Peace in Our Time

Regular readers will already know that I both love and hate the Sovereignty system by which 0.0 alliances live and die by. On the one hand I hate the Imbalance of Money between the Alliance and the Pilot and I hate going on structure grinds. But at the same time, what draws me so deep into eve is a thirst for supermassivebattles between entities represented by us, its members in our Star ships.
But here is the clincher… of the last few large scale fights I have been involved in, all but one were generated by either Moon Mining or Structure Bashing. So if the things I hate generate the thing I love, surely I must love the things I hate? Or is it that because the thing I love defends and supports the things I hate I must hate the things I love? I don’t know about you, but I’m getting dizzy. The problem is that the good and bad of 0.0 are deeply intertwined together, and its about time that’s changed.
A lot of people, up to and including CCP have started talking about replacing the Sovereignty system with something new and one of the big crowd pleasers at the moment is that of the tug of war, also known as the Bottom Up Sov mechanic. The basic idea of this is that the individual actions of members of the alliance directly affect the alliances control of their sovereignty in the systems which those actions take place. For example, running an anomaly boosts your alliances control in that system. Now I agree with a lot of the goals this concept sets out to solve. Large sprawling alliance  couldn’t maintain hold over more systems than their members can actually use. Small Alliances could be pains in the royal proverbial of large alliances. Control of the Alliance would be placed more in the hands of its member than the elite select of its directors. And these are all great. Except for one big issue.
Glorious Space battles. The problem with the new system is that it has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Yes the Sovereignty system sucked, and yes it caused more hassle that it did fights, but when the system did work, on that rare time when things slotted together in the right order; It was glorious. By emphasising the individual we would lose the drivers for alliance sized conflict. 500 on 500 man fights wont happen over an anomaly. Three opposing fleets wont vie for control of a magnometic site.  Who is going to hot drop a hauler spawn?
I’m sure some would argue that if CCP made some of the “control sites” large enough (say 500 pilots needed to complete) we would get these huge fights, but even then, we are talking about forcing PvP players to PvE, and that’s a bad thing in my books. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that individual contributions have no place in a new Sovereignty system, but I really disagree with using them as a basis to build our entire structure on.
My opinion is that any new Sovereignty should complete four main goals:
  1. Get more money to members (ether forcing the top to hand it down, or starting it at the bottom and forcing members to feed it upwards)
  2. Stop Blue-balling (in other words generate massive fights)
  3. Allow cross timezone combat
  4. Allow smaller alliances to be smaller pains in the side (amount of pain size relative)
Now I don’t have a magic answer to how we complete all of these, especially stopping blueballs in this current climate of risk aversion. But I do know what a good solution looks like, and I don’t think this is it. That’s said, I believe it could be a small part in a bigger solution.
Fly in big fleets

2 thoughts on “Peace in Our Time

  1. Chanina says:

    reading this a second time after the post with jesters answers I have a few thoughts to share with you.

    Maybe ccp isn’t happy with the current sov mechanic but as far as I know they only stated to implement additional stuff and not throwing the current mechanic out at once. IMO the current mechanic isn’t that bad, its just too much HP to grind.
    A solution springs to mind: decrease hp, increase timer count and reduce time. For example I-Hub gets 10 RF stages, each occuring 6h separated from each other. Owner may block 8h of the day. Shooting or repping it would only take 20 Minutes with some 50 guys.
    If a timer is secured by the defender stages get set back by 2 or 3. If the defender never shows up (in time) system is lost to even small groups.
    If you are a small entity in one time zone you may manage to fight enemies often enough.

    And not always is it about sov, but getting a fight going at all. Roaming gangs get avoided by hiding under pos or docking up. Now change that to RAIDING and your PvP group earns money if the enemy doesn’t fight. Getting PvE reward if you don’t get your PvP and of cause PvE losses to your not fighting enemy.

    Is a suggestion I made to provide this concept. I’m sure ccp has bright heads in game design and can kick off something better than that but it is a beginning for providing content to small gang activities.

    • Rob Wiebkin says:

      I believe that what you have suggested in your forum post is a finer detail version of the sov by occupation system. My issue with this system is that if we can take space with only a small group of pilots, how are we going to get 500 vs 500 battles?

      There is nothing in your system which would encourage alliances to attack or defend their sov with the LARGE numbers which I enjoy. If someone can give me an example of how the sov by occupation system of any type (including yours) will encourage a large scale battle I will be right behind it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *