| Author |
Topic |
CCP Chronotis
 |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:21:00 - [ 151] - Quote
 Originally by: Smurphy1
One question that a lot of people seem to be asking is what happens to the upgrades when you take a system from someone? I think that if you take a system you should have to put up a new infrastructure hub but the activity levels(except for time of course) are still there from the previous owner. The levels will have degraded somewhat due to the fighting but the conqueror should not have everything destroyed. Or possibly make it like looting a ship, some mods got destroyed and some are in the wreck.
The military and industrial indexes are preserved though will continue to decay as normal through time, only the strategic index will reset when system sovereignty changes hands. Whilst the system is contested it is highly unlikely there will not be as much resource gathering going on so you may lose a level or two depending on how long it takes to conquer the system. You could find yourself seizing a system with a high index level and good combo of base level resources or location value/gate count combo. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:26:00 - [ 152] - Quote
I hope all the newer space-holders are reading this, you have some serious work to do before Dec. 1st. Minerals to mine, isk to make - spam outposts like there is no tomorrow. Blot out the 0.0 Suns with your freighters! Up to four extra days of defence/offence with a station present - per system. Better get to work minions! Sounds like it might be able to spawn some pretty intense fighting in station systems - now all CCP needs to do is find some way to ensure that whomever blobs the hardest doesn't automatically win and we can rename 0.0 to "Paradise".  |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Primary. |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:28:00 - [ 153] - Quote
From the blog:
"Your own alliance logo will be proudly displayed for all to see"
Will it just display the default Star thingy in the blog picture or does this mean say the custom image will be displayed that some alliances have.
If it is the custom image, does this mean you've finally fixed the process so those without a custom image can submit and finally get them accepted and in game? |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:29:00 - [ 154] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The military and industrial indexes are preserved though will continue to decay as normal through time, only the strategic index will reset when system sovereignty changes hands. Whilst the system is contested it is highly unlikely there will not be as much resource gathering going on so you may lose a level or two depending on how long it takes to conquer the system. You could find yourself seizing a system with a high index level and good combo of base level resources or location value/gate count combo.
Wow, this is information that was totally unavailable prior to this comment, and might actually make assaults attractive--assuming you guys fix the upgrades to something worthwhile. Eve is totally the best-documented MMO out there. :brofist: |
Wu Phat |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:33:00 - [ 155] - Quote
1. How about if you anchor a SBU it stays online only until A. the defending forces TCU is destryed where the SBU's auto's offline. B. You have 3 hours grace period to anchor and online the next SBU if not done on time the SBU auto's offline and goes into 12 hour waiting period before it can be turned back on. It can also be destroyed and another SBU can not be depolyed in it's place.If There is another attackers SBU in system that one goes into a reinfocred mode for the 12 hours making it invulnable.
2. Defenders should beable to deploy SBU's but not in the same way as attackers. Example: Attackes have SBU's on 2 of the 4 gates to slow him down I depoly 2 SBU's on the others. But my SBU's Only last for 4 hours and Auto's offine. For doing this Overloads my sov systems gate network and I can not depoly SBU's on thoose gates for 72 Hours. By defending my SBU's I have effectively stoped my attackers advance for 12 hours and mybe destroyed the none reinforced SBU. Giving me more time and mybe making my attacker rethink his idea of conquest over my system. If I win battle after battle that is. |
Smoke Adian
Systematic-Chaos |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:36:00 - [ 156] - Quote
I know you guys have an aversion to cool/logical names (i.e. disregarding the often suggested GalNet vs. "New Eden" for the social network), but FLAG and STOP were nice names and seemed to be popular with the community. Why change the names to something boring and uninteresting? |
iP0D |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:40:00 - [ 157] - Quote
Originally by: Smoke Adian
I know you guys have an aversion to cool/logical names (i.e. disregarding the often suggested GalNet vs. "New Eden" for the social network), but FLAG and STOP were nice names and seemed to be popular with the community. Why change the names to something boring and uninteresting?
Probably thought it was less roleplaying or boardgame like. |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Primary. |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:46:00 - [ 158] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Smurphy1
One question that a lot of people seem to be asking is what happens to the upgrades when you take a system from someone? I think that if you take a system you should have to put up a new infrastructure hub but the activity levels(except for time of course) are still there from the previous owner. The levels will have degraded somewhat due to the fighting but the conqueror should not have everything destroyed. Or possibly make it like looting a ship, some mods got destroyed and some are in the wreck.
The military and industrial indexes are preserved though will continue to decay as normal through time, only the strategic index will reset when system sovereignty changes hands. Whilst the system is contested it is highly unlikely there will not be as much resource gathering going on so you may lose a level or two depending on how long it takes to conquer the system. You could find yourself seizing a system with a high index level and good combo of base level resources or location value/gate count combo.
Super important information, that should of been in the blog. |
Eint Truzenzuzex |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:47:00 - [ 159] - Quote
Edited by: Eint Truzenzuzex on 11/11/2009 19:48:16
Greetings to the hive,
have to rewrite it |
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:47:00 - [ 160] - Quote
On the topic of system upgrades, if I got this (and the sov upgrade) blog right, the way to take out cynojammers, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. is to kill either the hub or the outpost. Is this correct?
In other words, if the hub is gone, is the ability to use the upgrades lost, and do the respective achorables go offline?
Likewise, if the outpost is lost, will the anchorables — and the effects they confer — be lost as well? |
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:56:00 - [ 161] - Quote
Originally by: Tippia
On the topic of system upgrades, if I got this (and the sov upgrade) blog right, the way to take out cynojammers, cyno beacons, jump bridges etc. is to kill either the hub or the outpost. Is this correct?
In other words, if the hub is gone, is the ability to use the upgrades lost, and do the respective achorables go offline?
Likewise, if the outpost is lost, will the anchorables — and the effects they confer — be lost as well?
You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. But yes your other options are destroy the hub which will offline anything which requires an upgrade (the important change here is we pause, not cancel S&I jobs unless the array is destroyed or unachored at which point the job is lost). There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline. |
Henri LeChasseur |
Posted - 2009.11.11 19:58:00 - [ 162] - Quote
This looks awful. |
Hyperforce99
Gallente
GoldTech Mischievous Industrial Logistics Ltd.
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:00:00 - [ 163] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
Edited by: CCP Sisyphus on 11/11/2009 13:30:28
Originally by: Fatsam
Where can hubs be anchored?
They can only be anchored at planets that do not have an outpost or conquerable station there.
Damn,I was hoping they would be near the sun. Perhaps the glare would make combat there to hard... then again we do get the new shiny planet graphics  Perhaps not so bad after all..  |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:04:00 - [ 164] - Quote
Edited by: Fuujin on 11/11/2009 20:06:53 Originally by: CCP Chronotis
You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well. But yes your other options are destroy the hub which will offline anything which requires an upgrade (the important change here is we pause, not cancel S&I jobs unless the array is destroyed or unachored at which point the job is lost).
There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline.
Serious question here: when should we expect the sov upgrade/maintenance devblog Mk II? This claiming/disputing system looks fairly solid on the surface, but without worthwhile upgrades the point of the system gets lost--plus the existing 0.0 people need to plan for the "week of hell" where infrastructure needs to be built up, and waiting until the 11th hour to release that info will make for very unhappy people (and you thought they were upset now?  ) Edit: The retention of teh industrial/'military' sov level is a key bit of info that really needs to be conveyed to the playerbase if you want to get the best possible feedback. When we don't see something like that and see that we need to blow up the hub to take a system, the whole process looks inherently flawed, when in fact its 'merely' inconvenient. |
Darth Sith
Genbuku.
Daisho Syndicate |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:10:00 - [ 165] - Quote
For clarity:
In order to online a supercap array you need to have a) sov b) resource hub c) capital upgrade. Even though the resource hub is invulnerable, will the capital upgrade remain invulnerable as well ?
So if I understand this correctly, to produce a supercap, an alliance has to get sov, anchor resource hub, anchor capital upgrade and pay a monthly premium for the priviledge but to destroy said capital in build requires only that a superblob (read goon jehad) come into your system, reinforce the tower in question and pop it the next day.
Maybe (and hopefully) I am over-simplifiying the situation but this does not seem balanced. Could we maybe replace the sov ticker on a pos with a capital ticker that can only be checked with the upgrade in place to maybe give the tower an extended reinforcement timer if a supercap array is present ?
|
Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:20:00 - [ 166] - Quote
This looks awesome. |
Wulfnor
Caldari
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:23:00 - [ 167] - Quote
Originally by: Darth Sith
For clarity:
So if I understand this correctly, to produce a supercap, an alliance has to get sov, anchor resource hub, anchor capital upgrade and pay a monthly premium for the priviledge but to destroy said capital in build requires only that a superblob (read goon jehad) come into your system, reinforce the tower in question and pop it the next day.
you are correct to destroy a CSAA all that is needed is to destroy the POS. The new sov mechanics make this easier. |
Tippia
Reikoku
IT Alliance |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:25:00 - [ 168] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
You still have the traditional route of attacking the jammer directly to incapacitate it for example as well.
[…]
There are currently no upgrades tied to outposts though we do have the option of adding such restrictions in if we want to and it would work the same. If the outpost was lost, any upgrades requiring you to have an outpost in system will go offline.
Ah, I somehow took the upkeep blog's mention of anchoring those upgrades "at starbases" as meaning at outposts and making them part of that set of targets, which would make them hard to knock out without a full-on system attack, but that clears things up. Thanks.  |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Triumvirate. |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:32:00 - [ 169] - Quote
Is this the new 'emo rage' thread?
/me wonders how long this thread will take to reach 100
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:32:00 - [ 170] - Quote
I will admit this might be slightly less of a grind than POS warfare but structures that can only be shot after a set timer runs out are just as bad an idea as they are under our current sov mechanic.
A tug of war capture mechanic I came up with for my own suggestion for SOV a while back would likely work better in dominion.
The defending alliance's structure has a timer with 12-18 (or something) hours on it. When another alliance shoots the structure that timer begins to count down. If the timer reaches 0, ownership switches to the attacker and the timer begins to count upward.
The key here is that the defender can, at any time, shoot the structure and move the timer back in its favor. The attacker can, of course, take it right back.
Under this mechanic the holding alliance will be pushed to control the timer as long as possible even past their prime. The other alliance would be pushed to take control as soon as possible, even before their prime. Fights would be far more likely.
In dominion, just like now, fleets would have time to size each other up before the reinforced timer runs out and the smaller fleet will most likely back down leading to another booring POS...er TCU grind.
As a bonus, using such a timer for TCUs would make the extra complication of SBUs unnecessary. Simplicity FTW.
|
Mithfindel
Aseyakone |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:32:00 - [ 171] - Quote
It's funny how people can't comprehend a system that is this simple. At least if you've read the test server thread.
Siege: The siege is active when the majority of the gates are covered by blockade units. Otherwise, the siege is inactive. The units can be owned by anyone, and any offline units can be online by anyone. Onlined blockade units are always the property of the corp which onlined them, so anchoring offline units means you're effectively inviting someone to steal your large POS-priced space epeen and disrupt your sov.
Stuff(tm): Station and/or infrahub, as applicable.
Sov(tm): An online territorial control unit.
Your Stuff can be shot if the siege is active and the Stuff in question is not reinforced.
Your Sov can be shot if you don't have any Stuff in the system. Even if the defender counter-spams an infrahub, there's a time window equal to the infrahub anchor + online time to shoot the sov down. If the sov is down, the defender's infrahub can't anchor and/or online.
Blockade units can be shot if the siege is inactive, the unit is not online or there is shootable Stuff or Sov in the system.
Strategic level of the system: How long the sov (unit) has been online? Sov down -> reset
Military/industrial level of the system: How much the system is used? If unused -> decays. If infrahub down -> NOT reset. If the capture does not disrupt the activity level, increased system value does persist and the new owner can instantly install upgrades to the infrahub.
Technically, this would allow for someone to rat, mine and do profession-stuff to "build" the system, and then sell the system, or in a more likely case, transfer developed systems between alliances in the same block by an alliance voluntarily unanchoring their sov, made easier if the corp owning the station jumps alliances in the process? If the infrahub cannot be unanchored when offline (offlined by unanchoring the TCU in this case) then things become a bit more complicated as it must be shot. (Unless the builders do their magic without an infrahub.)
Also, decay means that the defending alliance does have a possibility of burned earth tactics - if they have no chance on keeping the system, stop everything related to the military and industrial indices, and harass anyone trying to improve the indices for a while, and the system loses its added value.
And finally, the infrastructure not mentioned above (like POS) are invulnerable only when reinforced. This means that any CSAA's can be shot anytime, since there is no "make my POS invulnerable" upgrades like sov 4 was. Naturally, shooting said supercap POS will be easier after your fleet has shot down the cynojammer and you can have caps, too. If you're strong enough to try to take the system (i.e. destroy the infrahub), reinforcing the POS should be pretty much an afterthought, so shooting down the infrahub only to disrupt CSAA's does sound nonsensical. (At the same cost you could kill the TCU and likely plant your own.)
The only unclear bit to me is the status of stations in systems with no sov. If I am reading right, there's no reinforcement timers, only ping pong? Because if there's reinforcement timers, having sovereignty in station systems where you don't plan to build any upgrades becomes useless, unless you want to pay six million per day (TCU + infrahub) more for two extra reinforcement timers. So, the alliance in question would save 6M a day for stations they want to keep solely for "scorched earth" purposes or "ghetto sov" (it's not officially mine, but you die if you come there) in empty regions. Of course, if I'm correct and no sov = no reinforcement timers, then this tactic doesn't work, since you can technically have any corporation come and shoot your station to capture it. (Fallback to the pre-sov mechanic when there's no sovereignty in the system.)
Naturally, if the sov comes with statistics (hinted when renting was mentioned) then it might be a valuable intel tool. |
Rigeborod |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:36:00 - [ 172] - Quote
And BTW let us imagine alliance A having prime time at 10 and other alliance (B) having prime time at 13-14. For Alliance A they will need to kill TCU in the Alliance B prime time (I'm talking about systems with only TCU in it, no HUBs or Outposts) cause of 3 hours online time. On other hand Alliance B can easily destroy TCU as SBUs would be online when everybody in A is sleeping.
That's not fair as A is equal to B. |
Jordan Musgrat
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:42:00 - [ 173] - Quote
Originally by: Altaree
WTB Faction SBU's that alter the system's stats for 10x the base cost. (like in WH's)
or maybe just act as cyno jam killers, or cyno beacons, or ....*head explodes*
This would be sooooooo awesome :) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:44:00 - [ 174] - Quote
Originally by: Quesa
I'm a bit displeased that the new structures are too large to be transported in even a maxed out JF. This seems like the addition of artificial hindrances to those alliances who live at the very outskirts of New Eden.
Consider that any attacker will face the same problems and therefore will think twice or even more often if it is really worth to attack there. So the longer distance and higher logistics will be more annoying. But they give you the benefit that it gives you also more protection - at least a bit more. Because people do not like increased logistics and will attack elsewhere first. The 'it is unfair because it means more logistics for us' is only a narrow view of the situation and doesn't take into account the side-effects. |
Jordan Musgrat
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:54:00 - [ 175] - Quote
Edited by: Jordan Musgrat on 11/11/2009 20:54:54 Originally by: Trent Nichols
I will admit this might be slightly less of a grind than POS warfare......
I hate to come in here and defend CCP, since they've still got alot of work to do, and there's other parts of Dominion that need superfixing, but it's not at all your post. There's 1 TCU, there's 2-4 SBUs in most systems. So while a high moon count system would mean that you might need 30 poses to take it, on top of killing that many, or maybe more, you know that an attacker is going to try to put 2-4 SBUs down, that after they're online, he'll want to attack your outpost/ihub, and after that, your 1 (single) TCU. The timeframe is acceptable, and on the whole, it's lightyears better than the current system, especially if you take into account the awesomeness they'll be able to add later as we or they think of it. So it might not be perfect yet, but it's a huge step in the right direction. That's all we can expect, and at least on this mechanic level, that's what's being given to us. Now if they can only fix the upgrades, the sov part of Dominion will be epic indeed. I'm already getting the Navy Dominix this expansion, so I can't bring myself to complain too much. |
Sauer Hase |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:54:00 - [ 176] - Quote
Two guestions: What happens to the hub and outpost HP when SBUs are destroyed and they become untargettable? do they get full hp or stay damaged (and unreppable as you can't target them)? If they stay damaged killing them just became much easier as you can dictate when they can be repped.
Also second question: how much do you need to rep a hub / outpost for it to get it's reinforce timers back? |
Katrinazinski |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:56:00 - [ 177] - Quote
Improved "Lawless Space."
Coming to a SandBox near you soon.
DO NOT ENTER "Lawless Space" before reading all of its special rules and regulations, including the fine print.
There is no law here.
- - - - - -
Please try to follow the K.I.S.S. principle with the new toys, even if this is a Beta test.
|
Smurphy1
Silver Snake Enterprise
Systematic-Chaos |
Posted - 2009.11.11 20:59:00 - [ 178] - Quote
Originally by: Sauer Hase
Two guestions: What happens to the hub and outpost HP when SBUs are destroyed and they become untargettable? do they get full hp or stay damaged (and unreppable as you can't target them)? If they stay damaged killing them just became much easier as you can dictate when they can be repped.
Also second question: how much do you need to rep a hub / outpost for it to get it's reinforce timers back?
This is the next big question that needs answering. I think probably the best solution is that they repair themselves over a 24 or 48 hours period. Instant repair seems too overpowered and having them sit damaged is not a good choice either. |
Inferno Styx
Caldari
Division of Dying Stars
Solyaris Chtonium |
Posted - 2009.11.11 21:06:00 - [ 179] - Quote
24 hours sounds like a solid number to me. It gives an active attacker the chance to come back and finish the job while at the same time allowing an active defense the ability to fight of occasional attacks |
Ma'al Raer
Failswarm |
Posted - 2009.11.11 21:07:00 - [ 180] - Quote
The most stupid thing about this system is that it limits the amount of player decisions and interaction in terms of defence and attack times.
Now you put x amount of stront for x amount of time reinforced, and when you tower is being attack you can go in and take or add stront to try and define your strategy in terms of reinforced time.
The attackers can "kite" the towers to try and end this manipulation of stront an get the timer to they time zone.
Now you will have a clock with a random var in the mix ... wtf? Either the random var is going to be huge and the defenders get shafted by it or its going to be so small that its a constante ping pong of time zones because a EU alliance will always put their timer for EU and a US alliance will never get it to US time, they haven't got a single chance of trying to manipulate the final result.
The game is no longer a sandbox you just have to accept what it tells you to do. |
All Channels
EVE Information Portal
Screenshots & Art
