCP are doing away with POS warfare, but POS warfare had one advantage. Namely if only a couple of you are online, you still have the option of reinforcing your neighbor's POS in order to harass and afflict them. In other words, guerrilla tactics, war of attrition. In Dominion, pursuing the same kind of harassing tactics cost a billion ISK in POS towers. ... The Fighting Republicans now recruiting for a 2010 comeback campaign!
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.12 20:30:00 - [282] Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 12/11/2009 20:32:38 Originally by: Leumas Kharzim So, what if it was designed so you could only contest a system if any of the bordering systems are not owned by the sovreign alliance? Or, in other words, you are unable to contest a system if all bordering systems are owned by the same alliance. This would still preserve a semblance of borders. If any bordering system is unowned, you may contest and potentially claim the system. Larger alliances could still claim systems and put renters in place in bordering systems, but having friendly alliances sharing borders wouldn't help any (with regards to this mechanic). You are missing the point. IF when declaring war on an alliance you can only attack their borders then you have effectively limited the attackers choice to a hand full of systems. Currently you can attack any system in the universe and now you want them to make it so you can only attack their borders? Wars of attrition not only get old fast but aren't so much fun. But who knows you may be onto something. Grinding away at an enemy is more fun than hitting them with a left hook or flanking them to add some spice into the fight. I didn't know we wanted more grind in this release anyway. But yes in a way you are right. ANYTHING they do would still preserve boarders because that is what sovereignty is. claiming space and making boarders. what were talking about is attacking their space. In now way should this NOT be volatile. War is volatile... such is life live with it. keeping things open and emergent is the goal here, and quite honestly restricting where people can attack is not doing that. Edit: Originally by: Joe Starbreaker Originally by: Megan Maynard So let me get this straight...... 5. 0.0 warfare = BILLIONS per month per system in upkeep, multiple BILLIONS in SBUs every single time you want to attack/harass somebody. uhhh guys... they already lowered the price of the gear. since you all seemed to have missed it these are the current sisi prices unless they changed since yesterday. TCU: 1m ISK / day Hub: 5m ISK / day Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day CSAA: 1m ISK / day
Nareg Maxence Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.12 21:15:00 - [283] As I read the article, defenders can't put down SBU's to defend their system. As it would disrupt their own sovereignty, it would be counterproductive to the cause of defending. SBU's are for the aggressors.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.12 21:45:00 - [284] Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Beeing deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gatecamp making it harder for you to regroup). What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part. This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested. If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00 If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00 ------------------------------ Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Seneram Caldari B'haxed Productions The Dominium	Posted - 2009.11.12 22:24:00 - [285] http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1213450&page=1 Sign this petition befor they lock this one (We reached over 300 signs on the old one then a mod locked it to quiet down the playersbase!!!) Read the current changes to the Titans they made recently aswell as motherships, And now they are also making it a all new POS warfare system??? SIGN IT! At show CCP that you disslike the expansion!!! ------------------------------------------------- PewPew
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.13 00:10:00 - [286] Originally by: Typhado3 Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup). What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part. This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested. If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00 If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00 Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked. This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k?
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.11.13 02:24:00 - [287] Originally by: Lolion Reglo Originally by: Typhado3 Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup). What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part. This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested. If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00 If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00 Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked. This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k? Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person. The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier. ------------------------------ Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Kaydin Versailles	Posted - 2009.11.13 02:45:00 - [288] Originally by: Typhado3 Originally by: Lolion Reglo Originally by: Typhado3 Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup). What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part. This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested. If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00 If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00 Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked. This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k? Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person. The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier. That doesn't make any sense. It will already be harder, naturally, because you're going for the center of someone's territory. You have to go through more gates, where more of the enemy's people spend a lot of their time, to get to your objective. Then there's other, less obviously, but still blatantly obvious reasons such as how it takes more time to go through more gates, allowing the defender more time to assemble a fleet and protect itself and it will be harder to leave because the enemy may be covering your exits since it's within their space anyway. Why, when the goal of your proposal is already reached naturally, would you suggest some artificial system that makes less sense?
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.13 02:59:00 - [289] Originally by: Kaydin Versailles Originally by: Typhado3 Originally by: Lolion Reglo Originally by: Typhado3 Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup). What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part. This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested. If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00 If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00 Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked. This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k? Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person. The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier. That doesn't make any sense. It will already be harder, naturally, because you're going for the center of someone's territory. You have to go through more gates, where more of the enemy's people spend a lot of their time, to get to your objective. Then there's other, less obviously, but still blatantly obvious reasons such as how it takes more time to go through more gates, allowing the defender more time to assemble a fleet and protect itself and it will be harder to leave because the enemy may be covering your exits since it's within their space anyway. Why, when the goal of your proposal is already reached naturally, would you suggest some artificial system that makes less sense? basically what he said without the sarcasm that mine was laden with.
Resender	Posted - 2009.11.13 08:07:00 - [290] I have a better question, how are we gonna get the hubs to 0.0. From what I heard from people on the testserver there 750.000 cubic meters (that makes regular freighters the only ships that can ship it). Which means we won't be able to get them up in 0.0 for a long time (making sov pretty much useless). The prices are reasonable (if you compare to the cost of taking a system and you needed more then 3 or 4 large control towers). Where CCP has frelled up is that they didn't think this expansion through enough (altough still better then what it would have been if EVE was an EA Games product).

Mortisia Manson	Posted - 2009.11.13 08:17:00 - [291] One question.Why should anyone take the risk ,amount of time and money needed to conquer a enemy solarsystem when its upgrades are destroyed in the process ? I meen why should someone do that if he can upgrade a system next door without taking any risk and spending less isk? Combinig both military and civil use to the infrastucture hub will definately eliminate options for the military strategy too. Because its reducing warfare to a simple destruction derby in terms of infrastructure. (another isk sink?) In warfare you should have following choices: 1. Limit the capability of the enemy to wage war through destroying Civil and military infrastructure. 2. Take advantage of the enemys civil infrastructure by taking over a solarsystem without destroying civil upgrades. 3. Limit enemy iskflow by only destroying civil upgrades.
Manuka	Posted - 2009.11.13 08:43:00 - [292] Originally by: Mortisia Manson One question.Why should anyone take the risk ,amount of time and money needed to conquer a enemy solarsystem when its upgrades are destroyed in the process ? This is partially wrong: The military and industrial index are kept when you capture a system. Look at it in the following way: You capture a city, its industry is kept, but you need a new bureaucracy set in place. That¦s what your iHub and its upgrades are for.
Hjakona	Posted - 2009.11.13 08:48:00 - [293] If the Infrastructure hub didnt haveto be Destroyed in the process of taking over the system then it would make the deal sweeter for the attacker and it would allso encourage defender to retake it. Give the Infrastructure Hub a big Structure HP buffer. This would keep the option open for 'Scorched Earth' while still leaving the option open to save it. It will be hard work to Repair Structure/Armor/Shield HP but it would be worth it for a valuable I-Hub. This gives more options: 1# Attacker can attack a System in an attempt to take it over and live there using the existing I-Hub. 2# Attacker can attack a system just to destroy the enemy's ability to earn Isk and to force him to move away with no intentions of claming the system himself. 3# Defender can try and destroy the I-Hub to prevent the enemy from using for his own benefits (Scorched Earth), now the Attacker has to try and defend the I-Hub if he wants to keep it. 4# Defender will have more reason to try and retake the Sov if the I-Hub is still there. This would add more scenarios and possibilitys in the Sov warfare. Its Interesting, when decribing Dust 514 at fanfest 09 then the Dust 'Marines' were described as a tool for taking over the planet without having to resort to destroying the planets 'Infrastructure' with Nukes. It sounds to me that the only way of taking over Sov in a System in EVE will be to 'Nuke' the infrastructure.
Manuka	Posted - 2009.11.13 08:49:00 - [294] Originally by: Kaydin Versailles Originally by: Typhado3 Originally by: Lolion Reglo Originally by: Typhado3 Just a thought, with this system enemies can attack anywhere they want easily. Being deep inside your own space only makes a difference of it's easier for you to get to and harder for them (but it also could allow them to split up your forces by setting up a gate camp making it harder for you to regroup). What I'd suggest is that if a SBU is at a gate that leads to a system controlled by the defender it's effectiveness will be reduced to say 51% efficiency. However if the system on the over side is currently contested (your attacking both systems at once) it will only be reduced to 75% efficiency or might just work at 100% not sure on this part. This means if you decide to try and go for a system deep in enemy space that has say 5 gates you have to hold all 5 gates to have the required 51% contested. If the 5 gates system was at the edge and only 1 connected system was same sov you would hold any 3. If you held 2 normal and 1 connected it would be: 1.00 + 1.00 + 0.51 = 2.51/5.00 If it was a 5 gate system with 3 connected systems you would either need both non-connected systems and 1 connected system: 2.51/5.00 OR all 3 connected systems and 1 non connected system: 0.51 + 0.51 + 0.51 + 1.00 = 2.53/5.00 Why are people who have no clue how to fight wars coming out of the wood work to suggest how to fight? Your logic is also flawed. War is ugly. war is supposed to be hard. Its not supposed to have mechanics to deter people from trying to take core systems from their enemy. the entire POINT of even attacking someones core systems instead of their boarders IS to split their forces and perhaps set up ambushes along the way to the system being attacked. This is what you call tactics. i know its a hard concept for you care bears to understand so why don't you quit talking our of your ass on this one?....k? Please argue with the idea instead of trying to insult the person. The system I proposed still allows you to take systems in the middle of enemy space and lets you take chokepoints or points along a common route. All it does is add a cost to this of needing to put up and defend 1 or 2 extra SBU's. If you try and fight an enemy in the middle of their space it should be harder or else everyone will just choose to go straight for the middle and ignore the outsides till the enemy is gone cause it's far easier. That doesn't make any sense. It will already be harder, naturally, because you're going for the center of someone's territory. You have to go through more gates, where more of the enemy's people spend a lot of their time, to get to your objective. Then there's other, less obviously, but still blatantly obvious reasons such as how it takes more time to go through more gates, allowing the defender more time to assemble a fleet and protect itself and it will be harder to leave because the enemy may be covering your exits since it's within their space anyway. Why, when the goal of your proposal is already reached naturally, would you suggest some artificial system that makes less sense? Additionally you have the possibility to attack the core of a country right now also in rl. You just put some airborne soldiers in a hercules and drop them over a enemy capital. I know this is not a really detailed comparison, but I hope you get the concept. A basic concept in EVE is, that everybody can use the gates. So you can freely move within New Eden as long you meet a hostile force. As Kaydin said, if you manage to move your force to the center of the enemies space, it is fine. Keeping the ability, to strike your opponent right to his heart, in the game, should be number one priority.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.11.13 10:20:00 - [295] What I dislike especially at this expansion is the complete discarding of the sandbox approach. Oh CCP, why did you do that? Take for example the TCU's. They are huge fat targets, but you cannot shoot them. Why not? We SHOULD be able to shoot and hit them. A sandbox approach would allow us to shoot at everything we see with some effect. The theme-park approach allows you to do only those things which the designers thought you should be allowed to do - and everything else is impossible. Same with the grinding and levelling for upgrades in the system. A sandbox approach would have automatically updated the space without the need to instally anything and smoothly would count every little effort into improvement of the system. Theme park, again, artificial and allows you only to do what the designers want you to do, grinding and levelling. I could go on like this. But the conclusion is clear: THE SANDBOX IS DEAD! Also the sov changes of this expansion completely ignore in-game logic and consistency. As example, take again the TCU's. They are somehow magically immune to get locked (not sure about smartbombs though). The explanation on Sisi goes that some sort of miracle defence protocols disables the ship's capabilities to specifically lock this target. I didn't know that a target needs to agree to get locked ... And also several points to that idiotic explanation: a) if such protocols would exist, why don't have anyone else them? Bribing/threatening the manufacturers of those protocols shouldn't be difficult. Reverse engineering neither. b) Why can pod pilots who are semi-gods! control every aspect of the ship but are unable to do something simple as locking a huge target? c) why can't we just part a fake-target 1m away from the TCU, shot at the fake target and damage the TCU this way? -> It all makes NO sense. A solution for making the sov system consistant would be that each gate powers the TCU to a certain degree (the power drawn from the gates and the space distortions there would make it possible for the TCU to have 99.9% resitances on shields and armor). If the enemy places power disruptors (the SBU's) at enough gates, the TCU would lack power and become vulnerable - unless the TCU can get backup power from the IHub and/or a station. In that case the IHub and station needs to be shot down and captured first too. Now, how difficult would it be to come up with such a story? It takes only A LITTLE EFFORT and the will to do so. IT IS NOT TO LATE! The story behind the TCUs, SBU and such can still be changed (with a little bit of game mechanic changes, 99.9% resistance instead of total immunity etc). Consider that, make it at least a little bit less horribly aritifical. The long term goal of CCP is to make the best available sci-fi 'simulator' ever. It won't go anywhere if they fail at doing such a simple task as making their expansions consistent within their own game universe. It all is just another sad thing. It shows to me that CCP has really lost its true spirit and goal. They seems to become just another mmo company, nothing special dreams and visions any more.
Mithfindel Aseyakone	Posted - 2009.11.13 11:20:00 - [296] Originally by: Aralis (RP justification of the upgrades.) The "gate tax" is a bit difficult to "explain", since if the system is not claimed, the gates seem to run perfectly well without any support. So, the best way to put the cost of the TCU and the infrastructure hub would be pretty close to "alliance taking over CONCORD duties", actually - not patrolling the place, since all DED (CONCORD's military arm) ever did in 0.0 was occasional raids. However, the TCU (cost: 6 million) does capture some of the ship telemetry that CONCORD usually uses in Empire. The upkeep is the cost of the personnel and fluid router operating costs. Note: If I understood correctly, the infrastructure hub is in the latest scheme free (cost transferred to the TCU). So, the I-hub is there just so that you can add things that actually do stuff to - which cost extra as more scanners and computers are installed. And where the hand-waving all comes together: After the TCU has processed enough data from the capsuleer ships mining ore, killing (NPC) pirates etc., it is possible to install scanners and feedback links back to the player ships so that the capsuleer ships in the system can find otherwise hidden pirate outposts (more anomalies, more likely complexes) or hidden resources (gravimetric sites, gas sites etc.) with the help of the TCU. Obvious hole in that hand wave is, of course, the fact that the TCU and infrahub upgrades "help" friend and foe alike, but that's where it all comes together: CONCORD sells the equipment and contracts the people running it. (After all, the upgrades are bought from CONCORD), and ultimately, CONCORD doesn't care about the alliances (as long as they don't come fighting CONCORD). This explanation still doesn't explain it all - for example, I fail to see what motivation CONCORD would have to help alliances with an average sec status of -10.0, but perhaps they still hate the NPC pirates more. (Win-win for CONCORD: the alliances pay it, and at least on the case of military upgrades, kill CONCORD's enemies.) Finally, strategic upgrades... well, they just take time to get a license to install. And remember to fill form DOP-547389M in triplicate when you file the application to install level three strategic upgrades, right?
Mithfindel Aseyakone	Posted - 2009.11.13 11:38:00 - [297] Originally by: Gnulpie (Long post about in-character inconsistencies in the system.) Well, the most importantly, it needs to be a balanced mechanic. It needs to have reinforcement times (preferably a few) to avoid time zone based sovereignty ping pong. Much of the stuff could be hand waved as the other infrastructure reinforcing shields/armour on other infrastructure, so it becomes invulnerable. This explains TCUs pretty nice. (If SiSi has "you can't touch this" messages, I'd personally prefer just 99.99% resists with a good shield regeneration rate on the TCU.) There are some, though, that are hard to explain. Most importantly the SBUs making the station vulnerable. The only possible explanation would be again falling back for CONCORD - if you think about it, CONCORD are pretty much the Big Brother for capsuleers, seeing all and reacting pretty quick, too. To accomplish that, they pretty much have wiretapped every pod. You could assume that the station invulnerability is there to protect the innocent civilians on board, transmitting an IFF signal, repeated by the jumpgates. SBUs block the repeaters and scramble the signal. Now, why the hell CONCORD would sell such devices in the first place - and anyway, since the new mechanic involves shooting armour instead of the old one (shooting shield overrides defenses) it actually has a higher chance of (imaginary) civilian casualties, which again doesn't make sense. Partial fix would be having the NPC pirates sell the SBUs, but that would perhaps favour too much the alliances holding the NPC regions. However, the mechanic is still fiction-wise better than the old "I have had more starbases in the system for seven days, therefore my station is invulnerable" - something I wouldn't even try to explain in "realistic" terms. (Except by CONCORD governing civilian life and letting the station be captured by the sovereign alliance only.) And oh, we're playing a space game with submarine physics.
Aion Amarra Minmatar Real Nice And Laidback Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.13 12:11:00 - [298] Nyphur: I'm not sure about the CURRENT Sisi version, but I took down two outposts with Bato on Sisi two or three patches ago. Back when we did that, the reinforcement timers always were 48H + whatever is needed to get to target time. e.g. 1. outpost set to 13:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 23h reinforcement timer. 2. outpost set to 15:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 1h reinforcement timer. Plus/minus the random variance, which at the moment(?) is +/- 1 hour, but was considerably larger back when we did it (more like +/- 4 hours). Can anyone confirm/deny this is how it -still- works on Sisi? Shooting an outpost down with a single dread is more than arduous.
Manuka	Posted - 2009.11.13 12:21:00 - [299] I think most 0.0 alliances give a crap about the role playing background of sovereignty. They are playing a game of power and influence. Where one block dominates the other one. The question is now: How are you making this game fun? By shooting 30 POS in a system only to see that they are setup again the next day, and you have to shoot it again? The suggested system seems to put more action into the game (meaning battles will be players vs players, not players vs pos) but also address the issues of timezones and EVE not being rl.
Kalexander	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:04:00 - [300] Could an attacker place MORE than the 51% SBU's with the intention of mitigating the aspect of the defenders getting lucky and popping 1 of them (thus lowering them below the necessary amount of SBU's to contest.)? Creating a buffer for their offensive more or less?

Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:45:00 - [301] Originally by: Kalexander Could an attacker place MORE than the 51% SBU's with the intention of mitigating the aspect of the defenders getting lucky and popping 1 of them (thus lowering them below the necessary amount of SBU's to contest.)? Creating a buffer for their offensive more or less? This is a great question. To add in the same vein: 1) Can you anchor more than one SBU at a gate? Is it a per gate limit or per alliance limit? 2) Can more than one SBU be online at a gate? 3) Do SBUs have the same hp/resist when anchored as online? 4) Is the ability to anchor/online tied to corporate roles, like Starbase Configuration Manager? 5) Is there a per-day limit on the number of SBUs an alliance may anchor? 6) Will the 5 per day limit per system on anchoring POS be removed when this goes live? As the poster above notes, if there is no limit on SBUs per gate, it would probably be to an attacker's advantage to drop 3, 4, maybe even 5 SBUs on each gate. Certainly if you're attacked by more than one alliance, you would likely see multiple SBUs on each gate if they're serious about taking a system.
Hunter GlobaGateways Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:02:00 - [302] CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread CSM wake the **** up. Most people i talk to think its 100% wrong to have fundamental changes to their life put to them with no possibility to change any of it. This is called a democracy. Do the opposite of what the people want and you will lose your public support and their vote, or in this case, the money from 0.0 people. Or let's call it all of the endgame content related people in eve. CSM did not get this stuff prior to it being proposed. CCP, you are deleting your paying peoples feedback, while most of the end game gets treated right now, like a 3 year old kid that changes his mind 5 times a day. Is this the way of a company I used to believe in? I run a alliance that existed with its founding people intact since 2003. I can tell you this CCP, right now we are raging mad. the reason is, you have always listened to the people before, its why we always believed in you, you listened and acted on it, and for that, we continued to have faith in you. Right now, there is nothing to prove that you listen at all. Its not just this thread, its most of all you are doing with this patch. The CSM did not get this stuff prior to anything, there was no vote, there where feedback from them and you failed to take note. Not only that, but the exact thread of opinions and user feedback that you need to run your company gets deleted. Hint, you are doing it all fundamentally wrong right now. stop listening to the users and you will see bad press like you never seen before. WAKE UP you owners and share holders of CCP
Tierius Fro	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:09:00 - [303] I have been following this thread for days, and do not believe any posts have been deleted. They ARE listening to players, just not the ones who sit on mostly empty 0.0 systems, with a sovereignty mechanism that makes it easy to do so.
Tippia Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:30:00 - [304] Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread Fortunately, no. You confusing this thread with the other one, which is still there in its 100+ page glory (granted, they've removed some posts from it, but still…) ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:32:00 - [305] Hunter I suspect you have this thread confused with the other one on the upgrading and upkeep blog. Far as I know they haven't deleted anything. Though yes they clearly aren't listening. This patch is totally wrong from the ground up. Twiddling the numbers might help slightly but it's not dealing with the real issues.
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:42:00 - [306] Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread CSM wake the **** up. Most people i talk to think its 100% wrong to have fundamental changes to their life put to them with no possibility to change any of it. This is called a democracy. Do the opposite of what the people want and you will lose your public support and their vote, or in this case, the money from 0.0 people. Or let's call it all of the endgame content related people in eve. CSM did not get this stuff prior to it being proposed. CCP, you are deleting your paying peoples feedback, while most of the end game gets treated right now, like a 3 year old kid that changes his mind 5 times a day. Is this the way of a company I used to believe in? I run a alliance that existed with its founding people intact since 2003. I can tell you this CCP, right now we are raging mad. the reason is, you have always listened to the people before, its why we always believed in you, you listened and acted on it, and for that, we continued to have faith in you. Right now, there is nothing to prove that you listen at all. Its not just this thread, its most of all you are doing with this patch. The CSM did not get this stuff prior to anything, there was no vote, there where feedback from them and you failed to take note. Not only that, but the exact thread of opinions and user feedback that you need to run your company gets deleted. Hint, you are doing it all fundamentally wrong right now. stop listening to the users and you will see bad press like you never seen before. WAKE UP you owners and share holders of CCP ZAF is to all alliances as BTLS is to OHGOD c/d
Hunter GlobaGateways Caldari The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.11.13 19:36:00 - [307] Originally by: Aralis Hunter I suspect you have this thread confused with the other one on the upgrading and upkeep blog. Far as I know they haven't deleted anything. Though yes they clearly aren't listening. This patch is totally wrong from the ground up. Twiddling the numbers might help slightly but it's not dealing with the real issues. ure right, and I am wrong, the other thread is still there intact. I retract my post as its the reason for posted. thou, the foundation for my outcry is in short, my view of this patch is simply, I am losing hope and faith in CCP. they are changing to much, 2 many values 2 fast. EVE took a long time to mature, and this stuff here, the rate its going at, might just upset most of 0.0 endgame
Tierius Fro	Posted - 2009.11.13 20:12:00 - [308] Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways this stuff here, the rate its going at, might just upset most of 0.0 endgame This would appear to be the intent.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2009.11.14 11:45:00 - [309] Originally by: Aion Amarra Nyphur: I'm not sure about the CURRENT Sisi version, but I took down two outposts with Bato on Sisi two or three patches ago. Back when we did that, the reinforcement timers always were 48H + whatever is needed to get to target time. e.g. 1. outpost set to 13:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 23h reinforcement timer. 2. outpost set to 15:00, it gets reinforced at 14:00 -> 2d 1h reinforcement timer. Oh, so they've already tackled the issue. I figured they might have but the devblogs are never written very clearly. Cheers. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
sg3s Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.11.14 16:40:00 - [310] Originally by: Gramtar Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways CCP just removed or deleted out about 120 pages of this thread CSM wake the **** up. Most people i talk to think its 100% wrong to have fundamental changes to their life put to them with no possibility to change any of it. This is called a democracy. Do the opposite of what the people want and you will lose your public support and their vote, or in this case, the money from 0.0 people. Or let's call it all of the endgame content related people in eve. CSM did not get this stuff prior to it being proposed. CCP, you are deleting your paying peoples feedback, while most of the end game gets treated right now, like a 3 year old kid that changes his mind 5 times a day. Is this the way of a company I used to believe in? I run a alliance that existed with its founding people intact since 2003. I can tell you this CCP, right now we are raging mad. the reason is, you have always listened to the people before, its why we always believed in you, you listened and acted on it, and for that, we continued to have faith in you. Right now, there is nothing to prove that you listen at all. Its not just this thread, its most of all you are doing with this patch. The CSM did not get this stuff prior to anything, there was no vote, there where feedback from them and you failed to take note. Not only that, but the exact thread of opinions and user feedback that you need to run your company gets deleted. Hint, you are doing it all fundamentally wrong right now. stop listening to the users and you will see bad press like you never seen before. WAKE UP you owners and share holders of CCP ZAF is to all alliances as BTLS is to OHGOD c/d Hunter /o\

William Caldon Caldari Golden Cross Enterprises	Posted - 2009.11.16 00:41:00 - [311] Originally by: Tierius Fro Originally by: Hunter GlobaGateways this stuff here, the rate its going at, might just upset most of 0.0 endgame This would appear to be the intent. Your of course assuming that 0.0 is the endgame of Eve. Many do not share that value. (Cough all the high-sec people that have no interest in 0.0) Of course, you call them carebears, whiners, chickens, w/e, but in the end, they play in high-sec because they enjoy it. So to all you ppl who keep saying 0.0 is end-game. It is not. It is merely the player-portion of Eve Online. Although I would ask all of you to remember as much as you all want self-government, it is simply not possible in a "fair" MMO. CCP has to do what it thinks is best for the game and just because some of you don't agree with it doesn't mean the whole thing is terrible. It is, however, a step in the right direction. No more spamming 20+ POSes per system to hold sov anymore. That in it of itself is a great thing and anyone who doesn't agree hasn't ever done it. (Or is very neurotic.)
WhiteSavage Ever Flow Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.16 00:47:00 - [312] This blog should have been released first. These mechanics seem realistic and may even add to the fun? :O
Aralis Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.16 00:58:00 - [313] In what way do they seem realistic?!
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.16 18:05:00 - [314] Edited by: Furb Killer on 16/11/2009 18:05:38 In the way that they can realisticly improve gameplay? And i am sure you can find some RP stuff arround it if you really want, for sure it is easier than with the current system. But while i respect RP'ers, gameplay and balance decisions should never be based on RP. (Well if there are 2 equal solutions but one makes more sense RP wise, sure go for that one).
true sight	Posted - 2009.11.17 00:37:00 - [315] Doesn't this new mechanic make dead-end systems totally undesirable and undermine dead-end station systems (there's a LOT for obvious reasons). With the current mechanics; hostile gang jumps in and totally bubbles up a gate, deployed SBU (100% of gates now covered) Gang waits for SBU to come online, they are blocking the only exit/entrance (Bar JBs, which can easily be taken down) In the current mechanic, there are multiple locations for both the attack/defender to attack and defend, with this new system the attack need simply protect a single location at which the point of onlining complete, they then have 2 possible targets. -------------------------------------- True Sight President Foiritan Emissary --<<!SUPPORT DRONES!>>--
Lolion Reglo Demio's Corporation	Posted - 2009.11.17 01:22:00 - [316] Originally by: true sight Doesn't this new mechanic make dead-end systems totally undesirable and undermine dead-end station systems (there's a LOT for obvious reasons). With the current mechanics; hostile gang jumps in and totally bubbles up a gate, deployed SBU (100% of gates now covered) Gang waits for SBU to come online, they are blocking the only exit/entrance (Bar JBs, which can easily be taken down) In the current mechanic, there are multiple locations for both the attack/defender to attack and defend, with this new system the attack need simply protect a single location at which the point of onlining complete, they then have 2 possible targets. cry some more.... no seriously your tears are delicious. Yes your right. dead end systems would be notriously easy to ATEMPT to take. then again if you plan right and have the proper counters it can also be notriously hard to take as well. all the corp ahs to do is have say a jump bridge in there and boom back door. Or if you really knoww hat your doing, have a cyno beacon there at a POS and now your carriers and other ships can jump in to remove the said gate camp. QUit being doom and gloom about this and adapt and survive. but if you want to cry some more id love to hear it...
Trabber Shir Caldari 5I Incorporated	Posted - 2009.11.17 06:06:00 - [317] Originally by: Aralis Edited by: Aralis on 12/11/2009 19:23:10 DED = Direct Enforcement Division (I think) of Concord. Neither Concord nor DED or any such set up the gates. They were done by the various alliances in the old days. Mostly the Gallente and the Amarr. Maybe DED/Concord maintain them - who knows? Concord does maintain them (but not the DED), this was established in the series of news events that were investigating the opening of the drone regions and at least implied in the short story "Forsaken Ruins". As for who built them, not Concord. Concord is about the only major faction that has not been attributed with building gates in the prime fiction. The 4 empires, the Jove, Sansha, the secret society in "Forsaken Ruins", and various pirate factions have all been credited with building stargates either in chronicles, short stories, or mission briefings. And (although it might have been retconned) one of the chronicles said some of the gates in Amarr space are left overs from terran colonization.
Zenithil	Posted - 2009.11.17 06:40:00 - [318] Edited by: Zenithil on 17/11/2009 06:41:10 This still seems like Gate camping to me. So, how has anything changed? Instead of POS bashing, now you got Hub bashing while still camping gates. Even after this change, there is too much empty space and planets not being fought for in the system. There is no mobile warfare, which a galactic naval war is supposed to be like and is depicted in various Chronicles of EVE. Its still, you control the gate, you control the system. It was like that before. Why not use the kind of system that is there for Empire faction wars? Its much more interesting than just Gate camps and bubbles again.
Max Essen Gallente Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.11.17 18:39:00 - [319] Originally by: Zenithil Edited by: Zenithil on 17/11/2009 06:41:10 ... Why not use the kind of system that is there for Empire faction wars? Its much more interesting than just Gate camps and bubbles again. Good point however, interesting or not I do believe that 0.0 control will still be "all about the moons". The new mechanic does at least move away from POS bashing a bit. Guess we'll just have to wait and see
davet517 Raata Invicti Undivided	Posted - 2009.11.18 17:28:00 - [320] Edited by: davet517 on 18/11/2009 17:32:53 I had really high hopes for this expansion, but I'm finding less and less to like. The basic problem to be addressed is that the 0.0 game has reached a state of stasis. The player empires that have been built up over the years have grown so rich and powerful that it is now self-perpetuating, and absent some really radical change in the game dynamics it is going to stay that way. What you are doing here is not that radical change. In fact, if anything, these changes will further institutionalize and insulate the power structures that already exist, and make it easier, not harder, for the few who control the 0.0 game today to continue to do so. I could go into a lengthy explaination of why, but I won't. Suffice it to say, if you did something that would have the effect of threatening the existing power strucutres, the people at the top of those strucutres would be screaming, threatening to quit, etc. You had some of that here, but as soon as those powers started to scream, you backed off. So, things are going to continue as they are. Those who have the power (people, not in-game entities) are going to keep it, and 0.0 is going to remain in a relatively mature, static state that favors the establishment, and those who are willing to rent space from them. Everyone else is going to stay in empire, or freelance in low sec or WH space. More of the same, just with fancier, more complex mechanics. ---------------- We're recruiting quality players. Check us out.

mach18	Posted - 2009.11.18 21:42:00 - [321] As plenty others have pointed out, the entries and exits from 0.0 will still be thoroughly and boringly gate camped. In fact if I was in a big enough alliance I'd have a TCU at strategic entry systems and then you can all just f*(k off and twiddle your fingers in high sec. Somehow or other points of access to 0.0 should be expanded either by broadening the number of acess points or allowing players to jump past choke points. I do understand the fears that CCP may have of disturbing the original game mechanics but just like the change they made allowing jumping to 0kms from gates it will not destroy the fact that being in 0.0 is in itself the inherent danger, not necessarily how you get there. Since say 1 of Eve 0.0 access has been extremely limited.
Kayl Breinhar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.19 10:13:00 - [322] Okay, so the "defender" thing is easy to understand. Shoot the things the attackers anchor. Simple. As for attacking? Seriously...when you made that flowchart did you honestly say to yourself "you know, this makes perfect sense to me and I expect the rest of EVE will understand it as well," or did you say something along the lines of "holy christ, I can't believe how convoluted this is, but it's what we came up with." Even the greenest 0.0 newbie can learn within about his first hour "he who has the most towers gets Sov," but this sort of adds a level of complexity to conquest that's really inaccessible to people aren't big logicians. Because the little flash animation thing you made for explaining Constellation Sov at least sort of walked you through understanding it. This is just...damn. That's all I can really say - damn. You really don't want the "big players" in 0.0 to ever make war again, do you?
Kozely	Posted - 2009.11.19 20:16:00 - [323] nice
Tesal	Posted - 2009.11.20 02:25:00 - [324] If I want to anchor a POS in a system where someone else has Sov will I be able to? Will there be restrictions on what modules I can have anchored if someone else has Sov? never stop posting...with alts. Please do not use inappropriate language in your sig. Zymurgist
CyrusRO	Posted - 2009.11.20 09:26:00 - [325] i didn`t had the time to read all the posts but i do have a few questions : How will affect the WH ppl the new sovereignty system? Will we able to place sovereignty related modules or upgrade the WH to exploit the resources we want to ?
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.20 09:30:00 - [326] Edited by: Bilbo II on 20/11/2009 09:30:56 Originally by: CyrusRO How will affect the WH ppl the new sovereignty system? Will we able to place sovereignty related modules or upgrade the WH to exploit the resources we want to ? Not at all and no
CyrusRO	Posted - 2009.11.20 09:44:00 - [327] i was expecting that answer to be honest... thank you.
Titan Pilot Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.11.20 11:16:00 - [328] Originally by: true sight Second thing I'm concerned about is SBU griefing... Griefing? Are you kidding me? I can't wait for this to happen, good times ahead, good times indeed
Iman Atheist Gangrel Mining and Security High Treason Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.02 11:01:00 - [329] For crying out loud, STOP USING THE WORD "ITERATE" !! It does not mean what you guys think it does. You are using it WRONG. "Iterate" means "repeat", plain and simple. "Iteration" means "a copy of something or a repeated action". It does not even mean "repeated with variations" because there are different words for that... ...and it DEFINITELY does not mean "think through", does not mean "discuss", and it does not mean "spend a lot of time carefully working on something", as you are obviously using it in that context. I'm sorry for posting off topic, but this needed to be said. Dev blogs are serious business. Lrn2English.
TurboDog2 Caldari VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.02 11:43:00 - [330] Overall patch deployment was excellent. Very little server issues. Well done. I need clarification on a couple things - 1. During the grace period, do TCUs have any effect on Sovereignty or is Sovereignty still based on POSs? 2. Can TCUs, placed by CCP, be attacked and destroyed during the grace period? 3. If a TCU was placed by CCP and subsequently moved to a strategic location for defense, does this interrupt Strategic Upgrade timers during the grace period? Thank You.

Nobani Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2010.01.19 16:55:00 - [331] Edited by: Nobani on 19/01/2010 16:55:55 Sorry to necro this thread, but there's a mismatch between the flowchart and the text. Text says: Quote: Once the Hub has been destroyed and / or the Outpost captured, the attacker can attack the defender's TCU and place his own. The flowchart shows that both the IHUB have to be destroyed and the station has to be captured. This is obviously a huge difference. Can you please clarify which is correct?
Amber Macx Applied Physics Institute	Posted - 2010.01.19 22:58:00 - [332] Congrats, CCP, on the epic fail in change of sov mechanics.
Puicu Caldari Rubbish and Garbage Removal Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2010.01.20 11:53:00 - [333] Edited by: Puicu on 20/01/2010 11:54:56 There could be a solution... so you have 48 hours from where HUB is out of 2nd RI and the time Outpost will exit the 2nd RI. After you finish the 224 HUB RI cycles if is possible you could repair HUB and RI twice (224) making SBU INVULNERABLE for all the period (2*48) I don't know if it works, in the worst case you can put SBU from an ally, but I'm not sure if you will reset the sov.


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