| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
   |
Posted - 2007.06.08 04:54:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: quellious
Hi, I had some information from Oneiromancer on test server. I consider them as being public (open channel), and I find it fair to share them.
(i won't quote the full text, but please edit me if some detail should not be written here).
"quellious > A side note Oneiromancer, there are different speculation about conditions to reach sovereignty lvl 3. Some public clarification might be really appreciated :)"
We are speaking about province, or sovereignty lvl 3:
- You need to hold sovereignty level 2 - Protectorate - for 14 days, to gain lvl 3. That's for any system.
(personnal remind: cynosural system jammer requires only lvl 3 on test server)
About sovereignty lvl 4:
- for constellation sov you need to control 3 outposts/conquerable stations in the constellation, sov level 1 in 51% or more of the systems in constellation and sov level 3 in a system with an outpost, that can be declared as capital
- Reduction of POS fuel consumption in all alliance POS'es in the constellation
- And starbase and sovereignty invulnerability in your capital system
I expect/hope those informations to be clearly wirtten in a dev blog, but yet this give a better undertanding about what to expect.
I personnally found the 'invulnerability' both supprising and very interresting.
It'll certainly make possible spread attacks like CCP has wanted, although I suspect we'll still just see superblobing for faster POS removal.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
BigWhale
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 19:50:00 -
[32]
Packing more people on a less space can be a good thing. So that systems that are claimed are actually being used. Nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with more room in 0.0 for others. As it was mentioned many times that one should claim as much space as they can actively defend it.
However living in drone regions for past few months gave me the feeling that you actually can't have many people crammed in few systems there. The real money comes from killing battleship rats, collecting alloys and compounds that they drop (then refining them, haul to empire and sell... ;)). Those get 'mined out' pretty quickly, asteroid belts are sort of broken and get mined out quickly too. So cramming more people on less space is not such a good idea.
|
Jehovah Cooper
Convergent
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.10 20:56:00 -
[33]
I think part of the point of Exploration is to increase the number of people that can profitably "work" a system. This not only makes it practical to condense people together but even desirable since you'll have better defensive capability with more people in one place.
|
Callthetruth
Caldari
Logical Logtistics
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 02:47:00 -
[34]
to the last poster even with exploration and encounters instead of seeding 10 per system ( CCPs original goal ) is now 1 per 2 systems u might add 2-3 encounters that still gives a total of about 4-6 extra asteroid belts per system which isnt really much it might allow 1-2 more players per system
NPC Mission 0.0 hubs remain unlimited as missions are generated on a per basis
Perhaps giving 0.0 vled and other low end roids a 15-20% yeild over empires 10% and 5% bonuses might encourage more of that type of activity. At the same time raise by 2-5% production requirements of all modules-ships etc in terms of trit just to tweak and avoid an oversupply
|
|
CCP LeMousse
|
Posted - 2007.06.13 16:20:00 -
[35]
A blog answering and explaining most of the questions has now been published.
You may read it here, while the comments thread is here.
|
|
Exco Executor
Occam's Razor Combine
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.06.14 00:07:00 -
[36]
Quote:
we are looking into putting limits to the claiming mechanics, which have been touched upon by TomB, but this would be the subject of another blog
Now this is something what could change everything, and I hope CCP uses their imagination well on this. Why not to have distance limits on sove as well number limits?
www.occam-razor.com
|
psykiller
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 09:20:00 -
[37]
to ahceive constellation capital u need 3 stations per 1 constellation, 1 station set to claiming for capital, and over half the rest as territories right ?
so atm u cant anchor outposts in the same constellation as conquearable stations, also conquerable stations arent upgradeable, so atm in most place ppl are gonna have to anchor 2-3 outposts minimum, to secure a 1 constellation. thought the purpose was to cut down on pos spam warfare, not increase it
===============================================
Strenght and Honour. Heart of one, strenght of many.
Proud to be RAWR!! |
Cutthroat Morgan
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 09:48:00 -
[38]
Originally by: psykiller
to ahceive constellation capital u need 3 stations per 1 constellation, 1 station set to claiming for capital, and over half the rest as territories right ?
so atm u cant anchor outposts in the same constellation as conquearable stations, also conquerable stations arent upgradeable, so atm in most place ppl are gonna have to anchor 2-3 outposts minimum, to secure a 1 constellation. thought the purpose was to cut down on pos spam warfare, not increase it
Why cant you anchor outposts in constellations having a conq station? Wasnt aware of that mechanic.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari
AUS Corporation
CORE.
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 05:52:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Cutthroat Morgan
Originally by: psykiller
to ahceive constellation capital u need 3 stations per 1 constellation, 1 station set to claiming for capital, and over half the rest as territories right ?
so atm u cant anchor outposts in the same constellation as conquearable stations, also conquerable stations arent upgradeable, so atm in most place ppl are gonna have to anchor 2-3 outposts minimum, to secure a 1 constellation. thought the purpose was to cut down on pos spam warfare, not increase it
Why cant you anchor outposts in constellations having a conq station? Wasnt aware of that mechanic.
He's simply mistaken. You can anchor outposts in the same constellation as other stations/outposts. What you can't do is put an outpost in the same system as another outpost/station.
----
AUS Corp
Lead Megalomanic |
William Caldwell
Gallente
ISS Logistics
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 22:42:00 -
[40]
On your blog it's mentioned "Starbase control towers, conquerable stations and outposts belonging to the sovereign alliance may not be attacked" but on patch notes only Outpost is mentioned as being allowed to be set for 'Constellation Capital'! Can conquorable stations be set as 'Constellation Capital' aswell or only player built outposts 
|
|
|
Nesa
Antares Fleet Yards
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 09:41:00 -
[41]
Originally by: psykiller
to ahceive constellation capital u need 3 stations per 1 constellation, 1 station set to claiming for capital, and over half the rest as territories right ?
so atm u cant anchor outposts in the same constellation as conquearable stations, also conquerable stations arent upgradeable, so atm in most place ppl are gonna have to anchor 2-3 outposts minimum, to secure a 1 constellation. thought the purpose was to cut down on pos spam warfare, not increase it
I think the idea is to make POS spamming have to step up a notch to compete... ie... now instead of spamming 1 system, you're going to have to spam a whole constellation... It's going to make some areas really hard to conquer. It'll be who runs out of isk first probably, rather than who can destroy the most POS's. :o
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |