What I do know is that the big alliances and coalitions make taking sovereignty took easy. Whether the CFC sweeping through Fountain, or N3 and Pandemic Legion rescuing a couple hundred systems of dropped rental sov in not much more than 48 hours.

They make it look so quick and simple that it’s easy to discount their complaints that “sov sucks” as something else. It’s easier to assume that they’re happier with a big blue donut, earning their ISK hand over fist, than taking territory.

The last two weeks I’ve been occasionally participating with Fweddit taking their first constellation in Delve. What I’ve learned through that process is just how terrible the sovereignty system really is. It’s boring. It has too many timers associated with it. It takes a long time to burn down requisite structure health to reach the next reinforcement timer.

Sovereignty is geared towards the very large, capital ship-ready alliances. Smaller groups such as Fweddit (and it seems strange calling an alliance of 1000 people small), who don’t have huge capital ship resources (they can field 10 dreadnaughts on most nights, maybe 15 on a good night), they just don’t belong in sov nullsec. I think they should be in nullsec, but the current mechanics do everything but scream “Get the hell out, you aren’t meant to be here!” It’s taken Fweddit two weeks to take four systems. And they would lose it all in about four days if some larger group decided they wanted the constellation for themselves.

I have no idea how to fix nullsec. I’m not even sure what “fix nullsec” means, because that can mean so much to so many. At the very least, I’d like to see the process of taking sovereignty structures streamlined, so that even small groups can flip systems reasonably quickly. The big alliances and coalitions will always rule the day, but it should be easier for smaller groups to poke at the beasts. It should be more inviting for the larger groups to war with each other (the current sov mechanics don’t encourage warfare, unless the monetary gain is substantial.)

What does it take to capture a system?

Sovereignty Blockade Units (SBUs)

This is where taking a system begins. Before stations and infrastructure hubs can be attacked, there must be onlined SBUs placed at 51+% of the gates. It doesn’t matter who owns the SBUs, they simply need to be online. If a system has four or five stargates, then three gates need online SBUs. Only one SBU per gate.

What most alliances do, for their important territory, is place onlined SBUs at all their gates. While this allows people to immediately start attacking their iHub and/or station, it also allows the defender to employ a cheesy little tactic. While an attacker is busy at the station or iHub, the defender simply offlines a number of their SBUs, to bring the total online to under that 51+% threshhold. This immediately places the station and iHub in an invulnerable state. This forces the attacker to take down the SBUs and then place their own. This slows down an attack by at least three hours (the amount of time it takes to online an SBU.) A valid, if cheesy, tactic for the defender, albeit annoying.

SBUs have no timers, so they can be attacked and destroyed in a single session.

An SBU takes three hours to online. Which means three hours before the stations and iHubs can be attacked.

Stations and Infrastructure Hubs (iHubs)

Once the SBUs are in place and online, this is the next phase of taking a system. If a system has no stations, then all you have to worry about is the iHub. Each of these structures has two timers, which means you have to attack each of them three times. Once for shields, then wait out a timer, then attack the armor, then wait out another timer, and then attack the hull.

Those are three attacks that must succeed. If any fail, then the process must begin again from the start for the structure on which the attack failed.

Stations have timers that are >48 hours in length. Infrastructure hubs have timers that are >24 hours in length. It will take two to four days to take a single system (depending on whether a station is present or not.)

Attacks on stations and iHubs can be scuttled if the online SBUs drop below the 51+% requirement.

If a system doesn’t have a station or an iHub (I’ve never seen a system without an iHub, though), then you can go straight to attacking the TCU.

Territorial Claim Unit (TCUs)

Once the stations and iHubs have been destroyed (you don’t actually destroy stations, they simply flip ownership), then this is the final stage of system acquisition. TCUs, like SBUs, do not have timers. They are attacked until destruction.

Once destroyed you place your own TCU, which takes eight hours to online. Once online, the system is yours. You can then place your own iHub.

It All Takes Time

All of these structures, and especially the station and infrastructure hubs, have an obscene amount of hit points. With fifty siege bombers, the health of an iHub will drop approximately 1% for every full reload. Even attacking with 10 dreadnaughts, the time required is still quite high. Which is why capital ship-heavy groups have the most success.

Even if you can field half or full fleets of dreadnaughts, your pilots still run the risk of burn-out. Not only is structure shooting dull, but it requires pilots to be in-game at very specific times, over the course of days and weeks. It is psychologically demanding, as well as putting pressure on real-life responsibilities.


Every system costs a minimum of 84M ISK upkeep per 14 days. Depending on the infrastructure upgrades, the actual costs will range from 98M ISK to 364M ISK per 14 day period. The norm for most systems would be 112M ISK per period. For a region like Fountain, sovereignty costs are in the neighbourhood of 20B ISK every two weeks.

Did I Get Anything Wrong?

This was my crash-course into sovereignty mechanics. (Thanks to Gents Jabber for clarifications on all my questions.) This has been a fairly simplified description of sov mechanics, and you can find far more words on the subject at EVElopedia.

Hopefully I didn’t get anything egregiously wrong. If I did, though, add a comment and I will correct.

Poetic Stanziel

You can read more of Poetic Stanziel’s opinions at his Poetic Discourse blog.


  1. anon

    nicely written intro to sov

    August 31, 2013 at 4:38 pm Reply
    1. Ryan Easte

      AGREED. everyone should stop bagging on it, he’s giving back

      September 1, 2013 at 1:32 am Reply
  2. Good intro to SOV, you pretty much hit on most things. I don’t think the current SOV mechanic is broken. I think it was never fully developed and needs modifying. None of the proposals i have seen about SOV changes would do anything in the long run but strengthen the big boys. Nothing wrong with big groups, but there has to be discouragement from taking over too much space (i.e. more then can be defended) or too spread out space.

    I think if they refine the current mechanics they would be able to accomplish the goals without drastically changing things.

    Quick examples:

    1). Lower HP of all SOV structures by 1/2

    2) Remove resistance % from all SOV structures (i think SBU has 50% across).

    3) Make Ihubs fit in Jump freighter, not freighter size (then small groups do not need titan to bridge out freighter, or massive escort fleet, also make IHUB upgrades fit in jump freighter and be build-able by players, NOT seeded on market in Highsec by NPCs.

    4) 1/2 HP of Cyno Jammers

    5) 1/2 time for SBUS online

    6) 1/2 time for TCU’s online.

    7) Make station timer to 24 hours, just like IHUB

    8) Give SOV timers a 25% chance to come out of RF mode 24 hours from when they were RF instead of when they were set for by defenders

    9) Get ride of TCU costs (the 84 mil every 2 weeks)> That would allow small groups to mess with SOV and take it without going bankrupt. However, just like everyone does, when they upgrade the IHUB it costs. (a jammer is 600 mil a month by itself,).

    Those few changes CCP could make would DRASTICALLY help smaller entities out. Would it help the big guys to? Yes. It would make SOV easier to manger for EVERYONE not one player group specifically. This causes more focus on content, not on empire management. The no cost for just having an un-upgraded system would help everyone it. The billions of ISK spent on that can be spent on PVP, ihub upgardes, war savings, whatever.

    This means you have 1/2 the time to do everything SOV related, which in my extensive experience in smaller SOV groups is the difference many times in success or failure. It would also reduce the boredom, and make the big groups fight more (because they would have more time, etc).

    Anyway. Good article, good insight.

    August 31, 2013 at 4:56 pm Reply
    1. lalala

      you really thik lowering EHP is the way to go ? what do you think will happen when one of the cap heavy groups will start grinding ?

      September 1, 2013 at 12:02 am Reply
      1. Yes. And what will happen is the same thing that happens now.

        Do you really think 50 supers care if there is 1/2 HP to grind or not?

        They don’t in the long run. Run numbers here:

        50 supers is approximately 500,000 DPS. (Damage a SECOND)

        Currently an IHub is 192,500,000 HP.

        75 mil shield, 112.5 mil armor, and 5 mil structure.

        That takes 50 supers: 6.5 min to grind start to finish with (1/2 would be 2 min)

        However, that is from start to finish if no timers.

        To put into RF mode (25% shield) it takes 50 supers: 1.5 min (1/2 wld be 45 seconds)

        To come back and put armor into RF mode: 1.5 min (45 secs if 1/2)

        To finish the job on final timer: 1 min (30 secs if 1/2)

        That is nothing at all for them as it is now.

        Lets take small alliance with….5 dreads (their whole cap fleet for that timezone maybe).

        5 dreads = approx. 40,000 DPS

        Current ihub time from start to finish: 80 minutes or almost 1.5 hours (1/2 = 45 min)

        Time to RF Shield: 23 min (if cut in half 12 min)

        Time to RF armor: 23 min (12 min)

        Time to kill: 14 min (7 min)

        You know what those numbers are for the small guys? The difference between having a countering fleet move to you or not. The difference between having members bring their dreads or not, or coming back to more “lets mess with the big guys SOV” ops.

        You know what the difference is for the big guys? NOTHING. They don’t care they have 50 supers, or 50 dreads, or 50 titans.

        If they want to grind stuff they will. So don’t make changes with them in mind because it just gives them more power.

        September 1, 2013 at 8:44 am Reply
    2. d

      Rofl, the big cap heavy alliances would roll whole regions in a few days instead of weeks. There would be no way a small alliance could even hope to hold any space at all

      September 1, 2013 at 6:50 am Reply
      1. Not true. I actually had a response typed, and then i realized i was not signed in. Went to sign in and it deleted it.

        So meh. But you are thinking about it from the wrong angle. If you make it so smaller guys want to go into null sec you will have then EVERYWHERE, and all the NPC PVP alliances who are very good will become much more of problem b/c they don’t mess with SOV now because of the hassle.

        Take away some of the hassle and you add more Empire Grieving campaigns and they have to downsize to hold.

        SOV is such a hassle that you NEED big coalitions to hold it. Take away the hassle and you will still have coalitions for a while, but the need will downsize and you will have more smaller wars everywhere.

        September 1, 2013 at 8:19 am Reply
  3. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

    Nicely written, Poetic. Now, PLEASE, for the love of God, teach Goblin about SOV, and how Eve really works.

    August 31, 2013 at 5:08 pm Reply
    1. old timer

      pleased don’t , let the fucker die in a black hole…

      August 31, 2013 at 5:30 pm Reply
  4. Feyrin

    Timers are wrong for station and Ihub, station is 72h and I-hub is 48.

    August 31, 2013 at 5:57 pm Reply
  5. former IRC

    Well I never expected to say this…, but good article Poetic. Thumbs up.

    What’s next? Goblin will start making sense?

    August 31, 2013 at 6:01 pm Reply
    1. Duh

      Poetic Stanziel usually writes interesting articles, G Goblin is just gargabe-tier, projectile vomit garbage.

      August 31, 2013 at 9:35 pm Reply
  6. RA dude

    One more reason why current sov mechanics give large groups advantage over the small ones is reinforce timers. Small groups are usually active in particular timezone, so if they are attacking a large block, defenders can simply set up their structures to come out of reinforce in the opposite timezone, when attackers have no numbers. Alarm-clock operations are possible, but they are even more exhausting than structure grind by itself. Large groups, on the other hand, have better timezone coverage, so they can gather numbers for structure bashing/defending at any time.

    August 31, 2013 at 6:02 pm Reply
    1. Titus Veridius

      like…omg…a small group attacking a big group have disadvantages because of size? NO FUCKING WAY. MY MIND IS FUCKING BLOWN. YOU BETTER NOT SHARE THIS SHIT WITH ANYONE. THIS COULD CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE PLAY THE GAME.

      fucking space Napolean

      August 31, 2013 at 6:23 pm Reply
      1. Billbo


        August 31, 2013 at 9:55 pm Reply
        1. MrSpaceDragon

          I agree. It’s the same for people in the real world. If you’re guatemala, you’re not going to wipe out the United F’ing States! duh

          August 31, 2013 at 10:31 pm Reply
      2. RA dude

        I wonder if being in a large group makes one bring caps even to comments. I’ll put it in other words, as you seem to miss the point. If an independent alliance A attacks alliance B (a part of a large block), which both have equal numbers and the same prime time, currents sov mechanics allows the defender to defend simply by setting reinforce timers to bad time for both A and B, asking their bluebuddies from another timezone to take care of the timer.

        In case you still didn’t get it, messing with reinforcement timers is a legit way to avoid fights for sov.

        August 31, 2013 at 11:55 pm Reply
        1. Johann

          You obviously never read the rules about gunfighting. Quite simple really.

          September 2, 2013 at 6:00 am Reply
  7. TIDI The Game Breaker

    Now all you need to do is write an article about how TIDI favors incompetent blobs over skilled players and how TIDI takes away the advantage from skilled players as it allows the blob (CFC) five minutes to make each decision.

    August 31, 2013 at 6:18 pm Reply
    1. KosherHam013

      Yes because you obviously don’t remember how bad the actual lag was before tidi.

      September 1, 2013 at 2:29 am Reply
      1. waltari

        I do and when i look back and compare with for example 6VDT there is not much of a difference. I remember the hype across all the gaming portals and even bbc, how the 6V battle was cool, no word about 35min warp or 15minutes jump animation, weapons and modules not cycling etc etc. So we were basically sitting and waiting for clone activation anim. Prety much like in old days but with seeing grid.

        September 1, 2013 at 8:34 am Reply
    2. d

      Yes dying and getting podded without ever loading grid was so much more fun. I really hope they bring that back……

      September 1, 2013 at 6:43 am Reply
      1. daniL

        At-least it was a balancing factor!
        TiDi is shit

        September 1, 2013 at 10:02 am Reply
  8. Just Checkin'

    So…. You are surprised that bombers are not good at structure grinding? Ofc they should be.

    I’m against those big, no fun, blob everything coalition but yeah, with the caps and super caps they have they should have the upper hand in such activities.

    I really would like to see a system that would give smaller groups a chance to gain and hold some sov but I think that it would make it even easier for larger groups…

    August 31, 2013 at 6:28 pm Reply
  9. Dennis the Dreamer

    To CCP, I have IRL, and so the rest of your fucktard players.

    August 31, 2013 at 7:14 pm Reply
  10. Booyeah

    Rather than depend on structure timers as being the main defensive option for sov-holders, I feel there should be IHUB upgrades that provide defensive bonuses to owning alliances’ subcaps. Nothing too crazy, 10-15% bonus here and there.

    August 31, 2013 at 7:16 pm Reply
  11. Internet Lawyer

    You missed the most important point about how the “big boys” take sov.

    You can SBU more than one system at a time. PL SBU’d the entire region of Oasa in less than 24 hours and captured the region in less than a week not because they’re big ( theyre not ) but because theyre organised better and there was no resitance.

    Using supercaps means you can use less pilots to take a system. But its still boring as fuck and still takes hours to shoot the fucking things. Frankly, if Fweddit can get organised and attack an undefended region then they would easily do it in a week as well even without capitals. PL use supercaps because theyre lazy.

    The real issues with Null Sec center around how someone can own an entire region and not even use it, let alone defend it. Getting fights in null is becoming increasingly difficult.

    Go roam around fountain sometime and see how many people are actually active there now. (Hint: not many)

    August 31, 2013 at 7:35 pm Reply
    1. benfromid

      Most space isn’t used because it isn’t worth upgrading, yet you still need to maintain sov over the 6-10 garbage systems in order to help protect the 1-3 that are worth it.

      August 31, 2013 at 7:58 pm Reply
      1. Internet Lawyer

        Think about that for a minute…. “Most space isnt used because it isnt worth upgrading”. And yet people keep saying that the problem with null sec is structure shooting ?

        August 31, 2013 at 8:02 pm Reply
        1. benfromid

          Ihubs are put up in even the garbage systems as a defensive measure. Alot of outposts are built for the same purpose. You’re adding 100’s of millions of hp that an enemy has to grind through plus multiple timers in order to take your system.
          Another thing a defender can do is setup nearly every on of these systems with a cyno jammer,forcing the attackers to have to come through with subcaps before they can even bring in the heavy firepower.
          If you have a couple dozen of these systems set up like this before the enemy can get your good systems then you’ve added a huge time burden on to them.

          August 31, 2013 at 8:10 pm Reply
          1. Johann

            Nothing forces anyone to take the garbage systems before the good ones. Just kill the jammer in the good system and bring in the big guns.

            September 2, 2013 at 5:56 am
        2. Ryan Easte

          nope you have lost me there.. slow learner

          September 1, 2013 at 2:03 am Reply
      2. Ryan Easte

        Define garbage? I am curious would it be economically un-viable for a small corp or alliance to enjoy controlling a piece of eve for themselves as owners or renters? can these so called garbage systems turn a profit or are you saying that compared to the trillions of isk the big boys make on the hot monopoly squares that the rest is meh ? Appreciate feedback on this

        September 1, 2013 at 1:30 am Reply
        1. Internet Lawyer

          Its literally not worth using the space because the ISK / hour even if the system was upgraded is worse than hisec. Even GG gets this.

          Sure, sov mechanics are unbalanced, but the fundamental problem with null sec as a place to live is that it simply isnt worth it. The value of null sec is contained in its moons or in Missions in NPC null ( which is completely excluded from sov mechanics).

          Focusing on flaws in sov mechanics and the natural propensity of everybody and his dog to form a “bigger blob” completely misses the point that null sec is way more fucked up than that. Complaining that null sec can only be taken by a blob the size of the CFC is demonstrably bullshit.

          September 1, 2013 at 9:47 am Reply
          1. Ryan Easte

            Thanks for clarifying

            September 2, 2013 at 12:17 am
    2. Just Checkin'

      That could only change with an almost total revamp of null sec.
      Something to make it that in order to have a system you need to work it (ratting, mining, plexing etc)

      It could even be divided into different actions, like needing to mine in order to be able to online moon mining (needing it at certain level. That level could be level 2 or 3 which is easy to achieve for a group of organised miners)

      Ratting could define what kind of complexes spawn in your system or something similar.

      I do realise that all these activities can be done by bots and thus it can’t be the solution to this problem but it could be a start.

      Anyway. Its not the sov war mechanics that are broken, its the sov holding and moon mining that seem worse…

      August 31, 2013 at 8:09 pm Reply
      1. Thomas

        I don’t know, the CFC is going to start renting. That basically is what you want, it’s no longer enough to have a system now for it to be worth holding you have to be actively using it.

        My worry about saying you need to mine X to own a system is no-one ever does what they’re meant to in EVE. Soon you’d have rotas of mandatory mining slots etc for the rank and file and people would be talking about the chore of having to grind out the ratting for SOV.

        If renting really is the next big thing then I think the idea of Sov mechanics is fine and CCP can work on making taking and defending that sov more interesting without radically changing the idea behind it

        August 31, 2013 at 10:48 pm Reply
        1. daniL

          Renting is not the next big thing! Renting is becoming the only option to support the huge bills to run the blue donat…

          I personally do not like huge alliances with sov because:

          – Having half or more then half of eve blue is boring

          – When you get to fight something its always in TiDi
          – A simple fleet for anything will require you to sit for few hours in front of the monitor

          September 1, 2013 at 9:52 am Reply
  12. Johnathan Severasse

    Ok, so let me get this correct. Poetic writes a paragraph of his opinions on sov and then copypastes sov 101 and this passes for an article? Wow.

    August 31, 2013 at 11:28 pm Reply
  13. Ryan Easte

    Thanks for posting this, I particularly like “Even if you can field half or full fleets of dreadnaughts, your pilots still run the risk of burn-out. Not only is structure shooting dull, but it requires pilots to be in-game at very specific times, over the course of days and weeks. It is psychologically demanding, as well as putting pressure on real-life responsibilities.”

    September 1, 2013 at 1:23 am Reply
  14. kill all titans

    fix = lose sov = Disband alliance + corps automatic think that would solve the problem

    September 1, 2013 at 1:38 am Reply
  15. hmmm

    People cry that it’s not a level playing field attacker v defender. Guess what, it never is. It’s why we have the term ‘home field advantage’ in order to take anything in life you have to prove you are not only equal to those who have, but better, better enough to smash them into the ground and grab it away. Hell I still wish titans still had remote DD ability, with just hugely restricted jump range for themselves and vastly more expensive. Let a titan loom over a constellation, too cumbersome to move to the front, but an all powerful home defense system.

    September 1, 2013 at 5:25 am Reply
    1. think it through

      Remote DD was a horrible mechanic that prevents fights rather than encouraging them. You want null sec to be safe, and as a guy that has fought to take and defend space it would be dull. There is a reason eve players didn’t like it, and removed.

      September 1, 2013 at 5:46 am Reply
    2. Pregnant Wombat

      I’d kind of disagree about the titan thing now. Maybe before when having that would have prevented so many titans from existing today, then I’d agree. But everything else I’d agree. When you are grinding sov, you are taking away someone’s home. It’s supposed to be hard to do. I wouldn’t want the system I live in to be easy to take, so why should it be easy for me to take someone else’s? And really, with bigger alliances, you don’t want it to be easy for sov to be taken. Sure, its harder to get those bigger alliances, but at least your few systems you have at least have more of a shot. Make it easier to take, and the little guys suffer that much more easily. Big alliances have isk, and they have numbers, the only thing you can really cripple, is their time spent on dealing with you.

      September 1, 2013 at 5:48 am Reply
  16. WorD


    Black Legion & Solar announcing invasion of Querious

    September 1, 2013 at 6:18 am Reply
    1. Na

      And for some unknown reason, not a word about or article by EN24 regarding Q’Region, wonder why? surely N3 will have some gudfits v Solar/BL/Pizza only 3 x Alliance Vince?

      September 2, 2013 at 5:27 pm Reply
  17. Hans Pursche

    Problem is not how to take sov in this game. Problem is how we today can move Titans and SCs over long distances in no time at all. If Titans and SCs have to use gates from system A to system B we are not going to see the 3 big blocks take everything because we are simply not going to see 20 Titans and 60 SCs together anymore like today where they are in Fountain one day and Impass the next day.
    In every game I have played bigger means more immobile but not in eve where we can use bridges and other crap.

    September 1, 2013 at 7:27 am Reply
    1. lalala

      or just give iHUB / TCU a Fighter Bomber immunity …

      September 1, 2013 at 1:01 pm Reply
      1. JIeoH Mocc

        This won’t do the trick.
        Let go of the SC/Titans vs. structures warfare for a second, and look at the “holy grail” of all these PvPeers – them “GudFites”, ok?
        Having a fight between fleets with decent subcap support of 200 heads on each side + caps/supercaps usually results in a TiDi of noticeable proportions.
        So while these guys are having at each other in “TiDi time” someone batphones someone, yeah? And all of the sudden, a cyno opens up and 50 3rd party SCs appear on the field “ruining” all the fun, and your own fighters haven’t even reached their targets because of TiDi.
        So power projection with structures is actually not as big a problem as power projection in general, and giving structures immunity won’t do the trick.
        Though i can definitely see CCP attempting such a dumb (no offense, eh?) fix.

        September 1, 2013 at 1:10 pm Reply
        1. lalala

          to be honest, you are never save against a fleet that moves to kick your ass, but the Nullis sov drop showed that there is a problem and that it is way to easy to move such a fire power against sov structures. sure, you can move also a huge amount of dreads instead of supers, but it is a logistic nightmare if you are not prepaired with fuel stocks, re fueling stageing points and so on. in a super, it is just burning some isotopes and refuel a month later.
          so, iHub immunity against Fighter Bombers would be a good start to “fix” some of the mechanics and give smaller alliances a better chance. mistakes of the large coalitions would have an effect again.

          September 3, 2013 at 6:18 am Reply
  18. daniL

    I think that the problem is here:
    “(you don’t actually destroy stations, they simply flip ownership)”

    -Make those things go boom!
    -Give them guns!

    -Give them upgrades!

    September 1, 2013 at 9:55 am Reply
  19. PLgrunt

    Came expecting tears and a terrible idea to fix the widly known terrible sov system, left with only tears and the feeling I read a wiki written by a member of test.

    September 1, 2013 at 12:35 pm Reply
    1. Guy

      Why is it that every time someone on Eve is even remotely critical of something, it somehow amount to ‘tears’?

      September 2, 2013 at 8:05 am Reply
  20. Caliborn

    except timers are essential elsewise, russian space would be russian-owned during russian TZ, euro during euro, and american during american, because everyone would just slap through sov like nothing.

    though stations DO need to die, maybe with a 95% destruction rate of items inside.

    September 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm Reply
    1. -A- Director

      The option to destroy them should exist however having them blow up every time is pointless as it drastically favors the defender who sits in NPC staging and denies the attacker any foothold in the sov they’re invading.

      September 1, 2013 at 6:32 pm Reply
    2. Witchking

      Destruction of items is a retarded idea and will never ever happen anyway. How about outposts i.e. the player made ones, not conquerable stations become a wreck when destroyed. No choice of whether to destroy or not, just become wrecked instead of change hands. For anyone inside it would function like a station, but without access to most station services such as market, repair, medical etc. People could undock but not dock back again. The wreck could not be destroyed but you could take out your own items and ships, or those of your corp should you have the roles. The wreck could be repaired back into a functioning outpost by the sov holder, for a material cost of maybe 25-50% of the original.

      September 1, 2013 at 6:59 pm Reply
  21. Ex-IT

    POS style of sov control made far more sense than the TCU/SBU/IHUB system of today.

    September 1, 2013 at 6:38 pm Reply
    1. lol

      And you think it is tedious today?

      September 2, 2013 at 1:53 pm Reply
  22. Michael Meio

    Sov shouldn’t be about lone structures floating in deserted systems.
    It should be conquered by force and retained by actions. If you conquer SOV anywhere and there is no mining, ratting, PVP, etc, SOV should be lost or become increasingly expensive. Exponentially expensive by the day.
    Now, if you hold SOV successfully, it should become harder to conquer by others.

    September 2, 2013 at 12:52 am Reply
    1. SOVMaster

      me gusta!

      September 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm Reply
    2. derp

      obligated to carebear then

      September 2, 2013 at 1:09 pm Reply
    3. Dikreathz

      and cheaper to maintain (because of constant use)

      September 2, 2013 at 2:28 pm Reply
  23. Johann

    Speaking of Nullsec alliances look at this pretty little chart on Nullsec blocs. Why is Init and XIX listed as part of CFC?

    September 2, 2013 at 3:54 am Reply
    1. Johann
      September 2, 2013 at 3:54 am Reply
    2. JIeoH Mocc

      All these charts are bullshit, don’t worry.

      September 2, 2013 at 9:04 am Reply
  24. another loki down

    One way to make sovereignty holdable by a little guy – tie it to people doing a mission.

    September 4, 2013 at 8:09 pm Reply

Leave a Reply