Quote:

---

So, we have decided to give you all every skill at level 5.

---

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore

---

Why did you post that flow chart and then bloody well describe the mechanics of every thing on there.

Like how long does a disruptor field take to anchor? how long does it take to kill one? How many can you have in a system.? How many can an opposing alliance put up at a time?

If an opponent spams 50 systems with enough of them simultaneously how hard will it be to kill them all?

This makes more questions then answers. Please stop putting tidbits of info out and actually put REAL info out.

---

Originally by: Sgt Blade

---

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore

---

Why did you post that flow chart and then bloody well describe the mechanics of every thing on there.

Like how long does a disruptor field take to anchor? how long does it take to kill one? How many can you have in a system.? How many can an opposing alliance put up at a time?

If an opponent spams 50 systems with enough of them simultaneously how hard will it be to kill them all?

This makes more questions then answers. Please stop putting tidbits of info out and actually put REAL info out.

---

wait till you can test it on SISI and try it out?

---

Originally by: The Mittani

---

Edited by: The Mittani on 16/09/2009 21:35:29
also what methods do you have to prevent spamming of disruptors, the first obvious thing to do is just send people out willy-nilly with disruptors, tossing them up and running away

---

Quote:

---

There will be three tests. The first will be to test changes made to faction ships resulting from feedback we gained as a result of our last public test event. A wide array of faction ships will be provided and you will have an opportunity to give us your opinions on the changes. It is important to remember these changes are not final.

---

Originally by: Sgt Blade

---

Originally by: The Mittani

---

Edited by: The Mittani on 16/09/2009 21:35:29
also what methods do you have to prevent spamming of disruptors, the first obvious thing to do is just send people out willy-nilly with disruptors, tossing them up and running away

---

I am pretty sure that there would be a limit on how many disruptors you can put down at once, like up to 3-5 ish, and it would be obvious that the claiming beacon will have a lot more HP then your disruptors. That and we don't know how much they cost and how big they are so if you need expanded haulers to carry them simply running in a dropping them might not be so easy

---

Originally by: Kelly Smith

---

Testing requires understanding how they are going to work.

---

Originally by: CCP Weirdfish blog

---

...we have decided to give you all every skill at level 5

---

Originally by: Sgt Blade

---

Originally by: Kelly Smith

---

Testing requires understanding how they are going to work.

---

Did you not read that dev blog? they just told you how everything works more or less, the only thing left to test is what the modules are like, how big they are amount of HP to kill one ect ect....which is what the goonie asked

---

Quote:

---

rogue packs of orcas

---

Quote:

---

the duration of the supercapital test, estimated to be a 48 hour period.

---

Originally by: Letifer Deus

---

Edited by: Letifer Deus on 16/09/2009 22:09:49

Quote:

---

the duration of the supercapital test, estimated to be a 48 hour period.

---

So for 48 hrs, devs are going to be around handing out supercaps or what?

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

What's wrong with the 12 hour timer?

Attackers: If they can't maintain a presence in a system for 12 hours they shouldn't be able to get it anyway.
Defenders: If someone leaves their entire empire open for attack during 12 whole hours they shouldn't have it anyway.

Even if all defenders are in the same time zone, given that a normal person sleeps 8 hours each night, that should mean 4 hours where the defenders are able to mount a resonably large fleet. What are you complaining about?

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

What's wrong with the 12 hour timer?

Attackers: If they can't maintain a presence in a system for 12 hours they shouldn't be able to get it anyway.
Defenders: If someone leaves their entire empire open for attack during 12 whole hours they shouldn't have it anyway.

Even if all defenders are in the same time zone, given that a normal person sleeps 8 hours each night, that should mean 4 hours where the defenders are able to mount a resonably large fleet. What are you complaining about?

---

Originally by: CCP Oveur

---

Just donæt forget the reach-around.

---

Originally by: MoonsOverMyHammy

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

*snip* ...
Even if all defenders are in the same time zone, given that a normal person sleeps 8 hours each night, that should mean 4 hours where the defenders are able to mount a resonably large fleet. What are you complaining about?

---

r u unemployed?

---

• US - Spans 7 hours in 4 timezones (10 to 11 hours including Hawaii, alaska and the easternmost parts)


• Europe - 6 hours over 3 timezones


• The rest - 13 to 14 hours over 10 timezones (including china that is... )

Originally by: ShadowMaster

---

Every one needs to keep in mind that this is a part of how to conquer a system. Remember Dust 514? CCP has stated before, on multiple occasions, that they intend on having more options in how you conquer a system. What they are testing here is clearly just part of the system. Fairly certain that if it was the WHOLE sov system they would have had a dev blog dedicated just for it, not a section of one. Please calm down... wait, nvm asking internet people to calm down is pointless.

Anyways, yea, more to the sov system. They gave us all the information we need to test this part of the system. Most of your questions, are probably the same questions CCP has (how disruptors can an alliance place?) and is why they want to have a 5 day testing of the system.

---

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore

---

Originally by: ShadowMaster

---

Every one needs to keep in mind that this is a part of how to conquer a system. Remember Dust 514? CCP has stated before, on multiple occasions, that they intend on having more options in how you conquer a system. What they are testing here is clearly just part of the system. Fairly certain that if it was the WHOLE sov system they would have had a dev blog dedicated just for it, not a section of one. Please calm down... wait, nvm asking internet people to calm down is pointless.

Anyways, yea, more to the sov system. They gave us all the information we need to test this part of the system. Most of your questions, are probably the same questions CCP has (how disruptors can an alliance place?) and is why they want to have a 5 day testing of the system.

---

Yes please let another game interface with this game and then determine though a magical set of numebers something in this game? what you think that's a ****ing great idea?

---

Originally by: Professor Dumbledore

---

And this does nothing to stop timezone wars you idiots. Make it longer then 12 hours.

---

Originally by: CCP Abathur

---

Good morning, thread. I'd like to start off by saying a few things that you all should consider in your feedback.

Dominion is not being released tomorrow or next week; it's still 2-3 months from deployment. We have no intention of springing changes on the player base at the last minute. One of the reasons we are putting out so much information now is that we want to get this stuff onto the test server and allow you all to play with it and provide feedback.

We appreciate the scope of the changes we are implementing and are not just planning to just ignore your concerns. At this stage of development, there are still quite a few things we can alter in terms of balance. We want to include you in the process and the Dev team will be following these threads, and subsequent ones on the Test Server forum, very closely.

Please bear this in mind in your replies.

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

What's wrong with the 12 hour timer?

Attackers: If they can't maintain a presence in a system for 12 hours they shouldn't be able to get it anyway.
Defenders: If someone leaves their entire empire open for attack during 12 whole hours they shouldn't have it anyway.

Even if all defenders are in the same time zone, given that a normal person sleeps 8 hours each night, that should mean 4 hours where the defenders are able to mount a resonably large fleet. What are you complaining about?

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

I see a move from "Okay guys, we set our towers to this time, we gotta blob up at that time or it is over" changed to "Okay guys we just need to wait and blob the attackers once during the next 24 hrs and we'll be ok"

Defenders need to honor every attack into their systems, but they still just need to gather up at their strongest and blob the enemy and win. Still seeing this as a system favorable to blobbers.

---

Originally by: Solidatus

---

System Restore unit-

This computing unit will interface with any nearby stargate, and attempt to restore default operating protocols to it. This process takes twelve hours to accomplish, and will only succeed when all stargates in the system have been overriden in this manner.

Once a successful override has been made, any Territorial Control Units in the system will become vulnerable to attack.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v473/W4lly/capture3.png

---

Originally by: Cayleu

---

If this screenshot is accurate, then it appears that it takes 24 hours to online a disruptor. If thats the case, we are talking about 36 hours to lose sov.

---

Originally by: Sentinel Eeex

---

System Restore Unit is 90m3 atm? Heh. This is a good one too.

---

• 36 hours to drop sov is very reasonable.



• It's a tiny mod... small enough for a hac gang to drop, which is a mixed blessing.



• If there's really no resists it's got 200k EHP. That's one volley from a larger roaming BS gang. My first comment (page 1) still stands then. This thing is going to be hard as hell to defend when disrupting sov.



• What skills will it require to drop? I'd hope the same as POS ecm mods (anchoring 3) just to prevent complete sov-spam by every member of a roaming fleet.

Originally by: Cayleu

---

There's another critical piece of information that we do not have. What, if anything, will system sov really mean?

---

Originally by: Henri LeChasseur

---

Originally by: Vaal Erit

---

I see a move from "Okay guys, we set our towers to this time, we gotta blob up at that time or it is over" changed to "Okay guys we just need to wait and blob the attackers once during the next 24 hrs and we'll be ok"

Defenders need to honor every attack into their systems, but they still just need to gather up at their strongest and blob the enemy and win. Still seeing this as a system favorable to blobbers.

---

See, you're smart. You're smart because you say "blobbers" and that has this negative ring to it. And then everyone goes, "Yeah, i hate those blobbers too!"

But lets dispense with that term, just for a sec here. Lets use a factual statement.

This system favors those with superior numbers. Wait what?! How outrageous!!! In what sort of strange world does combat favor the larger force? People cry of fairness in 0.0, but what is more fair than the most people with the biggest guns win?

---

Originally by: Vorononv Circut

---

36 hours to drop sov is very reasonable.

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Ok. Unless there's a mechanic here I'm missing, what's stopping an offensive alliance from placing disruptors in -every- system you have sov in simultaneously?

---

Originally by: Tetrix Akuta

---

I think some folks are missing the point here. One of the ideas that keeps getting repeated in all of these DEV Blogs is that after Dominion hits its going to be to your advantage to have people other than the ones just in your alliance in your space. That the mentality of NBSI will be some what gone.

---

Originally by: Vorononv Circut

---

Now what? Are they actually going to defend them?!? No. If the attacking alliance only has to remove one disruptor per system, it becomes trivial to 'reclaim' your space.

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Originally by: Tetrix Akuta

---

I think some folks are missing the point here. One of the ideas that keeps getting repeated in all of these DEV Blogs is that after Dominion hits its going to be to your advantage to have people other than the ones just in your alliance in your space. That the mentality of NBSI will be some what gone.

---

I don't understand why you would think this. What -exactly- would be the advantage to have non-alliance people in your space?

If they're not defending sov for you, they are pointless (in fact, worse than pointless). They are in fact basically just squatters, so why not shoot them?

If they -are- defending sov, they're more or less in your alliance. As it is now, larger alliances hold more space. If this new system comes in....larger alliances hold more space.

A bunch of 0 effort carebears doesn't fit into either side of that picture.

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

What's wrong with the 12 hour timer?

Attackers: If they can't maintain a presence in a system for 12 hours they shouldn't be able to get it anyway.
Defenders: If someone leaves their entire empire open for attack during 12 whole hours they shouldn't have it anyway.

Even if all defenders are in the same time zone, given that a normal person sleeps 8 hours each night, that should mean 4 hours where the defenders are able to mount a resonably large fleet. What are you complaining about?

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Requires very little effort on the part of the attackers, but -extreme- super vigilance on the part of the defenders.

---

Originally by: Tetrix Akuta

---

That the mentality of NBSI will be some what gone.

---

Originally by: Haakelen

---

Originally by: Tetrix Akuta

---

That the mentality of NBSI will be some what gone.

---

Dream on.

---

Originally by: Tetrix Akuta

---

So why have a non-ally in your space? To pay bills! To produce things you don't want to produce, to **** block another less friendly group from moving in.

---

Originally by: Vorononv Circut

---

You want to stop me. You only have to come in w/ a 100-man fleet to counter (on equal terms) my 300-man fleet. If I consolidate my forces against yours, you'll just warp to an under-defended disruptor and blast it to smithereens.

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

What you are describing already exists. They are called alliances. There are even renter alliances (FTZ, Shadows) that do exactly this.

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

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.

---

Originally by: Vorononv Circut

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Requires very little effort on the part of the attackers, but -extreme- super vigilance on the part of the defenders.

---

I think you have it backwards. Let's say I'm attacking you. Your system has 3 gates.

I park a 300-person fleet in your system and launch three disruptors. I split my forces and defend one disruptor each. 100 people per disruptor.

You want to stop me. You only have to come in w/ a 100-man fleet to counter (on equal terms) my 300-man fleet. If I consolidate my forces against yours, you'll just warp to an under-defended disruptor and blast it to smithereens.

----
Say you don't do all that. The fight isn't immediate.

I've got my 300 ships parked in system. They're bored, we're ratting. We've been there 4 hours. Cool... only 32 more to go... If I ever leave, you'll come in and blast one of my disruptors. The whole cycle then starts over again.

So, in short: attackers need overwhelming numbers, and they need a virtually constant presence.

Don't get me wrong, POS bashing sucks. But at least you get to shoot the thing and then go home.

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Edited by: Mskpath3 on 17/09/2009 05:54:31
Ok, but if you think this somehow promotes greater stability or livability for people who can't currently hack it in 0.0, you're out of your mind.

Lord of the Flies I tells ya.

---

Originally by: Henri LeChasseur

---

See, you're smart. You're smart because you say "blobbers" and that has this negative ring to it. And then everyone goes, "Yeah, i hate those blobbers too!"

But lets dispense with that term, just for a sec here. Lets use a factual statement.

This system favors those with superior numbers. Wait what?! How outrageous!!! In what sort of strange world does combat favor the larger force? People cry of fairness in 0.0, but what is more fair than the most people with the biggest guns win?

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.

---

Originally by: Sgt Blade

---

Originally by: The Mittani

---

Edited by: The Mittani on 16/09/2009 21:35:29
also what methods do you have to prevent spamming of disruptors, the first obvious thing to do is just send people out willy-nilly with disruptors, tossing them up and running away

---

I am pretty sure that there would be a limit on how many disruptors you can put down at once, like up to 3-5 ish, and it would be obvious that the claiming beacon will have a lot more HP then your disruptors. That and we don't know how much they cost and how big they are so if you need expanded haulers to carry them simply running in a dropping them might not be so easy

---

Originally by: Papa Digger

---

Disruptors/Markers shootable during online time or invlunerable??
And you need to wait 12 hours since disruptor _finish onlining_ or _start onlining_ to make marker vulnerable?

---

Originally by: Cayleu

---

Edited by: Cayleu on 17/09/2009 06:14:51

Originally by: Vorononv Circut

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Requires very little effort on the part of the attackers, but -extreme- super vigilance on the part of the defenders.

---

I think you have it backwards. Let's say I'm attacking you. Your system has 3 gates.

I park a 300-person fleet in your system and launch three disruptors. I split my forces and defend one disruptor each. 100 people per disruptor.

You want to stop me. You only have to come in w/ a 100-man fleet to counter (on equal terms) my 300-man fleet. If I consolidate my forces against yours, you'll just warp to an under-defended disruptor and blast it to smithereens.

----
Say you don't do all that. The fight isn't immediate.

I've got my 300 ships parked in system. They're bored, we're ratting. We've been there 4 hours. Cool... only 32 more to go... If I ever leave, you'll come in and blast one of my disruptors. The whole cycle then starts over again.

So, in short: attackers need overwhelming numbers, and they need a virtually constant presence.

Don't get me wrong, POS bashing sucks. But at least you get to shoot the thing and then go home.

---

Yep, given how difficult it would be for an invading force to take sov, and given ccp's comments 2 blogs ago that system sov should be far less important, I'm thinking that "taking sov" will be the last thing an invader does, after the defender has given up and moved out.

We are still thinking about sov in terms of what it means today, that it determines station docking, JB, etc. We simply dont know that, the way ccp described their intent two blogs ago, system sov may very well just be bragging rights and a fueling bonus. Right now, an attacker is trying to take sov when they invade. Why? Because thats how you destroy defensive advantages and take stations. If sov no longer controls those things, then the "point" of invading would just be to blow up the enemy's stuff and take their stations. Taking sov could just be a way to plant your flag, get your name on the map, and prove you control the system, because after all, you wouldnt have taken sov if there was a defending force left.

We might know a bit of the mechanics of sov, but we still dont know what having sov really means yet. I'm more interested in what controls docking rights, system upgrades, and how to take those things away.

---

Originally by: Weaselior

---

what the christ 12 hours to lose a system? Don't you think that's just a tad bit insane?

---

Originally by: Sidrat Flush

---

I love the devblogs and the flow chart, and hello to CCP Weirdfish.

Right so you anchor the claim marker and if it's still there 24 hours later Sov is yours (which leads to Pi - I like spreadsheets more than cake).

In order to lose it, the hostiles/renters will have to plant a module 'disruptor field' and keep it alive for twelve hours which makes the claim marker vulnerable to attack - before this however it's not. Seems simple enough, and I'm not going to ask questions that can change after testing or even overnight, like hp and m3 size, but I will ask two questions.

Will claim markers and disruptor fields bpo's be seeded on the market?

Will you be able to anchor them anywhere at all in the system and, wether you're limited to a moon/planet/gate will they appear on the overview for everyone and their Orca of doom to warp in and try to take it out/defend it?

Alliances that want 0.0 access should be able to cover the entire 23 hour game day. If you're trying to defend twenty systems you'll need the man power to do it as well, although in most regions there's choke points a-plenty which could be focused on instead.

I like the direction it's going in, there'll be work-arounds of course and if these modules can be anchored anywhere it could mean going in with a smaller force will be harder to probe down, just depends on the actual points on the modules and the ship you need to carry a few AS WELL AS getting your own marker through as well!

I hope I'll be able to get to the test servers for the fun and games.

---

Originally by: DRACO selen

---

Edited by: DRACO selen on 17/09/2009 05:17:08
serious question incomming
Does it take 24h or 24h+next dt to claim sov?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Carniflex

---

Zerozero can't support population densities atm that are needed today to keep sov.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Sisyphus

---

Sovereignty is just: ...

---

Originally by: Kanuo Ashkeron

---

Originally by: CCP Sisyphus

---

Sovereignty is just: ...

---

So the big question is: What¦s about station ownership?

---

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?

---

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!

---

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.

---

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!

---

Originally by: Signature

---

Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: CCP Whisper

---

"So you're going to have to do some actual thinking..."

---

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?

---

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?

---

Originally by: Jowen Datloran

---

What ever that means has yet to be seen.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Nidhiesk

---

I don't know if it was you or another dev but I'm givin the feeling you want more people in null sec and more populated. In that case, although just a suggestion, I suggest making it easy to claim the system and harder disrupt it.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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!

---

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau

---

What about pos modules that currently require sov in order to anchor? Especially CSAAs?

---

Originally by: Aaron Min

---

It seems to me that under this new system it is also going to be harder to defend a dead end system with 1 gate and easier to defend a system with 3 or more gates, in my mind that just doesn't seem right.

---

Quote:

---

It also doesn't seem like there is much of a purpose to sov unless you have a station in the system, and then not to control the station, but so you can upgrade the system.

---

Quote:

---

I really think you should make the station invulnerable to flipping until sov is lost. Why bother engaging a station systems sov claimers if I can simply take the station and then all my people can start docking there, repairing for free, loading the location with loads of back up sov disruption markers etc etc.
...
This would make the station (or stations as I'm hoping you do in fact let us build multiple stations in the same system) you last bastions of hope once you loose sov.

---

Originally by: Letifer Deus

---

Edited by: Letifer Deus on 17/09/2009 15:54:49
How is the transition between the current sov system and the new one going to work? Are all of the sov 1/2/3/4s just going to drop and it's going to become the space equivalent of the Oklahoma land grab, or what?

---

Originally by: Orange Faeces

---

I have read the devblog and I'm just a tad concerned here. How is this any different than the current system we have? Its essentially the same except without POSs.

---

• The structure to be destroyed has much much less hitpoints, so that it won't require massive amounts of DPS to destroy it. Tactics will outdo capital blobs here.
• No damage from the structures being attacked/defended - ships of all sizes can play a part in its assault (especially with the lower hitpoints).
• Rather than blasting a POS into reinforced and starting a timer, the end of which ends up in a fight - a presence must be maintained in the contested system to prevent your claim disruptor being destroyed.
• Claim disruptor modules probably much much much cheaper than POSes to the point of being nearly expendable - certainly if an enemy suicides a few BSes or a capital to kill one you should be way up.
• No more fuelling logistics to maintain sov \o/

Quote:

---

How about we make a real change to Sov. and require that any claimed system must have a sovereign system or a station system adjacent to it. This would solve two general things in the current "emergence." First, you can't hop all the way across eve and take other people's sov. Second, you have to grow organically from a claimable station, low-sec, or a station drop.

---

Originally by: Gartel Reiman

---

There's a few major differences as I see it:

• The structure to be destroyed has much much less hitpoints, so that it won't require massive amounts of DPS to destroy it. Tactics will outdo capital blobs here.
• No damage from the structures being attacked/defended - ships of all sizes can play a part in its assault (especially with the lower hitpoints).
• Rather than blasting a POS into reinforced and starting a timer, the end of which ends up in a fight - a presence must be maintained in the contested system to prevent your claim disruptor being destroyed.
• Claim disruptor modules probably much much much cheaper than POSes to the point of being nearly expendable - certainly if an enemy suicides a few BSes or a capital to kill one you should be way up.
• No more fuelling logistics to maintain sov \o/

---

Originally by: Gartel Reiman

---

I suspect you have to grow organically anyway, whether the mechanics force you to or not. If you travel all the way across EVE to take sov, it's not simply a case of popping + planting POSes and then cynoing back if they get attacked. You have to maintain a presence there in order to take sov initially, and after that to respond to any counter-claims. I don't think that would be very feasible if you also wanted to maintain presence on the other side of the universe - short of splitting into two groups, which would be similar to creating a coalition of two alliances anyway (which could do this under your proposed system).

Secondly, in the spirit of emergence, surely letting someone try this ridiculously challenging situation is better than outlawing it outright through game mechanics?

---

Originally by: Orange Faeces

---

I think you missed the point of FallOut's blog. Its not just that they want to make smaller ships useful for sov. action, but that smaller alliances need to be able to take space. If you don't make sov. growth continuous with current space then the nap-train, in whatever form it takes in the future, just hops over and pops your sov. and you can't get into 0.0. Thats the problem that needs to be solved. Not whether or not you feel useful in your Caracal.

---

Originally by: Cayleu

---

You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.

---

Originally by: Orange Faeces

---

Originally by: Cayleu

---

You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.

---

Oh thats a good point, g00nswarm. The NAP-train absolutely HAS to cleanse all the other alliance that aren't blue from 0.0 because you needed their resources. When no one's space is, in itself, worth enough to conquer it'll be safe to venture sov. claims in 0.0.

We'll all keep that in mind when we're reading your essays on CAOD.

oF

---

Originally by: Cayleu

---

Edited by: Cayleu on 17/09/2009 18:05:59
Hey, I'm only putting up my opinion of what ccp is trying to do, which is pretty obvious based on the blogs. I'm not saying that I believe they will be successful.

---

Originally by: Cayleu

---

You may have missed how they intend to (attempt to) accomplish this. Its not practical to design a game mechanic that somehow allows tiny alliances to defeat an alliance 20 times their size, and it would be silly to attempt it. Rather, they seem to be trying to make 0.0 available to more people by making it possible for large alliances to improve their space to the point where they dont NEED a lot of space like they do now, combined with making it more inconvenient or expensive to hold huge amounts of space thats not needed. (ie perhaps by having upgrades that improve truesec, quadrupling the number of belts or exploration sites, introducing agents, you may have systems where you can comfortably fit 30 people online at once). If space can be upgraded and defended to the point where a huge alliance only needs 1 region or a few constellations, and you reduce the value of r64 moons to the point where its not worth the expense of holding extra space just for the moons, then perhaps the biggest alliances carve out the best corners to call home, freeing up space for new alliances.

Thats what their "plan" seems to be, whether it is a good idea and/or works or not, whether it encourages people to fight interesting wars or just causes everyone to settle down and stagnate into boring peace, who the hell knows.

---

Originally by: Lord Helghast

---

they didnt say their trying to remove nullsec violence or confine aliances to their smaller sections, but alliances tend to defend/kick people out of their controlled spaces faster than unclaimed territory, this isnt meant to aleviate the threat of pirates or lowsec fighting, its to make alliances want more people to come into their regions and help get more cash, its so that alliances might want more carebears on their roster to mine in their capitals to help take advantage of all the upgrades etc that will be possible...

---

Originally by: Mskpath3

---

Then, just wait until they're sick of getting blown up and leave the area, then claim your own sov.

---

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

---

The only problem is that this will not work.

People live in high security space because of it's safety. No matter how attractive you make 0.0 with opportunities and high rewards, it has no effect on majority of playerbase.
We have lately seen this concept to fail with T3 production when wormholes space did not happen to attract enough people even though you could make easily +100M per hour just by clearing out easiest wormholes, space that was totaly empty and pretty safe.
We can notice this pattern through whole EVE and even other MMOs. People are generaly unwilling to accept any kind of loss.

Unless you make 0.0 safer, you won't really attract more people in there. Surely you can utilize the space but that will result in even greater hollownes of null sec space.

Upkeep mechanics makes this only worse, not to mention how pointless it is in principle.

---

Originally by: Typhado3

---

disruptor linky?

you realise how hard that's going to be to defend.

Even if you have a fleet there ready to defend it they could just warp in and snipe it off in a min or so. It's possible they could just pull off warp in snipe warp out tactics for half an hour and it would die.

well I spose this does put things on the side of the defender and on tactics rather than just blob the gate and hope for the best.... will also likely cause an attacker to split up his forces.

---

Originally by: Typhado3

---

disruptor linky?

you realise how hard that's going to be to defend.

Even if you have a fleet there ready to defend it they could just warp in and snipe it off in a min or so. It's possible they could just pull off warp in snipe warp out tactics for half an hour and it would die.

well I spose this does put things on the side of the defender and on tactics rather than just blob the gate and hope for the best.... will also likely cause an attacker to split up his forces.

---

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

---

The only problem is that this will not work.

People live in high security space because of it's safety. No matter how attractive you make 0.0 with opportunities and high rewards, it has no effect on majority of playerbase.
We have lately seen this concept to fail with T3 production when wormholes space did not happen to attract enough people even though you could make easily +100M per hour just by clearing out easiest wormholes, space that was totaly empty and pretty safe.
We can notice this pattern through whole EVE and even other MMOs. People are generaly unwilling to accept any kind of loss.

Unless you make 0.0 safer, you won't really attract more people in there. Surely you can utilize the space but that will result in even greater hollownes of null sec space.

Upkeep mechanics makes this only worse, not to mention how pointless it is in principle.

---

Originally by: Hammering Hank

---

I think you are missing the aspect of the small corporations and alliances who do want to get into 0.0, but don't have a capital fleet able to down the POS's and fend off the attacks of the current sov holders. This change gives these smaller players the ability to go into an area, drop some disruptors, and see how many survive to remove the current sov. This easy sov change also means the current sov holders are going to have to patrol their space more, and just not POS spam a system. The space becomes "used" instead of just property, either by the current sov holder or a new smaller player who wants in.



Some specifics I have not seen addressed are that of cyno jammers, the sov levels, and outpost and POS ownership as sov changes. Constellation capitals are a good idea, the sov levels for capitals should be maintained. The ability to have a well fortified empire needs to be continued, or 0.0 becomes a lawless pirate infested zone (like the pirate faction regions are today).

(T)Hank(s)

---

Originally by: Hammering Hank

---

This change gives these smaller players the ability to go into an area, drop some disruptors, and see how many survive to remove the current sov.

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

Let me put my carebear perspective on this:
Yes I want to be safe. I don't want to waste ships on battles where I'm not resonably sure I'll win. However, HOW I'm safe doesn't matter to me. I don't care if it's CONCORD or players that protect me, as long as I know there is someone to come to my aid should I need it.

As it is now PvPers generally look down on industrialists as something that just leech on their hard work and give nothing in return. Therefore they won't protect me in 0.0 and I don't want to come, both due to the risks and due to the unappreciation.

If there were some sort of mechanic that made industrialists and carebears valuable to PvPers, so valuable that they would actually protect them, then I would move to 0.0 in a heartbeat as it seems much more fun that high sec.
I have no idea how that mechanic would work though, without messing up a lot of other stuff in the process.

---

Originally by: Yon Krum

---

I have one question, and one concern:

Question:
How many SRUs can be onlining at a given stargate at once? In other words, how much redundancy can we build into an attack so that once the sniper-hac gang does a drive-by and alphas that 200k HP, we don't have to wait another 24h?

Concern:
I would have thought that the SRU would be more like 1000m3 or something, to make taking sov by the attacker a slightly more involved process requiring more advanced planning than "I stuck an SRU in the cargo hold, let's screw with 'em a bit--lulz!" Of course, if they take more space, they should also have more base HP.

I'm very concerned that the answer to my question will be "1 onlining at a time", which makes the whole process very, very silly with the current HP level of these devices.

--Krum

---

Originally by: Daedalus II

---

Originally by: Typhado3

---

disruptor linky?

you realise how hard that's going to be to defend.

Even if you have a fleet there ready to defend it they could just warp in and snipe it off in a min or so. It's possible they could just pull off warp in snipe warp out tactics for half an hour and it would die.

well I spose this does put things on the side of the defender and on tactics rather than just blob the gate and hope for the best.... will also likely cause an attacker to split up his forces.

---

Have you considered that it might be possible to remote rep it? having 5 triaged carriers repping it should make it a tad more difficult to kill.

---

Originally by: CRUSH3R

---

cariers repping it for 24 hours without stops? I'd like to see someone ready to do this.

---

Originally by: CCP Sisyphus

---

To contest a system (i.e., make the claim marker vulnerable again): You need to have System Restore Units ONLINE at every gate.

---

Originally by: Miklas Laces

---

Originally by: CCP Sisyphus

---

To contest a system (i.e., make the claim marker vulnerable again): You need to have System Restore Units ONLINE at every gate.

---

Lol at the carebears who dropped a station in a dead-end system with only 1 gate.

---

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

---

Well, it's a double edged sword.
On the one hand it's harder to defend, sure, but on the other hand it's not going to be a prime target for contestation either, provided the alliance controls more than one system, because to get to that system they'll have to go through other systems owned by the alliance...

---

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

---

Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 18/09/2009 10:30:13
Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 18/09/2009 10:00:29

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

---

Well, it's a double edged sword.
On the one hand it's harder to defend, sure, but on the other hand it's not going to be a prime target for contestation either, provided the alliance controls more than one system, because to get to that system they'll have to go through other systems owned by the alliance...

---

How is that double edged? The fact that the system is deep in alliance territory is irrelevant to sovereingty mechanics.

It is like saying that your cars breaks do not work most the time but it is all fine and you wont get it repaiered because there is a 15MPH speed limit all along your way to work and to the shopping mall in the neighborhood.

---

Originally by: T'san Manaan

---

Worst analogy ever!

---

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

---

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel

---

Well, it's a double edged sword.

---

How is that double edged? The fact that the system is deep in alliance territory is irrelevant to sovereingty mechanics.

---

Originally by: Tairon Usaro

---

Wake up CCP, an aggressor has always the advantage to choose time and location. If that is not countered by a timeable invulnerability (i.e. the strontium timer) then all that happens will be the stupid timezone pingpong. Nobody will spent some ISKs into system perks anymore, because the risk to loose the investment is just way too high.

---

Quote:

---

At the moment Sov means something, it is not a 100% indicator but a pretty reliable indicator who actually owns a system. In the new system Sov tells you nothing at all about who owns a system.

---

Originally by: Xorth Adimus

---

Franky some other non-interactive boring floating thing to shoot at /set up is not what I was thinking of as immersive or emergent gameplay from a leading edge MMO.

---

Originally by: Erick Odin

---

For some reason this sov thing makes me thing of that Robin Williams bit where he is a cat walking around spraying things and saying "Mine"

---

Originally by: Gartel Reiman

---

It's double-edged because the single gate makes it easier to control entry into and out of the system - it's easier to defend.

However, if you let an enemy gang get into position and set up their claim disruptor, it's going to be tricky for you because it's easier to defend. It's easier for them to defend their claim disruptor, which makes it harder for you to destroy it.

Hence the double-edged sword; a defensible position within your borders becomes a real pain if you let an enemy gang break through your borders and fortify themselves there.

---

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

---

Originally by: Gartel Reiman

---

It's double-edged because the single gate makes it easier to control entry into and out of the system - it's easier to defend.

---

I think I am a bit slow on this one, sorry.
What are the edges here?

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.

---

Originally by: Cathrine Kenchov

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Specifically, bear in mind that sov has no impact on station ownership under the current design.

---

Greyscale, my appologies for being so frank, but...

Thats f'ing ******ed. Alliance X owns sov, but Alliance Y owns the station? Does that make sense to anyone else here? I love the idea of the claimer / upgrading sov ideas, but if my alliance owns sov in the system, I fully expect to own the station too, instead having to go about another Claim funtion to get it. And if its back to the old... well damn, cause ping-pong worked so damn well. I think you are making a lot of changes most are happy to hear, but I doubt that is one of them.

Tie station ownership into sov. Its what people are used to, its what makes sense, and although you are making some radical changes, seriously, don't go too far.

---

Originally by: Gartel Reiman

---

The fact that the single-gate system is easier for the occupants

---

Originally by: Tairon Usaro

---

There is no bonus for focussing on a connected territory, there is no bonus for longterm occupancy. It a plain and simple hit-the-****-no-brainer

FAIL !

---

Originally by: Marlenus

---

Originally by: Erick Odin

---

For some reason this sov thing makes me thing of that Robin Williams bit where he is a cat walking around spraying things and saying "Mine"

---

Didn't he steal that from Red Dwarf?

---