EVE Search - New Dev Blog: print 'Hello, world'

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: print 'Hello, world'

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)

CCP WeirdFish	Posted - 2009.09.17 08:39:00 - [121] I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that the system detailed here is only the first iteration of the new sovereignty and there are more parts yet to be announced and explained. Also that all the mechanics timers and the like are as i explain in my blog subject to change. Don't panic!

Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.09.17 08:40:00 - [122] Originally by: Merdaneth Originally by: Carniflex I can kinda see why you want to limit the time interval for 12h or so, as it's impossible to guard your totems reliably longer than that, but if you decide to keep that short time please reconsider the jump clone timer. Even if you have to introduce skill that makes it shorter. In my opinion jump clone timer should be shorter than timeframe you will have to react to the threatening of your sov. So somewhere around 6 - 8 h if your sov switch timer is 12h. Not everyone can afford carriers to just haul their own arse around EVE. I'm afraid jump clones have become one of the problems of the afk-empires currently in existence. They allow people to happily live in empire and only move out to 0.0 for a fight. CCP wants more people to actually 'live' in 0.0 is my guess. Oh, and by the way, you still have 36 hours for the decisive fight for the claim marker. Zerozero can't support population densities atm that are needed today to keep sov. I mean, 3 guys ratting in a system is already crowd. Add there 1-2 people per system (if you are lucky) for exploration content. Mining scales better to some extent, but there is very few systems where it's actually 'worth it'. Before jump clones there were combat alts or carebear alts on the same account. Capitals also made moving long distances in rapid manner relatively easy. It's nobrainer if you live somewhere 50 jumps deep in 0.0 if you spend few mil on carrier fuel or fly all that way to empire if you need skills or whatever. So should the jump clone timer remain as long as it is it might mean that even more people are 'forced' to get themselves carriers. Granted 36h is a lot better timeframe, assuming that this disruptor thingy takes 24h to online. With only 200 000 EHP tho any passing fleet will onevolley it without defenders being able to do anything about it, unless they have logistiks pilots with godlike reflexses and even then increasing blob size it's possible to get into point where it just pops from burst damage regardless of logistiks.

CCP Sisyphus	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:07:00 - [123] Some of you have raised some questions, or made comments that might not be completely correct. So some summarization of the mechanics and reasons might be in order. (Also note - numbers are preliminary, they are subject to change depending on feedback of play on Singularity) Sovereignty is just: While you have sovereignty all your Starbases will have a 10% (subject to change) fuel bonus. The system will be marked as belonging to your alliance. You will have the ability to upgrade the system (via infrastructure hubs and investments). You have to pay upkeep for all systems you claim. Claiming a system is as simple as: Anchor Claim Marker, online it (takes 24 hours). During those 24 hours it is vulnerable to being destroyed. Once online it is invulnerable. To contest a system (i.e., make the claim marker vulnerable again): You need to have System Restore Units ONLINE at every gate. Onlining takes 12 hours. They are vulnerable to being destroyed at all times. If the system is unclaimed, there will be a battle between different alliances planting Claim markers and trying to defend them while trying to destroy enemy claim markers. If the system is claimed, there will be battles at every gate trying to destroy the System Restore units while the enemy tries to defend them. Once they are online, you need to defend your Claim marker while simultaneously trying to destroy one of the System Restore Units. The advantage is inherently with the defenders, as they only need to destroy one (1) of the System Restore units, while the invaders need to defend all of them.

Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:18:00 - [124] Originally by: Carniflex Zerozero can't support population densities atm that are needed today to keep sov. Which is probably why one of the major changes in Dominion is the ability to upgrade your space so that it can. Originally by: Mskpath3 I dunno. The possibility for spamming of these things in massive quantities in many systems gives the attacker the ability to pick his place and time. Defenders will have to be on 24/7 to prevent this situation (disruptor saturation) from happening. But once it does, the attacker can cyno in (or slowboat it depending on jammer mechanics) and blow the **** out of your sov-claimer at his leisure. Here's what I do: - Take 10 alts who can fly viators. Fill each one with 100 jammers. - Zoom this squad into the target region. - Split up into two groups. 5 haulers should be able to cover a system. You don't start in the core systems. You start out in the sticks. - Each alt only has to anchor one module, so total disruptor-anchoring time for a system is 1 anchor cycle. Unless that anchor time is super huge (longer than a large tower) you just keep doing this. - In a few hours, you've disrupted 10 systems. In a day, 30. The defenders would need like an eternal 50 man BS cleaner fleet to stop this from happening. That....is hard. I don't think you'd be very successful like that, for a number of reasons. Firstly, judging by mail templates I've seen, alliances/corps will get mailed when a claim disruptor is anchored. So they'll know what you're doing, and in fact you'll be constantly pinging them updates of your position. Secondly, you're just leaving those disruptors sitting in space undefended and hoping they can stay there for 12 hours. They don't have a huge amount of EHP - even a lone ratter who comes across one (and they will, as they're on stargates) could probably take it down in 5-10 minutes or so (with current EHP figures). Thirdly, I presume there's some kind of anchoring time for the disruptors themselves where your Viator would have to be uncloaked for 30-60 seconds. Without a defence force of your own, you'd be quite liable to being destroyed, or at least terminally disrupted, in any remotely active system. Basically, this would only work against an alliance that isn't able to destroy relatively fragile, completely undefended structures anchored on gates in its territory, within a 12=hour period. And I definitely support the assertion that if that happens, the alliance didn't deserve to own that space anyway. The workings of your 10-man viator squad could easily be undone by a 10-man HAC/BC squad in about the same time - if any of your undefended claim disruptors are still alive 12 hours later, it's a sign that the alliance definitely isn't active in that system, and can't even be bothered to sent out a small force to pop the claim disruptors. Just don't count on anything coming from this. It looks like if you really want to claim a system, you need to maintain combat supremacy there for 36 hours. Which kind of ties into an earlier devblog mentioning that sov was something you claimed "once the dust settled" - if there's active contesting of a system with roughly equal numbers it looks like it'll be hard for either side to maintain sov, which is probably right. If on the other hand you have "de facto" ownership of a system, it will not be difficult to translate that into "de jure" ownership by planting the beacon and not having enemies take it down within 24 hours. One thing that might be wrong with current values is that claim disruptors may be a little too fragile; if they can be driveby-sniped by a moderately-sized BS gang that might be a bit over-the-top. But perhaps the intention is that you cannot anchor them without combat supremacy in the system...
Trefnis Minmatar Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:19:00 - [125] so it is 12h to take down the sov, that is good, defender still have next 24h to destroy attacker sov marker. and to those saying that it will take only to attack at the end of defender tz becouse then they go to sleep and then to work, you have to know the attacker is either skiping work or not sleeping aswell. its still 12h. and even if it fall you are now in easy position to take it back again (just as you said its easier). it does promotes people that play all the time against weekend warrios as of said presence in space is a must to detect invasion.
Xthril Ranger hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:20:00 - [126] I got a problem with that the attacker is the one choosing all the engagements timezone. If the attacker choose when the first engagement happens, the defender should get to choose the second. If the attacker get to choose both and you only got 12 hours you will find that certain timezones are at an advantage. We will get "holiday wars" where alliances take advantage of having a day off work or that other alliances got to do those family gatherings stuff. . you'll never jump alone
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:22:00 - [127] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 17/09/2009 09:25:05 Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Some of you have raised some questions, or made comments that might not be completely correct. So some summarization of the mechanics and reasons might be in order. (Also note - numbers are preliminary, they are subject to change depending on feedback of play on Singularity) Sovereignty is just: While you have sovereignty all your Starbases will have a 10% (subject to change) fuel bonus. The system will be marked as belonging to your alliance. You will have the ability to upgrade the system (via infrastructure hubs and investments). You have to pay upkeep for all systems you claim. Claiming a system is as simple as: Anchor Claim Marker, online it (takes 24 hours). During those 24 hours it is vulnerable to being destroyed. Once online it is invulnerable. To contest a system (i.e., make the claim marker vulnerable again): You need to have System Restore Units ONLINE at every gate. Onlining takes 12 hours. They are vulnerable to being destroyed at all times. If the system is unclaimed, there will be a battle between different alliances planting Claim markers and trying to defend them while trying to destroy enemy claim markers. If the system is claimed, there will be battles at every gate trying to destroy the System Restore units while the enemy tries to defend them. Once they are online, you need to defend your Claim marker while simultaneously trying to destroy one of the System Restore Units. The advantage is inherently with the defenders, as they only need to destroy one (1) of the System Restore units, while the invaders need to defend all of them. How do you expect the game to keep dynamics when you enforce defending mechanics while putting attackers into such a difficult position? Attacking enemy territory should be encouraged, not penalized.
Kanuo Ashkeron Wormhole supervisory and Investigation team	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:24:00 - [128] Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Sovereignty is just: ... So the big question is: What¦s about station ownership?
Trefnis Minmatar Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:28:00 - [129] Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Sovereignty is just: ... So the big question is: What¦s about station ownership? it was mentioned that stations wont be connected to sov somewhere
Jarnis McPieksu Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:37:00 - [130] There is also one huge missing variable... Rough idea of a cost of both structures. I would imagine that the claimers (being vulnerable to be popped rather easily) would be priced as "disposable", but how about the actual claiming structure? 12h of disruption -> sov structure goes boom, sov holders finally get back from work and now have 24 hours to counter-blow the sov structure. If these things are expensive, back-and-forth fighting over these could get messy. Also I'm unclear if these sov claiming things are anchored at a POS? If so, what happens if you just blow up the POS while the sov structure is invulnerable? Or does it give invulnerability to the POS in question? Also will infrastructure updates work like stations do today or like POSes - effectively, will they survive a landlord change or not and can you raze them or not?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:40:00 - [131] Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu There is also one huge missing variable... Rough idea of a cost of both structures. I would imagine that the claimers (being vulnerable to be popped rather easily) would be priced as "disposable", but how about the actual claiming structure? 12h of disruption -> sov structure goes boom, sov holders finally get back from work and now have 24 hours to counter-blow the sov structure. If these things are expensive, back-and-forth fighting over these could get messy. Also I'm unclear if these sov claiming things are anchored at a POS? If so, what happens if you just blow up the POS while the sov structure is invulnerable? Or does it give invulnerability to the POS in question? Also will infrastructure updates work like stations do today or like POSes - effectively, will they survive a landlord change or not and can you raze them or not? Think about those as bunkers such as in FW...
malcotch Gallente DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:41:00 - [132] This really does seem to favour the defender more, as all you have to do is create a blob once in a 12hour period and remove one System Restore Unit, then repeat this in another 12hr period if another system restore unit is anchored. If the attackers want to claim sov they would have to tie a system down for 12hrs and counteract any blobs at any time, then tie the system down for a further 24hrs whilst the claim marker is onlining! Defenders will be able to make attackers give up due to fatigue. Small alliances will have no hope in being able to claim new sov.

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:52:00 - [133] Originally by: CCP WeirdFish I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that the system detailed here is only the first iteration of the new sovereignty and there are more parts yet to be announced and explained. Also that all the mechanics timers and the like are as i explain in my blog subject to change. Don't panic! Quoting this for emphasis. What's presented in WeirdFish's blog is the sov system at its most basic level. The timers are subject to testing and feedback and there are numerous bits that are still to be introduced and explained. We had a choice in how we planned to release these changes and we chose to go with the 'more information sooner' strategy. Please keep your feedback constructive and helpful as we go forward. Thank you.

Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Novus Auctorita	Posted - 2009.09.17 09:55:00 - [134] Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu I would imagine that the claimers (being vulnerable to be popped rather easily) would be priced as "disposable", but how about the actual claiming structure? 12h of disruption -> sov structure goes boom, sov holders finally get back from work and now have 24 hours to counter-blow the sov structure. If these things are expensive, back-and-forth fighting over these could get messy. I would imagine they'd be priced such that you can't just spam them all over the place, and instead have to actually bring a proper fleet to defend them.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:00:00 - [135] Sorry about the confusion on this matter; it turns out that the design doc was wrong The onlining time for the System Restore Unit / Disruption Marker is correctly set at 24 hours. The text description and the flowchart in this blog are both using an incorrect value of 12 hours because that's what it says in the design. Which is wrong. We are having a ponder over whether the claiming unit should be less vulnerable - either moving its cycle to 12 hours, or giving it a longer invulnerable anchoring time and a shorter vulnerable onlining time or similar. Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.

Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:04:00 - [136] Originally by: CCP WeirdFish I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate that the system detailed here is only the first iteration of the new sovereignty and there are more parts yet to be announced and explained. Also that all the mechanics timers and the like are as i explain in my blog subject to change. Don't panic! Needs the same fontsize as the hollywood sign, and be blinking. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:07:00 - [137] Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 17/09/2009 10:11:09 Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 17/09/2009 10:09:46 Originally by: CCP Abathur Quoting this for emphasis. What's presented in WeirdFish's blog is the sov system at its most basic level. The timers are subject to testing and feedback and there are numerous bits that are still to be introduced and explained. We had a choice in how we planned to release these changes and we chose to go with the 'more information sooner' strategy. Please keep your feedback constructive and helpful as we go forward. Thank you. This is not about timers, it is the concept. 1) Hostile fleet erect a Disruptor Field at Gate 1. then => a) hostiles weaken their fleet and split it in order to control Gate 2 b) hostiles move whole fleet to Gate 2 leaving Gate 1 undefended 2) Defending fleet gathered at Claiming Mark watitng for hostile move after controling Gate 1 then => a) as soon as part fo the hostile fleet moves from Gate 1, defenders jump in full force and devastate hostiles forces at Gate 1 or Gate 2 b) as soon as hostile fleet moves to Gate 2, defenders jump to Gate 1 and take down Disruptor Field None of those is good and that is exactly how this mechanics works. You can imagine what pain it is as the number of gates in the system scales up. How did you think this could work?
Sturmwolke Genyosha Legion	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:15:00 - [138] The sovereignty flowchart is odd and it doesn't quite make sense in the strategic aspect. So you have control of a system. Someone attacks, drops a nuclear time-bomb at a place of their choosing. The defenders would have to scramble and intercept/destroy the package before its timer runs out. This means, instead of defending, they're the ones that actually have to be on the offensive (4 out 5 times).... and the attacking side is put on a defensive. All the attacking fleet need to do is sit tight, keep cohesion and minimize fleet damage and keep up constant stable pressure if engaged. Time is on the invading side. It makes no sense, imo. The attackers should be on a time sensitive schedule and the advantage of time should fall to the defenders. In addition, defenders should almost always be running a defensive engagement. Defender counter-attacks are ok, but default mode should always be defensive. Make that happen CCP.
Spartan dax	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:19:00 - [139] Originally by: CCP Sisyphus Claiming a system is as simple as: Anchor Claim Marker, online it (takes 24 hours). During those 24 hours it is vulnerable to being destroyed. Once online it is invulnerable. To contest a system (i.e., make the claim marker vulnerable again): You need to have System Restore Units ONLINE at every gate. Onlining takes 12 hours. They are vulnerable to being destroyed at all times. How about instead we have: Anchor Claim Marker. And nothing else. However Sov only goes up if you work the system through "activites" The "strenght" of the sov depends on how much activites you put into the system. To contest a system the opposing team just needs to drop a sov marker of their own and then clear out the inhabitants, destroy/disrupt their "activites" and achieve an activity rate higher than the defendants which will start reducing the defenders Sov strength to zero and eventually start gaining sov of their own. Sov markers would selfdestruct after a period of time if they didn't have sov in system. Basically a tug of war concept. People could gain sov in unclaimed systems extremely fast but they would be of low strength and easily taken by anyone that were willing to put in a bigger effort. There's just no need in this type of concept to gather huge fleets to go off and shoot/defend a descriptive arbitrary object in space. You only need to live there to keep/take sov.
RaZ RUS	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:25:00 - [140]
Gartel Reiman Civis Romanus Sum Core Factor	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:27:00 - [141] Originally by: Caldor Mansi How do you expect the game to keep dynamics when you enforce defending mechanics while putting attackers into such a difficult position? Attacking enemy territory should be encouraged, not penalized. Again it seems like claiming sov is not the attack itself, but what you do afterwards to cement and legitimise your ownership. You attack the enemy territory by moving in, disrupting their operations, establishing superiority over the system, forcing your enemies out. Then once you've done all that, and the fight for "control" over the system has been won, you will be able to plant your anchorables and get sovereignty over the system without much fuss. It seems right to me that if there is an enemy present that hasn't yet been subdued, it will be difficult to plant an "I own this system" flag without it being knocked down. So unlike the current mechanics where you win the system itself through claiming sovereignty, in Dominion it looks like sov will be less of a big deal mechanically, and you claim the system through "soft" means first then legitimise it with the flag. In that respect the flag mechanics don't really matter that much - the question becomes how hard is it for you to subdue the current occupants and establish military dominance over them?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:35:00 - [142] Originally by: Gartel Reiman Again it seems like claiming sov is not the attack itself, but what you do afterwards to cement and legitimise your ownership. You attack the enemy territory by moving in, disrupting their operations, establishing superiority over the system, forcing your enemies out. Then once you've done all that, and the fight for "control" over the system has been won, you will be able to plant your anchorables and get sovereignty over the system without much fuss. It seems right to me that if there is an enemy present that hasn't yet been subdued, it will be difficult to plant an "I own this system" flag without it being knocked down. So unlike the current mechanics where you win the system itself through claiming sovereignty, in Dominion it looks like sov will be less of a big deal mechanically, and you claim the system through "soft" means first then legitimise it with the flag. In that respect the flag mechanics don't really matter that much - the question becomes how hard is it for you to subdue the current occupants and establish military dominance over them? If claiming sovereintgy is something to be done after you force all inhabitans to leave the system, there is no point in erecting Disruptor fields and whole presented mechanics. You just take down Claim Mark and Erect your own with no hussle.
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:36:00 - [143] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Sorry about the confusion on this matter; it turns out that the design doc was wrong The onlining time for the System Restore Unit / Disruption Marker is correctly set at 24 hours. The text description and the flowchart in this blog are both using an incorrect value of 12 hours because that's what it says in the design. Which is wrong. We are having a ponder over whether the claiming unit should be less vulnerable - either moving its cycle to 12 hours, or giving it a longer invulnerable anchoring time and a shorter vulnerable onlining time or similar. Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design. I thought station ownership was a given if you took sovereignty of a system and had captured said outpost, so this statement begs the question: what does taking sovereignty actually do for you?
Jarnis McPieksu Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:44:00 - [144] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Also, when considering how easy/hard sov is to take/disrupt, it's informative to ask yourself why you're trying to do so in the first place. Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design. So what does? Currently you want sov so you can capture a station which forces the defenders to stage somewhere else. The only other option is to stage a 23/7 bubblecamp which is a somewhat unpleasant job. Stations can't be openly attackable/flippable or we'll have madness. So what determines when a station can be taken over? Also, if "sov doesn't matter" for station ownership, for what does it matter for? People won't pay or fight for pretty flags if they have no practical use.
Arte The Darkness Within	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:52:00 - [145] Edited by: Arte on 17/09/2009 10:52:27 I like the idea behind this design for taking control of systems. The potential vulnerability at the edge of claimed space places the front line in those systems. Concentrating forces there is a must and therefore the stated aim of encouraging alliances to occupy the space they need, not want, is achieved by virtue of the fact that you can take their space by harrassment 1 system at a time, away from the occupied systems if an alliance has over-extended itself. The route of your advance to contact, counter-attacks against reds, encirclement of enemy systems, are more readily viable now as the number of gates in a system will affect defensibility and so strategy and not just tactics come into play. These are all good things imo. Please may you consider the following questions. 1. How far do the disruptors have to be from the gate to be effective? a) on Grid b) Within a set amount of kilometers 2. Is there remit to have them within a certain amount of au of the gate (not necessarily on grid) to be effective, therefore meaning that some element of 'search' comes before 'destroy'. This would also mean that in some systems, one disruptor might cover multiple gates meaning it is more strategically viable to attack that system. 3. Will pilots be able to warp to them in space like celestial objects; if they can see them on overview? 4. What is the process of notification with regards to ajoining systems being claimed, and claimed systems being contested? Will you have to be a director in a corp, or can any pilot realise something is amiss and try to stem the danger? I am really quite looking forward to seeing how this develops. Have to laugh at the nay sayers screaming blue murder already without even testing or proposing other options. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: CCP Whisper "So you're going to have to do some actual thinking..."
Kanuo Ashkeron Wormhole supervisory and Investigation team	Posted - 2009.09.17 10:55:00 - [146] Originally by: Gartel Reiman Originally by: Caldor Mansi How do you expect the game to keep dynamics when you enforce defending mechanics while putting attackers into such a difficult position? Attacking enemy territory should be encouraged, not penalized. Again it seems like claiming sov is not the attack itself, but what you do afterwards to cement and legitimise your ownership. You attack the enemy territory by moving in, disrupting their operations, establishing superiority over the system, forcing your enemies out. Then once you've done all that, and the fight for "control" over the system has been won, you will be able to plant your anchorables and get sovereignty over the system without much fuss. It seems right to me that if there is an enemy present that hasn't yet been subdued, it will be difficult to plant an "I own this system" flag without it being knocked down. So unlike the current mechanics where you win the system itself through claiming sovereignty, in Dominion it looks like sov will be less of a big deal mechanically, and you claim the system through "soft" means first then legitimise it with the flag. In that respect the flag mechanics don't really matter that much - the question becomes how hard is it for you to subdue the current occupants and establish military dominance over them? There was a post in another thread about formal sovereignity and legitimacity. It seems Dominion sovereignity is legitimacity. Formal sovereignity will be station ownership (however that changes). So, imagine following scenario: Attackfleet moves in and starts attacking the station. Finally there emerges a big battle (in which caps play a big role) about the station. The attacking fleet wins, and gains formal sovereignity. It controls the station and has the "police" force on the street. However, they need to have legitimacity to reign the system and earn all the profits of it. And there are still rebels in the backyards who disturbing the operations (gaining Dominion sovereignity by destroying the SRUs).
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:02:00 - [147] So (system) attackers need to defend while (system) defenders need to attack? Brilliant system imo. And I like the notion that contesting sovereignty might be the LAST thing to consider when planning an invasion instead of being the first like under the current mechanics. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Jowen Datloran Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:07:00 - [148] Originally by: Evelgrivion I thought station ownership was a given if you took sovereignty of a system and had captured said outpost, so this statement begs the question: what does taking sovereignty actually do for you? Without sovereignty you are properly not allowed to improve the quality of the system. What ever that means has yet to be seen. ---------------- Mr. Science & Trade Institute
Kanuo Ashkeron Wormhole supervisory and Investigation team	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:12:00 - [149] Originally by: Jowen Datloran What ever that means has yet to be seen. It seems some sweets are involved ;)
The Mittani GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:33:00 - [150] Edited by: The Mittani on 17/09/2009 12:33:46 if you intend this to give an advantage to the defender, as you say, a 24-hour cycle is better. there's some confusion about the System Restore function. The 'onlining' time on Sisi is 24 hours. Once it is online, does it immediately count as disrupting its gate? Or does it start its countdown once online? ie: SRU onlining for 24 hours -> Onlined, Sov Disruption countdown begins for X (12? 24?) hours -> sov claiming widget vulnerable (assuming SRUS on all gates) or SRU onlining for 24 hours -> sov claiming widget vulnerable (assuming SRUs on all gates) Sins of a Solar Spymaster: my ~fair and balanced~ column TheMittani @ Twitter

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.