open All Channels
seplocked Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
blankseplocked Questionnaire and evaluation to 0.0-holding alliances
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Tobias Sjodin
Caldari
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.02.24 11:36:00 - [1]
 

1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.

2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?

3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?

4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?

and finally

5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?


Thank you.

FlameGlow
Caldari
Avalon Guards
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:17:00 - [2]
 

new system is almost as bad as the old one, its only good point is that you don't have to kill tens of POSes to take system.

Deltaprimus
Caldari
Shadow Legion.
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:22:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.

Holding space that you dont upgrade is cheap 84mil per 2 weeks. this compared to the fuel bill for multiple towers is much better. Holding upgraded space is quite expensive. Jump bridge networks are insanley expensive. however, non strat upgrades for anomolies and combat sites are one off payments and bring in a fair amount of isk. It is quite fair imo

2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?

with the fact that the fuel is no longer required to keep sov you just have to pay with isk this takes quite alot of need for logistics out. However, wit hthe fact you need to use freighters now to get the hubs and some of the upgrades in place the large, slow vulnerable ships have a greater purpose in eve.

3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?

Our sov has worked so far the only time we had a problem was the first time we took sov. the automatic payments didnt start until we had manually paid the buill the first time. After this is worked fine.

4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?

Capitals are certainly an integral part of the game. They will always be the best way to take pos structures, sov structures and enemy caps out. However, the mechanis have been deployed quite well so you cn still attack sov structures and other enemy assets with sub caps. it is very well balanced but i wouldnt recomend going for sov unless you have a few caps for pos repping and sov defense.

and finally

5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?

imo the new sov and 0.0 politics with it has given the game much more appeal. As far as im aware my alliance members are really enjoying it and it makes the game much more fast paced due to the lack of pos spamming.

Thank you.


Hope that helps :)

cpu939
Gallente
Volatile Nature
White Noise.
Posted - 2010.02.24 13:43:00 - [4]
 


1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.

the problem with this question comes down to upgrades in the system some upgrades are free others have a daily cost i think your looking at 1b a month for
a system with all costing upgrades

2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?
less poses to hold sov less work with fueling them

3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?
there are/have been some systems needing gms help mainly with the tcu's

4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?
with the lag that came with the changes means atm less capital fights they are still getting used but once the lag is back to where it was pre-changes there should be more capital fights i am personaly looking forward to the videos that will come at that point

and finally

5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?
this is a hard question

there have been some nice big fights with lots of kills so there has been some good fights so yes some fun but the main problem as i see it is the sov system see below.

a ustz allaince attacking an eutz would more likely need time off work, eutz attacking a ustz would need to do alarm clock ctas.

how would i fix this i would have 3 rf timers 1st one exits in defenders tz, 2nd exits in attackers, 3rd exit in defenders how to add the exit timer for the attackers once the sbus needed for taking sov are online an alliance director from the holding corp or onlining corp can add the time.

i would also cut the time to online the sbus from 3 hours to 1.5 hours

to this end i would make it all work round the ihub and sbus this would mean that to rf you need to guard the sbu and attack the ihub or defend the ihub and attack the sbus. this would also remove the station from the sov system.

changes the rf timers to 1st rf timer 48 hours minimum 2nd 24 hours minimum and 3rd 24 hours minimum still 5 days aprox to take sov.

btw these are my view and not that of my corp alliance also grammer and spelling mistakes are down to me being dyslexic.

Graalum
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.24 16:31:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Graalum on 24/02/2010 16:34:45
most (70%+) of the old towers are still up, and operation costs on many of those are now higher, plus you have sov bills on top of them.

not a fan of the recent changes


*not that i do any logistical work at all

Hanabi Kazan
Gallente
GoonWaffe
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:00:00 - [6]
 

the new sov system is awesome for those who enjoy space feudalism and the tons of self-important hurf blurfing that comes with it

Vigilanta
Amarr
S0utherN Comfort
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2010.02.24 17:25:00 - [7]
 

Overall I think the new system is better, adds a bit more of an interesting fight to take a system as an sbu siege/ihub siege does not take nearly as long as the bloody pos sieges. The cost of a system is overall higher no doubt, but there is more to do per system as well. I think the sov system still need s decent amount of tweaking, but the overall concept is solid. The ncie thing with the ihubs is the holding alliance can set the reinforced timer without haveing to do that math game that comes with messing around with strontium levels.

At current my complaint is this:
The Jump bridge networks and cyno jamming are far to expensive, I think that these costs need to be brought inline with the actual profit of system because at current it jsut plain costs to much to defend any large chunk of space with jammers and to make transit around regions faster.in a perfect world i would say that a mid level moon mineral system should be able to cover the costs of at least one of these upgrades, but at current they do not. Also the SBU's are a bit quirky, these are just my opinions though.

Mya ElleTerego
Amarr
The Hull Miners Union
Posted - 2010.02.24 19:26:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Hanabi Kazan
the new sov system is awesome for those who enjoy space feudalism and the tons of self-important hurf blurfing that comes with it

LoL
I had to promote someone to the sherriff of Nottingham position because of it, hard to keep track of the lil guys and all their needs. In my opinion, I think if ccp wanted the lil guys to come out to 0.0, they should at least make it so the hub / upgrades are no more than 250km3 so that JF can make it up. Most of them cant put together 30-50 man fleets to escort freighters, or have titans to bridge them around. That was supposed to be the whole point. That and sbu's and tcu's require 100 man fleets or 30+ caps to kill in any reasonable amt of time, makes me think that the entire system was never about getting the lil guys out to 0.0 as anything but peasants. Also hubs should drop in price, but the upgrades are priced nicely. Cyno jamming is a bit expensive but reasonable.
500+ mil per fully upgraded system a month isn't much more than it used to be however, all those same pos are still up. So effectively dominion just doubled your sov costs, as manufacturing towers, moon goo towers, and supercap towers and JB towers didnt go anywhere.

Personally I think you should be able to set some kind of tax ala corp taxes, at an alliance level, at hubs. So that anyone ratting in an upgraded system just donates 1% off the top - 5 % to the corp that owns the hub. Miners have to pay for refine taxes, should really be something in place to balance it for ratters, without having to manually levy membership taxes, or farm undervalued moon goo all over the place to pay for sov.

Shamis Orzoz
Minmatar
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.02.25 01:48:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 25/02/2010 01:48:58
Quote:
1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.

The cost of holding space seems roughly similar(unless you were the kind of alliance that pos'ed up every moon in a system pre-dominion, in which case its much much cheaper). However the cost of having things like jump bridges and cyno jammers is now significantly more expensive...to the point where people will not bother unless the system is of extreme importance.

Quote:
2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?
Decreased significantly. Instead of hauling pos fuel, you just pay a bill. However setting up your initial claims is more difficult since most sov structures require a regular freighter to haul.

Quote:
3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?
As of a month ago, I'd say no.

Quote:
4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?
Slightly less. There is typically no need to siege like 40 pos's in some hostile system anymore, so the time you need to deploy caps is smaller. However the real reason capitals are probably used less has a lot more to do with current grid load and lag issues than sov mechanics.


Quote:
5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?



If everything actually worked I think it would be more fun. Due to bugs and performance issues the quality of the game in general is much lower than pre-dominion, but I think the sov mechanics have a lot of promise for the future if they fix these issues.

CCP Adida


Gallente
C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.25 19:22:00 - [10]
 

off topic posts cleared

Dianabolic
Gallente
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.25 22:49:00 - [11]
 

1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.
It varies between more, and less, depending on how many towers you used to use. Note, that running industrial reactions now costs more - but just to hold Sov costs less.

2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?
Decreased, paying a bill is far easier than hauling fuel and running towers.

3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?
Mostly.

4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?
If the game worked as well as it used to, it would be more. It doesn't but that is not due to the sov changes.

and finally

5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?
More fun, less timing hauling = more time fighting.

Vile rat
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:45:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Dianabolic
Decreased, paying a bill is far easier than hauling fuel and running towers.



Yeah about that.

dastommy79
Caldari
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2010.02.26 16:53:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: Dianabolic
Decreased, paying a bill is far easier than hauling fuel and running towers.



Yeah about that.

lol

Goberth Ludwig
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.02.27 17:23:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: dastommy79
Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: Dianabolic
Decreased, paying a bill is far easier than hauling fuel and running towers.



Yeah about that.

lol



:D

Shino Tu
Caldari
KaaiiNet Holding Executor Corp
KAAII-NET
Posted - 2010.02.27 17:47:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Hanabi Kazan
we didn't want our space anyway...



/fixed....

Twisted Evil


Siminuria
Caldari
Troglodytes of Narnia
Posted - 2010.02.28 00:41:00 - [16]
 

A lot of people are complaining that jump bridge costs are too high. They seem to be forgetting that one of the aims of Dominion was to stop powerful alliances holding massive amounts of space and so make opportunities for smaller alliances to get into 0.0.

Jump bridges are probably the single most useful mechanic in eve for holding together a massive empire over multiple regions (and certainly for defending against multiple attack fronts) which is, I assume, why ccp has decided to try and make them prohibitively expensive.

When combined with the new upgrades (which can elevate a single constellations productivity to that of an entire region pre-dominion), there seems to be very little point in holding an enormous amount of space unless you plan to install a great many renters. (yes, I did notice my alliance ticker before I wrote that sentenceLaughing)

Liam Fremen
Gallente
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.28 04:42:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Liam Fremen on 28/02/2010 04:44:00
1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.
Let's say that you have to plan your expansion more wisely, if you just spam bridges and jammers everywhere you go broke.

2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?
The logistic work is decreased a lot, the only downside is the boring thing of i-hub requiring common freighters, ccp said this dominion was good for "small" alliances... how the hell they can haul i-hub's around without titans/bridges?

3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?
Sort of.. there was just that problem in 3d and a bunch of other problems with timers and "crazy hub's" that repped themself for days...

4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?
Hub's and outposts have a lot of HP's, without caps is hard to deal with it, but anyway i think the usage of caps is about the same, the usage of super-caps sky rocketed since dominion and since the motherships fix.

5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?
Well, before dominion you could spend a lot of time in your timezone to kite stuff and try to bring a fight in your timezone, now you need to be multi-timezone or you need friends in all timezones... let's say that the objective of making blobs smaller is failed, actually you need even more friends if your enemies is in a different timezone.

All the alliances that look in sov warfare have to work on becoming multi-timezone or at least covering that part with friends.

Regarding fun, well, you go in a system, you anchor some stuff and wait 3 hours before you can even shoot 1 bullet, not much fun.

Waagaa Ktlehr
Amarr
GeoCorp.
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2010.02.28 12:28:00 - [18]
 

1. No, about the same - only things that are more costly right know are cynojammers and jump bridges.

2. decreased, ISK doesn't have to be freightered

3. Not sure, it seems to work down in Delve/Fountain.

4. Depends, Capitals are still a great force multiplier, but they aren't the be-all end all. The biggest change is less cyno-jammers, which means warfare has become less about capitals owning subcap fleets under cyno jammers.

5. ugh, sov system was bad and still is bad. I'd say nothing much changed. Taking space that isn't defended became a LOT easier though, which forces people to fight, which is good. (no more needing to kill 60+ ****stars)

Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
1. Has the cost of holding space increased compared to holding sov. with towers? Estimate how much more/less.

2. Has the logistics required to maintain sovereignty increased or decreased with the new system?

3. Are the mechanics to hold and maintain sovereignty working properly without GM-interference currently?

4. Would you say capitals are more or less in use than sub-capitals with these changes?

and finally

5. Is it more or less "fun" (subjective value) with the new sov-system?


Thank you.

Bluebear8
Gallente
DOUBLE IDENTITY
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2010.03.01 20:42:00 - [19]
 

1.-4. Mixed reactions, it seems.
5. Fun is in the eye of the beholder. For those who take the time to read (or who get excited about learning new code and rules changes), maybe they will like this new sov system. At least the new toys and ups are shiny enough to help offset some of the costs if you have enough active grinders working on it.

But, with the complicated mechanics and shifting offense/defense time periods now in place, I'd think the average pilot is much less likely to have a good grasp of why and how systems actually fall or get conquered. ofc, the old system wasn't much better except that the concept of counting the number of POS was pretty simple. Now, you just need to read the current, revised, updated manual on "capture the flag". Just don't get too righteous about new rulez. Because, some things never change.
Regardless of what the rules say, the lag monster always wins. Laughing

Julio Torres
Amarr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2010.03.01 21:00:00 - [20]
 

1) Yes, no exact numbers but its a significant increase.

2) Slight decrease, we still need infrastructure towers + moon mining towers.

3) lol, no.

4) Not much use for capitals.

5) Less, way less.


 

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