| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Adam C
0utbreak
   |
Posted - 2007.06.14 23:17:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Adam C on 14/06/2007 23:17:24
 Originally by: Abbadon Wrath
Is it just me, or does it look like the new system encourages POS spamming?
in encourages spamming in general beit ships or things.
more pos's
more small ships to take out pos guns
more cap ships
(more reasons to fight? at pos's?) - YAY i guess
It aint neccercerily a bad thing though just current game mechanics and rev 2.0 simply still cant handle Super EPIC Capital Fights. (though it will change Titan / Mummyship warfare)
I hope to be proven wrong and at the end of it all the future of this game is still bright.
Looking foward o/
|
Abramovich
OEG
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 04:34:00 -
[92]
more poses, more POSes.. MORE MORE POSes.
more pain with logistics.
All this features are good, but why you just change claiming from moon POSes to planet POSes. Left moons for mining, and planets for fight.
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 09:00:00 -
[93]
Nice and well written blog. However I don't think the end result envisioned by the creators will tak place.
Any limit on cynojammers in system ? If they affect BOTH parties (defender and attacker), then it's ok. However if they do not affect jump portal towers, the defender has a large advantage.
It looks like constelations will be easy to lock down once you have constellation sov. Anchor a few large POSes with enough small guns to take out non-cap ships easily. Anchor cynojammers at these poses. Anchor one jump tower. You are ready to react to any attack almost instantly.
As other people stated, more boring shooting of structures. Just now it has a progression. Instead of going straight for the tower, you can waste time with out of shield structures. Anchoring a cynojammer will make this a necesity.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Zeveron
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate
Terror In The System
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 10:23:00 -
[94]
I need some1 to clarify that outpost/starbase invulnerability feature pls.
What happens if you have sov 1-3 on a station system?
Can the station get attacked if you still have sov on that system?
I quess its gona work as now, right?
The only thing that changes is that if you have sov lvl 4 the POSes in the capital system cannot be targeted and destroyed, so the sov there cannot be changed and that means that sov and station cannot be lost in the capital system.
Sorry for the questions, but CCP confused me with those descriptions a bit :-)
----------------------------------
A desperate voice brakes the silence on the GODS coms:
|
Eumenis
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate
Terror In The System
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 13:21:00 -
[95]
Wow, big changes. I like those and it looks that we are going to see many more alliances claiming constellations now, unless big ones stop CCP's plan from working.
It will also be a big change in politics. I doubt whether most alliances (including the bigger ones) can keep constellation sovereignty (that is the winning apple) over more than 3-4 constellations, unless the smaller ones don't take a role.
Hence I see two roads in the plan:
BoB, RA, GS and maybe a couple of others, continue their work and they don't allow anyone to claim capital sovereignty. The same old story will remain. The most probable road is though towards capital claiming in systems, by groups of alliances and "micro" wars between those alliances on neibhouring constellations. This last will be a very beautiful perspective.
Who will divide the pie now?
|
Recluse Viramor
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 13:38:00 -
[96]
Tzrailasa hits the nail on the head.
Rev 2 really addresses none of the issues of pos warfare that have been a plague since its inception, only builds upon them. Albeit there are some good changes that will make pos warfare easier and harder at the same time.
|
|
CCP LeMousse
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 17:35:00 -
[97]
Edited by: CCP LeMousse on 15/06/2007 17:35:49
Thank you for the feedback; keep it coming.
I've compiled a list of questions from this thread and a few other sources, and will try addressing them below;
Is it possible to have more than one constellation capital per alliance?
Yes. As the name indicates, its a constellation capital, so an alliance may have as many capitals as it has constellations (with Constellation Sovereignty).
Can station services be attacked in a constellation capital with Sovereignty 4?
Yes. While the outpost is invulnerable, its services are not, so you may target, attack and disable them.
What happens to Constellation Sovereignty if the corporation holding sovereignty and the outposts leaves its alliance to create a new one, or switches sides?
Sovereignty is on a per-alliance basis, so if a corporation that holds all of the sovereignty in a constellation leaves the alliance in whose name it is claiming, constellation sovereignty will go into contested mode.
Are alliance mails generated for starbases anchored in a constellation over which you have Constellation Sovereignty but not in a system in which you have a starbase?
No. Only systems in which the alliance has starbases will generate an anchoring alert.
So it is possible to only have one starbase up and running to claim a capital with Sovereignty 4?
Yes. It is, however, a risky tactic.
Can you anchor starbases in a capital with Sovereignty 4 if you're not the holding/claiming alliance?
Yes. Anyone may travel through or anchor starbases in a system with Sovereignty 4. However, only the starbases belonging to the alliance with the sovereignty will be invulnerable and claim sovereignty while Sovereignty 4 is in effect.
When this is implemented, will the timers start at zero or take into account the existing days of sovereignty?
All current sovereignty claims will be switched to Sovereignty 1. The timers from Sovereignty 1 and upwards will start at zero however.
Is there anything planned to let an alliance check it's claims and current sovereignty level?
Individual sovereignty is displayed in each system, and the map tracks Constellation Sovereignty claims.
What would happen if a corp who controls all starbases in the Pink Alliance's capital system (only), but not the station itself, left the alliance, or if the towers were offlined?
We'll assume the capital system has Sovereignty 4.
A system with Sovereignty 4 cannot lose its sovereignty. So until Constellation Sovereignty is lost, Sovereignty 4 will remain in that system, and it will not be possible to target or attack the station.
Isn't the faster-claim advantage given to the defender too short?
We'll be closely monitoring the situation and modify it if needed.
Hope this answers most of your questions/concerns.
|
|
Serenity Steele
Rearden Steele
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:05:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 15/06/2007 23:06:17
Below is a link of alliances with the infrastructure in place to reach;
- Constellation Sov.
- Sovereignty Level 4.
Sov 4 and Constellation Sov Readyness (On 15th June 2007)
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
Pepperami
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:09:00 -
[99]
Thanks for the replies Le Mousse..
Why is it not considered a good move to make the Station Services of the Capital system invulnerable also? Seems like it would follow naturally with the invulnerable system idea?
|
Gladia Horusthu
Gallente
Anything Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 07:24:00 -
[100]
Other would-be prognosticators have spoken up, so here is what I predict:
1) Alliances that choose to pursue constellation sovereignty will probably be very selective about where to expand to. Constellation sovereignty = supercap capability IF they are able to repel attackers long enough to finish building before they lose constellation sovereignty and become vulnerable again. With so many POS's required, FEWER constellations, not more, will be under sovereignty on territorial control maps.
2) More supercap production will be planned, as players see an opportunity for a safe build with Constellation Sovereignty. Most builders I have talked to speak wistfully of the opportunity, and more than likely this will be acceded to in many groups.
3) Because of the defensive requirements there will be room for greater numbers of smaller alliances to claim space in 0.0 as POS maintenance is a downer.
4) More alliances will ensure within each that multiple corporations run POS's, as absconding with corp-owned but sovereignty-insuring POSes will become more damaging to long-term goals.
But that is all just an educated guess.
|
Francesca Dell'Agio
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 14:43:00 -
[101]
In the current climate of a mad polarised EVE in 0.0 however, the cost factors pretty much squeeze out the small to medium sized alliances, as opposed to those who do not rely on income from the belts and such things.
I wouldn't be surprised that around two weeks after the patch a few folks go on a killing spree as their own homes are nicely on track for stability through the new game features .. while their targets are still in the process of adapting as the required costs are comparably (relative to them) much much higher.
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 20:20:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 16/06/2007 20:20:36
Quote:
Starbase control towers, conquerable stations and outposts belonging to the sovereign alliance may not be attacked
Does this include modules that are outside the shields, f.i. cyno jammers or can guns/ecm/cyno jammers still be destroyed in capital systems ?
ANSWER PLS ;i
Quote:
What would happen if a corp who controls all starbases in the Pink Alliance's capital system (only), but not the station itself, left the alliance, or if the towers were offlined?
We'll assume the capital system has Sovereignty 4.
A system with Sovereignty 4 cannot lose its sovereignty. So until Constellation Sovereignty is lost, Sovereignty 4 will remain in that system, and it will not be possible to target or attack the station.
So capital system sov can be held without any poses at all once const sov is established ???
|
MehTheTrader
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 18:51:00 -
[103]
Sounds king of cheesy.. doing step one to get to step 2 extra. Seems a bit unrealistic, but whatever, hehe,
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:19:00 -
[104]
Will be interesting to watch what happens.
Every system with a cynojammer in it and high percentage of moons covered could end up being a graveyard for an attacking force.
Imagine this: You attack a system with 10 moons, all have deathstar POS. There is a cynojammer active on one of them. there is 5 carriers repairing the cynojammer and each other while the attacking 50 BS try to blow up the cynojammer before getting ripped to shreds by the manned POS guns. I am not sure how CCP envisions attackers getting a foothold in a system with a cynojammer active and a fleet defending the Cynojamming POS (and remote repping the cynojammer).
Now even worse, imagine that the defender has a titan. Titan on grid with the cynojammer. What fleet would ever survive long enough to take out the cynojammer before getting ripped to shreds?
------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
|
Arushia
Nova Labs
Empire Research
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 09:14:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Adam Weishaupt
Why not move them to planets? Or only POS at planets can claim sovereignty?
You don't need to move them if you simmply allow only 1 POS per planet to claim sov. IE: "You cannot claim soveriegnty with this control tower (Charmerout 7 moon 5) becaue a control tower at Charmerout 7 moon 3 already claims sovereignty."
Tired of Waiting? Use Empire Research |
|
CCP LeMousse
|
Posted - 2007.06.25 18:10:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk
Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 16/06/2007 20:20:36
Quote:
Starbase control towers, conquerable stations and outposts belonging to the sovereign alliance may not be attacked
Does this include modules that are outside the shields, f.i. cyno jammers or can guns/ecm/cyno jammers still be destroyed in capital systems ?
ANSWER PLS ;i
Quote:
What would happen if a corp who controls all starbases in the Pink Alliance's capital system (only), but not the station itself, left the alliance, or if the towers were offlined?
We'll assume the capital system has Sovereignty 4.
A system with Sovereignty 4 cannot lose its sovereignty. So until Constellation Sovereignty is lost, Sovereignty 4 will remain in that system, and it will not be possible to target or attack the station.
So capital system sov can be held without any poses at all once const sov is established ???
Structures outside of the starbase forcefield may be targetted and shot in a Sovereignty 4 system.
And yes, a system with Sovereignty 4 will hold sovereignty without any starbases deployed in the system, as the condition for it is Constellation Sovereignty. You do need starbases to claim Sovereignty 1-3 though, which are required to get to Sovereignty 4.
It is, however, a very risky tactic for a very small advantage.
|
|
Chruker
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 15:45:00 -
[107]
Originally by: CCP LeMousse
Is there anything planned to let an alliance check it's claims and current sovereignty level?
Individual sovereignty is displayed in each system, and the map tracks Constellation Sovereignty claims.
The individual sovereignty levels are also available through the EVE API. Somebody just have to write a tool to display them.
----- http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online -----
Top wishes:
- No daily downtime
- Faster training on sisi
- Updated data export
- Speedup IGB table rendering |
Casket Base
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 15:52:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Casket Base on 27/06/2007 15:51:11
Edit; Nm
|
Serenity Steele
Rearden Steele
|
Posted - 2007.06.29 07:18:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Chruker
Originally by: CCP LeMousse
Is there anything planned to let an alliance check it's claims and current sovereignty level?
Individual sovereignty is displayed in each system, and the map tracks Constellation Sovereignty claims.
The individual sovereignty levels are also available through the EVE API. Somebody just have to write a tool to display them.
The alliance pages on eve-maps.com already display sov level per system. :) Just click an alliance name to see the list by sov level.
Eve Strategic Maps - Outpost Alert - Sovereign Systems - Alliance Rank |
Nubiam
Caldari
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.07.09 20:47:00 -
[110]
Are there plans to allow member of the alliance to use the weapons on a pos to better allow versatility in POS defence instead of just the members of that corporation?
N-
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2007.07.17 09:29:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Nubiam
Are there plans to allow member of the alliance to use the weapons on a pos to better allow versatility in POS defence instead of just the members of that corporation?
N-
Yes, this is being looked into. We are also looking at finally allowing Ship Maintenance Arrays and other structures to be set for use at the Alliance level as well.
"Tux did it!" |
|
pewpew master
|
Posted - 2007.08.19 13:15:00 -
[112]
A quick but important question, if when the 30 day timer is started all the conditions are not met e.g not 3 outposts in one constellation. Will the alliance get constellational sov if the conditions are met on the 30th day?
|
Cain Calzon
Caldari
Genco
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.25 19:27:00 -
[113]
according to the Devblog that when u get Constellation Sovereignty ur supposed to get 30% reduction in fuel usage on all towers in the constellation. now that our alliance has cons. sov. why doesnt the fuel reduction step in?
|
Jurt
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 22:55:00 -
[114]
Could you clarify what will hapend in next case:
We have Sovereignty Level 2, and deploy Cap shipyad and Crystal field generator. After that we lost Sovereignty in case of other aly deploy more POS. Question:
1) Crystal field generator put off-line automatic or continue work?
2) What will be with building mather ship in Cap shipyad if in building time we lost Sovereignty? |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |