Opinion: Corebloodbrothers idea’s for Nullsec

Editors Note – This is an opinion piece submitted by Corebloodbrothers and therefore does not necessarily represent the option of Eve News 24, its Editors or Writers.

Having seen CCP’s plans and goals for the new Sovereignty mechanics, played them for a while now as attacker and as defender, I’d like to make several suggestions. As with any change, it takes time to adapt and to fine tune it, so long as the willingness to do so is there. When CCP showed the previous CSM the mechanics we expressed fear of trolling. We asked several things of which two stood out; one being the question: “Why own Sovereignty at all” and two: “What is the longer term view on Sovereignty / Phase 3, after fatigue and Aegis Sovereignty.

The anticipated blitzkrieg across null-sec as groups of all sizes rush to claim space hasn’t taken place, but the other issues are visual. Currently more than 250 systems contested, some of which still from early July, none are bothering to contest them.  Login numbers have dropped, (which doesn’t need to mean paid accounts of course), it could just mean people spend less hours playing EVE. Let’s not forget it is summer in the northern hemisphere where the majority of Eve Players live.

However, the old Sovereignty mechanism required a larger number of people to contribute towards the goal of taking a system by applying damage in order too grind the Sovereignty Structures. It was a large group activity. Now its one pilot on a structure or node while the rest play patrol & guard duty. Indeed, one person can claim a system/station all on their own if it isn’t contested.

As CCP mentioned in their blog one of the goals of Aegis Sovereignty was to reduce server load by reducing the size of battles and in turn overall improve player experience. A second goals was to make the Nullsec landscape more dynamic, which many believe has not happened. It has however changed the behavior of null sec entities, such as renter empires dropping holdings or large coalitions (for example The Imperium) consolidating and focusing in smaller areas. But of course one of the biggest changes are the use and mass production of Super Capitals and Titans. Example: “I mothballed my own titan and super” is a becoming a recurring comment. (I don’t have any numbers on mothballed titans to back this up).

Even with these changes we haven’t seen much growth from empire/low to null to fill the space.

The recent round table on fatigue could be followed up by a much more interesting one on the current SOV mechanics. If I could bring in some points or ideas for such a table then it would be the following:

1. To avoid trolling and make the Sovereignty capturing more meaningful in risk and effort, tie the number of Entosis links needed too the index. A level 1 system requires one Entosis link, level 2 requires two, and so on.
2. The capital system being the home of an alliance could get a bonus on required Entosis, leading up to ten Entosis links for a level 5 index home capital system of an alliance, leading to bigger fights over someone’s capital. To avoid making a ton of alliances there could be a higher sov bill for the appointed capital system of an alliance.
3. Level 1 index systems fall to NPC status and the iHub/TCU blows up after 2 weeks if there is no activity to increase the indexes. Anyone can then drop an iHub/TCU and call it home and gain space. That way holding vast stretches of empty space is much harder and newcomers can plant their flag. You need to ensure against abuse so people don’t keep trading sovereignty between two holder corps, which is easily done by adding a transfer fee on sovereignty. (again this helps to break sovereignty deals between blocks)
4. An attack should be visible to the holder from whom it came. It lowers trolling and allows people to strike back. Everything is logged these days, except who attacks your space.
5. Holding Sovereignty should give unique perks that make holding and defending space worthwhile. These can range from bonuses to industry, fatigue, to the deployment of belts, build-able star-gates, anomalies, ice, etc. Where holding, attacking and defending it has more consequences and all these perks will be lost with the loss of system. This plays into the desire that people have to build empires or tear them down.
6. Releasing the mentioned points in a roadmap and updating it would keep players informed of long term development work rather than the short term development work.

Perks, growth, and ownership are not all about isk per hour, but about supporting more people per system with certain occupations who fill niche requirements for an alliance. Making decisions where space needs to be developed to fit the identity of your alliance. Why do you own space? Why do you play EVE? Give a reason to fight over and dream of  building and developing your space, rather than play a game of capture the flag. EVE and its players have developed, you can play EVE without having an active subscription these days. EVE needs to move forwards rather than backwards.

The mentioned points are not everything there is to discuss, for me they reflect very achievable goals and can be easily tweaked. They fit my play style and desires and those of the pilots that fly with me daily. So they might not be valuable additions for other players. But they do also reflect my feedback to CCP when I was on the CSM which has only since been reinforced since my return to playing the game.