These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Dev blog: Summer of Sov - Transition and Deployment

First post First post
Author
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2015-07-07 15:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
On July 14 we are going to see the first culmination of the sovereignty changes aka "Summer of Sov". Traditional sov warfare as we know it will be replaced by a new system as outlined in previous blogs.

With the new system approaching fast, we would like to inform everyone about the transition from the old to the new system and how the new sov system is going to be deployed.

Check out CCP Fozzie's latest blog Summer of Sov - Transition and Deployment for the all the details and information!

Please note that two more sov related blogs will get published in the near future.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Di Mulle
#2 - 2015-07-07 15:18:46 UTC
"Sorry, we could not find the item you were looking for."
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
Just let it happen
#3 - 2015-07-07 15:19:24 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
....

Please note that we two more sov related blogs will get published in the near future.

Grammar police! Leave out a word there? "We HAVE two more"

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#4 - 2015-07-07 15:20:03 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Di Mulle wrote:
"Sorry, we could not find the item you were looking for."

Please try again, this is most probably an issue with website caching.

Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
....

Please note that we two more sov related blogs will get published in the near future.

Grammar police! Leave out a word there? "We HAVE two more"

You are right. Sometimes less is more. Big smile

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Sort Dragon
Resilience.
DARKNESS.
#5 - 2015-07-07 15:27:11 UTC
How under these new mechanics will you transfer sov between alliances?
Hiram Alexander
State Reprisal
#6 - 2015-07-07 15:28:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiram Alexander
Quote:
1. Politics by Other Means
2. Summer 2015 Nullsec and Sov Status Report
3. New Details on July Sovereignty Release Schedule
4. This blog!
5. Blog covering details on changes to REDACTED, INCURSIONS, the Door.
6. Final blog summarizing the new capture system in one place.


FTFY ;)

Edit: On a more constructive note, can you please confirm the CSM actually know what the REDACTED is, and won't be all 'OMGWTF' when it's released? ;)

- They do.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#7 - 2015-07-07 15:29:35 UTC
Sort Dragon wrote:
How under these new mechanics will you transfer sov between alliances?

For this release you'll have to capture it normally. We are investigating some options for formal sov transfer mechanics in the future.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#8 - 2015-07-07 15:43:45 UTC
Will researched SBU BPO have any kind of transition or buyback based on their research time/level, or will they just be transitioned into TCU BPO after the phase-out?

Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet?

Speaking of the above, will the IHUB now be a global warpable celestial in space so we don't have to hunt down the IHUB in every system? At least now there will only be one, so that eliminates the problem of dead IHUBS, but it's still an annoyance having to hunt it down in every single system and bookmark them.

Not a fan of the TCU/IHUB being deployed as an NPC corp and then required to be Entosis Linked for 12-15 minutes to be captured for the alliance. This creates a window where the structure can be stolen if the opposing force can attack the single grid while it is being captured. Considering how much they cost, this seems like it would create a large incentive for this kind of "sniping". Would rather see the ability to anchor the TCU/IHUB with it owned by the alliance, have to Entosis Link it to online, and if an opposing group pushes you off the grid, they can Entosis Link it to destroy it, then deploy their own. If the defending Alliance has to and can hold grid briefly, they can unanchor the structure and scoop it to be used elsewhere.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#9 - 2015-07-07 15:43:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigilanta
would not the more appropriate step be rather than things magically exploding in space they get delivered to the owning corporations hq office deliveries. You are inherently forcing us to take time + adding risk into the equation for game mechanics changes.

It seems a bit punative.

additionally CCP are the ones changing the game mechanics why should we the players have to move our SBUS to empire in order to sell them back? This should be like the planteary command center changes where the amount was automatically deposited in our wallets.

Additionally the conversion is unequal 1 sbu is inherently more expensive material wise and isk wise than a tcu. Either do upconversion or forced buyback where the amount is the market cost of the materials which make up the product.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2015-07-07 16:02:51 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
it seems...odd...to announce a nerf like this one to switchable ihubs (which largely deal with the fact that CCP provides no tools to turn strategic upgrades off) a mere seven days before it is to be implemented, with no notice or comments whatsoever

was the CSM looped into this change in a timely way?
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#11 - 2015-07-07 16:05:58 UTC
do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa?
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#12 - 2015-07-07 16:13:58 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa?


pocos are the anchoring arrow drag drop, they dont need to be on the zero point just a general zone, same with tcus and ihubs (its in the blog the actual ranges)
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2015-07-07 16:39:56 UTC
Why is there no reimbursement of all the TCU/s and IHUBS? It seems simple enough to cause the script to deposit ISK or the TCUs and IHUBS into a station?

It wasn't an uncommon practice to have peace and wartime hubs afterall.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-07-07 16:44:22 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa?


pocos are the anchoring arrow drag drop, they dont need to be on the zero point just a general zone, same with tcus and ihubs (its in the blog the actual ranges)

Yes, but pocos can block outposts if dropped at zero which is why I'm concerned.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#15 - 2015-07-07 17:06:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Will researched SBU BPO have any kind of transition or buyback based on their research time/level, or will they just be transitioned into TCU BPO after the phase-out?

After the phase out, the plan is for researched SBU blueprints will become TCU blueprints while preserving their research level.

Ransu Asanari wrote:
Having existing TCU grandfathered to be at current location seems a bit unbalanced in favor of established groups. Many systems without a station or IHUB have the TCU placed at a moon with a large POS on it to act as defense. It's also common practice to put the TCU on a POS this since it's a warpable object on the overview. Is there a reason this is being done, rather than bumping the TCU location to the nearest open planet?

This was chosen to keep the deployment day as simple and smooth as possible, avoiding potential issues that could come from moving the TCUs. Due to the ability to use entosis links at very long range, and the fact that TCUs are much less important than IHubs mechanically, we decided that allowing grandfathered TCU locations would not be too overpowered.

Ransu Asanari wrote:
Speaking of the above, will the IHUB now be a global warpable celestial in space so we don't have to hunt down the IHUB in every system? At least now there will only be one, so that eliminates the problem of dead IHUBS, but it's still an annoyance having to hunt it down in every single system and bookmark them.

Yes, IHubs are now globally viewable and warpable in the new system.

Ransu Asanari wrote:
Not a fan of the TCU/IHUB being deployed as an NPC corp and then required to be Entosis Linked for 12-15 minutes to be captured for the alliance. This creates a window where the structure can be stolen if the opposing force can attack the single grid while it is being captured. Considering how much they cost, this seems like it would create a large incentive for this kind of "sniping". Would rather see the ability to anchor the TCU/IHUB with it owned by the alliance, have to Entosis Link it to online, and if an opposing group pushes you off the grid, they can Entosis Link it to destroy it, then deploy their own. If the defending Alliance has to and can hold grid briefly, they can unanchor the structure and scoop it to be used elsewhere.

This is an area where we will be watching closely to see how the gameplay emerges. If such sniping becomes oppressive we have some plans in place to hopefully solve such problems. Your suggestion has a lot of merit, and has parallels with some of the prototypes we're working on for new structures that might be migrated to Sov structures.

Vigilanta wrote:
would not the more appropriate step be rather than things magically exploding in space they get delivered to the owning corporations hq office deliveries. You are inherently forcing us to take time + adding risk into the equation for game mechanics changes.

It seems a bit punative.

additionally CCP are the ones changing the game mechanics why should we the players have to move our SBUS to empire in order to sell them back? This should be like the planteary command center changes where the amount was automatically deposited in our wallets.

Additionally the conversion is unequal 1 sbu is inherently more expensive material wise and isk wise than a tcu. Either do upconversion or forced buyback where the amount is the market cost of the materials which make up the product.

We'll be doing what we can to ease the transition period for old structures. At the very least you can expect buy orders in NPC nullsec as well as empire space. We are also definitely open to modifying the final conversion plan, as there's still plenty of time.

EvilweaselSA wrote:
it seems...odd...to announce a nerf like this one to switchable ihubs (which largely deal with the fact that CCP provides no tools to turn strategic upgrades off) a mere seven days before it is to be implemented, with no notice or comments whatsoever

was the CSM looped into this change in a timely way?

This change was actually in the first dev blog about the new system, which stated that;
Quote:
Under this new system, only one of each Sovereignty structure can exist in the same system at the same time.


EvilweaselSA wrote:
do ihubs/tcus block pocos, and vice versa?

If the TCU or IHub finds that its first choice of deployment location is blocked, it will automatically move over one grid and try again until it finds an appropriate location. So a POCO in the right spot can force a TCU or IHub to deploy farther away but it can't block deployment.
POCOs will simply need to be anchored in a location that doesn't overlap with existing structures.

Aryth wrote:
Why is there no reimbursement of all the TCU/s and IHUBS? It seems simple enough to cause the script to deposit ISK or the TCUs and IHUBS into a station?

It wasn't an uncommon practice to have peace and wartime hubs afterall.

The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2015-07-07 17:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.

Then drop them in a station.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

If the TCU or IHub finds that its first choice of deployment location is blocked, it will automatically move over one grid and try again until it finds an appropriate location. So a POCO in the right spot can force a TCU or IHub to deploy farther away but it can't block deployment.
POCOs will simply need to be anchored in a location that doesn't overlap with existing structures.


Thanks!
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2015-07-07 17:13:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The large isk injection is something we would like to avoid at this time, and history has proven that reimbursing ISK for player-manufacturable items is extremely dangerous.


Ok, but by defining it as large you can see how problematic that is to be deleting 100's of billions in assets around the galaxy with no compensation or refund. If ISK is a problem why not just place the assets (including the upgrades inside) inside the headquarters of the owning corp, or the nearest lowsec system, or any other place accessable. Even Jita if you like.

I know just us it is 10s of billions easily. There should never be a time CCP is deleting large amounts of player assets with no compensation. That is way too far inside the sandbox. I hope you agree on that point.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2015-07-07 17:15:04 UTC
Omg, you totally stealth edited in that problematic part. I laughed so hard.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2015-07-07 17:18:27 UTC
If you are looking to transfer sov or sell it... Do it now

Yaay!!!!

Lavayar
ANGELGARD.
Red Alliance
#20 - 2015-07-07 17:28:41 UTC
Quote:
When a corporation leaves an Alliance, all Sovereignty structures belonging to that corporation will transfer their ownership to the executor corporation.

What was that? Is that EvE I played? Or EvE just turned into WoW. Creation of safe ways is not what sandbox about!
Don't you think a sandbox way is to explode corporation structures and switch stations to freeport mode?
123Next pageLast page