open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (23)

Author Topic

Hugh Hefner
Caldari
Paxton Industries
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:35:00 - [391]
 

Hmmm, with Dust and this change I guess we can soon rename the game StarCraft the next Generation?

Darkdood
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:39:00 - [392]
 

The one thing that I see and like about this setup is the implication that you can take a very small set of systems and setup multiple outposts etc and expand that infrastructure. That eliminates the need for them to be spread out over 2 entire regions.

Even if bob or goon or whoever has the ability to take 20 constellations what would motivate them to do so when it costs them money. If you can cherry pick 6 constellations and expand their infrastructure to make 300 billion a month and only pay a 50 billion gate fee why would you want to expand to 20 and pay 300 billion in fees to earn 500 billion. The total profit is 50 billion less, and its 5 times the hassle. The ONLY advantage is bragging rights. So you can brag you make less money? Lol...

The real problem here is that all the "old money" groups will cherry pick the very best of the best constellations and the smaller groups will be left with the rest, but they will have the power to move into 0.0 which prior to this was impossible.

Obviously I'm assuming allot. My one compliant is the way the devs are teasing us without any real details. My greatest fear though is that blobs will still be the status quo rather than smaller strategic fights.

Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:43:00 - [393]
 

Originally by: Darkdood


Obviously I'm assuming allot. My one compliant is the way the devs are teasing us without any real details. My greatest fear though is that blobs will still be the status quo rather than smaller strategic fights.


Guess what? Dev already stated that although they can provide players with the tools necessary, they cannot change human behavior, no one can. So yeah, if BoB/Goons/NCs feel like they want to blob the living crap out of you, and they can, they will. CCP will never be able to change this. Ever.

If you can, I'd love to hear it, but good luck changing human nature.

--Isaac

Quartex
Gallente
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:00:00 - [394]
 

There is far too little detail to be specific about anything but I want to speculate anyway.....there will be more Alliance names in nulsec and roaming gangs will probably have to decide what to fit for, before setting out (Reckon there'll be Flag killing mods).

They'll be looking to take some ISKies out of the game too but no-one should underestimate what existing Alliances can save up before the change, to fortify their space with. Don't expect the map to change overnight ... the fact you can make your space perfect means that you don't need to go to the other side of the map to take someone elses.

Pets and Mercs will take on new importance to a space holding Alliance and PvP Alliances will have to find a way to maintain gameplay balance between industry and warfighting, or face losing pilots to Mercs et al.

The dashboard will mean sudden cta's to rush to a certain system and limit damage from an incursion and DUST activity will fit into this to, so that you have to react with your Dust team/pay DUST mercs.


Isn't speculation fun!?

Kesper North
Caldari
Gentlemen of Means
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:01:00 - [395]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part.

If we can only cyno jam station systems...

And capital ships can't use jump bridges...

...where are we supposed to park our capitals?!

Aelena Thraant
The Executives
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:02:00 - [396]
 

Originally by: Isaac Starstriker
Originally by: Darkdood


Obviously I'm assuming allot. My one compliant is the way the devs are teasing us without any real details. My greatest fear though is that blobs will still be the status quo rather than smaller strategic fights.


Guess what? Dev already stated that although they can provide players with the tools necessary, they cannot change human behavior, no one can. So yeah, if BoB/Goons/NCs feel like they want to blob the living crap out of you, and they can, they will. CCP will never be able to change this. Ever.

If you can, I'd love to hear it, but good luck changing human nature.

--Isaac


There is this device that destroys blobs with one push... oh wait.... nevermind... didn't work Very Happy

CCP Abathur


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:06:00 - [397]
 

Originally by: Kesper North
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part.

If we can only cyno jam station systems...

And capital ships can't use jump bridges...

...where are we supposed to park our capitals?!


Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?


ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:13:00 - [398]
 

Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 10/09/2009 19:13:32
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Kesper North
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part.

If we can only cyno jam station systems...

And capital ships can't use jump bridges...

...where are we supposed to park our capitals?!



Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?



this is quite nice, as i think it would lead to a heck of a lot more pew pew from roaming gangs etc in 0,0

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:14:00 - [399]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Kesper North
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part.

If we can only cyno jam station systems...

And capital ships can't use jump bridges...

...where are we supposed to park our capitals?!


Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?




I fully admit to having watched BSG: Pegasus way too many times :P But is it too late to consider some sort of shipyard concept? :-) Surprise *** of the highest scale is such a wonderful thing.


John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:26:00 - [400]
 

What's the time scale on all this, please because there needs to be a lot of forthcoming clarification? For example, how will the handover from the current Sovereignty mechanic to the new one be handled? If every Alliance suddenly looses Sov due to their POS no longer being the claiming mechanic, there's going to be complete and utter chaos - think what happened to BoB on an Eve wide scale. It wouldn't be pretty and could alienate a high proportion of the player base.

What about conquering space going forward? Are Corp's/Alliance's investments in Capital fleets now worthless or will they still have a part to play? If POS no longer claim sovereignty, will Dreads now be relegated to tools in wars of attrition where their only role is to take down money making POS (assuming Moon Mining isn't being removed)? It was once said large fleets should be the end of a strategic solution, not the beginning. I hope you still maintain this philosophy. I can't say I'm fond of bashing POS but I don't want to see major investments made worthless over night.

You say that you want Alliances to hold small but well developed tracts of space but if R64 moons can allow most Alliances to knock out Titans like the rest of us knock out BS, how will you address the fact that they will simply switch investment to maintenance, especially if Capital Ship importance is downgraded, thus allowing for the upkeep of their current vast empires. Unless you address this issue, you'll simply be creating a problem of near limitless wealth for the largest Alliances further down the road.

Don't misunderstand, I agree the current system has to change before Eve looses too many veterans to burn out but this needs very careful balancing before deployment, not post deployment otherwise it will be too late to head off potentially major issues in the future.

Treelox
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:30:00 - [401]
 

I would love to see the ability of conquerors of Outpost systems, the ability upon their first docking with their newly conquered outpost to totally destroy it.

A razed invasion ala Rome VS Carthage, a fully punitive invasion with no plans to hold the conquered territory, would help keep 0.0 more fluid, IMO.

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:36:00 - [402]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?




cap pilots will have to adapt, and those who cannot will become victims of eVHUGHAUGHAGHAUGHAUHGAUHGUAHGUAHGUHAaghahguahg

Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:46:00 - [403]
 

Abathur:

One of the problems with the pos system was the intense time and manpower it took to setup and maintain the network. What steps does this new system take to make sure that we don't repeat this problem with the new system?

Niko Mat
Posted - 2009.09.10 19:47:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy
What's the time scale on all this, please

This has already been answered - it's the winter expansion. So roughly end of november/start of december, but it'll be done when it's done.

Quote:
For example, how will the handover from the current Sovereignty mechanic to the new one be handled?

This has already been addressed in this thread.

Quote:
What about conquering space going forward? Are Corp's/Alliance's investments in Capital fleets now worthless or will they still have a part to play? If POS no longer claim sovereignty, will Dreads now be relegated to tools in wars of attrition where their only role is to take down money making POS (assuming Moon Mining isn't being removed)?

This has already been addressed in this thread.

Avernus
Gallente
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.09.10 20:12:00 - [405]
 

Edited by: Avernus on 10/09/2009 20:13:26
Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Originally by: CCP Abathur

Seleene


Seleene? Wondered where you had got too, glad to see you on the team there, I know first hand you understand sov issues perfectly well.

On the other hand... no Prohibition III will ever happen. Ofc we'd need MC... and FIX... and IAC. Yeah, wasn't going to happen anyways.

Btw, your devblog, it was like 1/4 the size of your battle reports! WTF man! Razz

Edit; fun with quote tags.

The GrimWristler
Posted - 2009.09.10 20:19:00 - [406]
 

Alot of cap pilots will turn to sub caps instead. Evidence shows that the titans will become ****e, and from reading the IGN blog, I can imagine carriers and dreads being blown up to quickly by frig bomber fleets, unless i read this incurrectly. Dreads will also become a ship that wont be needed as much as they do in the current system. It sounds like all the cap ships are becoming nerfed directly or/and indirectly in ways where people just wont use them as much or if at all.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/102/1021847p1.html

To this day i think the titan is balanced nicely except for the fact that multiple titans become invinsible. A limit upon the titans use within a particular system at anyone time would effectively stop the invinsibility so to speak.

Some people have mentioned about the sheer amount of POS's that would be taken down in dominion due to the new sov system. Well. no. Pos's will still do the job like it is now but not used for sov. Therefore the cost of pos's and general maintenance will continue. the expense of gates each day/week/month will be something that will create more strain on alliances wealth. let alone the fact that some systems have multiples of gates per 1 system.

Allthough i agree that the current system needs to be tweaked, i dont feel stargates should be the route of claiming Sov. we all know that planets are the future in eve, from where dust 514 is concerned. being someone who thinks about things really indepth, Planets within systems would be a better way of claiming sov. the planets will slowly become managable from a continent sideline anyway, from what development ive seen on particular fanfest clips.

Having dust 514 get introduced as a seperate game which runs parallel with eve and the goings on through Sov. It make sense that dust514 should get the opportunity to claim sov also. stargates wouldnt be in dust 514 as such as its all primarily done on planets, unless im mistaken, from what ive read.

I'm still puzzled by the original dev blog where by it was mentioned that the current sov system has lead to a dead end. I can think of many tweaks and changes within the sov system that would improve the game in little ways. I also dont feel that changing SOV all throughout 0.0 all at once would be ideal due to chaos.

I feel that stargates are for transfering players from 1 system to another and should be kept that way. whether locking gates or having gate guns could be implemented, would for me make more sense. Beacons at planets or special pos structures for planets i feel would make more sense for claiming Sov.


Sh'iriin
Posted - 2009.09.10 21:04:00 - [407]
 

<< I can imagine carriers and dreads being blown up to quickly by frig bomber fleets, unless i read this incurrectly. >>

the bombers they talk about are for carriers, as heavy version of the fighters they have...

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.09.10 21:06:00 - [408]
 

Originally by: Jadal McPieksu
Originally by: Ukucia

Depends on implementation. It's quite possible to structure the system so that it's not profitable for the large alliances to "hold" as much space as they currently do. That opens the space up to others. But there hasn't been enough details yet to come to a conclusion.



No. It may make the map completely useless (very little "officially sov flagged") but alliances value geographical buffer zones more than anything else. If we have a major alliance huddled in 5-10 systems and another small alliance sets up shop next door, 3-4 jumps away, they will be vaporized unless they are blue (= pets or allies).

Well, this still depends on the implementation.

If a Goon-sized alliance can only profitably exploit, say, 15 systems, then they're not going to want to hold an enormous buffer zone themselves, and the profit's there for new alliances to move in.

Yes, in the short run they pay the Goons. But that's the short run. Perhaps a new alliance in former Goon space finds itself next to whatever alliance becomes the new BoB and there's 3 buffer blues between them and Goontopia. They'll probably align themselves with the folks next door.

This will **** off the Goons, who invade, and but the mini-alliance has friends who come to their defense, and suddenly all 0.0 is shooting again, just like WWI.

That's the kind of thing I'm hoping for, but really we can't make any judgement calls until the rest of the details come out and a lot of numbers get crunched.

yunger
Big Guns Inc.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.10 21:08:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Kesper North
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part.

If we can only cyno jam station systems...

And capital ships can't use jump bridges...

...where are we supposed to park our capitals?!



Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?




Problem as I see it is that the main staging area often is a sov 4 system (that will not exist anymore as I understand it) and in larger alliances these will often see carriers and jf/rorquals entering every 10 minutes. So cycling won’t be possible. and seeing that staging systems will probably have a few hundred caps parked in them were allot of them probably wont log in everyday it pretty much comes down to what possibilities will the new system have for delaying the hostiles from simply bringing a blob and taking the station in 2 days so many pilots wont even be able to react.



The GrimWristler
Posted - 2009.09.10 21:08:00 - [410]
 

@ Sh'iriin

Ahh... Thats ok then i guess. :)
atleast theres 1 promising thing from all of this, from a cap pilot point of view. :)

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.09.10 21:14:00 - [411]
 

Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 16:59:06
Would still very much like to know what will happen in the transition from current state to Dominion, for instance to todays sovereignty.

Without a transition, there will be no sovereignty at all. So will alliances have to immediately start claiming the same old space, or what?

I don't care about the little plug-in modules or how nifty the new claiming thingymabobs are. I want to know how you will transition from old to new.

Isn't it a tad premature to expect all the transition elements to be worked out when they haven't finished working out what the new elements are yet?

"Ok, Sov 4 means they get a planetary super-mine"
two weeks later:
"planetary super-mines are too good. We're gonna have to not put them in".

Take a deep breath, and let 'em finish designing the new system before they work out the transition into the new system.

Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.09.10 21:19:00 - [412]
 

Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
Originally by: Ukucia

Depends on implementation. Let's say the devs do make it not profitable to hold vast expanses of empty space. So some of the larger alliances split up into smaller alliances that nominally work together. K, that would result in no real change. Unless there's major bonuses for working in your own alliance's space, and penalties for working in another alliance's space. So now the multi-mini-goons are disconnected from each other. Time passes, and the various entities don't feel like a cohesive unit anymore. Eventually, you end up with separate alliances with their own goals, which might not quite fit in with the overall group's goals.

Think Canada and the US. They're definitely close friends, but Canada does have it's own politics and does some things the US really doesn't like.




That is very unlikely for two reasons. First it goes against the sandbox ideal.

There have been many tweaks to the sandbox to push us in the direction CCP wants us to go. For example: Alliances didn't exist at one time. Neither did POSs. Or Sov. Or Cynos. And so on.

Quote:
Secondly, even if it was put into the game, established alliances have developed mature communication methods, that allow circumvention of any communication limitations.

I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to speak to each other.
What I'm saying is if they are encouraged to just stay in their own space, then they start to care less about the space of their former alliance mates. Their goals and interests diverge.

Quote:
This is what we sort of have now, but it favors defensive forces too much and non-capital fleets have lost importance, reducing the pressure that ambitious empire dwellers could create otherwise. Removing pos grind and changing capitals(hello titan nerf) will help to change things. Such a limit is natural and you can't metagame your way around it. Just the pressure caused by constant outside forces trying to cause trouble would keep things more lively and create space for new alliances to be crated.

Actually, such a change is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. CCP doesn't say "You can only hold 15 systems". CCP puts out a formula that says if you hold too many, it's gonna cost an arm and a leg. We don't care if you just cut down on how much space you hold, or if you pay for it by taking the ISK from your neighbors.

ian666
Minmatar
Virtual Democracy
C0VEN
Posted - 2009.09.10 22:09:00 - [413]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them.
(...)
Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


Bad

Any logistic ship should not escape from anything, JF's too. There should be two ways only - either safer *locked* system for all caps with Jump Drive (except BlackOps), or a 'less' safer but with ability to jump in and do whatever you want (industry, logistics etc). Maybe then people start to use regular freighters and gates for logistics more often.

Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.10 22:16:00 - [414]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: Kesper North
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.


I think most of what you said is awesome, but I have to strongly, violently disagree with this part.

If we can only cyno jam station systems...

And capital ships can't use jump bridges...

...where are we supposed to park our capitals?!


Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?




This is so ******ed it hurts. Your the ****ing person they put in charge of this too eh. well i guess the game will burn to the ground then.

Kesper North
Caldari
Gentlemen of Means
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2009.09.10 22:22:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

Well... I might ask the guy in charge of the cyno generator to cycle it off so that I could get in and dock back up. If they say no, I'd park at a starbase. If there was no starbase, I would ask my FC who was in charge of this horrible op?




So that is all well and good for official ops, but the problem here is that the most common capital movements are unofficial. They are people moving their carriers to lowsec and back to pick up new PVP ships, they are people jumping Rorquals full of minerals down to (or up from Empire). They are not large fleet movements and if I ask the guy in charge of the cyno jammer to unjam the system so that I can pick up a fleet BS and a couple of new Zealots, he is going to tell me to go to hell. And that is assuming that he is even online, which he won't be, because he is German and I am American.

I can't park at a starbase because I'm not about to put my carrier in a SMA where anyone can grab it, which means that I have to stay in it... which means that I am being penalized in the same way that a mothership or titan pilot is, and that is rather unfair.

There is no "op", there is just the day to day flow of personal and corporate logistics in any 0.0 alliance, and this change would disrupt it completely - and be really irritating, and no fun at all.

I propose an alternative: Allow the cyno generator pos mod to function in cyno jammed systems. That way, you can still jump capitals in but your enemies cannot.

Doctor Mabuse
Posted - 2009.09.10 22:32:00 - [416]
 

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore

This is so ******ed it hurts. Your the ****ing person they put in charge of this too eh. well i guess the game will burn to the ground then.


Onoes! The skies falling! /o\ A Goon said so!

I can't believe you really want control over who jumps through the gates, this is about adding choice into the game no allowing you to sit behind your carebear protection wall.

Then again perhaps you're this upset because you think CCP will break the game before the Goons do? I'm sure a few personal insults aimed at the devs will help though. Srsly.


Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.09.10 22:42:00 - [417]
 

Originally by: Doctor Mabuse
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore

This is so ******ed it hurts. Your the ****ing person they put in charge of this too eh. well i guess the game will burn to the ground then.


Onoes! The skies falling! /o\ A Goon said so!

I can't believe you really want control over who jumps through the gates, this is about adding choice into the game no allowing you to sit behind your carebear protection wall.

Then again perhaps you're this upset because you think CCP will break the game before the Goons do? I'm sure a few personal insults aimed at the devs will help though. Srsly.


*facepalm*

Dumbledore is a grenade the goons throw into a thread just for the lulz of responces like yours.

Doctor Mabuse
Posted - 2009.09.10 22:51:00 - [418]
 

Originally by: Zeba
*facepalm*

Dumbledore is a grenade the goons throw into a thread just for the lulz of responces like yours.


Shocked

A curse on those tricksy Goons!


Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2009.09.10 23:08:00 - [419]
 

the big issue with jump bridges people have is:

1. reinforcements uber fast
2. super easy logistics; freighters, jumpfreighters, haulers.
3. only for the big and rich. If my small alliance only holds 2 star systems and they are next to each other. I cant use it. So it gives the big advantages that shouldnt really benefit them.

Capital ships being able to use them isnt on the list of problems really. That is... supercaps and carriers/dreads. jf-freighters arent good when mixing with bridges.

The purpose of caps seems lessening and lessening. To nerf them like this hurts even more. Sure it seems like caps are becoming uninteresting. Which is ironic because of how boring current cap battles are around.

Solid Star
Posted - 2009.09.10 23:17:00 - [420]
 

The ideas in the blog sound awesome. This looks like it could bring a lot more depth to controlling 0.0


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (23)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only