These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Summer of Sov - Transition and Deployment

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#21 - 2015-07-07 17:31:18 UTC
Hi and thanks for the devblog,


  • Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events?
  • Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 - 2015-07-07 17:43:08 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Can you please confirm the number of "points" required to capture a station under the freeport capture event? Elise says 20 but so far this has never ever been mentionned by CCP. So I'd assume 10 as per the other capture events?

20 is correct for an uncontested freeport station. Each node is worth 5% of the structure control. In an attack/defense event both sides start off with 50%, in a freeport mode the NPC corp starts off with 100% and all player alliances start at 0.

Altrue wrote:
Can you confirm Military and Industry Indexes do NOT reset if the Ihub changes hands, as opposed to the Strategic Index which resets on the Ihub as per the last sov devblog? If yes, are you okay with the fact that the old defender, now attacker of a recently lost system, has its own system activity turn against him in the event of him wanting to take back his system? With the ex-attacker now defender, having very good defense multiplier even though they did not grind the indexes themselves?

Yes, index levels are completely independent of structures in the new system. As well, you can actually begin raising your indexes before deploying any sov structures if you're especially worried about being attacked early on.
The new owner gaining the benefits of the activity indexes is intended. If you can manage to take a system with strong defensive multipliers, the reward is the temporary advantage provided by those indexes once you hold the system. However to keep holding it the new owners will need to make sure that someone stays active in the system long-term.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-07-07 17:43:30 UTC
So you guys are going to at the very least, be allowing us to turn off or remove Ihub upgrades before this change right?

Because I can see several systems with dual hubs where the one with more upgrades also has a jammer. So you are forcing us into a decision of jamming a system that we no longer want to jam, because that hub has more upgrades, or setting isk on fire. Also any system that we want to jam in the future, is a permanent decision.

Also really don't like your decision to destroy player assets without reimbursement and the complete lack of notice is even worse.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2015-07-07 17:56:39 UTC
I have to agree -- removing the ability to "turn off" infrastructure hub upgrades by dint of limiting ihubs to one per system is pretty jarring. The old mechanic of keeping multiple ihubs in a system was clunky, but it worked. Despite the fact that this is largely a emergent gameplay mechanic, it would be nice to be able to continue to do it.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-07-07 17:57:11 UTC
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
So you guys are going to at the very least, be allowing us to turn off or remove Ihub upgrades before this change right?

Because I can see several systems with dual hubs where the one with more upgrades also has a jammer. So you are forcing us into a decision of jamming a system that we no longer want to jam, because that hub has more upgrades, or setting isk on fire. Also any system that we want to jam in the future, is a permanent decision.

Also really don't like your decision to destroy player assets without reimbursement and the complete lack of notice is even worse.


This is the crux of the issue. Because of a possibility something might result in someone making ISK, they are instead deleting the assets of alliances? How does that make sense? Someone might make ISK so lets delete 100s of billions in assets?

Either refund the assets themselves or allow us to do so on our own. However, I would point out a week is not enough time to do so on our own. This is also why we have completely stopped all upgrades to stations. We have to date not received a plan for outpost refunds despite asking several times.

If you cannot even refund IHUBs and upgrades how can the playerbase expect you to handle outposts in any fair manner?

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
#26 - 2015-07-07 17:58:28 UTC
We can't refund these on our own, because we can't get the upgrades out of secondary ihubs. This is just blowing up our assets without any possibility we can recover them.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2015-07-07 18:02:39 UTC
Aryth wrote:


If you cannot even refund IHUBs and upgrades how can the playerbase expect you to handle outposts in any fair manner?


There is so much truth in this statement it's not even funny. You really are driving people to push the pause button until you guys figure out what you are doing.
twit brent
Never Not AFK
#28 - 2015-07-07 18:04:58 UTC
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#29 - 2015-07-07 18:29:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


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.


Thanks for the response, on your response to my question/comment. The npcs null orders would be nice, but it does not provide a solution for SBUS in stations i can no longer dock in. For example i still have a large cache of sov gear in tenerfis, this change basicall puts me down a coupel bill isk wise if the sbus become tcus for example as I have no way to possibly move the assets. Additionally while the NPC null orders are "nice" and add additional convience some regions are no where near NPC null meaning individuals in these areas still have a time and risk component.

to the anchored sov structures in space issue. If you have an issue with monetary conversion then the simple solution is the query ownership of said structures take a count by corp destory he ones in space generate new items into those corps hangers. With one week notice it is very restricting to scoop up a whole bunch of ihubs.

To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#30 - 2015-07-07 18:33:50 UTC
Vigilanta wrote:
To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points.

New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#31 - 2015-07-07 18:34:06 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Yroc Jannseen wrote:
So you guys are going to at the very least, be allowing us to turn off or remove Ihub upgrades before this change right?

Because I can see several systems with dual hubs where the one with more upgrades also has a jammer. So you are forcing us into a decision of jamming a system that we no longer want to jam, because that hub has more upgrades, or setting isk on fire. Also any system that we want to jam in the future, is a permanent decision.

Also really don't like your decision to destroy player assets without reimbursement and the complete lack of notice is even worse.


This is the crux of the issue. Because of a possibility something might result in someone making ISK, they are instead deleting the assets of alliances? How does that make sense? Someone might make ISK so lets delete 100s of billions in assets?

Either refund the assets themselves or allow us to do so on our own. However, I would point out a week is not enough time to do so on our own. This is also why we have completely stopped all upgrades to stations. We have to date not received a plan for outpost refunds despite asking several times.

If you cannot even refund IHUBs and upgrades how can the playerbase expect you to handle outposts in any fair manner?


Christ i didnt even consider this and it is so true, i just thought about the assets themselves didnt even consider the upgrades inside.
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
#32 - 2015-07-07 18:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigilanta
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:
To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points.

New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically.


your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at?

If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2015-07-07 18:39:39 UTC
twit brent wrote:
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.


1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm.
2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either.
2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#34 - 2015-07-07 18:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Vigilanta wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:
To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points.

New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically.


your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at?

If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment.

If you plan on placing a station at that planet, don't place the IHub right in the way of your future outpost. The IHub can be placed on any grid that is close enough to the planet (following similar rules to POCOs).
As we move forward, new structures will be using smarter deployment abilities (like the new TCU and IHub deployments) but there's only so much we can do for older structures like outposts.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-07-07 18:53:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vigilanta wrote:
To the point brought up by evil weasel, he stated it in his response to me and he has a valid concern. If the zero point on a planet has a structure on it you cannot launch a station there until the object is removed. how will you address this issue with the ihub anchor points.

New TCUs and IHubs are using a newer and more advanced deployment mechanic that allows them to automatically find another location if their first choice is blocked. So if there's a structure at the grid zero point the IHub will just find the next available spot on the same planet and deploy there automatically.


your not addressing the problem though. The issue is for a NEW outpost not an existing one. If the ihub is on the planet zero point then I cannot deploy a station on that planet unless i blow up the ihub (and inherently lose my strategic index/upgrades inside). See what were getting at?

If you are unfamiliar with the mechanics, station eggs wont anchor unless the zero point is unoccupied, if a poco or ihub is on it (or TCU, and i think even a mobile depot). That planet is a no go for station deployment.

If you plan on placing a station at that planet, don't place the IHub right in the way of your future outpost. The IHub can be placed on any grid that is close enough to the planet (following similar rules to POCOs).
As we move forward, new structures will be using smarter deployment abilities (like the new TCU and IHub deployments) but there's only so much we can do for older structures like outposts.


The key point I'm getting from this is, don't bother with dropping outposts until the new structure system comes in.
utec asmo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#36 - 2015-07-07 18:56:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#37 - 2015-07-07 19:05:21 UTC
twit brent wrote:
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.

FCON tried it with 9km/sec Vagabonds in the play-test.... that worked well for them.... Blink

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#38 - 2015-07-07 19:08:17 UTC
Quote:
Subscription Renewal Reminder

Dear Freelancer117,

According to our records you have 22 hours left on your non-recurring subscription to EVE Online.

Below is a list of some of the payment options that you can use to renew your subscription:*


CreditCard
DirectDebit
PayPal
PaySafeCard
WebMoney
Ideal
Plex
Ukash
Yandex
Amazon
Sofort


* Availability of payment methods varies by country

You can enjoy additional savings when opting for a 3-, 6- or 12-month payment. More information and payment options are available through Account Management.


- The EVE Online Dev Team


Dear CCPgames,

As of late I have yet to see a(ny) expansion that has worthwhile pve / ambulation content, except only in other mmo-rpg's
In order to pay the company € 131.40 worth for a 12-month-plan, I would like to see value for money that is related to that.

Will see after patch day on the 14th July, in the meanwhile I guess I'm not the only one.
source: http://www.vg247.com/2015/06/29/eve-onlines-player-count-drops-to-lowest-since-2008/
http://massivelyop.com/2015/06/29/eve-online-concurrency-is-at-its-lowest-point-since-2008-by-player-analysis/

Regards, a Freelancer

PS: to any forum moderator, I changed my account name in the heading ofc.

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2015-07-07 19:10:24 UTC
utec asmo wrote:

Killing the unused structures is the right way to go.
The people with offline Ihubs/TCU either didn't care about them and just relied on the fact that their hp would deteriorate anyone from actually killing them or used multiple Ihubs to circumvent the permanent sov cost increase of upgrades.

We absolutely cared about them, and being able to switch which upgrades were on and which were not is a basic functionality of the sov system that was missing and required alliances to use dual-hubs to fix. Alliances are now being punished for developing systems to work around flaws in the sov implementation.
twit brent
Never Not AFK
#40 - 2015-07-07 19:14:41 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
twit brent wrote:
"Goal #1: As much as possible, ensure that the process of fighting over a star system is enjoyable and fascinating for all the players involved"

Phantasm's orbiting stations at 200km doing 4.3km/s is the new sov warfare. If it goes through in the current state this game is over for me.


1) Park a Vexor with a T1 Entosis next to the SOV structure to counteract the attacking Phantasm.
2a) Ignore the Phantasm. Which doesn't qualify as fascinating, granted, but a single Phantasm orbiting at 200km doesn't qualify as a fight over a star system either.
2b) Send out some dual-web Daredevils or Interceptors or Vagabonds or whatever and get yourself a juicy Phantasm kill. Should be worth about 400 to 500 mil and if the T2 Entosis drops that's a nice 130 mil in loot at least. Who doesn't like Phantasm kills? I love killing Phantasms. Along with everything else Not Purple.



Your missing the point entirely. If you deploy multiple ships to chase him off he has already won. The whole point of using the phantasm is he doesn't have to fight. The Entosis mass addition needs to be changed to a velocity penalty and an inertia modifier or people will just find ways around it.