Recently, an article from Poetic Stanziel was posted to Eve News 24 entitled Bad Ideas: Escalating Sov Costs and Use Space to Keep Space. Poetic is one of the more prolific contributors to the Eve community through his Poetic Discourse blog. I may not always agree with his views, but he’s no Gevlon Goblin, and I certainly appreciate the work he does in generating out of game content. However, in this case I need to disagree with Poetic and offer this rebuttal.

First off, I think Poetic got the concept of escalating sovereignty costs wrong. Maybe not the concept, but certainly the math he used to prove its effect. Second, the concept of escalating sov costs is a means to an end. Of course, you first need to believe in the end in order to reconcile the logic behind the means. So what is the end goal? Create an economic disincentive to the ever expanding size of alliances and coalitions, both in terms of raw numbers and the amount of space they seek to hold. Escalating sovereignty costs is but a single tool in the toolbox. It cannot be used alone because it can be gamed. It must be used in conjunction with other tools until the proper mix is found to achieve the desired end result.

Let’s first define the issue. Perhaps you don’t view it as something that needs tampering with, and that’s cool too. No… Mad… Bro. If, as Poetic says, Eve is a sandbox, then I’m advocating for a change in the sand and maybe even the shape of the box. CCP should encourage/motivate/entice (but not force) the player base to coalesce into smaller, more independent groups and discourage the creep towards larger and larger entities.

Human nature leads many players to seek comfort in joining the biggest and/or most powerful groups. For some it is a way of being part of the “winning team”. For others it is about safety and hiding in the tall grass of a larger mass of players. It would seem that a shared sense of safety is as important in a game of space pixels as it is in real life. We all know that Eve has gone from being a game of N+1 to N+100. Most conflict in Eve is not the result of two equally opposing forces coming head to head in a game of Mutually Assured Destruction. In many cases it is usually about not picking a fight where you aren’t fairly certain of the outcome. Again, human nature. I’m not talking about “PVP” here. I’m talking about sovereignty warfare, not roaming or hot dropping or ganking or being a group of elite, monocle-wearing spaceship badasses. I know there are some small(er) groups out there who are very talented in kicking the living crap out of larger opponents. But, as they should be, the elites are a minority and many of them don’t tend to care much about holding sovereignty.

Many (not a statistical reference) people I speak with, including some who are deeply ingrained in being part of large blocs (CFC, N3, the former HBC thingy, etc.) see these large blocs as nothing more than a means to an end. A counter to the ever-escalating numbers and capabilities of others. Our potential enemies have this, therefore we need this, this and this. Numbers get ratcheted up, and the arms race continues. If I must fear your 300-man Super Cap fleet, I’ll field 1,500 battleships. If you can’t beat my 1,500 battleships, you’ll get a friend with 750 battleships to join you. So while the super powers bloat, blue lists expand and excessive amounts of space is taken for no good reason other than because it can be taken, the concept of smaller-scale operations and smaller-scale conflict gets pushed further and further out of reach.

My belief is CCP needs to shatter the galaxy a bit and ONE tool to accomplish that is escalating sov costs based on range. Whether the growth rate is exponential or linear is another point of debate. But let’s use a linear method just to show that its effect is far more than what Poetic was making it out to be.

Under my scenario, every alliance would select a capital system. Let’s not get caught in the weeds of what a capital system could be. For argument sake, it’s just a point in space and confers no other benefits. This capital system, and every system within a 10 light year range (Zone 1), would incur the base cost of 84 million isk plus strategic add-ons. Bands extending outward in 5 light year increments would then escalate the cost of sovereignty by multiplying the cost by the band. Systems in the second band (10-15 million light years from the capital) would cost 168 million, those in the third band (15-20 MLY) would be 252 million, and so on, just for the basic sov. Add on jump bridges, cyno jammers or other strategic upgrades and those numbers can get pretty big the farther out from the capital your empire extends. How bad do you want that jump bridge network to extend? How bad to you want to cyno jam that system 20 light years from the capital? A jammer alone is 600 million a month in Zone 1, but 1.8 billion when you get out to zone 3 and 2.4 billion in zone 4. I recently wrote about rental empires and the amount of isk they can bring in. The further out rental systems are from the renter capital, the pricier they will be for sov and the higher the cost to the renter.

Of course, we could look at this in an exponential scenario, but the numbers can get very crazy. The point is to create an economic disincentive to overexpansion. It may be cheap enough even 20 light years away to have a system with base sovereignty capabilities. But extending your jump bridge network can become quite pricey.

Poetic’s answer is that they will use multiple alliances under one coalition umbrella to circumvent the desired goal. Let’s take two potential methods here. Method 1: they have a structure whereby the underlying alliances are actual independent entities. Each alliance manages itself within the larger coalition structure. Method 2: shell alliances like Beat the System Alliance 1, 2, 3 etc. where one guy or team could oversee all of these and management would just be handled like they were all one alliance. I could almost live with scenario 1 because independent alliances create weak links in the coalition. Alliances undergo changes that can lead to disintegration and upheaval. However, because scenario 2 is the one that really ends up gaming the system, other tools need to be pulled from the toolbox. Brace yourselves.

Remember, the goal here is to shatter the galaxy, fragment the map, encourage more localized fiefdoms and hopefully encourage more localized, smaller-scale conflict. As a result, jump bridge networks must only be available to the alliance that owns them. Oh Snap! He Din’t – yes, I did so zip it and read on. It serves a couple of purposes. First, it makes using those shell alliances far less useful. Yes you lower costs, but you also lose a major benefit along the way. Second, it limits force projection. You may have friends, but they are going to have to plan ahead to come and help you. But can’t they just set up a titan bridge network? Sure, some can. But that requires getting those titan pilots online and out of League of Legends, World of Submarines, or wherever else they are that isn’t Eve, when you need them. And maybe, just maybe the concept of titan bridging needs to change too, but that is an argument for another time.

Don’t forget, the toolbox is full of tools. Just don’t say it can’t be done or that the sandbox doesn’t allow it, or that none of it is possible. Anything is possible with the magic of programming. It’s just a matter of where we want to get to. I’m pretty sure that the continued growth of mega blocs probably isn’t where most people want to be. I’m not saying the sandbox doesn’t let you personally choose to be more independent on your own. But the way the sandbox is currently being used by the masses, the statistically significant masses, makes it a bit more difficult than it should be. This helps put that in check. It’s no longer about just holding the space you can defend. It’s about holding the space you can defend and afford. These can be made to be real numbers that would have a serious effect on alliance finances. It’s just a matter of which variables you use to get those numbers where they need to be.

– Dirk MacGirk


  1. stop

    Stop making these news articles, we dont care what every chucklhead thinks sov should be like, CCP will not listen to you so all your doing is wasting bandwidth. Post usefull shit please not this trash

    September 6, 2013 at 8:24 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Well wtf would be use you dumb knuckledragger? It’s a website for news and opinion about a video game. We’re not curing cancer here. Unless we can block your IP I guess.

      September 6, 2013 at 8:34 pm Reply
    2. 'STOP' - being a douchebag

      And yes people, here is the shit posting monkey that had to chime in. “Stop making these news articles, we dont care what every chucklhead thinks sov should be like, CCP will not listen to you so all your doing is wasting bandwidth. Post usefull shit please not this trash”.
      I’m not even going to go into the whole “spell check” deal. So no one has listened to you from CCP, I cannot imagine why.

      September 6, 2013 at 9:15 pm Reply
    3. Ur Stupid

      Sir, please step aside. You don’t belong here.

      September 7, 2013 at 12:51 pm Reply
  2. anon

    not bad… definitely like the jumpridge further away = exponentially higher cost thing

    September 6, 2013 at 9:01 pm Reply
  3. My coalition is huge and hairy

    This is good stuff. It would be nice if the galaxy was a bit more fragmented. It certainly would make things more interesting. Right now everything is too polarized. Two sides, and that really is it. Of course there are independent alliances etc but hey– to be honest– you really don’t count in game atm. Coalitions are too strong. Alliances should be the focus. This is coming from a CFC member just FYI.
    Good article and interesting thoughts.

    September 6, 2013 at 9:11 pm Reply
  4. Not a Pet

    If people spent as much time and energy in game, trying to organise themselves, as they do critisizing the sov system, we as cfc might not be dominating the game. The system may not be perfect, but the real problem is lack of real organization other alliance/coalition have.

    I wonder if over 2000 years ago Hannibal whined and cried to the gods that they should change the way the world works because Rome was growing too much.

    September 6, 2013 at 9:42 pm Reply
    1. Gort

      If people spent all that time and energy as you suggest then we would just end up with another second CFC sized block rather than the fragmented model that is being suggested. CCP managed to nerf the Drake given enough time and with enough prodding they got round to Technetium so next on the list is Sov Costs.

      September 6, 2013 at 9:53 pm Reply
    2. N3 Gruntski

      I always appreciated CFC’s organization!
      They took a set of mechanics, organized themselves, and made it work for them!
      Being an N3 member, the old southern roots are in play, you have smaller alliances, with more i guess “experienced” players, and they have big recruitment requirements, by being small they find organization. Now i would love to see a 2000 man N3 coalition try to operate against Goons… its would not work, not in the long run.
      That is why would like to see some of these changes.

      For instance, WHYSO, INK started in a very genuine way, they were small alliances wanting to get into sov, they either started renting or were a group brought in to help Gypsy Band (i don’t really know the deal) but they were essentially left to fend for themselves without a bigger brother, they also had small amounts of sov, more in part due to location than anything! Sov restrictions would have worked for these guys 2 years ago? Now they have space, but its an example.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:02 pm Reply
      1. Ashesofempires

        Regardless of your personal feelings towards Goonswarm, you have to respect the vast amount of infrastructure they built outside of the game in order to make the in game mechanics less tedious and burdensome. They marshaled the talent of their player base to build a framework that makes their organization more efficient, especially when you consider the incredible economy of scale that those out-of-game tools provide the entire CFC, and not just Goonswarm. It’s a large part of their success.

        September 7, 2013 at 8:20 pm Reply
    3. Dirk MacGirk

      This isn’t directed specifically at the CFC by any means. Huge swaths of space are held by more than just the CFC. I’m in the CFC and totally respect what it is given the existing mechanics of the game. Nobody has exploited it better. But this idea is directed at size in general. Way too many people trying to take the safe road by hiding in the tall grass of the blob. Some of the same people who laugh at hisec dudes are more than happy to hide out in the blob.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:11 pm Reply
    4. Hail Sneezer

      Well he probably didn’t the bureaucrats from Carthage probably did :)

      September 6, 2013 at 10:17 pm Reply
    5. Ur Stupid

      The N3 also hold a huge chunk of space. Problem is, is that it’s these TWO coalitions that dominate the land, consisting of the majority of null-sec EVE players. The southern Russians are growing but if a full scale war to blow out between CFC and Southern Russians or N3 vs. Southern Russians… There is no way smaller coalitions can bring down the mighty beasts when there SHOULD be a way. The method should be hard, but still viable to do.

      Remember the CFC aren’t the only entity to hold huge chunks of space.

      September 7, 2013 at 12:48 pm Reply
      1. CarlGustav

        Waltrepiers Alliance (dont remember spelling) was able to hold its sov in delve war when CFC vs -A- and was very successful in defence of there own system.

        so NO that is not entirely true.

        but as soon as a small alliance get a cookie worth fighting they have to fight with there nails and claws to defend it.

        Lets face it Eve consist of three types of players

        * The ones who build castles

        * The ones who likes to take a piss at someone else castle after stoming it to the ground
        * None nullsec players.

        There is no fair play in eve

        There is no guud fights
        When two FCs wana make there fleet engage one of them have made a mistake and will pay for it.

        once the veil is lifted you will see that the problem in eve isn’t the income at alliance level or huge coalitions. Huge coalitions is what makes CCP headlines with 6VDT as a good PR example.
        instead CCP should go partly in your direction making

        * sov cost increase by number of system held ín corp (thus pusing for member to corp to own sov not the alliance)

        * adding ingame Coalition support with both ingame channels and work so that you can get Blue standing from coalition level

        * giving defenders someway to deal with AFK cloaked campers more then just dock. a vulnerable Ihub upgrade like a scanning array with low hp that can be disabled by a small gang. This also gives Small gangs something to do harrassing alot of systems causes grief to defenders as they have to repair the module.

        I want to give defenders more tools
        Let them build Gateguns
        Let them build Station guns that can be anchord on both gates and stations to deal with incomming boogies.

        Hell wouldn’t it be wonderful if you could destroy a jumpgate
        and allow someone to build jumpgates to reroute the entire starmap.

        now that would be epic to destroy someones main route of transportation.

        and btw Incapping JB isn’t that rare.

        September 7, 2013 at 9:22 pm Reply
  5. The Observer

    Well played. I think most of this is pure gold. The jump bridge limitations will get alot of people crying bloody murder, but personally, I think that it’s the way to go. Finding people to kill when CCP allowed 2 JBs per system was nigh impossible unless you were in a bunch of stealth bombers and cloaky dictors. Now it’s still hard, but at least gate mechanics allow people to still DIAF to their own stupidity. Making it so only alliance members can use it is a hard change to swallow, but eve players have had bigger changes shoved down their throats in the past.

    September 6, 2013 at 10:01 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      I’m not advocating changing any one thing i.e. just sov costs or just jump bridges. Just advocating a goal and potential tools that could be used. If of course CCP in all its wisdom thought it might take the game in a direction they would prefer.

      September 6, 2013 at 10:10 pm Reply
  6. Red Teufel

    SOV #1 main issue: Lack of conflict drivers. escalating sov costs will only make this issue even worse. The best way to solve what we see today is pretty much doubling the amount of space currently in game. creating a farms and fields would be the next step, then integration of a product that dust should of been. owning space should be more then dropping a TCU and paying lame bills to an npc organization that has 0 influence in sov. It should be the influence and control of planets and the space. without the control of planets what do you really have control of…? Nothing.

    September 6, 2013 at 10:07 pm Reply
  7. Billbo

    And in other news CCP Soundwave has anounced he will be leaving CCP Games to join Riot in Dublin, Ireland. This argement in this article is now mute. More news at 5

    September 6, 2013 at 10:33 pm Reply
  8. Provi Miner

    Hmmm simple change instead of 10 light years how about 2 jumps from capital.

    September 6, 2013 at 10:41 pm Reply
  9. stone

    You realize that some systems are utterly useless except to farm goo and run ded sites or escalations. Other than reduced pos fuel consumption these systems are useless sov holdings, its basically a tax break holding the sov if you have a few poses up in said systems. There are chains of station less systems utterly useless and not even traveled except to fuel and collect goo if a jump freighter. No-one would live there even if sov was open there. Some of sov null would be more used if it was a high-sec pocket. Large null regions have a few good systems with stations and the rest is shit space. Some systems with stations have the wrong services in them even. Say most ppl mine in this one system and yet it has no refinery so you have to use a jump bridge to a refinery station and then jumpbridge back to the mining system to use the industry services. Some of the best places to mine are in the pipe that everyone travels including neutrals and reds.
    Sometimes systems are held sov just bc no one else wants the headache of paying the bill for a crappy system or for moon goo fuel reductions.
    If things were like you wanted there would be no null industry, no community, pure ffa. It would be low sec with no security status hit and bubbles. And no trade hubs. Every alliance would rely on jumpfrieghters and high sec Indy. No one would bother holding sov. It’d be Npc null everywhere.

    September 6, 2013 at 10:58 pm Reply
    1. DGMT vet

      As far as moons, I’m sure there are useless systems out there. But with the IHUB upgrades, minerals, anom farming, etc can make a system “profitable”. Granted, the truesec anom nerf rear ended alot of that profitability, but if that was boosted in combination with the proposed changes, they still become a revenue source. The advantage here for an alliance is that by compressing space that can be held, more of your members would be closer together and more able to support each other.

      Nothing in nature has unlimited growth (despite what hardcore capitalists believe), there is always something that keeps things in check, unless something catastrophic occurs, and when it does, it effects the whole ecosystem. The big blue donut, with a few entities controlling most of the space, is like kudzu that is choking the life out of possibly dynamic null environment. Something need to be done.

      September 7, 2013 at 12:37 am Reply
      1. David

        And you’re looking at it from the standpoint of sov where you have to have the resources to defend against massive coalitions, and as such need a profit level that allows you to field unlimited fights. If the massive coalitions aren’t after your space, because they can’t afford to expand, then your cash needs go way down.

        Look at Providence for example. Noone else wants Providence, which is why Provibloc can hold it. It has some of the most worthless space imaginable, with easy access for multiple entities to roam across it, crap truesec, and useless moons. But the holders there do make money off their operations. It has the most stations per capita of any sov nullsec region, thanks to outposts being set up. They don’t make a huge amount, but since they don’t have to defend it against serious aggression, they don’t need huge amounts. Now if you had a bunch of areas, where the big coalitions don’t want the space, and now you could have small groups come in and set up shop, what do you think will happen?
        One of the best ways to defend against someone bigger than yourself is to be invisible to them, and making it so the big groups don’t want large areas of space certainly would make this more doable.

        September 7, 2013 at 2:52 am Reply
    2. Meh

      mmh dunno , we live in a utterly shit 0.01 true sec system , but with only upgrade to lvl4 our small corp(27char) are having a blast grinding isk , building stuff like pvp ships , defend our space and go out roaming with those.

      Yes we are rentel pubbies , geuss we doing it wrong but having loads of fun , thats what a game is ment to be.

      this article has good points tho , and i find it afwul so many systems are “unused” even if their are shit

      srry for bad englis

      September 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm Reply
      1. CarlGustav

        The only thing wrong your doing in my opinon are you renting 0.01 system ….

        September 7, 2013 at 4:28 pm Reply
        1. Ashesofempires

          If they are getting more out of it than they pay for rent it sounds like they are doing it right.

          September 7, 2013 at 8:05 pm Reply
  10. Standings can solve something

    I like the idea, but you have to make something more.
    Blue list, choose your capital and your blue list of 10 if you go to a war then buy some slots from concord, the first 10 or whatever are free but the next one is going to be 50m per day.
    You don’t need those allies to have standings and be always blue. You want them only for the fight buy your slots and use them wisely.

    September 6, 2013 at 11:24 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Changes to blue lists is another tool that can be used, but I didn’t want to mix too many ideas together at once or people start focusing on each item and not see the whole. Given the change I made to jump bridges being alliance use only, the blue list would begin to have less of an effect. It would be used for fleets of course and setting docking rights and just general “don’t shoot the blues” in battle. But otherwise, it wouldn’t have any effect on the goal here, which was to discourage alliances from overextending their sovereignty.

      September 7, 2013 at 2:33 am Reply
  11. Michael Meio

    Could big alliances or coalitions start micro-managing and get to hold SOV under a divide and conquer concept, rendering such change useless?

    September 7, 2013 at 1:59 am Reply
  12. I see some people have already hinted at it this in the comments. However, the biggest problem with escalating SOV costs is the big blocs have hundreds of billions of ISK, even trillions, and can just make alt holding alliances SOV (they already have rental alliances) to keep the costs down.

    Making SOV more expensive overall will NOT change the status of null sec currently. It will instead keep small and medium groups from being able to hold it on their own even more so then they can’t now.

    Do not make changes to hurt the big guys. They have ISK and numbers. IT WILL NOT WORK.

    Make changes to directly help the small to medium guys and the big groups will get smaller.

    They issue too, that people forget, is the regions themselves. It is almost impossible to reach some regions without holding or having access to the neighboring ones.

    If you look at it that way, you can still have more access then now, but under current design of the star map you will not be able to see hundreds of small groups all fighting.

    However, i think it could support 20 or so small-medium coalitions with a couple big boys.

    September 7, 2013 at 3:08 am Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Big Blocs are rich, no doubt. But escalate their sov costs at the level I indicated and it gets pretty pricey. Especially if they want strategic upgrades in distant systems. As for making alt holding alliances, I assume you mean sister alliances that act as shells. I covered that. You remove one of the primary benefits of your blue list: the ability to use another alliance’s jump bridges. There is no single tool to that can change things like this. You have to be willing to look at both a change that will solve your issue, and then other changes to solve people trying to get around it. Cost does one thing in discouraging overexpansion. It doesn’t say you can’t expand, but it will cost you and then you have to decide if it is worth it or not. The jump bridges does another thing in heading off alliances that will break into shell alliances to avoid the cost increases.

      September 7, 2013 at 5:10 am Reply
      1. CarlGustav

        removing that will crash eve ….and make the bigger even stronger do you know how more powerful Titan briges are then normal JB …. all the bigger coalitions would do is having Titan briges and the titan pilots be even more missareable of beeing bussboys. .. no your idea is not sound.

        instead they should make the sov cost based on the number of system held atm.

        X^2 * C where X stands for number of system held and C for a constant cost

        this would force the alliances to spread out he sov among its Corporations and that means the bigger alliances are at risk for beeing attacked from within.

        also means you have to think twice before letting a corporation in to your alliance since now your risking more.

        also this would totaly destroy the renting empires as the cost for holding them would be devastated.

        but if we are fair. there is more then enough space in eve for everyone in nullsec the moon manipulation shown us that the isk in space was what drove that war.

        and realy no small time mini corp or alliance have a fair chance to day in eve. Its deep water with blood in it and the sharks with lazers are already circleing the prey.

        Nullsec is not fair and is not intended to be fair. there can be only one winner and a bucket of tears.

        September 7, 2013 at 4:24 pm Reply
        1. Dirk MacGirk

          Let’s nerf titan bridges then. I wouldn’t do it to suit this argument, but titan bridges themselves need to be looked at for other purposes, which I mentioned but didn’t want to go into for this article. Force projection being the main one. But also sending 1,500 man fleets on top of the target rather than making them fight to get to there is another. I’m not saying to get rid of bridges altogether, but perhaps a mass limit with 15 minute cooldown. 50 battleships then 15 minute wait time?
          And miserable titan pilots creates a bad situation which would break down over time for those guys trying to do it. Another weak link.

          September 7, 2013 at 8:56 pm Reply
  13. DNSMax

    Remember how CCP thought cost would prevent supercapital proliferation?

    Yeah, that worked out real well. CCP won’t go for any idea where cost is considered a balancing factor.

    September 7, 2013 at 3:14 am Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      CCP changes things that effect cost all the time. Remember Technetium? Remember Tritanium at 2.8 and Pyerite at 4? I have no figures on your specific example of whether supercap production has declined, but I know when they removed Drone Alloys from the game and the price of low end minerals jumps, the price of those ships jumped along with them. Whether super caps are being built at the same rate they once were, I’m not sure. But they did increase their cost by 50%. In the end, CCP will use whatever tool gets the job done if they think the job needs getting done.

      September 7, 2013 at 5:00 am Reply
      1. DNSMax

        Your rebuttal is illogical; CCP have occasionally tinkered with economics when the intended effect was economic, they often alter mechanics which in turn affects economics, but they haven’t used economics to affect mechanics, which is what you’re proposing. It’s inelegant and the outcome too unpredictable.

        September 7, 2013 at 12:25 pm Reply
        1. Dirk MacGirk

          Not sure how inelegant it is or anymore unpredictable than other changes they make that effect economics. I’m not so sure making Tech the bottleneck was elegant, or removing drone alloys was elegant or creating hidden mining belts filled with the rarest minerals was elegant. The shifts in income from nullsec to hisec was all that elegant.
          CCP has already put in these payments for sov. Tweaking them to fit an end goal, while also creating a meaningful isk sink in the game (a topic I didn’t cover in my original piece) is just a second derivative move that is intended to achieve a broader goal. But we can agree to disagree on whether its elegant or illogical. I’m cool with that. CCP doesn’t listen to any of this stuff anyway and I’m quite certain no CSM (elected by the masses of nullsec) is going to champion the idea.

          September 7, 2013 at 12:53 pm Reply
  14. TommyNavo

    I think these are good ideas, though I’m not experienced enough in Eve to know if it will work in practice. Big block blob warfare is what makes eve shit. Any change to the system that encourages players to fight in smaller scale battles and avoid the effects of time dilation is a winner imho.

    September 7, 2013 at 7:31 am Reply
    1. CarlGustav

      if you don’t like grand scale stick to lowsec and thats what you get. there is no reason what so ever to do structure grinds in huge fleets or by using multiple Captial ships.

      September 7, 2013 at 4:12 pm Reply
  15. Victor

    This is a good idea. It will make empires expensive to maintain and thus mirror the real world.

    September 7, 2013 at 7:45 am Reply
  16. Justin Cody

    I endorse this post.

    September 7, 2013 at 10:52 am Reply
  17. Dirty Rotten Sneaky Bastard

    I still say eliminate the alliances, make sov holding available to individuals and corps only. Yes corps will intially clump into the current power blocs. But as corps leave their power blocs to go to other blocs (as they currently do), still holding their sov, things will start to get chaotic. And as for the CFC or N3, who has the room in the social (or time) to blue 2,000 corps… do the social lists even go that high?

    September 7, 2013 at 2:20 pm Reply
  18. N3 grunt

    Your ideas are good Dirk. We all know New Eden power blocs have to be fragmented. But like you said below, I am not sure CCP has the balls to take those “hard” decisions. No CSM members will take a serious look at this. I am just imagining CCP making a statement that they are considering breaking coalitions and I am certain the forums would immediately be filled with cry babies from those same big blocs. CCP would most likely back off from the idea.
    But there is hope! I am pleased to see some CFC members starting to say they are bored. I am bored to in N3. Targets are rare and mega fights under heavy tidi aint fun at all. So maybe CCP will recognise this. They better hurry up though. Some of my colleagues already moved on to other games and others are simply un-subbing. We have to send repetitive jabber pings to get people in fleets when there is something to shoot at.
    Anyways, I hope CCP are considering making the hard choices. Because Eve is just gona become like the Blackberry. A dying product.

    September 7, 2013 at 2:41 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Yeah, I’m glad to see that dudes from with the big groups at least recognize that the continued path towards bigger just isn’t better. Not for a game anyway. I’m not advocating for breaking alliances or even coalitions. The choice should always be there but there should be some cost that actually begins to make them think. Hiw big is too big? How much space is too much? Also, CCP has used escalfing coats before. They did it with the Wardec system. Also, the numbers I used weren’t written in stone. They could be more or less depending on the need. It’s the idea rather than the details that matters at this point.

      September 7, 2013 at 3:23 pm Reply
  19. CarlGustav

    I don’t realy like your idea totaly, I would like the Corporations to own sov and the corporations wanting to be part of a Alliance to defend there space. this could be solved by escalting sov cost/ alliance. and that also gives the Alliance some headace if a corporation that owns sov leaves the alliance. Thus only the ones you trust can be in your alliance. And from my pov. Renting empires are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    September 7, 2013 at 4:04 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Carl, that flaw was addressed in paragraph 9. Jump bridge use limited to the alliance that owns them. Not to the blue list.

      September 7, 2013 at 6:34 pm Reply
  20. Annoyed

    Rule by Lords rather than the King of Kings in Deklein.

    Yes please!

    September 7, 2013 at 4:06 pm Reply
  21. Provi Miner

    good idea’s worth looking at. However I would change the 10 light yr pay radius to jumps. For instance Capital zone (capital system and any systems with a jump gate to that capital system) then zone two would be any systems 2-4 gate jumps from capital zone three 5-8 systems. Also if possible i would change your idea on jumpbridge allowences, How about as an isk sink corporation members can use corp jb for free, alliance members a sliding scale based on ship type and size, non alliance members (everyone else, who the corporation/alliance allows) that can use the bridge pay x5 what an alliance (non-corp member) would pay. But to CCP not to the corp owning the bridge.

    September 7, 2013 at 5:24 pm Reply
  22. WALLT grunt

    Dunno i anyone has said it before, but i allways thouht that one good way to reduce big blocks would be not add exponential costs to sov, but add exponential cost to the standing list. More blues(pilots), more monthly cost.

    September 7, 2013 at 6:05 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Do you want to limit the size of people in a group I.e. a coalition, or just the size of the space they hold? Different tools for different things. The issue of blue lists comes into play in other areas that may need attention, but I would tread more carefully there as I would hate to limit player choice in who they befriend and fight alongside.

      September 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm Reply
  23. Ossey

    What a stupid idea. They would just create alt corps and transfer the sov to them to keep sov cost low

    September 7, 2013 at 6:14 pm Reply
    1. CFC Minion

      Insightful. I can’t believe the OP didn’t think about that. I guess the whole section on methods smart people like you would use to try and avoid it wasn’t sufficient.

      September 7, 2013 at 6:26 pm Reply
  24. Black Rabbit

    Sov costs are really not the biggest problem guys, its just if any small alliance wants to squeeze into the empty spots that are being rented/unused they run the risk of getting hotdropped to death by larger entities with no real way of fighting back, raising prices or making them exponential in cost just makes renting/alt alliances more important.
    The only way to become part of nul these days is to join a large power bloc or rent, that way you can have access to titans to establish your sov, trying to take and hold sov without a capital fleet or titan bridge is impossible these days.

    September 7, 2013 at 9:23 pm Reply
    1. David

      Well I think that’s the idea. The big groups will drop you because there’s no reason not to, and they get benefits from doing so (kills and eventually the space, or making you pay them).
      If they have no interest in taking your system, then the reasons to drop you are reduced that much. If Sov costs shatter these coalitions, then these hotdrops are more likely to be at a size that small alliances can manage. Ultimately, while getting attacked in your sov is frustrating, if the attacking force isn’t after the sov itself, you fight for a few days then go back to making money…

      September 8, 2013 at 4:41 pm Reply
      1. alx

        Also there is the cyno jam…. the initial hot drop must be covert… and to take down the jamer you need often to win a BS vs Capital fight! This change will benefit small aliances more then you guys think!

        September 9, 2013 at 7:18 am Reply
  25. Jack

    All of these articles are built on the premise that alliances holding wide swaths of space is bad, but nobody justifies that point first. Instead the say “I talked to a few people and they agree with me”.

    Fucking stupid. Even Glevon contorts numbers and shit to back his wild opinions.

    September 7, 2013 at 9:50 pm Reply
    1. Egren

      The reason why no one explains why alliances holding wide swaths of EMPTY space is bad is because it’s so damned obvious.

      September 8, 2013 at 5:50 pm Reply
  26. anon

    Sadly eve is likely being used as a very high level research experiment by someone. The current state of affers more closely matches reality. It won’t be changed.

    September 9, 2013 at 12:28 pm Reply
  27. Captain Hero

    So if my “capital system” is 10 regions away from where I want to invade, I would have to pay the equivalent to zone 50 (give or take) for each system I want to take? or create a new alliance altogether. Well that just sounds fucking stupid!

    September 9, 2013 at 1:18 pm Reply
    1. Dirk MacGirk

      Yes, let’s take an extreme example. If the goal, as set forth in this article, is to discourage taking excessive space, then your example fits that bill.

      Choices: Invade and pay the price; Don’t invade space you aren’t prepared to pay the price for; invade but don’t claim sov; invade but claim sov using a different alliance.

      But don’t be a retard. Your weak-ass argument basically boils down to: If I want to 1v1 a dictor with my Nyx, I should be able to deploy light drones to defend myself. Well you can’t. So deal with it. Same applies here. If this change were to be implemented, you’d deal with it.
      Perhaps you would have sounded more intelligent if you asked a reasonable question, like: Is there a limit to the cost increases so that if I wanted to invade an area 10 regions away, the cost wouldn’t be so astronomical as to deter aggression? See, now doesn’t that sound more intelligent than your drivel?

      September 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm Reply
  28. CyberSarge

    So people that have fought and won large swaths of space want no change, while that those who lost of don’t want to work for space see a problem. As a student of history, let me assure those that bemoan the CFC and their galactic empire, sooner or later they too will fall. Pilots leave the game, leadership changes, or game mechanics simply make maintaining a large coalition unnecessary. “Everything that has happened, has happened before.”

    September 9, 2013 at 5:42 pm Reply

Leave a Reply to N3 Gruntski Click here to cancel reply.