Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5835
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:17:35 -
[1] - Quote
On July 14 we are going to see the first culmination of the sovereignty changes aka "Summer of Sov". Traditional sov warfare as we know it will be replaced by a new system as outlined in previous blogs.
With the new system approaching fast, we would like to inform everyone about the transition from the old to the new system and how the new sov system is going to be deployed.
Check out CCP Fozzie's latest blog Summer of Sov - Transition and Deployment for the all the details and information!
Please note that two more sov related blogs will get published in the near future.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Di Mulle
107
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:18:46 -
[2] - Quote
"Sorry, we could not find the item you were looking for."
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3471
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:19:24 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:....
Please note that we two more sov related blogs will get published in the near future. Grammar police! Leave out a word there? "We HAVE two more"
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
5835
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:20:03 -
[4] - Quote
Di Mulle wrote:"Sorry, we could not find the item you were looking for." Please try again, this is most probably an issue with website caching.
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:....
Please note that we two more sov related blogs will get published in the near future. Grammar police! Leave out a word there? "We HAVE two more" You are right. Sometimes less is more.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer - Volunteer Manager
|
|
Sort Dragon
Resilience. DARKNESS.
132
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:27:11 -
[5] - Quote
How under these new mechanics will you transfer sov between alliances? |
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
371
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:28:39 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:1. Politics by Other Means 2. Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report 3. New Details on July Sovereignty Release Schedule 4. This blog! 5. Blog covering details on changes to REDACTED, INCURSIONS, the Door. 6. Final blog summarizing the new capture system in one place.
FTFY ;)
Edit: On a more constructive note, can you please confirm the CSM actually know what the REDACTED is, and won't be all 'OMGWTF' when it's released? ;) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13052
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:29:35 -
[7] - Quote
Sort Dragon wrote:How under these new mechanics will you transfer sov between alliances? For this release you'll have to capture it normally. We are investigating some options for formal sov transfer mechanics in the future.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
274
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:43:45 -
[8] - Quote
Will researched SBU BPO have any kind of transition or buyback based on their research time/level, or will they just be transitioned into TCU BPO after the phase-out?
Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet?
Speaking of the above, will the IHUB now be a global warpable celestial in space so we don't have to hunt down the IHUB in every system? At least now there will only be one, so that eliminates the problem of dead IHUBS, but it's still an annoyance having to hunt it down in every single system and bookmark them.
Not a fan of the TCU/IHUB being deployed as an NPC corp and then required to be Entosis Linked for 12-15 minutes to be captured for the alliance. This creates a window where the structure can be stolen if the opposing force can attack the single grid while it is being captured. Considering how much they cost, this seems like it would create a large incentive for this kind of "sniping". Would rather see the ability to anchor the TCU/IHUB with it owned by the alliance, have to Entosis Link it to online, and if an opposing group pushes you off the grid, they can Entosis Link it to destroy it, then deploy their own. If the defending Alliance has to and can hold grid briefly, they can unanchor the structure and scoop it to be used elsewhere.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 15:43:56 -
[9] - Quote
would not the more appropriate step be rather than things magically exploding in space they get delivered to the owning corporations hq office deliveries.
It seems a bit punative.
additionally CCP are the ones changing the game mechanics why should we the players have to move our SBUS to empire in order to sell them back? This should be like the poco changes where the amount was automatically deposited in our wallets.
Additionally the conversion is unequal 1 sbu is inherently more expensive material wise and isk wise than a tcu. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 16:02:51 -
[10] - Quote
it seems...odd...to announce a nerf like this one to switchable ihubs (which largely deal with the fact that CCP provides no tools to turn strategic upgrades off) a mere seven days before it is to be implemented, with no notice whatsoever
was the CSM looped into this change in a timely way? |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 16:05:58 -
[11] - Quote
do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa? |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 16:13:58 -
[12] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa?
pocos are the anchoring arrow drag drop, they dont need to be on the zero point just a general zone, same with tcus and ihubs (its in the blog the actual ranges) |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1739
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 16:39:56 -
[13] - Quote
Why is there no reimbursement of all the TCU/s and IHUBS? It seems simple enough to cause the script to deposit ISK or the TCUs and IHUBS into a station?
It wasn't an uncommon practice to have peace and wartime hubs afterall.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 16:44:22 -
[14] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa? pocos are the anchoring arrow drag drop, they dont need to be on the zero point just a general zone, same with tcus and ihubs (its in the blog the actual ranges) Yes, but pocos can block outposts if dropped at zero which is why I'm concerned. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13054
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:06:46 -
[15] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Will researched SBU BPO have any kind of transition or buyback based on their research time/level, or will they just be transitioned into TCU BPO after the phase-out? After the phase out, the plan is for researched SBU blueprints will become TCU blueprints while preserving their research level.
Ransu Asanari wrote:Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet? This was chosen to keep the deployment day as simple and smooth as possible, avoiding potential issues that could come from moving the TCUs. Due to the ability to use entosis links at very long range, and the fact that TCUs are much less important than IHubs mechanically, we decided that allowing grandfathered TCU locations would not be too overpowered.
Ransu Asanari wrote:Speaking of the above, will the IHUB now be a global warpable celestial in space so we don't have to hunt down the IHUB in every system? At least now there will only be one, so that eliminates the problem of dead IHUBS, but it's still an annoyance having to hunt it down in every single system and bookmark them. Yes, IHubs are now globally viewable and warpable in the new system.
Ransu Asanari wrote:Not a fan of the TCU/IHUB being deployed as an NPC corp and then required to be Entosis Linked for 12-15 minutes to be captured for the alliance. This creates a window where the structure can be stolen if the opposing force can attack the single grid while it is being captured. Considering how much they cost, this seems like it would create a large incentive for this kind of "sniping". Would rather see the ability to anchor the TCU/IHUB with it owned by the alliance, have to Entosis Link it to online, and if an opposing group pushes you off the grid, they can Entosis Link it to destroy it, then deploy their own. If the defending Alliance has to and can hold grid briefly, they can unanchor the structure and scoop it to be used elsewhere. This is an area where we will be watching closely to see how the gameplay emerges. If such sniping becomes oppressive we have some plans in place to hopefully solve such problems. Your suggestion has a lot of merit, and has parallels with some of the prototypes we're working on for new structures that might be migrated to Sov structures.
Vigilanta wrote:would not the more appropriate step be rather than things magically exploding in space they get delivered to the owning corporations hq office deliveries. You are inherently forcing us to take time + adding risk into the equation for game mechanics changes.
It seems a bit punative.
additionally CCP are the ones changing the game mechanics why should we the players have to move our SBUS to empire in order to sell them back? This should be like the planteary command center changes where the amount was automatically deposited in our wallets.
Additionally the conversion is unequal 1 sbu is inherently more expensive material wise and isk wise than a tcu. Either do upconversion or forced buyback where the amount is the market cost of the materials which make up the product. We'll be doing what we can to ease the transition period for old structures. At the very least you can expect buy orders in NPC nullsec as well as empire space. We are also definitely open to modifying the final conversion plan, as there's still plenty of time.
EvilweaselSA wrote:it seems...odd...to announce a nerf like this one to switchable ihubs (which largely deal with the fact that CCP provides no tools to turn strategic upgrades off) a mere seven days before it is to be implemented, with no notice or comments whatsoever
was the CSM looped into this change in a timely way? This change was actually in the first dev blog about the new system, which stated that;
Quote:Under this new system, only one of each Sovereignty structure can exist in the same system at the same time.
EvilweaselSA wrote:do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa? If the TCU or IHub finds that its first choice of deployment location is blocked, it will automatically move over one grid and try again until it finds an appropriate location. So a POCO in the right spot can force a TCU or IHub to deploy farther away but it can't block deployment. POCOs will simply need to be anchored in a location that doesn't overlap with existing structures.
Aryth wrote:Why is there no reimbursement of all the TCU/s and IHUBS? It seems simple enough to cause the script to deposit ISK or the TCUs and IHUBS into a station?
It wasn't an uncommon practice to have peace and wartime hubs afterall. The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:11:06 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.
Then drop them in a station. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1739
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:13:17 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.
Ok, but by defining it as large you can see how problematic that is to be deleting 100's of billions in assets around the galaxy with no compensation or refund. If ISK is a problem why not just place the assets (including the upgrades inside) inside the headquarters of the owning corp, or the nearest lowsec system, or any other place accessable. Even Jita if you like.
I know just us it is 10s of billions easily. There should never be a time CCP is deleting large amounts of player assets with no compensation. That is way too far inside the sandbox. I hope you agree on that point.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1739
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:15:04 -
[18] - Quote
Omg, you totally stealth edited in that problematic part. I laughed so hard.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1469
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:18:27 -
[19] - Quote
If you are looking to transfer sov or sell it... Do it now
Yaay!!!!
|
Lavayar
Russian SOBR Dream Fleet
223
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:28:41 -
[20] - Quote
Quote:When a corporation leaves an Alliance, all Sovereignty structures belonging to that corporation will transfer their ownership to the executor corporation. What was that? Is that EvE I played? Or EvE just turned into WoW. Creation of safe ways is not what sandbox about! Don't you think a sandbox way is to explode corporation structures and switch stations to freeport mode? |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1935
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:31:18 -
[21] - Quote
Hi and thanks for the devblog,
- Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events?
- Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves?
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13055
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:43:08 -
[22] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events? 20 is correct for an uncontested freeport station. Each node is worth 5% of the structure control. In an attack/defense event both sides start off with 50%, in a freeport mode the NPC corp starts off with 100% and all player alliances start at 0.
Altrue wrote:Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves? Yes, index levels are completely independent of structures in the new system. As well, you can actually begin raising your indexes before deploying any sov structures if you're especially worried about being attacked early on. The new owner gaining the benefits of the activity indexes is intended. If you can manage to take a system with strong defensive multipliers, the reward is the temporary advantage provided by those indexes once you hold the system. However to keep holding it the new owners will need to make sure that someone stays active in the system long-term.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:43:30 -
[23] - Quote
So you guys are going to at the very least, be allowing us to turn off or remove Ihub upgrades before this change right?
Because I can see several systems with dual hubs where the one with more upgrades also has a jammer. So you are forcing us into a decision of jamming a system that we no longer want to jam, because that hub has more upgrades, or setting isk on fire. Also any system that we want to jam in the future, is a permanent decision.
Also really don't like your decision to destroy player assets without reimbursement and the complete lack of notice is even worse. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:56:39 -
[24] - Quote
I have to agree -- removing the ability to "turn off" infrastructure hub upgrades by dint of limiting ihubs to one per system is pretty jarring. The old mechanic of keeping multiple ihubs in a system was clunky, but it worked. Despite the fact that this is largely a emergent gameplay mechanic, it would be nice to be able to continue to do it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1739
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:57:11 -
[25] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:So you guys are going to at the very least, be allowing us to turn off or remove Ihub upgrades before this change right?
Because I can see several systems with dual hubs where the one with more upgrades also has a jammer. So you are forcing us into a decision of jamming a system that we no longer want to jam, because that hub has more upgrades, or setting isk on fire. Also any system that we want to jam in the future, is a permanent decision.
Also really don't like your decision to destroy player assets without reimbursement and the complete lack of notice is even worse.
This is the crux of the issue. Because of a possibility something might result in someone making ISK, they are instead deleting the assets of alliances? How does that make sense? Someone might make ISK so lets delete 100s of billions in assets?
Either refund the assets themselves or allow us to do so on our own. However, I would point out a week is not enough time to do so on our own. This is also why we have completely stopped all upgrades to stations. We have to date not received a plan for outpost refunds despite asking several times.
If you cannot even refund IHUBs and upgrades how can the playerbase expect you to handle outposts in any fair manner?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:58:28 -
[26] - Quote
We can't refund these on our own, because we can't get the upgrades out of secondary ihubs. This is just blowing up our assets without any possibility we can recover them. |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:02:39 -
[27] - Quote
Aryth wrote:
If you cannot even refund IHUBs and upgrades how can the playerbase expect you to handle outposts in any fair manner?
There is so much truth in this statement it's not even funny. You really are driving people to push the pause button until you guys figure out what you are doing. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:04:58 -
[28] - Quote
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"
Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:29:31 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vigilanta wrote:would not the more appropriate step be rather than things magically exploding in space they get delivered to the owning corporations hq office deliveries. You are inherently forcing us to take time + adding risk into the equation for game mechanics changes.
It seems a bit punative.
additionally CCP are the ones changing the game mechanics why should we the players have to move our SBUS to empire in order to sell them back? This should be like the planteary command center changes where the amount was automatically deposited in our wallets.
Additionally the conversion is unequal 1 sbu is inherently more expensive material wise and isk wise than a tcu. Either do upconversion or forced buyback where the amount is the market cost of the materials which make up the product. We'll be doing what we can to ease the transition period for old structures. At the very least you can expect buy orders in NPC nullsec as well as empire space. We are also definitely open to modifying the final conversion plan, as there's still plenty of time. EvilweaselSA wrote:it seems...odd...to announce a nerf like this one to switchable ihubs (which largely deal with the fact that CCP provides no tools to turn strategic upgrades off) a mere seven days before it is to be implemented, with no notice or comments whatsoever
was the CSM looped into this change in a timely way? This change was actually in the first dev blog about the new system, which stated that; Quote:Under this new system, only one of each Sovereignty structure can exist in the same system at the same time. EvilweaselSA wrote:do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa? If the TCU or IHub finds that its first choice of deployment location is blocked, it will automatically move over one grid and try again until it finds an appropriate location. So a POCO in the right spot can force a TCU or IHub to deploy farther away but it can't block deployment. POCOs will simply need to be anchored in a location that doesn't overlap with existing structures.
Thanks for the response, on your response to my question/comment. The npcs null orders would be nice, but it does not provide a solution for SBUS in stations i can no longer dock in. For example i still have a large cache of sov gear in tenerfis, this change basicall puts me down a coupel bill isk wise if the sbus become tcus for example as I have no way to possibly move the assets. Additionally while the NPC null orders are "nice" and add additional convience some regions are no where near NPC null meaning individuals in these areas still have a time and risk component.
to the anchored sov structures in space issue. If you have an issue with monetary conversion then the simple solution is the query ownership of said structures take a count by corp destory he ones in space generate new items into those corps hangers. With one week notice it is very restricting to scoop up a whole bunch of ihubs.
To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13055
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:33:50 -
[30] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points. New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |