After my blog post the other day on some ideas to (perhaps) improve sovereignty, there continue to be two separate ideas floated by the wider community.

I don’t claim my ideas are stellar. A couple of them might be good. A couple of them might be terrible. But I don’t think any of my suggested changes are as bad as the following two ideas, both of which have an unbelievable amount of traction with the community.

The two ideas? Escalating sovereignty costs (usually suggested to be exponentially escalating) and the idea that to keep space you have to use it (which means doing PvE activities such as mining and NPC killing.)

Escalating Sovereignty Costs

For this example, let’s use Goonswarm Federation. (We can’t use the CFC, because the CFC is simply a collection of alliances, and sovereignty costs are an alliance cost.) As our exponentially increasing value, we’ll use 1.01. And for our base sovereignty cost, we’ll use 84M ISK, which is the current cost, payable every fourteen days.

At this moment, Goonswarm Federation owns 152 systems. So, for their first system they pay 84M ISK, and for their 152nd system they pay 377.4M ISK (84 x 1.01151.) As the numbers demonstrate, system ownership is getting very expensive for poor Goonswarm, and they probably would not want to pay those sorts of prices to hold that many systems. The proponents of this idea are all like “Yea! That’s exactly what we intended!”

But, does Goonswarm actually start shedding systems to reduce costs? That’s obviously the intention of the game mechanic, but that is not what is going to happen. Goonswarm will just take large chunks of their territory and transfer it off to other Goonswarm owned entities. You’ll simply see territory owned by new alliances such as Goonswarm Holdings, Goonswarm Industry, and Goonswarm Production. They still get to own their 152 systems, and they get to bypass the worst of the escalating price increases. If it is this easy to sidestep a game mechanic, it is not a very good game mechanic.

Also, consider the big blue donut. How will this mechanic affect conflict in nullsec? Organizations tend to expand until it is no longer feasible to do so. They’ll expand to that point where it no longer makes economic sense. This mechanic will result in more complacency in nullsec than in the present situation. Even if a group would like to go to war, if they don’t have the income to expand, the income to support the territory they wish to conquer, they won’t. Territorial growth will slow to a crawl.

Expansion will come down to membership. Membership activity is what gives an alliance its income. So if an alliance does expand, that expansion will correlate to a membership increase. There’ll be wars, I just suspect that they’ll be even fewer and farther between than what we’re currently used to. If anything, rather than alliances being aggressive on expansion, they’ll be more aggressive trying to recruit new members and trying to poach them from enemy organizations. That will be the new wars under an escalating sov cost model, the war for membership.

Use Space To Keep Space

I am entirely against any system that dictates to players how they should play the game. A use it or lose it mechanic does just that. It tells players, “Do PvE or lose your space.” That’s not sandbox play. That’s not a sandbox mechanic.

If someone can afford space, then they should be able to do anything they want with that space. I agree that it sucks when organizations (such as the CFC) have more space than they use, but so be it. The game should incentivize use, but it shouldn’t dictate use.

If it’s agreed that space should be more expensive (I’m not sure I agree with that, but for the sake of argument, I’ll pretend), then it should be a flat fee model. Or cost should be determined by the truesec value of a system. And if space is more expensive, perhaps triple as expensive as it is now, then a Use Space model can be implemented that rewards use, perhaps reduces sov costs based on that degree of usage. Don’t use your space, pay full costs. Use it to some degree, the price starts dropping. The organization still has freedom of choice.

As always, agree, disagree, or rage in the comments.

- Poetic Stanziel

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

81 Comments

  1. I actually agree with this.Finally someone is talking sense about SOV.

    Another reason “use it or lose it” system will not work is that this is a video game.

    People have lives and do not need to “RATTING CTA GUYS WE MUST KEEP OUR SPACE”.

    Futher, think about this:

    If you need to “PVE” to actually KEEP your space instead of IMPROVE your space, then the massive coalitions will not ever go away because that would be the only way to keep the space ratted up.

    If you set the required PVE too low, that would also encourage big groups because they could do just that: keep larger areas ratted up. They don’t need all the space, just the critical systems. Everything else could be left unclaimed but still “owned” by big groups.

    Any changes need to 1) help everyone, and 2) specifically make SOV easier for the small to medium guys to get into.

    This will make the NEED for large coalitions instead of just large groups go down which will eventually (because things can’t just happen overnight EVE would need to adjust) changes will be seen.

    Poetic, i have a similar post on the EVE forums with some of my ideas on it. They are very similar to yours, check it out:

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=274655

    September 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm Reply
    1. Nano

      The other problem of use it or loose it, is that instead of people fighting over a system they will just perma-AFK camp those systems with the occasional drop which will make it very frustrated to mine or rat. You will have to have a fleet on stand-by in a Titan all the time just to allow people to rat or mine…
      So, no “use it or loose it” because it will encourage perma AFK camping of systems as a warfare mechanic, a situation that no one likes.

      September 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm Reply
      1. Michael Meio

        Yes, perma-afk camping is the problem, not the SOV Factor System.
        BTW, I rather you call it “Use It Or GTFO”.
        The glass is half full.

        September 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm Reply
  2. Also, i am amazed that people are so opinionated about SOV stuff when very, very few poeple who comment have actually lead an Alliance or been in leadership involving SOV.

    It is currently horrible. The admin alone (for those of you who run corps/allaincces…you know!!) is bad, but then couple the SOV mess, massive HP amounts, and all the other junk and your members end up asking one question:

    WHY BOTHER?

    Good question. CCP: Give us changes that we can fight over and create content with that don’t require re-writting an entire area of the game.

    September 4, 2013 at 5:02 pm Reply
  3. brubs

    Set the Sov cost at 500million / month by default and have heavy use decrease that cost to 50 million/month for each system that meets a use threshhold

    no loss of sandboxyness and no getting around it with goonswarm holdings corp

    and at the same time encourages but doesnt’ require use and will limit space holdings size in non-use scenarios

    September 4, 2013 at 5:26 pm Reply
    1. just curious

      This will only drive up the cost of goo?

      September 4, 2013 at 5:30 pm Reply
      1. TiredOfAllTheStupid

        Not at all, moons and sov aren’t tied together in any way other than people who hold a system tend to hold the valuable moons in said system.

        September 4, 2013 at 11:22 pm Reply
  4. Captain Cool of Unthinkables

    First I want to explain why people who backed these ideas are retarded. They don’t understand nullsec and are commenting on things they have not enjoyed! Reasons:

    ”the bigger u get the more you have to pay” – basically retarded as alliances will break down into small parts under the same banner. You have the same blocks just more diplo headaches for the big fights (as seen in fountain”im blue dude trolololol)

    ”use it or lose it” – derp who wants to pve cta or have crappy renters losing officwer boats in our space? Not me. The space gets used fools, its called PVP (kinda the whold point oh nulsex). Now I understand you window lickers in highsec find the idea moistning to your wittle vaginas that we need your PVE KaPOWERS; we don’t.

    I think u need to stop this incursion bul, take away level 4 and take away more higher ore from carebears who maddene everytime I pull my map up lookin for red to kill. Time to introduce these puppies to the jungle if they want isk.

    I understand you might think differntly, but I have come to learn that no matter what I do, people will derp. O/

    September 4, 2013 at 5:36 pm Reply
    1. Soulxlight

      I agree with everything you say except the take away the ores from highsec bears. I don’t want this . . . reason being the harder it is to get ore the higher priced ships are which equals more carebearing to get them. I say No to this . .. ships are already expensive enough . . . don’t need higher prices.

      September 4, 2013 at 5:46 pm Reply
      1. Captain Cool of Unthinkables

        Or, it would force more miners into null to meet the demand. Do you currently have problems buying PvP (please don’t answer if you or your FC’s fail at life). The fact is sure it will push prices up but you can’t make changes like this without effecting the economy. Would I pay higher price for ships if it meant nullsec saw a huge rise in newbie afk miners full of delicious goodies? yes, infact I have a semi just thinking about it. Also after I’m finished with them (hands tissue), they might get mad and want to ‘take up arms’ or w/e I don’t know but its more action in null. Which is always good.

        September 4, 2013 at 6:07 pm Reply
        1. David

          People who like actual PVP don’t drool after killing moron miners. If that’s what you like in your PVP, you should probably go to PVE. Same difficulty level.

          Also, the base problem with null mining is that its much higher risk for not much higher reward. If you’re going around popping all the new miners, then the risk is still too high, which means prices stay high on ships. And most miners who are currently high-sec miners don’t do it because it is amazing income, they do it because they are risk-averse. They’ll either continue to high-sec mine, or they quit. And as much as a bunch of null people like to complain about high-sec players, they are the majority of the player base. If they start quitting en masse, then CCP doesn’t make money on eve, and we ALL can no longer play eve. It is not in CCP’s interest to crush high-sec, which is why they don’t do it.

          September 4, 2013 at 6:37 pm Reply
          1. Captain Cool of Unthinkables

            Did I not say that those miners would take up arms? therefore +1 person who wants to pvp.

            How many alts run level 4 missions and run incursions because the nullspace that isnt perma camped is just terribad?

            Everything in EVE has risk and a reward, at the moment the reward is much imbalanced in favour of highsec. That needs to change and I feel saying everyone will just quit is kinda retarded, people who don;t evolve deserve to not to play eve, so think 100% will quit is BS

            September 4, 2013 at 6:49 pm
          2. David

            And as someone that plays with some of the null miners, many of them will not take up arms. They will move somewhere else. And the ones that do, aren’t going to remain active at PVP, they will do it every once in a while, then go back to mining.

            Just like you and I hate mining, a lot of miners hate PVP.

            September 4, 2013 at 10:53 pm
          3. Highsec Carebear Commander

            This post is full of correct analysis and useful insights about the reality of null versus high, and why people stay in high.

            September 5, 2013 at 6:11 am
        2. Soulxlight

          It’s not going to force them anywhere . . . they’ll just mine less and prices will just rise to compensate for the loss of ore and they’ll do something else to make money. Net effect . . . nothing gained, game becomes less of a sandbox and more of PvPers forcing PvEers to play they’re style. Some players are extremely casual and like to play this game with other extremely casual players and this type of content is good for them and benefit us pvpers with relatively cheap ships so we can do our thing. Eve is a Sandbox . . . stop trying to change that.

          September 4, 2013 at 7:06 pm Reply
    2. GSection

      I agree with you BUT, what if for an incursion, unless you drove it out in 5 days Sansha controlled the SOV and the only way to get it back was to fight.

      If you are AFKing your region and an incursion hits, suddenly you have to be there to deal with it.

      The PVP aspect would come in that while you are having to fight Sansha in PVE ships you have to deal with roaming fleets trying to crush you as well. In terms of rewards, these sansha ships would be worth more and drop faction mods.

      Dumb idea?

      September 4, 2013 at 6:26 pm Reply
    3. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

      LOL, I was laughing so hard, I nearly peed myself. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      September 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm Reply
    4. TiredOfAllTheStupid

      The argument against “use it or lose it” is practically non-existent. Alliances who hold 100+ systems and only rat in 10 of them aren’t PVPing in the other 100, they are there for buffer.

      You find more PVP if those other 90 systems were occupied by neutrals, as you would have more targets.

      September 4, 2013 at 11:25 pm Reply
  5. Fuel for the masses

    You have to change the game mechanics so the big coalitions don’t want the space. It must be more than useless, it must be a burden to maintain it.
    Fuel the TCU’s. Fuel the stations. Fuel the IHUBs. Pinch ice so the coalitions are begging for ice miners.

    September 4, 2013 at 5:37 pm Reply
  6. Sold

    Decouple ihubs from sov. I don’t see why someone can’t go over to system x and plant an ihub if they want, regardless of who’s TCU is there. Time-based strategic indexes are dumb. You want jb, anchor the IHUB with the relevant improvement. JB up. You want gate guns? Same thing. (Not implemented (yet).) You want station? Drop one. Why all this interdependence between sov structures? Just more timers to grind.

    Want to take over a station or IHUB? Hire some DUST mercs. Why should they be limited to planets? Arbitrary sov mechanics are silly.

    September 4, 2013 at 5:52 pm Reply
  7. Devore

    Why does Goonswarm have so many systems then?

    Again, sov costs are fine. Yes, even low.

    Lets look at people who ACTUALLY use their systems. Lets look at renters. They are paying rent for a system, a billion or more a month depending on services and upgrades, which means the value they extract from their system is far in excess of rent. Otherwise they’d just stay in hi sec to ply their trade.

    What’s 84 million? That’s an alliance of 100 shooting 1 BS rat each for bounty every 2 weeks. That’s 1/2 of a BS hull, not even fitted (how many fleets does GS welp every month?). Surely, any, ANY alliance wanting to hold space will have no trouble coming up with this level of chicken feed. This is less than peanuts. This is rounding error on my market orders, and I haven’t even hit a trillion ISK net worth yet.

    If for some reason you feel the need to hold hundreds of systems, there is a price to pay for that. The price is still 84 million.

    If there is a problem paying for sov, that has nothing to do with the actual cost. The cost is very very low. The problem is with alliance income. Farms and fields, yeah? There are few ways for an alliance (and coalition) to consistently get income from the economic activities of their members. The problem is not “sov costs too much”, the problem, if it exists at all, is “my alliance is broke”. Guess what, you reduce sov costs, your alliance will still be broke. Not fixing the problem here.

    September 4, 2013 at 6:31 pm Reply
    1. Devore

      Honestly, though, mostly I just think this whole thing is very funny.

      Now that Goons lost their sweet tech income, suddenly sov costs are front page news and a burning issue. After living like kings on moon goo, with gold plated Cadillac SRP, Goons discover things in EVE actually cost money. We thought they were free! I wonder how all those alliances without tech managed to hold sov for all these years.

      Here’s the news. Sov is cheap. Yes, people always complain about the cost. But someone would still complain even if it cost 1 ISK. All this means is that your members will now have to start chipping in a little. Living in sov 0.0 means there are obligations, as well as benefits.

      September 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm Reply
      1. Gort

        Totally agree, Goons are playing the meta game to try and save their finances as they want to become landlords.

        If a system can be rented out for Billions a month then the market has spoken and CCP should listen Major Alliances have dictated what the true value of a system is rather than the ill informed stab in the dark that CCP took years ago when setting sov costs.

        Time for a reevaluation of sovereignty costs armed with this empirical data provided by years of emergent sandbox play – set Sov costs at a Billion a month.

        September 4, 2013 at 9:54 pm Reply
  8. F1d

    In this example, I like the idea of the 152 systems being distributed amongst Corps. to maintain the ‘Sov Use Index’ – and see this as increasing Corp. interaction, providing the opportunity for small gang roams to actually get fights without being blobbed. Tax income for the alliance I think would vastly improve and provide training for alliance leadership.

    The alliance space would also be revalued, for example, the null-sec entry points versus deep within the alliance space would have different values, as would those that bordered friendly/hostile space.

    I see this as a much needed shot in the arm for null-sec. Its become stale and many ppl i know have lost interest in null-sec.

    The use versus cost model I see as a good idea as long as its implemented correctly. I too dont like the idea of a massive increase in the number of fake alliances, as I see this as serious potential security risk with all those directors controlling areas of sov.

    September 4, 2013 at 6:51 pm Reply
    1. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

      You might be at the tip of something there… eliminate alliances and make it to where not only corps own the SOV, but individuals could own it as well. That would enormously fractionalize nullsec and make the shifting politics much more fluid, therefore, you would have many more wars and on a smaller scale. Blob warfare would become much more rare.

      September 4, 2013 at 9:58 pm Reply
      1. Inker

        I hadnt considered taking it that far tbh. Interesting though. The scope for politics would increase massively, but I still see it as potentially settling to the same as an alliance quickly. I would keep the alliances, as otherwise I would see it as more of a regression. Yet Corp. and personal Sov. an option still may give everyone more flexibility.

        What we need is less large scale CTAs because of TiDi, increase the scope of more managable PVP (Major 2k-4k battles sound cool, but suck in reality.) Plus, utilising all of that empty space or the shrinking in terms of Sov. size of the major alliances gives more ppl an actual place in the sandbox.

        Anyone who thinks uber large size alliances arent killing off the game I think is being naive. I’m sure I’m not alone in that it can often be hours and hours of roaming to get a decent fight. Unfortunately, I think we should be careful in penalising success too. It has to be a balance between rewarding success and it not being metagaming the only possible way to defeat them.

        Also, I just wish I could figure out a way for Sov. battles to be more interesting, wiithout the potential for timezone and capital abuse. The only option I’ve come up with so far is a scaled difficulty. So if u you have 152 systems, the first 50 have only 1 timer, the next 50 have 2 timers and the last lot the normal 3 timers. This would make it easier for ppl to nibble off the edges Thats the best I’ve come up with lately. :)

        September 5, 2013 at 12:29 am Reply
        1. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

          You are right and you are wrong. Think about it, like you said, corps will coalesce in the same alliances… at first. BUT, then as corps leave alliances and join other alliances as they do all the time, this time they still are owning the same SOV, well, as you can see, things will start to get REAL messy. There will be large and smal warfare everywhere, and OH GOD, the bickering, AWOXing, and everything else will be magnifyied a hundred times.

          September 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm Reply
          1. Inker

            You definitely have a point. Sounds chaotic as fk, but it also sounds very like the EVE of old.

            September 5, 2013 at 5:58 pm
          2. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

            Whatever puts the most targets in the crosshairs….. I don’t want to win, I just want to see someone burn. LOL

            September 5, 2013 at 10:45 pm
  9. DrkyDrky

    Maybe instead of increasing Sov costs, there should be constant harassment by local NPCs to the owner’s Sov structure. If they fail to defend it, flips to Npc

    September 4, 2013 at 7:08 pm Reply
  10. N3 grunt

    Agree with OP. Make your suggestions that you posted in your previous thread happen, AND nerf jump drive capability to the ground….and you will see a brand new null sec.

    September 4, 2013 at 7:12 pm Reply
    1. benfromid

      Nerf jump drives and you hurt the little guys far more than the big coalitions.

      September 4, 2013 at 7:34 pm Reply
      1. N3 Grunt

        Bullshit!!!

        September 5, 2013 at 8:31 pm Reply
        1. benfromid

          Point to the doll where the hotdrop touched you.

          September 6, 2013 at 3:37 am Reply
    2. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

      Nerf Jump Drives? Sorry you are a derpy-do noob, but caps are an endgame item for the players who have trained them and nerfing them into the ground will give you a new nullsec…. No nullsec, no veteran players… CCP minus 1/2 the player base = no Eve. But don’t worry, keep training, and one bright day, you will have your very own cap. Me personally, make my dread and carrier worthless, then you can shove Eve at that point, I wouldn’t want to play it.

      September 4, 2013 at 9:52 pm Reply
      1. N3 Grunt

        Dude, I’m a 4 year old Vet. I own and use Cap ships. Will it hurt me to see JDs get nerfed. Sure it would. Will I rage quit the game if it happens? No I wouldn’t!! I’m still having fun in sub caps! The thing is, it is to easy to travel from one end of the galaxy to the next. It just does not make sense. New Eden does not feel like a Galaxy, it feels like a board game. OP brought good suggestions in is previous thread, but I say force projection needs to be nerfed. If not, then CCP needs to add space. New Eden is way to small atm.

        September 5, 2013 at 7:03 pm Reply
  11. Michael Meio

    OP wrote: “…A use it or lose it mechanic does just that. It tells players, “Do PvE or lose your space.” That’s not sandbox play. That’s not a sandbox mechanic.”
    I partially agree with this statement. You cannot simply tell pilots to do something or lose Space. But actually the current system does exactly that: Install stupid Structures, pay some ISK and the place is yours. That doesn’t exactly sound much of a Sandbox either. I think that’s not the right analogy for the case. EVE is a Sandbox game, yes but that term cannot be contextualized literally. There are always game mechanics that limit the Sandbox in every aspect.
    I rather not mention names but you think not being part of a huge Alliance disqualifies you as a possible part player of that Sandbox you talk about? I’m sorry but your so called Sandbox is a big guy’s Sandbox and that’s the point of the discussion: SOV needs a change in order to make it available for the little guy.
    The changes you proposed in the prior article are not enough to lure pilots to lowsec or null. Were those bad ideas?. I don’t think so. Just not enough.
    Now you say “USE SPACE TO HOLD SPACE” is a bad idea?. You’re gonna have to elaborate on that better than just throwing it under the Sandbox carpet.
    The SOV Factor System can be as much or better of a Sandbox than the actual system including or not your ideas of altering SOV Structures’ m3 or timers, costs of holding SOV, etc.
    Just because you didn’t brought them up, doesn’t mean you have the right to disqualify them. You could have debated within the prior article. But you had to pull your power on everyone’s face to make a point you don’t actually have by posting a new article disqualifying them?

    September 4, 2013 at 7:23 pm Reply
    1. eurynome

      i agree, but the biggest problems i see with the current mechanics are power projection and sov structure HP.

      power projection should be adressed this is what allow entitys to hold large chunk of space by being able to deploy back and forth really fast, i think titans and supers should be revamped (i didn’t said nerfed! revamped, maybe change their purpose….)

      this, coupled with the fact that the “newcomers” cannot access easily to said ships, even if they have the isk (you need supers to take null, you need null to have supers… how logical), means the newcomers cannot step a foot in null.

      i think that just adressing those two points would already be a first step towards opening null to new entitys, and could by itself have a serious impact, and if required, further iteration could be done after that.

      regarding struct HP, they are ridiculously high, plus there is 3 timers for most of them.
      make it 1 timer, POS like, lower their HP, and reduced the online time for SBUs, this would allow a more dynamic null, wich coupled tot the previously mentionned change to power projection, would make holding vast chunk of space more difficult (less time to react, harder to move a sizeable force….)

      September 5, 2013 at 9:21 am Reply
  12. MrSeb

    These are just horrible ideas.
    The ideas in your last post were the ones that need to be followed.

    Making sov more vulnerable to attack from smaller entities is the way to go. No more blob fleets if you have to defend 20 systems at once.
    Blob warfare is as boring as sov grind.

    September 4, 2013 at 8:11 pm Reply
  13. Dark Motoko

    The sandbox aspect is present in the choice that entity would then have to work in low sec, npc controlled null sec, or wormholes, or wardec others in empire. These are just a handful of the ways in which an alliance that disliked ‘use it or lose it’ or ‘tug of war’ mechanics could achieve territory or influence over territory without engaging in that particular mode of play.

    End of the day, we need a system where small entities can be encouraged to nip at the heels of larger entities, if they possess the organisation and dedication needed, and do the hard work. EVE’s gameplay has become significantly weakened by the old status quo of alliances shunning all but a handful of PVE/industrial players due to moon isk covering their needs. The end result has been a reduction in the net availability of targets in null sec for roaming, thus like a predator who loses its prey, roaming pvp is reduced.

    If CCP introduced a simple system of random events that crop up in null sec such as a ‘gurista conquest fleet’ etc in Tenal or an equivalent, a sovereignty index could be implemented. Imagine it; Razor goes off on campaign to capture yet more space – while away, these anoms/events appear, and either are not run, or are run by others roaming into the area. Net result is; the index drops by a point in the former, or in the latter case, is lost and one gained by the new group. Too much negligence and your grip on your territory is gone.

    Doesn’t that seem logical? For an entity to have to patrol territory it claims. Did the Soviets hold their satellite states with harsh language? Did the Nazi’s hold Norway and France that way? No, they put troops there – some of their populace had to work to hold land they wanted to control.

    An intelligent person might even imagine the roaming/pvp possibilities of intercepting a alliances’ sovereignty patrol. Or the fact that a roaming gang couldn’t then be ignored by docking up till it goes away. You do that… they might just erode your sovereignty by another point on the index.

    Perhaps this is just too much logical thinking…

    September 4, 2013 at 8:15 pm Reply
    1. bob

      you’re idea is terribly formed, are you saying by shooting rats in these “events” you can either lose sov or gain sov?

      Any alliance systems are not held afk, they do have to actively defend it. If they don’t 2 things happen.

      It becomes useless to use due to all the reds and nuets using your owned systems for themselves or endless roaming

      or

      someone comes in and reinforces your system in an attempt to take it over. Which can happen when alliances go off to war. It just doesn’t happen often because most rising alliances don’t have the manpower to defend their newly conquered space when the original hosts return from their conquest.

      enough with this pve sov claiming crap

      September 4, 2013 at 9:32 pm Reply
      1. Dark Motoko

        Terribly formed. Okay, I’ll explain the ‘form’ of it more to you since the concept seems hard for you to use your imagination with just a sense of the idea to use as a springboard.

        The fleet event once fully completed would impact on sov. I’m invisioning something on par with an incursion type event, or a variation on the theme. As with incursions, sensible design here would dictate it take a certain number of people to properly run, and a minimum quantity of time, with suitable mechanics concerning frequency to ensure sov holders be given ample opportunity to run the sites adequately themselves if they are present, or to intercept those attempting to run them. In short, owning territory would require living in it, and patrolling it.

        A light roam might not be able to stand up to it, and even one heavy roam might only complete one or two here and there if the defenders are actually present. Logically, capturing territory would require a SERIES of these events to be run, acquiring enough points on the index to flip the sov. If territory is actually lived in/defended, only a dedicated strong presence would be able to contend on enough of these random events to actually threaten the sov. More moderate roams would only be a threat if space was left empty without any garrison. In that respect, smaller entities would be able to have a meaningful impact on neglectful larger empires.

        Other options would be to have alternate styles of events. To use our Tenal example from earlier, imagine an Gurista fleet appearing in a Tenal system broadcasting a distress beacon. In fluff terms they might be in need of repair or refuelling perhaps. Someone wanting to disrupt local sov/claim it themselves ultimately, could bring commodity/supplies to the NPCs from a randomised list generated per event. In return, the sov attacker gains temporary aid from the guristas, hence the defender’s sov index drops a point. Conversely, if the beacon is found by a defender, a suitable fleet can be raised and the NPC group eliminated, thus bringing their index up a point instead.

        The potential for varied gameplay is high. Another could involve a comms array appearing that can be hacked by an attacker using a particular module, or defended as before. Or for something different, the defender could instead bring in a cargoload of marines. Or hell if you really want lateral thinking, DUSTies could be involved…. there’s a crazy thought.

        By the by…. if you think its a system that doesn’t work, you should check out a game called Perpetuum. They implemented a system with tug of war events like this that works bloody well. I’m speaking from first hand experience of it, not a crackpot theory. Perp may have many other issues, but that’s where half the eve bloggers who have mentioned TOW gameplay got it from.

        September 5, 2013 at 1:26 am Reply
    2. na

      Wow, I liked that idea. Unexpected spaceship events that spring up in different regions, that appear randomly. This could encourage more roam like independent groups. Sounds attractive.

      September 5, 2013 at 9:09 am Reply
  14. Michael Meio

    Who said how much PVE should be done for holding SOV in a bad called Use Space to Keep Space system?
    AFAIK no one said how much. And people jump to extreme saying you need PVE CTA’s to hold SOV? that’s plain stupid.
    Some seem to believe that earning SOV and improving SOV holding ability by actions is worse for the game than raising a stupid structure and paying 80mill ISK. Well, PROBABLY NOT!

    September 4, 2013 at 8:51 pm Reply
  15. DNSMax

    Your reasons for disliking the ‘use it or risk losing it’ model I propose are, put politely, bullshit sir.
    What reason other than PvE is there for even bothering with system level sovereignty? If you can’t make money from the system either by using it or renting it to others to use then it is by definition; useless and those bills are just money down the drain.

    This is simple logic and your sandbox integrity excuse makes no sense on any level. We already have this type of gameplay in Eve remember; wormholes, and many small groups are doing very nicely out there in w-space without owning anything at all, occasionally big guys come in and steamroll them, they just pack up and move elsewhere.

    Think of all those totally empty station-less systems in Null where small groups could operate at a nice little profit with just a deathstar and a cynojammer, you’d probably even see hardy groups operating in pipe systems providing occasional content for the local overlords. Where is the downside hiding please?

    September 4, 2013 at 9:16 pm Reply
    1. somedude

      Max, the downside is that “use it or loose it” doesn’t taste like Goonswarm/Mittani’s mouth babies. . .

      September 5, 2013 at 3:05 am Reply
  16. Aonus_the_blaster_maniac

    I approve. CCP will rape you all… and collect your tears if they decide to implement something like this….

    September 4, 2013 at 9:24 pm Reply
  17. Sno

    Yet another “Sov Suggestion” post on EN24… are you guys really that desperate for articles?

    September 4, 2013 at 10:16 pm Reply
    1. Captain Obvious

      Be thankful it wasn’t posted by the ex-WoW scrub.

      September 4, 2013 at 11:39 pm Reply
      1. Random Dude

        Nope even better……. a CFC scrub

        September 4, 2013 at 11:56 pm Reply
        1. and. . .

          I ought to give Poe a gift subscription to WoW and let him bother their subscribers. . .

          Poe, I will give you this much: You are an ignorant blathering idiot who types too entirely fast and has not the slightest grasp on EVE or even good logic. You do however generate page hits to EN24 from me in that I love reading people call you a scrub.

          By the way, how did that negative campaign against the current CSM chair work out?

          September 5, 2013 at 3:02 am Reply
  18. stone

    Eh its all BS. A 20 man corp x 15mil is 300mil dues to alliance. 4-5 hours of lazy sanctums, havens, hub at max tax and 3-6 corpmates at any one time rating and you have your corp dues for the 20 people in corp. That’s 3.5 sov systems payed out of 20 systems for 14days. And that’d a small corp in large alliance. Not that hard to pay bills. And then go PvP or mine or do pi, play with your personal goo factory or even station turn if that’s what you want for 29 days. If you can’t handle 15mil dues gtfo.
    2 moon goo towers alone can pay sov for one system a month. How many moons are in a system? and holding sov lowers fuel cost on moon goo towers still right?

    I mean I think we are off track and not on topic.

    September 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm Reply
    1. Carebears 4 fuel

      Yeah, I agree. None of these proposed “fixes” fix anything, they just change things. If you want to change null, you must make it based on some kind of fuel for these upgrades and structures, so having sov isn’t a nice fixed cost you can just plan your coalition’s goo prices around. You have a variable cost dependent on what you do with the space, and on the market for something player created that you cannot necessarily control or dominate.
      Imagine if goons had to fuel their stations and their tcus with caldari fuel blocks out there in deklein. They might not be so keen on interdicting it.

      September 5, 2013 at 6:25 pm Reply
  19. Captain Obvious

    “Herp derp this idea will make my bosses run out of isk, this is why I think you all are idiots” is what I took away from this. You haven’t really suggested a good idea for why we shouldn’t have scaling costs, and I wager that if you weren’t a part of the CFC you might have gotten behind this.

    However I suspect the other reason you are against this is simply because you weren’t smart enough to come up with it first.

    September 4, 2013 at 11:35 pm Reply
    1. sidewinder

      Thank you Captain Obiously butthurt, now go take this pincushion and play around for a while, the adults have to talk here.

      September 4, 2013 at 11:47 pm Reply
      1. AMRAAM

        Oh look another Goon scrub on damage control – don’t worry kiddy when you grow up one day you may get to have a personality all of your own.

        September 5, 2013 at 12:10 am Reply
      2. Captain Obvious

        Please point out the butthurt in my comment, you fucking moron.

        September 5, 2013 at 8:37 pm Reply
  20. Red Teufel

    simply there just isn’t enough space and its too easy to go from one end to the other in eve. eve should be bigger then that in my opinion

    September 4, 2013 at 11:59 pm Reply
    1. annom

      What about the Build your own stargate system?! expecting is since last fanfest! also pos revamp… well.. i think that is why I canceled my sub….

      September 5, 2013 at 12:36 am Reply
      1. daGOONZpawa

        This stargate shit will be used to travel into jove space. New great expansion, like adding WHs but only for 0.0 big boyzzzzzzz. Not for you scrubs. Only goons explore new world muhahahahahahaha

        September 5, 2013 at 9:06 am Reply
        1. Carebear wants tech3

          And to put tech 3 modules in there as the only loot.

          September 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm Reply
    2. Carebear wants more null

      When eve first launched it was so huge for the player base… now it is so small. They do need to consider expanding the world, I think more nullsec is the best way to go. Lots more nullsec… somehow.

      September 5, 2013 at 12:11 pm Reply
    3. Nulli grunt

      Remove JBs and nerf jum drives…and Eve will be big again.

      September 5, 2013 at 6:36 pm Reply
  21. Velthegor

    first – why sov bills exist? concord isn’t owner of 0.0 space. sov holding must consume resources not isk. sov holding structure must consume some sort of fuels (made from minerals, ice products, PI – it would be perfect if large part of components can be gathered only in 0.0 and maybe w-space). i don’t think its so difficult to make fuel bay of that structure large enough that holding entity must refuel structure once a month. that structure must provide sov holding bonuses. these bonuses vanish without fuel or when structure is without shield. it must be easy enough to kill or repair its shield with relatively small gang. if attacker decides to kill structure – then they need to grind through half of armor (that must be a lot longer for small fleet than to kill shield) and structure goes into reinforce mode with timer. after timer it can be killed or repaired.

    September 5, 2013 at 12:22 am Reply
    1. benfromid

      Sov bills exist as an isk sink.

      September 5, 2013 at 1:03 am Reply
      1. So carebear

        It doesn’t really amount to all that much… 200m a month per system. I make 200m a day mining with 2 toons. If they scaled the sov bill on some market index, like they do with PI taxes and insurance. That rate was set when trit was like 1-2 is per.

        September 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm Reply
    2. I'm mad b/c you are dumb

      Concord pays bountys on rats in null dumbass…… You don’t want concord to pay people for ratting ether?

      Some people are so fucking stupid.

      September 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm Reply
      1. Velthegor

        you don’t need hold sov to get these bounties… and as isk sink – sov bills isnt largest isk sink and easily can be replaced with other sinks.

        September 5, 2013 at 7:36 pm Reply
  22. Dennis the Dreamer

    QQ moar!!!

    September 5, 2013 at 2:58 am Reply
  23. TestGewn

    shredding the big sov between differnt entities is a very good thing. not only the costs will rise, even when shredded, it will be much harder to manage, and if some of the entities wanders of ,the sov goes with them. thats nice. more holdings are more and smaller targets to attack directly or with espionage and intrusion.
    EDIT and i didnt know, but sov costs *only* 84Million? per 14 days?
    IMO thats to cheap anyways.

    September 5, 2013 at 7:49 am Reply
  24. Jakkie

    “I am entirely against any system that dictates to players how they should play the game. A use it or lose it mechanic does just that. It tells players, “Do PvE or lose your space.” That’s not sandbox play. That’s not a sandbox mechanic.”

    What makes this any different from telling people to shoot Sov for days, weeks, months on end? Having that said, why is everybody talking about ‘loosing sov over PVE’. You shouldn’t loose it, it should just be harder to defend. Go take a look at dotlan and see how many PVE there is being done in (almost) each and every single reason, count other factors like the market, PVP, PI, industrial etc etc and I don’t see any objections.

    September 5, 2013 at 7:56 am Reply
  25. Muul Udonii

    You were making a few good points in your last article; however this one undoes all that and you make only bad points:

    1. Splitting systems between different intities doesn’t sidestep the problem of soc costs escalating exponentially – it just means instead of 1 system costing 377mil, you’ll have 10 costing (whatever the 15th system costs. It’s still expensive and means you need to maintain isk between 10 alliances rather than just one; increasing the complexity required to keep the costs low; and increasing the opportunity for someone to mess up and for sov to be lost in a chunk of your space.

    2. Nobody is suggesting that sov should drop if you don’t use a system; the suggestions have either been to make it easier to conquer, or to make it so sov index does not increase.

    September 5, 2013 at 8:38 am Reply
  26. sour

    the other ideas r even worse than those, altho the pve idea to keep ur sov is truly terrible. also exponentially sov bills doesnt mean first system 84mils 152th 377mils. thats laughable. exponential means that 152th sys will cost some bills.

    September 5, 2013 at 8:54 am Reply
  27. Tufy

    “A use it or lose it mechanic does just that. It tells players, “Do PvE or lose your space.” ” – activity doesn’t necessarily mean PvE grinding. Let’s assume group A holds system SY-123. It hasn’t done anything in this system for a very long time. In comes group B and starts mining / running missions. The system becomes contested. Group A now has to actively drive group B out with force or face the possibility of losing the system. If Group B manages to hold their own, the system transfers to their sovereignty. If however group A manages to drive them out, their increased pvp activity strengthens their hold on the system.

    There are, however, deeper problems with this idea. For instance, today a neutral can come into his friend’s system and happily mine away without any ownership changes – in fact, if no contest is made towards the sov, this neutral will help boost the military and industrial indexes of the system, benefiting all players. Under the activity system, the neutral would contest the ownership, which obviously isn’t intended in this case.

    Frankly, though, anything would be better than boring timers and structure grinding even when there’s no contestants around.

    There was an idea somewhere around of constellation-based sov warfare. Kinda liked that one.

    September 5, 2013 at 11:15 am Reply
  28. RA dude

    >A use it or lose it mechanic does just that. It tells players, “Do PvE
    or lose your space.” That’s not sandbox play. That’s not a sandbox
    mechanic./

    Build a brand-new house in a ghetto, leave it empty for a month and then see what happens to it. SOV structures are just that: buildings in lawless space. The problem with the current mechanic is that you can hold SOV in 100 unused systems for a year, and none of the local npc pirates will ever even paint “up yours” on your shiny stuff, not to mention that this stuff in open space never needs any repairs or fueling. Is that what you call “lawless”?

    NPC harrassment of SOV in empty systems is, imo, one of the easiest and effective ways to discourage holding SOV in unused systems, because npcs can do something that no player group can: apply constant pressure over large territory, So, the amount of unused claimed space would be limited by how much pressure can the owner withstand. And player activity in a system is just the thing that can tell npc punks it’s someone else’s territory.

    No, nobody is talking about “PvE your ass off or lose SOV” – PvE is just the easiest way to tell that a system is being used, but the number of pilots in space/docked, the number of jumps, the number of research/production jobs running, supers being built, the number of killed ships/pods and some other non-PvE parameters could also be used. And nobody ever said how many rats/roids per hour has to be killed in this model. Also, nobody meant that SOV should drop second after that magic number drops below set value. So stop bringing “PvE CTAs” as a reason against the “use it or lose it” model.

    It’s still a sandbox. Nobody tells player what he should do. “Use it or lose it” just adds sea waves and/or npc sand castle ruiners.

    September 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm Reply
    1. Dark Fever

      If forcing players to use space is breaking the same box, then forcing players to shoot structures it breaking the sandbox.

      “It breaks the sandbox” argument is a crutch argument. It been used for years by people that can’t actually think of better arguments of why something is a bad idea. You can pretty much say any new change CCP ever does to nullsec is breaking the sandbox, as they will all in some way force you to do “a” to get “be”, then some clown says “Wait, I have to do “a”!?!? Thanks for ruining the sandbox CCP”.

      Anytime someone says something is breaking the sandbox, so therefore it’s bad(which happens a lot), is by and large just ignored as it’s the oldest strawman argument in EVE. Use you head, and make a real argument, or don’t say anything and people won’t call you an idiot.

      September 5, 2013 at 3:20 pm Reply
      1. Michael Meio

        This^^ and what RA dude said!
        I’d like to invite again the OP to elaborate on the reasons why “Use It Or GTFO” is a bad idea without mentioning the Sandbox. And do it in a new article. Oops, sorry. the OP will not do it cuz it would be dictating his actions, therefore breaking his Sandbox. So, will it happen? Yeah, PROBABLY NOT!
        It’s the single most imbecile argument, used for disqualifying ideas which are by far better but since they are not undersigned by a boot licker or a tin cup holder, stupidity bestows the right for censorship.

        September 5, 2013 at 5:29 pm Reply
  29. Felix

    Poetic makes strawman blog post, and thinks nobody will notice?

    Saying a game mechanic change is breaking the sandbox is a weak argument, as anyone can make the same argument doe any game mechanice change CCP ever makes. It’s the same weak argument anyone makes whenever they are stupid to come up with a real argument.

    September 5, 2013 at 3:06 pm Reply
  30. lulz

    CCP is forcing me to fit missiles to my cyclone, thanks CCP for breaking the sandbox.

    I now have to shoot structures in FW, thanks for breaking the sandbox CCP.

    I used to be able to drop an supported blob of titans on anything and win, now I can’t… thanks for breaking the sandbox CCP.

    I used to be able to collect minerals off drone rat, and now I can’t, way to break the sandbox CCP.

    September 5, 2013 at 4:03 pm Reply
  31. Cobalt

    The sandbox is broken anyways because of people like Mittani or James, who force their twisted way of playing in a sandbox on others. So why not break it officially and make it a half-assed theme park?

    September 5, 2013 at 7:36 pm Reply
  32. Fuck AFK Empires

    Yeah so…fuck and your AFK empire. Put people in spaceships in space. Stop portaling people around with titans. Use jump gates like peons do. You know, like the people your members are suicide ganking in empire out of boredom.

    September 9, 2013 at 10:50 pm Reply

Leave a Reply