EVE Online | EVE Insider


Join the Community, Create an EVE-ONLINE account or log in.

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Dominion--Storming the Gates

Reply to Topic

Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 : last (11)

Author	Topic
Xikorita Mob Thought Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 01:58:00 - [211] - Quote Report The way I am seeing this, the only purpose to destroy an oppo sov in system is to **** with their upgrades etc and nothing to the attacker. I propose that when you win and put your upgrade structure down, it gets the loser stats -1 or -2 on each item. So at least we wont have to grind it over.
Anikadir DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 02:56:00 - [212] - Quote Report I don't think there will be any minimalism to the tactics needed to take systems. You will still need firstly, the logistics of getting anywhere from 2500m2 to 10000m2 worth of SBU's to the system that is the target (not much different from deploying a large sov gaining POS or two), and then secondly, getting them all positioned and on-lined within a defined period of time (which is longer than onlining POS's). And all the while doing this under-fire from the defenders in the system under attack and in the pipes leading to that system. And looking at some of the other changes in the Dominion pack, I wonder how much damage a death ray firing Titan will do to an onlining SBU?
Trabber Shir Caldari 5I Incorporated	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:25:00 - [213] - Quote Report Originally by: sg3s Ok last update to the chart I made showing how the system works. In this version I clarified that assault still needs SBU majority to make the TCU vulnerable. http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5688/sovindominionv14.png Unless there are big mistakes in the process this will be my last update. There is one really big mistake. the first note says that defense can place SBUs and needs to maintain a majority. In fact, all SBUs, regardless of who placed them, count for the attackers. Only 'empty' gates count toward defense.
Wulfnor Caldari Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 03:42:00 - [214] - Quote Report Originally by: SpaceMonkey99 I might be missing something, and it is unrelated to the soverignty holding/disruption mechanic which you guys are talking about, but when the TCU's go online based on the sovereignty held prior to dominion launch, due to the script that looks at ownership retrospectivley. Will the soverignty holding alliances start incurring the associated bills immediatley under the new mechanic? yes they will but the first bill for all sov will have already been paid.
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.12 04:13:00 - [215] - Quote Report yep... 750,000 m³ of hub will be a piece of cake for aspiring entities fp
gnome blood	Posted - 2009.11.12 04:51:00 - [216] - Quote Report Originally by: Roemy Schneider yep... 750,000 m³ of hub will be a piece of cake for aspiring entities fp Sweet, blowing up that freighter will also make the damn thing just disappear with the wreck! No moving stuff from a can to cargo in a freighter, remember? Good thinking!
Arronicus Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 05:11:00 - [217] - Quote Report Originally by: Xikorita The way I am seeing this, the only purpose to destroy an oppo sov in system is to **** with their upgrades etc and nothing to the attacker. I propose that when you win and put your upgrade structure down, it gets the loser stats -1 or -2 on each item. So at least we wont have to grind it over. Great job on not actually reading through the dev posts. As it currently stands, what you are suggesting IS the case. If a system has military level 5, and industry level 5, and strategic level 5, and an enemy takes sov, the military and industry level will only drop to what they would have decayed to over the period of lessened ratting and mining activities. it is ONLY the strategic level that will drop to 0.
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2009.11.12 07:50:00 - [218] - Quote Report Originally by: gnome blood Originally by: Roemy Schneider yep... 750,000 m³ of hub will be a piece of cake for aspiring entities fp Sweet, blowing up that freighter will also make the damn thing just disappear with the wreck! No moving stuff from a can to cargo in a freighter, remember? Good thinking! There are actually a few exceptions to a freighter's locked cargo in space. - 50km around an online control tower - launching an outpost egg - 5km around a freighter wreck
Teck7 Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:04:00 - [219] - Quote Report Edited by: Teck7 on 12/11/2009 08:06:56 Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Quote: 3) Can TCUs be physically moved within system without disrupting sov? Obviously if they are automatically placed the owning alliance may want them moved to a better location. Who will get ownership of the TCU in each system, the alliance executor? Sortof - But when you unanchor a TCU you loose the strategic index (the "sov claim time"), and will start again from 0 once you reanchor. Currently the Executor will have ownership of all TCUs for an alliance. This means that the executor corp will have to pay all bills. Please note that the 1st bill will have already been paid. But - You are able to change ownership of a TCU (and associated hub) to another corp in the same alliance. This will not reset the sov time and will transfer all bills/infrastructure etc to the new owning corp. So in short if an alliance wants a TCU moved to an armed pos we are completely screwed in doing so without completely losing the strategic index? Could ccp programmers not create a few precheck functions within the script that will run during the expansion and if the owning alliance has an existing large tower that is online the TCU gets put there instead? I know it is not that difficult to actually accommodate in python (which if i recall is the standard that ccp programmers develop in with a pinch of C). i.e: if free moon, place legacy tcu there if no free moon but alliance has existing large tower online, place legacy tcu there else place legacy tcu where you were originally (at a planet? was never indicated)
Barqs Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:12:00 - [220] - Quote Report Agreed, Why not save us hours and pointless hours moving POSs. Barqs-
CCP Abathur C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:25:00 - [221] - Quote Report Originally by: Treelox Will SBUs require "fuel"? No. Originally by: Treelox Will SBUs and TCUs be something of an ideal sig radius for Dreads to shoot at? Yes. Originally by: Treelox So it is possible for an attacker to gain control of the outpost(docking rights), without having gained sov(killing the TCU)? Yes. Quote: CCP you still need to make it possible for attackers to actually go past the tap to conquer a Outpost and let them have the option to actually totally destroy an Outpost. Ahhh, this one again! I'll give the answer we gave at Fanfest. There are no plans to ever allow Outposts to be 'destroyed' but what we have looked into is allowing them to be 'wrecked'. The new dual reinforcement timers have you chew through shields and then armor before the station can be captured. What is possible is that you could then finish the structure off, be rewarded with a nice kaboom and then you have a station wreck model. All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. Rebuilding the station would be possible by simply anchoring the proper 'egg' there and filling it back up with XX materials needed to repair the station wreck. There is no ETA on something like this, I just thought I would share that we have actually considered it. Maybe if we ever get the TotalHellDeath expansion...
Virgo I'Platonicus 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:41:00 - [222] - Quote Report Edited by: Virgo I''Platonicus on 12/11/2009 08:41:34 This would have been bloody awesome. (referring to the considered possibility of outpost totalhelldeath)
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em Stellar Defense Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 08:48:00 - [223] - Quote Report Edited by: ServantOfMask on 12/11/2009 09:28:06 IBTT (in before the Threadnought) reading blog now, comments to come edit: flowchart is a bit confusing once it branches to SBU's vulnerable or not, text explained it better than the chart imo. overall looks good to me... i foresee current "Fortresses" (dead-end and dead-end pipe systems) to actually see the most attacks since everything is concentrated on 1 or 2 gates. whereas a spider hub like system with tons of gates becomes a logistical nightmare for attackers and much easier for defenders to cherry pick under-defended SBU's to annihilate.
Kenpachi Viktor Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:00:00 - [224] - Quote Report Originally by: CCP Abathur ... we have looked into allowing them to be 'wrecked'. The new dual reinforcement timers have you chew through shields and then armor before the station can be captured. What is possible is that you could then finish the structure off, be rewarded with a nice kaboom and then you have a station wreck model. All 'station services' on this wreck would be disabled except for Undocking. So if you spend a few months fighting off cancer or go off deep sea fishing and come back to find that your alliance has failed in your absence, you can still log into the station and get some of your stuff out. ... Now this is a feature that I see as holding true to philosophy of Eve.
Kayl Breinhar GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:12:00 - [225] - Quote Report Just putting this out there, but if "consolidation" is the order of the day why not look into removing the limit on one outpost per system.
Tairon Usaro The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:14:00 - [226] - Quote Report Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 12/11/2009 09:19:15 i do not like the new mechanism because it lacks strategical depth. As long as you can pick each and any system on the map for an attack this system is still far too volatile and will not server the purpose. this is a dead foal ..... What CCP calls "dynamic" is something i call "arbitrary". To my eyes there is few benefit for builders to build player empires if the mechanics is that volatile. i give you a hint about how flawed this mechanic is: Sov shown on the map will not tell you anything about influence. We will end up will knowledge based, hand drawn maps that show the claims and influence of player alliances, because the sov mechanic does not give you a hint (like before 2007). It is an illusion that this mechanism will free up space for other alliances. a system is not "free for living" only because there is no sov claim tag on it....... it is totally dubious that a dead end system can be more easily taken than a hub system having many gates ..... it is illogical that alliances will claim only sweet spots of systems and engross the space in between these spots out-of-game but ingame-mechanicwise unclaimed To fix this, a simple addition to the placing rules of SBU (STOPS) would help A) the first SBU in a system can only be placed on a gate if the system linked to this gate is either claim by the offending alliance or completely unclaimed B.) other SBUs can placed once the first one is anchored => Player empires can only be attacked from the borderlines With this mechanism the rules for attacking stations and hubs and need not be as tight as presented in the blog. The claimed system, that are not enforced with outposts or hubs serve as strategical buffer. Sov claims on the map would mean something and show the true size of a player territory. Yes it would not be as "dynamic" as CCP likes to see it but it would not be as static as the POS warfare. In the end my fear is that the current mechanics will end up in a EXODUS part 2 mess, because all the builders see no point in living in 0.0 As a consequence the PvPers will be missing targets and thus PvP will have no deeper motivation and crippled to the non-sense PvP we see in so many other MMOs
Bilbo II Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:17:00 - [227] - Quote Report It was stated in the blog that sov time will be backdated for the purpose of wether you had sov long enough to anchor the cynojammer for instance. will the index's also be backdated the same way? ie: If there has been a whole lot of rat killing going on in the system ,will it be possible to immediatly upgrade to lvl 3, 4 or even lvl 5 on the rat magnet on day 1 of dominion?
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:17:00 - [228] - Quote Report Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 Hm i kept reading the blog several times,and spoke with few corp mates,but still one thing bugger me. Ok outpost and tcu are to be 2x reinforce time,but those reinforced time will end randomly,yeah you will be able to set time but with deviation,and what part of the actual time the deviation will take off or add. Before you were actualy able to set the pos timers exactly as you want them,now we have unknown variable in the equatation... And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses
CCP Soundwave C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:30:00 - [229] - Quote Report Originally by: Astal Atlar Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses I don't think that's necessarily bad. There has to be some point of focus that draws attacker and defender into a situation where they fight each other. The issue with the old system was the 12 hour POS shooting grind ops. The new system means that when a system is reinforced the time you have to dedicate to taking the system comes in small spurts of combat. Hopefully this system retains the incentive for conflict, but cuts down on the hours players have to spend shooting at stationary objects.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:41:00 - [230] - Quote Report God this system seems complex. Although POS Sov was flawed, at least it was as basic as knifey-spoony. At the moment, it seems easier to take chokepoint systems than hub systems, which appears to be oxymoronic.
ServantOfMask Minmatar Eye Bee Em Stellar Defense Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 09:42:00 - [231] - Quote Report Originally by: FireFoxx80 At the moment, it seems easier to take chokepoint systems than hub systems, which appears to be oxymoronic. counter-intuitive at the least.
xttz GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.12 10:16:00 - [232] - Quote Report Repeating this because it is a potentially key issue, and CCP seem to be reading this thread now. How is progress preserved for outposts? Say the attacker takes the outpost after its second reinforcement timer, but the hub is still intact. Can outposts be ping-ponged back once taken if the system is still contested? Is the defender able to shoot the outpost and retake it so long as the hub is alive? Can they then rep it and make the attacker reinforce it again? Are SBUs still invulnerable once the outpost is finished off and captured?
Zargyl Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 10:41:00 - [233] - Quote Report Just as a side not from someone not involved with this sov thingy: Sounds interesting and the pic of the TCU is neat! Especially the integration of the respective alliance logo is great (with the default alliance logo in the one posted)! Making it more like a true "flag" (seems to me the next best thing to being able to name "your" systems).
Astal Atlar Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:10:00 - [234] - Quote Report Quote: I don't think that's necessarily bad. There has to be some point of focus that draws attacker and defender into a situation where they fight each other. The issue with the old system was the 12 hour POS shooting grind ops. The new system means that when a system is reinforced the time you have to dedicate to taking the system comes in small spurts of combat. Hopefully this system retains the incentive for conflict, but cuts down on the hours players have to spend shooting at stationary objects. Yeah just that you still need to maintain 23/7 control on the system just to make sure your sbu are safe and to bully the defender,as there is no set mark of total tcu you can anchor lets imagine. The system gets attacked and we have 3 markers and 8 poses,so to make things harder we just anchor 5 more on our poses,and why we should anchor them on stargates,when on deathstar pos with gunners and support fleet we may run the attacker ragged. And yeah what will this system change from now,we will still have systems with cynojamers with capitals under it,oh yes no more dd,but a lot more tcu and ect to shoot. And 1 more thing we will still need to shoot the poses in the systems just to clear and to remove the danger for warp ins on us from them and to remove the enemies ability to ss on them of course. And yeah this thing with timers with unknown variable is weird.
Raphael Scoria Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:12:00 - [235] - Quote Report Edited by: Raphael Scoria on 12/11/2009 11:18:48 I'd hoped that the new system would shrink empires and encourage new, smaller alliances out into 0.0. To do this it needed to ensure the following: - Make it hard to defend and pay for lots of space. - Make it (relatively) simple to hold and defend small amounts of space, to give the little guys a chance and an incentive to rebuild even after being hammered to a single system. - Make it really profitable to have your people concentrated into an area that's just a bit bigger than what is easy to hold. You bottled it on the first point by shrinking away from high payments. If you'd upped the profitability instead of cutting the payments and given bonuses on space held (as well as penalties that work by a different curve, to give a "sweet spot", you'd have satisfied the third criteria. This sov system will let the big guys (us, Atlas, AAA and the NC in particular) headshot any newbies that turn up, while also letting us maintain sov across huge areas that will be a horrendous grind to take, the attackers always having to hope for a lucky roll of the random element to edge the timers towards them, and passing on the times that they don't. Still, this system could work, if balanced with all alliances facing holding far less space, and with it just marginally more in favour of the defender, to shield the little guy a bit. Edit: Holy crap what am I doing in Perkone?!? Honestly, you train Command Ships V and come back to find Oran "Itchy Trigger Finger" Sound has screwed you over...
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:13:00 - [236] - Quote Report Originally by: ServantOfMask Originally by: FireFoxx80 At the moment, it seems easier to take chokepoint systems than hub systems, which appears to be oxymoronic. counter-intuitive at the least. Think of it as a paratroopers drop (or helicopter landed troops) behind enemy lines to create a bridgehead. After all it will require to cino your invasion force after you have infiltrated a ship with a cino generator.
Peryner University of Caille	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:44:00 - [237] - Quote Report Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Astal Atlar Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses I don't think that's necessarily bad. There has to be some point of focus that draws attacker and defender into a situation where they fight each other. The issue with the old system was the 12 hour POS shooting grind ops. The new system means that when a system is reinforced the time you have to dedicate to taking the system comes in small spurts of combat. Hopefully this system retains the incentive for conflict, but cuts down on the hours players have to spend shooting at stationary objects. wait, I thought TCUs had to be on planets? can you put them behind pos shields?
Altaree The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.12 11:54:00 - [238] - Quote Report Originally by: Rhonnen Any chance of making the outpost able to be destroyed? If I took a system that I knew I couldn't keep I wouldn't want them to have a chance to take back the outpost. I figure it's like a bridge in war. If you can't prevent the enemy from taking it, you blow it up to holy hell so they can't use it. If you watch closely, CCP also seems to have some sort of internal play to have player built stations spread all though 0.0. The last thing they want is those stations to start popping...
Altaree The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.11.12 12:00:00 - [239] - Quote Report Originally by: CCP Soundwave Originally by: Astal Atlar Edited by: Astal Atlar on 12/11/2009 09:21:27 And with tcu on poses what will be different from now,yeah before we shooted only poses now tcu and poses I don't think that's necessarily bad. There has to be some point of focus that draws attacker and defender into a situation where they fight each other. The issue with the old system was the 12 hour POS shooting grind ops. The new system means that when a system is reinforced the time you have to dedicate to taking the system comes in small spurts of combat. Hopefully this system retains the incentive for conflict, but cuts down on the hours players have to spend shooting at stationary objects. POS shooting will magically disappear? Do you mean that if you take SOV you get control of all POS in system or just that they all go boom? Or do we still have to go shoot those damn POS's? Is there a POS shooting benefit to sov holders?
Typhado3 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.12 12:13:00 - [240] - Quote Report Edited by: Typhado3 on 12/11/2009 12:22:05 Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU reinforced. wait what? TCU reinforced?? shouldn't it be: Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Case3: TCU + ihub - 51% gates blockaded = iHub vulnerable, TCU invulnerable. - shoot iHub -> iHub reinforced (2x24hours) + blocades reinforced. - kill iHub -> TCU vulnerable. - kill TCU Also could you please give us some way to capture the iHub (sounds like the latest iPhone accessory) rather than just straight out destroying it. How about we anchor one of the things like the gate disruptors at the iHub once we have got through both armour and shield, Both remain vulnerable for 24-72 hours and if they are both still standing and system is still contested we can take it rather than blowing it up.

Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 : last (11)

Reply to Topic