| 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/
|
|
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:34:06 -
[31] - Quote
Aryth wrote: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?
Christ i didnt even consider this and it is so true, i just thought about the assets themselves didnt even consider the upgrades inside. |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:35:49 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at? |
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
240
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:39:39 -
[33] - Quote
twit brent wrote:"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.
1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm.
2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either.
2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
13055
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:44:17 -
[34] - Quote
Vigilanta wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at? If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment.
If you plan on placing a station at that planet, don't place the IHub right in the way of your future outpost. The IHub can be placed on any grid that is close enough to the planet (following similar rules to POCOs).
As we move forward, new structures will be using smarter deployment abilities (like the new TCU and IHub deployments) but there's only so much we can do for older structures like outposts.
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 18:53:01 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vigilanta wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at? If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment. If you plan on placing a station at that planet, don't place the IHub right in the way of your future outpost. The IHub can be placed on any grid that is close enough to the planet (following similar rules to POCOs). As we move forward, new structures will be using smarter deployment abilities (like the new TCU and IHub deployments) but there's only so much we can do for older structures like outposts.
The key point I'm getting from this is, don't bother with dropping outposts until the new structure system comes in. |
utec asmo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 18:56:12 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
No Not Believing
258
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:05:21 -
[37] - Quote
twit brent wrote:"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.
FCON tried it with 9km/sec Vagabonds in the play-test.... that worked well for them.... 
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Freelancer117
so you want to be a Hero
294
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:08:17 -
[38] - Quote
Quote:Subscription Renewal Reminder
Dear Freelancer117,
According to our records you have 22 hours left on your non-recurring subscription to EVE Online.
Below is a list of some of the payment options that you can use to renew your subscription:*
CreditCard
DirectDebit
PayPal
PaySafeCard
WebMoney
Ideal
Plex
Ukash
Yandex
Amazon
Sofort
* Availability of payment methods varies by country
You can enjoy additional savings when opting for a 3-, 6- or 12-month payment. More information and payment options are available through Account Management.
- The EVE Online Dev Team
Dear CCPgames,
As of late I have yet to see a(ny) expansion that has worthwhile pve / ambulation content, except only in other mmo-rpg's
In order to pay the company Gé¼ 131.40 worth for a 12-month-plan, I would like to see value for money that is related to that.
Will see after patch day on the 14th July, in the meanwhile I guess I'm not the only one.
source: http://www.vg247.com/2015/06/29/eve-onlines-player-count-drops-to-lowest-since-2008/
http://massivelyop.com/2015/06/29/eve-online-concurrency-is-at-its-lowest-point-since-2008-by-player-analysis/
Regards, a Freelancer
PS: to any forum moderator, I changed my account name in the heading ofc.
The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:10:24 -
[39] - Quote
utec asmo wrote:
Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation. |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:14:41 -
[40] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"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. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.
Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it. |
utec asmo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:19:39 -
[41] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:utec asmo wrote:
Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation.
Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently. |
Hendrink Collie
Steel Fleet
Gentlemen's.Club
45
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:25:21 -
[42] - Quote
twit brent wrote:Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"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. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.
Or.. you know, you could send something out there to kill him since he can't warp to begin with.  |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:31:52 -
[43] - Quote
utec asmo wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:utec asmo wrote:
Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation. Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.
This is a romantic sentiment, but what is overwhelmingly more likely is that CCP had no idea that multiple ihubs in a system had a military use at all, and did not take it into account when making the decision.
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 19:38:15 -
[44] - Quote
utec asmo wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:utec asmo wrote:
Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation. Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.
Or they never got around to coding the ability to remove upgrades at all without destroying the hub. Which is why we are in the position we are in right now.
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 19:44:12 -
[45] - Quote
Another issue: you say you're going to put up buys for SBU BPOs, but that won't work - once a bpo has been used for anything (manufacturing, copying, or research) it can never be repackaged and sold to buy orders.
So, uh, anyone with an SBU BPO is basically stuck with a (worse, because it costs less and the markets is now glutted to hell and back) TCU BPO. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1086
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:45:34 -
[46] - Quote
utec asmo wrote:
Maybe, just maybe CCP wants you to make a permanent decision of either having no cost and no upgrades or upgrades and costs permanently.
we couldn't even destroy an upgrade in an ihub without destroying ALL the upgrades in the ihub
it was purely that the system was incompletely coded and people trying to back in justifications are obviously wrong |
twit brent
Black Anvil Industries
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:49:26 -
[47] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:twit brent wrote:Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"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. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it. Or.. you know, you could send something out there to kill him since he can't warp to begin with.
He can just fly away.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Brave Collective
1935
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:54:17 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Thanks for all these answers!
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel
The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:32:04 -
[49] - Quote
Fozzie,
How much impact do you expect these changes to have? Personally speaking I feel there is too much to lose for those few individuals whos interests are at the core of keeping things as they are. Those individuals, as you more than likely know, have huge influence over what goes on within Eve, I simply don't see how these changes will do much of anything.
We need mechanics that will make renter alliances more likely to strike out on their own rather than be dominated by some "overlord". We need to ensure moon mining isnt as passive as it is currently. There needs to be inclusion within the entosis timer that takes into consideration the size and space currently occupied by the owner alliance so that larger alliances (in both senses) have a harder time which reinforces the concept behind your changes which are to make alliances use up less space.
I hope I am wrong but I don't think I will be. There is hype for FozzieSov for sure but sadly I don't think it will last that long unless there are follow-up releases which expand on what is being implemented now.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
242
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:37:22 -
[50] - Quote
twit brent wrote:Eli Stan wrote:twit brent wrote:"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. 1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm. 2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either. 2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple. Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.
By making you undock, the Phantasm pilot has "won"? You considering being able to stay docked "winning"? My mind boggles.
Regardless, the Phantasm certainly does have to fight if he wants to survive. He's effectively pointed for the duration of his Entosis activation. If he does not fight, he dies. That is, if you can find the undock button.
|
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry
The Explicit Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:37:47 -
[51] - Quote
Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored? |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers
Gentlemen's.Club
155
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:39:23 -
[52] - Quote
Quote:The setting can be found on Tranquility right now within the Corporation window, Alliances tab, and Home subtab. Characters with director roles in the Alliance executor corporation can edit the vulnerability timer by clicking on the cogwheel on the right. The image below displays where this setting can be accessed.
So I'm a line member. How do I know when Structures will be vulnerable? Will it be on the map? Will there be a noitifaction I can turn on? Will Bob give me a sign?
Or will I have to do this over Crest because of (map/notification) legacy code?
The UI is still bad.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
245
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:50:12 -
[53] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?
Asked and answered page 1 post #7
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5870299#post5870299
I even made a link cause if you couldn't bother reading 3 pages, you prolly don't have the brain power to find page 1 |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
245
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:50:57 -
[54] - Quote
SpaceSaft wrote:Quote:The setting can be found on Tranquility right now within the Corporation window, Alliances tab, and Home subtab. Characters with director roles in the Alliance executor corporation can edit the vulnerability timer by clicking on the cogwheel on the right. The image below displays where this setting can be accessed. So I'm a line member. How do I know when Structures will be vulnerable? Will it be on the map? Will there be a noitifaction I can turn on? Will Bob give me a sign? Or will I have to do this over Crest because of (map/notification) legacy code?
Open corp neocom, soveriegnty tab
Read
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
242
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:52:14 -
[55] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?
From post #7 of this thread:
CCP Fozzie wrote:For this release you'll have to capture it normally. We are investigating some options for formal sov transfer mechanics in the future.
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel
The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 20:59:27 -
[56] - Quote
So huge amounts of isk are involved in renting at the moment, and without a doubt a lot of it is being used for "interesting" needs, why make it easier to rent out space? Surely if CCP wants to see more conflict they will not support "renting" as an option and make players have to do it by their own means? |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
196
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:04:36 -
[57] - Quote
When do we get citadels with guns to stop troll-ceptors that come every day to entosis troll...
And now t2 cruiser troll with entosis at 250+km range... |
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1156
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:05:23 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
you can very easily shoot to 250km with any kind of deathstar pos
why do you insist you know better than players who actually do these things
a tcu on a moon is far
far
far
far
far
FAR
easier to defend than one anywhere else
the only reason it's not currently complained about is TCUs are not very important in sov warfare and are usually cleaned up as an afterthought
however when claiming sov, tcus on deathstars are very common and very very strong and is an absurd advantage for alliances who already hold sov with tcus at moons [my alliance included]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel
The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:07:16 -
[59] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:When do we get citadels with guns to stop troll-ceptors that come every day to entosis troll...
And now t2 cruiser troll with entosis at 250+km range...
Quote:This module requires a full warm-up cycle before beginning to influence targeted structures.
Once activated, this module cannot be deactivated until it completes its current cycle.
While an Entosis Link is active, the fitted ship cannot cloak, warp, jump, dock or receive any form of remote assistance. |
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1156
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:17:26 -
[60] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. you can very easily shoot to 250km with any kind of deathstar pos why do you insist you know better than players who actually do these things a tcu on a moon is far far far far far FAR easier to defend than one anywhere else the only reason it's not currently complained about is TCUs are not very important in sov warfare and are usually cleaned up as an afterthought. in the new system a frigate can easily entosis a TCU on a planet, but a TCU on a moon is unassailable by anything that can't tank the tower when claiming contested sov, tcus on deathstars are already very common and very very strong and thus is an absurd advantage for alliances who already hold sov with tcus at moons [my alliance included] as an example optimal range on a SMALL beam bettery is 187km WITHOUT the 50% amarr tower bonus to optimal how can you possibly consider the range on the entosis link as a reason that deathstars on TCUs arent overpowered
like a tcu on a pos literally just invalidates the entosis module for that purpose as you have to reinforce the pos first (probably with caps) and then show up to the timer and win
aka exactly the same as the old system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
330
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:17:36 -
[61] - Quote
Quote:Everyone will be able to access a public list of all active Sovereignty structures in the universe, all details about reinforcement timers and the scores of active capture events. They will also have access to capital systems and default vulnerability timers for every Alliance. Finally, the XML API will contain the notifications triggered whenever Sov structures are attacked.
Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to have their head checked. If an alliance can't be bothered with being active in a system why should they have some 3rd party program play the game for them? Any new blood that touches anything part of a coalition will see the sky open up and all the things funk onto their face. They will have learned their lesson and add themselves to the cancer that is coalitions, stay in empire space or worse - stop playing.
This is a prime example of too much information without lifting a finger of effort to obtain it being bad for this game.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
247
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 21:42:02 -
[62] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Quote:Everyone will be able to access a public list of all active Sovereignty structures in the universe, all details about reinforcement timers and the scores of active capture events. They will also have access to capital systems and default vulnerability timers for every Alliance. Finally, the XML API will contain the notifications triggered whenever Sov structures are attacked. Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to have their head checked. If an alliance can't be bothered with being active in a system why should they have some 3rd party program play the game for them? Any new blood that touches anything part of a coalition will see the sky open up and all the things funk onto their face. They will have learned their lesson and add themselves to the cancer that is coalitions, stay in empire space or worse - stop playing. This is a prime example of too much information without lifting a finger of effort to obtain it being bad for this game.
well, if they had enough people active to drop on their face, maybe they deserve the space..... |
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel
The Kadeshi
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 22:49:18 -
[63] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Quote:Everyone will be able to access a public list of all active Sovereignty structures in the universe, all details about reinforcement timers and the scores of active capture events. They will also have access to capital systems and default vulnerability timers for every Alliance. Finally, the XML API will contain the notifications triggered whenever Sov structures are attacked. Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to have their head checked. If an alliance can't be bothered with being active in a system why should they have some 3rd party program play the game for them? Any new blood that touches anything part of a coalition will see the sky open up and all the things funk onto their face. They will have learned their lesson and add themselves to the cancer that is coalitions, stay in empire space or worse - stop playing. This is a prime example of too much information without lifting a finger of effort to obtain it being bad for this game. well, if they had enough people active to drop on their face, maybe they deserve the space.....
There comes a point in most games when things culminate in a state that is dire for almost everyone that plays. Eve is pretty much at that state now.
Without mentioning RMTers which do sit at the top of some hefty piles of people there is just stagnation everywhere. So whether someone deserves space or not because of huge cap fleets isnt the issue, the issue is there is an issue between those who are in nullsec and have been for a very long time and those who havent. The ability to throw money at issues for the long-termers is just laughable.
As ive said previously, CCP needs to add more into the mix to make nullsec more interesting to people, rather than them knowing and understanding they will simply get stomped time and again if they should peak out from under the renter umbrella. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 23:27:32 -
[64] - Quote
Aneu Angellus wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Quote:Everyone will be able to access a public list of all active Sovereignty structures in the universe, all details about reinforcement timers and the scores of active capture events. They will also have access to capital systems and default vulnerability timers for every Alliance. Finally, the XML API will contain the notifications triggered whenever Sov structures are attacked. Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to have their head checked. If an alliance can't be bothered with being active in a system why should they have some 3rd party program play the game for them? Any new blood that touches anything part of a coalition will see the sky open up and all the things funk onto their face. They will have learned their lesson and add themselves to the cancer that is coalitions, stay in empire space or worse - stop playing. This is a prime example of too much information without lifting a finger of effort to obtain it being bad for this game. well, if they had enough people active to drop on their face, maybe they deserve the space..... There comes a point in most games when things culminate in a state that is dire for almost everyone that plays. Eve is pretty much at that state now. Without mentioning RMTers which do sit at the top of some hefty piles of people there is just stagnation everywhere. So whether someone deserves space or not because of huge cap fleets isnt the issue, the issue is there is an issue between those who are in nullsec and have been for a very long time and those who havent. The ability to throw money at issues for the long-termers is just laughable. As ive said previously, CCP needs to add more into the mix to make nullsec more interesting to people, rather than them knowing and understanding they will simply get stomped time and again if they should peak out from under the renter umbrella.
Ah, yes -- the most ingratiating position of surrender possible. Let it grace my senses.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Crestor Markham
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
42
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 23:37:29 -
[65] - Quote
I also want to express support for the removal of campaign info from show info and especially the API.
-It devalues scouts and intel masters. That's legitimate (meta)gameplay that's being removed.
-It means you need to prepare for literally anyone in eve to show up to your fight--small entities cannot escalate, commit hard, or field something to counter their specific opponent, as they don't know who's got a wormhole exit 7 jumps away and wants to **** on their fight.
-Exposing this info globally means powerful alliances will always have a menu of targets to project force onto, presented to them via this info, without needing to commit to moving, careful planning, or time waiting. Just say "hey we've got a wormhole to region X...let's fire up the app and see what campaigns are live in that or adjoining regions in the next couple hours". Even with phoebe jump changes/aegis WH connection changes, they will always know exactly where and exactly when to attack: It undermines the attempts to nerf force projection/require some kind of commitment to get involved in a (sov) conflict.
The goal of information accessibility is generally a good one, but in this case it really impairs gameplay. In particular, it deals a serious setback to recent CCP priorities including nerfing force projection, making sov warfare viable for a wider variety of entities, and enabling more frequent meaningful fights. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 00:22:37 -
[66] - Quote
Crestor Markham wrote:I also want to express support for the removal of campaign info from show info and especially the API.
-It devalues scouts and intel masters. That's legitimate (meta)gameplay that's being removed.
-It means you need to prepare for literally anyone in eve to show up to your fight--small entities cannot escalate, commit hard, or field something to counter their specific opponent, as they don't know who's got a wormhole exit 7 jumps away and wants to **** on their fight.
-Exposing this info globally means powerful alliances will always have a menu of targets to project force onto, presented to them via this info, without needing to commit to moving, careful planning, or time waiting. Just say "hey we've got a wormhole to region X...let's fire up the app and see what campaigns are live in that or adjoining regions in the next couple hours". Even with phoebe jump changes/aegis WH connection changes, they will always know exactly where and exactly when to attack: It undermines the attempts to nerf force projection/require some kind of commitment to get involved in a (sov) conflict.
The goal of information accessibility is generally a good one, but in this case it really impairs gameplay. In particular, it deals a serious setback to recent CCP priorities including nerfing force projection,making sov warfare viable for a wider variety of entities, and enabling more frequent meaningful fights.
Having it available helps the little guys the most, they don't have the people to have scouts and check each system etc, this way the info is there for them at all times.
It really won't affect the goons of the world as they have the IT staff to basically do it all from scratch anyway, so either way, they will have it, but without the API tools, they will be the only ones with it
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2578
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 01:38:24 -
[67] - Quote
Quote:The alliances drawn for the module naming are:
Pandemic Legion, Spectre Fleet, No Not Believing, and Affirmative. such dissapoint. Many sad. Ow. |
Circumstantial Evidence
206
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 01:44:01 -
[68] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Having it available helps the little guys the most, they don't have the people to have scouts and check each system etc, this way the info is there for them at all times.
It really won't affect the goons of the world as they have the IT staff to basically do it all from scratch anyway, so either way, they will have it, but without the API tools, they will be the only ones with it I agree that more info via API helps small groups looking for a party to crash, but if they are defending, and if the info wasn't public, there is a chance (even with an IT staff) that larger powers would miss out on the "easy kills" waiting for a timer, in an otherwise unimportant system that they don't own. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 01:59:46 -
[69] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Having it available helps the little guys the most, they don't have the people to have scouts and check each system etc, this way the info is there for them at all times.
It really won't affect the goons of the world as they have the IT staff to basically do it all from scratch anyway, so either way, they will have it, but without the API tools, they will be the only ones with it I agree that more info via API helps small groups looking for a party to crash, but if they are defending, and if the info wasn't public, there is a chance (even with an IT staff) that larger powers would miss out on the "easy kills" waiting for a timer, in an otherwise unimportant system that they don't own.
If you think for one second the nerds in Goons, PL, NCdot don't know about every timer going on, you are sadly mistaken. Most of the time the FC's are bombarded with people with an axe to grind reminding us about one timer or the other
What it comes down to is it worth our time to get 3 cruiser kills etc |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Prolapse.
2532
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 02:00:45 -
[70] - Quote
Can TCU owners be reimbursed for the removal of their assets from space?
I mean, this sets an interesting precedent for people with offline POSs when you get around to removing POSs later in the structure cycle. Every other item you removed from the game you have reimbursed the owner, even if it was in space, but suddenly it just disappears in a puff of smoke?
Going forward, if you have an active POS full of ships in a wormhole and you delete POSs from the game, what happens? Are we to expect they just explode? That's what i'm taking out of this.
Also, on the CREST API, CCP Fozzie et al. you do realise you just completely ****** everyone in nullsec, regardless of your wormhole nerf?
I mean, to explain it:
1,000 people read this
Maybe someone might read this, too
...and here we are, with CREST about to be scalped by some PL API widget to detect upcoming timers.
Lets put 2 and 2 together.
API says a system is coming out of RF and there is a chance of a fight.
Nullsec powerbloc has a Siggy account or Tripwire, and has a map with a dozen wormhole routes through from nullsec and lowsec to nulls and low. They also have Thera, the unsinkable aircraft carrier of douche canoe.
Widget feeds to Siggy's Exit Finder (or a similar widget developed by PL's programming nerd boffins).
With the click of a button, you know your closest entrance to a wormhole chain which takes you from wherever you are, to the closest exit to the system which is coming out of RF.
Ergo, you will soon see BL, PL, HK, Goons and, if NC Dot can stop being bad at this, N3 all turning up to dogpile every concievable structure and sov timer in nullsec and lowsec, with very little efficiency loss.
Yeah, Fozzie. You better nerf the absolute living daylights out of all wormhole connections to nullsec.
Or, you know, not put structure timers on the API. Cause this will really kill nullsec. Golf clap. Seriously sarcastic golf clap.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 02:13:43 -
[71] - Quote
It sounds better when you say it that way, I needed a boost |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 02:40:45 -
[72] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Can TCU owners be reimbursed for the removal of their assets from space? I mean, this sets an interesting precedent for people with offline POSs when you get around to removing POSs later in the structure cycle. Every other item you removed from the game you have reimbursed the owner, even if it was in space, but suddenly it just disappears in a puff of smoke? Going forward, if you have an active POS full of ships in a wormhole and you delete POSs from the game, what happens? Are we to expect they just explode? That's what i'm taking out of this. Also, on the CREST API, CCP Fozzie et al. you do realise you just completely ****** everyone in nullsec, regardless of your wormhole nerf? I mean, to explain it: 1,000 people read thisMaybe someone might read this, too...and here we are, with CREST about to be scalped by some PL API widget to detect upcoming timers. Lets put 2 and 2 together. API says a system is coming out of RF and there is a chance of a fight. Nullsec powerbloc has a Siggy account or Tripwire, and has a map with a dozen wormhole routes through from nullsec and lowsec to nulls and low. They also have Thera, the unsinkable aircraft carrier of douche canoe. Widget feeds to Siggy's Exit Finder (or a similar widget developed by PL's programming nerd boffins). With the click of a button, you know your closest entrance to a wormhole chain which takes you from wherever you are, to the closest exit to the system which is coming out of RF. Ergo, you will soon see BL, PL, HK, Goons and, if NC Dot can stop being bad at this, N3 all turning up to dogpile every concievable structure and sov timer in nullsec and lowsec, with very little efficiency loss. Yeah, Fozzie. You better nerf the absolute living daylights out of all wormhole connections to nullsec. Or, you know, not put structure timers on the API. Cause this will really kill nullsec. Golf clap. Seriously sarcastic golf clap.
Honestly, the net effect of campaigns being in the API is that everyone can know when timers are, instead of just organizations with established spy networks like GSF. This isn't telling us anything we weren't aware of on our own. The net change here is a small reduction in work for our spies. I'm sure they appreciate it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Saisin
State War Academy
Caldari State
266
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 03:51:23 -
[73] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
Having it available helps the little guys the most, they don't have the people to have scouts and check each system etc, this way the info is there for them at all times.
It really won't affect the goons of the world as they have the IT staff to basically do it all from scratch anyway, so either way, they will have it, but without the API tools, they will be the only ones with it
Free API data is bad for this game as a whole, as it favors tech savvy players over all others, regardless of the size of the group they are working with (and favors large groups that have a bigger pool of talents).
A large group can have more players to scout with, that is true, but it is better than spoonfed API data, and these players will have to chose how to make their ISKs.
We have seen how API data for the siphons have pretty much made them useless.
CCP please reconsider your API policies in that area.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Circumstantial Evidence
206
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 04:01:57 -
[74] - Quote
Large groups will know what matters to them, they have informants - fine. That's the meta-game at work. There is still a chance that my "local trouble" defense op would go unnoticed, if it's not published by API. Who knows, the attacker-neighbor might just be provoking to see if an equal-terms fight is offered, with no intention of asking for outside help. The new system seems to encourage more frequent small scale conflicts, since the structures are not protected by HP. Every day - if 100's of timers are active, I believe some of these would remain private affairs, if not published in-game or API. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
332
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 04:09:39 -
[75] - Quote
Saisin wrote:We have seen how API data for the siphons have pretty much made them useless.
Exactly.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Blue Doughnut
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 04:14:34 -
[76] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Quote:Everyone will be able to access a public list of all active Sovereignty structures in the universe, all details about reinforcement timers and the scores of active capture events. They will also have access to capital systems and default vulnerability timers for every Alliance. Finally, the XML API will contain the notifications triggered whenever Sov structures are attacked. Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to have their head checked. If an alliance can't be bothered with being active in a system why should they have some 3rd party program play the game for them? Any new blood that touches anything part of a coalition will see the sky open up and all the things funk onto their face. They will have learned their lesson and add themselves to the cancer that is coalitions, stay in empire space or worse - stop playing. This is a prime example of too much information without lifting a finger of effort to obtain it being bad for this game.
That is my favorite part. Yup. I like it. |
Rio Bravo
Volition Cult
The Volition Cult
69
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 06:15:11 -
[77] - Quote
In the future how gard would it be to have agents that corps coukd hire to dish out missions in null? Would be cool for a corp that owns an outpost to choose corps and the level of agent that resides there. I like mission running, and coukd have loyalty stores fir the chosen corp of agents. Probably draw more people into null...would be costly, and maybe based on indexes. Thought i woild throw that in there being its kind if related to sov...sort of.
EDIT: Pending for spelling. I am on my tablet and have giant hands.
GÇ£You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig.-áI dig.GÇ¥
-á- Clint Eastwood, misquote.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1254
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 06:40:50 -
[78] - Quote
The API data pull needs to go away. Actively play the game, not monitor third party applications.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 10:40:19 -
[79] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Large groups will know what matters to them, they have informants - fine. That's the meta-game at work. There is still a chance that my "local trouble" defense op would go unnoticed, if it's not published by API. Who knows, the attacker-neighbor might just be provoking to see if an equal-terms fight is offered, with no intention of asking for outside help. The new system seems to encourage more frequent small scale conflicts, since the structures are not protected by HP. Every day - if 100's of timers are active, I believe some of these would remain private affairs, if not published in-game or API.
Your little defense op will NOT go unnoticed API or not, PERIOD!!
That being said, why not have all the data at your fingertips? The big guys will have it regardless, why not make it available to everyone? |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 10:57:14 -
[80] - Quote
Saisin wrote:We have seen how API data for the siphons have pretty much made them useless.
CCP please reconsider your API policies in that area.
Yea Siphons are not useless, Somebody on reddit shouting about api's has caused a lot players to assume they are useless without trying for themselves.
CCP please nerf some guy on reddit. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Prolapse.
2537
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 11:06:38 -
[81] - Quote
My argument is based on my assumption that CCP wants a viable nullsec ecology that is not entirely dependant on rental income paid to someone else. You are of course right; if it's available to everyone, by dint of being in the API, surely everyone will make equal use of it?
That's false. But before i go on, let me say I have no ill-respect toward PL or anyone else who has the werewithal, gumption and resources to pull whatever they want from the API and turn it into 3rd party apps and widgets. Good on you guys. You are extracting more from the game than merely logging in and spinning in a POS waiting for stuff to happen.
However, that doesn't mean CCP should ignore the ill effects of, if not abuse, then exploitation of the API. CCP removed kill and jump logging via the API from wormholes precisely because it did not meet their design goals for wormholes to have perfect intel in a wormhole chain for every jump, rat kill or player kill that occurred in the wormhole. This basically nerfed a lot of people's ways of finding PVP (Blood union prime example).
Now, when you look at CCp's admittedly hamfisted attempts to change sov warfare in nullsec it's all been about disaggregaion dynamics - removing the need for blobbing, capital blobbing, dreads to DPS EHP walls, reducing force projection (which allows blobbing), etc. it's been a clear philosophical design goal they are moving towards, to reduce people's abilities to aggregate, coalesce and stagnate.
Yet here we are, providing perfect intel on sov warfare, on a platter.
Really, Fozzie? You see no problems with this? You thought this through? if you thought it was bad for wormholes to connect to much in nullsec because a few entities exploited them as a shortcut around Phoebe's changes, here you are basically allowing people to recreate the API kill data of Siggy of old, on a vast scale.
I agree with FT Diomedes. This game is getting too reliant on API data. It's almost a game you don't have to play logged in. maybe server logins are down recisely because you don't need to gather intel, be logged in except for 10 minutes to gank a titan, so you play LOl or WOW or tanks and wait for a jabber ping which, truthfully, we'll see automatically generated from the API.
So, yeah, good for PL and all, but terrible for everyone else. But I bet your candy-arsed CSM is happy with this.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
248
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 11:23:28 -
[82] - Quote
If you remove data from API, what happens
Goons, PL, NCdot still get the info, have the info 100% available
Smaller entities trying to find a nice slice of nullsec spend days trying to look around and scout finding their little slice, when the API dump would have helped them.
This API data won't be useful to only the big guys, there are already some hard at work on public tools. Just like www.null-sec.com/tycoon That is basically a mirror of the in game market
You do know this data is avail in game in the sov tab right, so it is just whether you login once, cache the data or get it from API, either way it is very very very easily accessible to those with means or it is API and accessible to all |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1746
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 13:09:49 -
[83] - Quote
I mean, if you want to remove the only leveling factor available to small groups in the API, we'll gladly allow it. Our organization has the resources to do without. Others do too. We'll mourn its passing, of course; using the API is certainly easier than doing it the hard way. However, with a ten-year history of nullsec quality of life being eroded little by little, we're nothing if not adaptable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
834
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 13:29:26 -
[84] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:Friendly sov transfers... how is that going to be handled? Buying/renting/selling space is a a thing, if the mechanics are supposed to follow the game play, why is this ignored?
It's not. Fozzie already addressed the question. It is left as an exercise to the reader to actually read the thread.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1741
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 13:58:25 -
[85] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:If you remove data from API, what happens Goons, PL, NCdot still get the info, have the info 100% available Smaller entities trying to find a nice slice of nullsec spend days trying to look around and scout finding their little slice, when the API dump would have helped them. This API data won't be useful to only the big guys, there are already some hard at work on public tools. Just like www.null-sec.com/tycoon That is basically a mirror of the in game market You do know this data is avail in game in the sov tab right, so it is just whether you login once, cache the data or get it from API, either way it is very very very easily accessible to those with means or it is API and accessible to all
This is the truth. This doesn't help blocs, this helps the guys wanting to enter null. Now, I won't debate how many people are waiting on the sidelines to enter null or not. All evidence is there is not a great pool of people waiting for this patch to break in. However, if they have any hope of doing so they have to have as level a playing field as possible.
The main issue I see with this blog is CCP crossing the line into the sandbox by actively deleting assets with no compensation. Given our apprehension about them handling the future outpost migration well....this is not a good plan.
APIs? Fine. Roleplay it as NPC spies if it makes you feel better.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 14:14:36 -
[86] - Quote
Aryth wrote:
The main issue I see with this blog is CCP crossing the line into the sandbox by actively deleting assets with no compensation. Given our apprehension about them handling the future outpost migration well....this is not a good plan.
The sad thing is all the people in this thread who will ignore this point, simply because it's coming from a goon.
This is not a minor thing, but everyone will focus on the false perception that the API will allow the "evil" blocs to gain an advantage.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
250
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 14:37:51 -
[87] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you remove data from API, what happens Goons, PL, NCdot still get the info, have the info 100% available Smaller entities trying to find a nice slice of nullsec spend days trying to look around and scout finding their little slice, when the API dump would have helped them. This API data won't be useful to only the big guys, there are already some hard at work on public tools. Just like www.null-sec.com/tycoon That is basically a mirror of the in game market You do know this data is avail in game in the sov tab right, so it is just whether you login once, cache the data or get it from API, either way it is very very very easily accessible to those with means or it is API and accessible to all This is the truth. This doesn't help blocs, this helps the guys wanting to enter null. Now, I won't debate how many people are waiting on the sidelines to enter null or not. All evidence is there is not a great pool of people waiting for this patch to break in. However, if they have any hope of doing so they have to have as level a playing field as possible. The main issue I see with this blog is CCP crossing the line into the sandbox by actively deleting assets with no compensation. Given our apprehension about them handling the future outpost migration well....this is not a good plan. APIs? Fine. Roleplay it as NPC spies if it makes you feel better.
Aryth,
My station got ****** during crius due to a mistake on CCP part in their description. The description has been fixed, but it took 7 months of petitions and other crap. Basically from a level 1 upgrade that was installed in error due to a CCP mistake, they refunded me 900 mil for the cost of the egg. They also couldn't reverse it, so I could install another, nor did they even contemplate reimbursing the stuffing for the egg.
I don't hold a lot of hope for reimbursement of assets |
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1742
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 14:57:20 -
[88] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Aryth wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you remove data from API, what happens Goons, PL, NCdot still get the info, have the info 100% available Smaller entities trying to find a nice slice of nullsec spend days trying to look around and scout finding their little slice, when the API dump would have helped them. This API data won't be useful to only the big guys, there are already some hard at work on public tools. Just like www.null-sec.com/tycoon That is basically a mirror of the in game market You do know this data is avail in game in the sov tab right, so it is just whether you login once, cache the data or get it from API, either way it is very very very easily accessible to those with means or it is API and accessible to all This is the truth. This doesn't help blocs, this helps the guys wanting to enter null. Now, I won't debate how many people are waiting on the sidelines to enter null or not. All evidence is there is not a great pool of people waiting for this patch to break in. However, if they have any hope of doing so they have to have as level a playing field as possible. The main issue I see with this blog is CCP crossing the line into the sandbox by actively deleting assets with no compensation. Given our apprehension about them handling the future outpost migration well....this is not a good plan. APIs? Fine. Roleplay it as NPC spies if it makes you feel better. Aryth, My station got ****** during crius due to a mistake on CCP part in their description. The description has been fixed, but it took 7 months of petitions and other crap. Basically from a level 1 upgrade that was installed in error due to a CCP mistake, they refunded me 900 mil for the cost of the egg. They also couldn't reverse it, so I could install another, nor did they even contemplate reimbursing the stuffing for the egg. I don't hold a lot of hope for reimbursement of assets
I sorta do only because they said they were working on it and wanted to do it. What seems to have happened is they are not ready to do anything like that and have no code written.
That being said, the bigger issue is irrational fear. If you read Fozzie's statement they are afraid to inject ISK because of some fear of exploitation. Given the amounts involved that fear is extremely lopsided. To prevent 10's of billions of ethereal profit they delete 100s of billions in assets? This makes little sense and isn't founded in actual practical application.
There is no real opportunity here to exploit that for profit. Especially if they took a couple really simple safe guards like locking in the price at values from say 3 months ago or at some time period they feel is safe.
So to prevent a possibility, they are willing to directly delete wealth due to fear. That seems very wrong to me and a horrible precedent for the game.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1334
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 15:43:52 -
[89] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Saisin wrote:We have seen how API data for the siphons have pretty much made them useless.
CCP please reconsider your API policies in that area.
Yea Siphons are not useless, Somebody on reddit shouting about api's has caused a lot players to assume they are useless without trying for themselves. CCP please nerf some guy on reddit.
Nerf your mouth. It is ridiculously simple to check the your corp API once an hour and have a triggered google script send an email to your iphone/android/work/etc if the quantity of materials in a silo have not incremented by the correct amount.
In addition, there are bots (not advocating such a breach of the TOS/EULA, so don't do it kiddies) that would have no problem responding to such an email, logging in, blapping the siphon, and then logging out.
Its also possible to scrape killboards for siphon kills with R64 materials to find previously unknown R64 moons.
As fun as it is to poll the API, free intel is bad. I wouldn't cry if all of the game state API end-points were removed, leaving just the static data like item types to names, character names to ids, things like that.
I tried siphoning some moons last year. The ones on large nulsec alliance's towers were all gone inside of 24 hours. Only failscading and small alliances or corps without the know-how are vulnerable to siphons.
So no, they aren't useless. But they also aren't very useful either, due solely to the API reporting active game content.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Mathras Betterhalf
Sully Industrials
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:14:50 -
[90] - Quote
Its been raised by a couple of people but from what I have read it doesn't appeared to have been answered - apologies if it has.
Concerning SBU BPO's and their buyback - The patch notes say that packaged SBU BPOs will be able to be bought back on the market - the problem with this is no one will actually likely hold packaged ones as when you build anything with it, it immediately becomes unpackaged - So unless you hold a BPO and have never built anything with it, which is unlikely, this won't help those that hold SBU BPO's. (unless I'm missing something and you can now repackage unresarched BPOs .... and lets face it, who holds and uses a BPO without research it at least to ME 4 or 5))
Then you go on to say that those that aren't bought back, i.e. those that are researched - will be automatically transformed into TCU BPO's - The problem with this is -
1. The market will be flooded with an excess of researched TCU BPO's, making them realistically worthless
2. The sale volume of TCU's is disproportionately a lot lower than SBU's, again making these BPO's worthless
personally, I would be happy to just trade my researched SBU BPO's in for the same value as an unresearched packaged one, or for on patch day for them to go 'pop' and for 250 mill to be deposited back into my account (don't even care about the research time / cost if under the circumstances I managed to get base price back)) -
I appreciate game coding / mechanics may not enable this but is their anyway this could be looked at and the very least for a Dev say, sorry, we have tried but it isn't possible - and yes, I'm one of those, and I'm not the only one, who has a large number of SBU BPO's researched pretty much to max - as well an existing number of researched TCU BPO's which I rarely use so I definitely don't want two dozen more! |
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:46:19 -
[91] - Quote
Mathras Betterhalf wrote:Its been raised by a couple of people but from what I have read it doesn't appeared to have been answered - apologies if it has.
Concerning SBU BPO's and their buyback - The patch notes say that packaged SBU BPOs will be able to be bought back on the market - the problem with this is no one will actually likely hold packaged ones as when you build anything with it, it immediately becomes unpackaged - So unless you hold a BPO and have never built anything with it, which is unlikely, this won't help those that hold SBU BPO's. (unless I'm missing something and you can now repackage unresarched BPOs .... and lets face it, who holds and uses a BPO without research it at least to ME 4 or 5))
Then you go on to say that those that aren't bought back, i.e. those that are researched - will be automatically transformed into TCU BPO's - The problem with this is -
1. The market will be flooded with an excess of researched TCU BPO's, making them realistically worthless
2. The sale volume of TCU's is disproportionately a lot lower than SBU's, again making these BPO's worthless
personally, I would be happy to just trade my researched SBU BPO's in for the same value as an unresearched packaged one, or for on patch day for them to go 'pop' and for 250 mill to be deposited back into my account (don't even care about the research time / cost if under the circumstances I managed to get base price back)) -
I appreciate game coding / mechanics may not enable this but is their anyway this could be looked at and the very least for a Dev say, sorry, we have tried but it isn't possible - and yes, I'm one of those, and I'm not the only one, who has a large number of SBU BPO's researched pretty much to max - as well an existing number of researched TCU BPO's which I rarely use so I definitely don't want two dozen more!
Now imagine if they just deleted them instead!
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
251
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:11:09 -
[92] - Quote
http://captiongenerator.com/49246/CCP-Dev-Discuss-wormholes |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
338
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:56:03 -
[93] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:Saisin wrote:We have seen how API data for the siphons have pretty much made them useless.
CCP please reconsider your API policies in that area.
Yea Siphons are not useless, Somebody on reddit shouting about api's has caused a lot players to assume they are useless without trying for themselves. CCP please nerf some guy on reddit. It is ridiculously simple to check the your corp API once an hour and have a triggered google script send an email to your iphone/android/work/etc if the quantity of materials in a silo have not incremented by the correct amount. In addition, there are bots (not advocating such a breach of the TOS/EULA, so don't do it kiddies) that would have no problem responding to such an email, logging in, blapping the siphon, and then logging out. Its also possible to scrape killboards for siphon kills with R64 materials to find previously unknown R64 moons. As fun as it is to poll the API, free intel is bad. I wouldn't cry if all of the game state API end-points were removed, leaving just the static data like item types to names, character names to ids, things like that. I tried siphoning some moons last year. The ones on large nulsec alliance's towers were all gone inside of 24 hours. Only failscading and small alliances or corps without the know-how are vulnerable to siphons. So no, they aren't useless. But they also aren't very useful either, due solely to the API reporting active game content.
How dare you come in here with facts!
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
123
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:47:42 -
[94] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Soldarius wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:[quote=Saisin]
Yea Siphons are not useless, Somebody on reddit shouting about api's has caused a lot players to assume they are useless without trying for themselves.
CCP please nerf some guy on reddit. It is ridiculously simple to check the your corp API once an hour and have a triggered google script send an email to your iphone/android/work/etc if the quantity of materials in a silo have not incremented by the correct amount. In addition, there are bots (not advocating such a breach of the TOS/EULA, so don't do it kiddies) that would have no problem responding to such an email, logging in, blapping the siphon, and then logging out. Its also possible to scrape killboards for siphon kills with R64 materials to find previously unknown R64 moons. As fun as it is to poll the API, free intel is bad. I wouldn't cry if all of the game state API end-points were removed, leaving just the static data like item types to names, character names to ids, things like that. I tried siphoning some moons last year. The ones on large nulsec alliance's towers were all gone inside of 24 hours. Only failscading and small alliances or corps without the know-how are vulnerable to siphons. So no, they aren't useless. But they also aren't very useful either, due solely to the API reporting active game content. How dare you come in here with facts!
I don't see a lot of hard facts. I see a lot of "it's possible", including going so far as to say you shouldn't have api info, because there's a possibility people will bot and violate the EULA.
I love seeing people who have never spent a second hunting and killing siphons talk about how they are magically killed by the api. |
Vanilla Mooses
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 22:16:37 -
[95] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:http://captiongenerator.com/49246/CCP-Dev-Discuss-wormholes
have my babies |
HarlyQ
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 22:22:47 -
[96] - Quote
Vanilla Mooses wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:http://captiongenerator.com/49246/CCP-Dev-Discuss-wormholes have my babies
Have my babies we can name them cheese mooses. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6719
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 23:04:28 -
[97] - Quote
Querns wrote:However, with a ten-year history of nullsec quality of life being eroded little by little, we're nothing if not adaptable.
That's great to hear.
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Crestor Markham
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 00:24:54 -
[98] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Crestor Markham wrote:I also want to express support for the removal of campaign info from show info and especially the API.
-It devalues scouts and intel masters. That's legitimate (meta)gameplay that's being removed.
-It means you need to prepare for literally anyone in eve to show up to your fight--small entities cannot escalate, commit hard, or field something to counter their specific opponent, as they don't know who's got a wormhole exit 7 jumps away and wants to **** on their fight.
-Exposing this info globally means powerful alliances will always have a menu of targets to project force onto, presented to them via this info, without needing to commit to moving, careful planning, or time waiting. Just say "hey we've got a wormhole to region X...let's fire up the app and see what campaigns are live in that or adjoining regions in the next couple hours". Even with phoebe jump changes/aegis WH connection changes, they will always know exactly where and exactly when to attack: It undermines the attempts to nerf force projection/require some kind of commitment to get involved in a (sov) conflict.
The goal of information accessibility is generally a good one, but in this case it really impairs gameplay. In particular, it deals a serious setback to recent CCP priorities including nerfing force projection,making sov warfare viable for a wider variety of entities, and enabling more frequent meaningful fights. Having it available helps the little guys the most, they don't have the people to have scouts and check each system etc, this way the info is there for them at all times. It really won't affect the goons of the world as they have the IT staff to basically do it all from scratch anyway, so either way, they will have it, but without the API tools, they will be the only ones with it
2/10, at best. Can't we at least be sincere in balance threads?
Universal access to this information does not help the little guy, as the value of this info to the little guy is much less. He can't go **** on some sov fight PL decides to have; whereas PL can can go **** on any little guy's sov fights. The little guys want as few people to know and interfere (as third parties) as possible. Contrary to what you randomly assert, if this info isn't available via show info or the API, then there is nothing (within the TOS) that the goon IT guys can do. If, on the other hand, the goon intel team is good enough to send a scout to every sovnull system every day, then yeah, they have "earned" that info. Make them earn it rather than handing it to you on a platter. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Prolapse.
2540
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 00:40:25 -
[99] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:If you remove data from API, what happens Goons, PL, NCdot still get the info, have the info 100% available Smaller entities trying to find a nice slice of nullsec spend days trying to look around and scout finding their little slice, when the API dump would have helped them. This API data won't be useful to only the big guys, there are already some hard at work on public tools. Just like www.null-sec.com/tycoon That is basically a mirror of the in game market You do know this data is avail in game in the sov tab right, so it is just whether you login once, cache the data or get it from API, either way it is very very very easily accessible to those with means or it is API and accessible to all
So, if i open up the map (by pressing F10 like a pro, not using the futtbucked betamap) and select sovereignty, it shows me the upcoming sov timers?
Oh. Wait. No it doesn't.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
253
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 02:29:49 -
[100] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:If you remove data from API, what happens Goons, PL, NCdot still get the info, have the info 100% available Smaller entities trying to find a nice slice of nullsec spend days trying to look around and scout finding their little slice, when the API dump would have helped them. This API data won't be useful to only the big guys, there are already some hard at work on public tools. Just like www.null-sec.com/tycoon That is basically a mirror of the in game market You do know this data is avail in game in the sov tab right, so it is just whether you login once, cache the data or get it from API, either way it is very very very easily accessible to those with means or it is API and accessible to all So, if i open up the map (by pressing F10 like a pro, not using the futtbucked betamap) and select sovereignty, it shows me the upcoming sov timers? Oh. Wait. No it doesn't.
Log onto DUALITY
Go to corp neocom, click on alliance tab, click on sov tab - bam all info there for you
If you want to see someone else's sov press F10 - type a system name in the search box, press enter, show info, then click on sov tab.
All the info is in game, which means it can be scraped super easy or it can be put on API/Crest
My point was large organizations can scrape the data they need easy enough, the small time peeps can't. If it is public for everyone the system is fair for everyone
This doesn't work on TQ yet, you have to go to duality, or you can wait about 6 days and it will be on TQ, then you can gripe and send in tickets and fill up my bucket with your tears
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Second-Dawn
935
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 06:52:55 -
[101] - Quote
Trinkets friend, excellent posts and spot on in terms of the issue of the API
I really have to ask you CCP about the reason why you decided to put the TCU at the planet only, that destroyed completely my plans to take a single naff system and have the TCU next to a death star POS. Oh well, looks like I will stay in hisec then, ho hum...
Ella's Snack bar
|
Cpt Buckshot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 10:23:25 -
[102] - Quote
Once again Eve pulls a fast one on there dedicated player base. So many of these comments are spot on, I really do not need to add anything. Except that my comments would not be positive and prob would not help the situation. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 11:21:52 -
[103] - Quote
Cpt Buckshot wrote:Once again Eve pulls a fast one on there dedicated player base. So many of these comments are spot on, I really do not need to add anything. Except that my comments would not be positive and prob would not help the situation.
Where were you when this info was released months ago, before the competition on Duality.
You have had weeks if not months to complain and now at the 11th hour all of a sudden it is a crisis.
Did you even login to duality and see how stuff works.
You noticed PL won the competition handily, we did it to understand how the crap works so when we go to **** in peoples cheerios, we know what we are doing. Winning is just what we do, it comes natural. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
708
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 13:06:32 -
[104] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Cpt Buckshot wrote:Once again Eve pulls a fast one on there dedicated player base. So many of these comments are spot on, I really do not need to add anything. Except that my comments would not be positive and prob would not help the situation. Where were you when this info was released months ago, before the competition on Duality. You have had weeks if not months to complain and now at the 11th hour all of a sudden it is a crisis. Did you even login to duality and see how stuff works. You noticed PL won the competition handily, we did it to understand how the crap works so when we go to **** in peoples cheerios, we know what we are doing. Winning is just what we do, it comes natural.
now if only you did anything relevant on tq lmbo |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 13:44:29 -
[105] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Cpt Buckshot wrote:Once again Eve pulls a fast one on there dedicated player base. So many of these comments are spot on, I really do not need to add anything. Except that my comments would not be positive and prob would not help the situation. Where were you when this info was released months ago, before the competition on Duality. You have had weeks if not months to complain and now at the 11th hour all of a sudden it is a crisis. Did you even login to duality and see how stuff works. You noticed PL won the competition handily, we did it to understand how the crap works so when we go to **** in peoples cheerios, we know what we are doing. Winning is just what we do, it comes natural. now if only you did anything relevant on tq lmbo
Give it about 4 days |
Circumstantial Evidence
207
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 16:50:11 -
[106] - Quote
I don't think this this has been noted yet, in these comments:
The blog link text, on the Launcher, has a typo:
EVE Launcher wrote:
2015-07-07 15:48:26
Dev blog: Sommer of Sov - Transition and Deployment
|
Crestor Markham
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
51
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 17:30:13 -
[107] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
If you want to see someone else's sov press F10 - type a system name in the search box, press enter, show info, then click on sov tab.
All the info is in game, which means it can be scraped super easy or it can be put on API/Crest
My point was large organizations can scrape the data they need easy enough, the small time peeps can't. If it is public for everyone the system is fair for everyone
That kind of scraping would stand out pretty well and can definitely get you banned depending on how CCP feels like reading their TOS. Plus, as has been noted, the real solution is to remove it from the map as well as the API.
"If it is public for everyone the system is fair for everyone" is bogus. As I said in my reply to you (which you did not answer), it is useful to your alliance, but harmful to mine, for that info to be easily accessible, even if we both have access to it. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
338
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 17:34:16 -
[108] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Cpt Buckshot wrote:Once again Eve pulls a fast one on there dedicated player base. So many of these comments are spot on, I really do not need to add anything. Except that my comments would not be positive and prob would not help the situation. Where were you when this info was released months ago, before the competition on Duality. You have had weeks if not months to complain and now at the 11th hour all of a sudden it is a crisis. Did you even login to duality and see how stuff works. You noticed PL won the competition handily, we did it to understand how the crap works so when we go to **** in peoples cheerios, we know what we are doing. Winning is just what we do, it comes natural. now if only you did anything relevant on tq lmbo Give it about 4 days
And what? PL actually going to take sov or just chest beat from a low sec station some more?
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 18:18:25 -
[109] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:Cpt Buckshot wrote:Once again Eve pulls a fast one on there dedicated player base. So many of these comments are spot on, I really do not need to add anything. Except that my comments would not be positive and prob would not help the situation. Where were you when this info was released months ago, before the competition on Duality. You have had weeks if not months to complain and now at the 11th hour all of a sudden it is a crisis. Did you even login to duality and see how stuff works. You noticed PL won the competition handily, we did it to understand how the crap works so when we go to **** in peoples cheerios, we know what we are doing. Winning is just what we do, it comes natural. now if only you did anything relevant on tq lmbo Give it about 4 days And what? PL actually going to take sov or just chest beat from a low sec station some more?
I don't think we staged from lowsec since we took the entirety of drones
That being said, we will pretty much do whatever the **** we want to do, safe to say there isn't **** you can do about it
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
713
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 23:54:58 -
[110] - Quote
Kenneth Feld wrote:
That being said, we will pretty much do whatever the **** we want to do
except win supercap battles
or headshot vfk |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
254
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 11:37:58 -
[111] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Kenneth Feld wrote:
That being said, we will pretty much do whatever the **** we want to do
except win supercap battles or headshot vfk
We have our fair share of wins, some losses, but VoV
How many entities could survive B-R and still be around, strong as ever?? |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1343
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:08:05 -
[112] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
I don't see a lot of hard facts. I see a lot of "it's possible", including going so far as to say you shouldn't have api info, because there's a possibility people will bot and violate the EULA.
I love seeing people who have never spent a second hunting and killing siphons talk about how they are magically killed by the api.
It is fact that it is possible.
My opinion is that active data being served to the populace is a bad idea.
I never said the API kills anything. Only that it is possible to have an entirely automated system that does, and that that system is enabled by the API.
For those that choose to do things within what is allowed by the EULA/TOS, they usually have a POS nanny alt in an inty somewhere nearby that they log in and then travel from POS to POS killing the siphons.
There is no hunting involved when an entirely automated system tells everyone on the list of mail recipients that POS X in system Y at planet a-b has z siphons on it.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries
Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 14:23:38 -
[113] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:
I don't see a lot of hard facts. I see a lot of "it's possible", including going so far as to say you shouldn't have api info, because there's a possibility people will bot and violate the EULA.
I love seeing people who have never spent a second hunting and killing siphons talk about how they are magically killed by the api.
It is fact that it is possible. My opinion is that active data being served to the populace is a bad idea. I never said the API kills anything. Only that it is possible to have an entirely automated system that does, and that that system is enabled by the API. For those that choose to do things within what is allowed by the EULA/TOS, they usually have a POS nanny alt in an inty somewhere nearby that they log in and then travel from POS to POS killing the siphons. There is no hunting involved when an entirely automated system tells everyone on the list of mail recipients that POS X in system Y at planet a-b has z siphons on it.
This theoretical system sounds great, too bad it's not a reality.
I'm also really interested who you are asserting is breaking the EULA to fight siphons? |
Crestor Markham
Reasonable People
Of Sound Mind
55
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 16:35:07 -
[114] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Soldarius wrote:Yroc Jannseen wrote:
I don't see a lot of hard facts. I see a lot of "it's possible", including going so far as to say you shouldn't have api info, because there's a possibility people will bot and violate the EULA.
I love seeing people who have never spent a second hunting and killing siphons talk about how they are magically killed by the api.
It is fact that it is possible. My opinion is that active data being served to the populace is a bad idea. I never said the API kills anything. Only that it is possible to have an entirely automated system that does, and that that system is enabled by the API. For those that choose to do things within what is allowed by the EULA/TOS, they usually have a POS nanny alt in an inty somewhere nearby that they log in and then travel from POS to POS killing the siphons. There is no hunting involved when an entirely automated system tells everyone on the list of mail recipients that POS X in system Y at planet a-b has z siphons on it. This theoretical system sounds great, too bad it's not a reality. I'm also really interested who you are asserting is breaking the EULA to fight siphons?
This "theoretical" system is described right here and used by many, many people: http://i.imgur.com/v43Zlsm.jpg But I'm pretty sure you knew that already. write a little app around that and have your alliancemates just check a webpage for which towers need a siphon shot off at any given moment.
One doesn't have to break the EULA to fight siphons with the current API. He's replying to the argument "oh if you remove it from the API the bad guys will write a scraper that gets the info even though it's against the EULA/TOS, so might as well make it available to everybody." |
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled
Initiative Mercenaries
766
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 17:55:18 -
[115] - Quote
What happens to TCUs in unclaimable space, like Wormholes and Thera?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel
The Kadeshi
1631
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 18:41:22 -
[116] - Quote
Scenario: I have a station service that an enemy entosis linked and managed to complete the incapping process to 10% (90% left to entosis before it is incapped). Now, if I want to fix this service, I need to run 2 full entosis link cycles on it.
Why is the second cycle that reverts the enemy entosis effect not just as long as the difference to be fixed?
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
256
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 14:16:25 -
[117] - Quote
Burning down the house:
https://timerboard.net/
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Shadow_of_xXDEATHXx/structures
Dotlan has all the data as well |
Sexy Cakes
Have A Seat
960
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 16:12:16 -
[118] - Quote
This **** is ******* pathetic.
Literally all I can say about it.
Not today spaghetti.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |