Philosopher, Warrior, Haiku Poet. Disappearing at the end of the last great war, riverini is rumored to be secluded in a containment chamber in deep null-sec space, where he will presumably be kept until the time comes to be unleashed into unsuspecting and complacent enemies. He also writes opinion pieces, here is one.
As if it were a sales pitch on behalf of players to CCP Games, to me the “occupancy” talks in the last days appeared at first sight as either the byproduct of a bored null-sec leadership, an honest effort to voice the need for change in EVE Online mechanics or an attempt to tailor an upcoming sov mechanic revamp to the needs of certain players. Or worst, a combination of any of the three aforementioned reasons.
At first read, all this gave me the impression to be a stunt, maybe a preemptive stunt before the CSM minutes get released on October 31st. Since when did alliance leaders become game designers? Since when did they get to openly tell CCP Games what do? Isn’t a co-signed letter from the CSM a line in the sand of sorts? These were some of the questions that popped in my head when reading first the so-called “null-sec manifesto.”
The truth is its only up to CCP Games to assess the current state of the game and act accordingly. Granted it is CCP Games’ duty to listen to other players for appropriate feedback on what’s wrong in the game. But I am also deeply aware that this is one of the main reason the council of stellar management stays in place.
On the other hand, CCP Games do know that tailoring parts of the end-game to fit the vision of a handful players is something, that does not only will undermine their creative authority over their game, but also pose a high risk to the whole concept of a sandbox. Having a player openly stating this idea the way The Mittani did, could be perceived as a pervasive opinion, from a company’s Public Relations standpoint.
Be advised, this idea has been talked over and over again in the EVE-O forums, in this very same EVE News Site, yet it made a few key omissions.
Then there is also the real possibility that the involved CSM members could know something we do not, and all this is could be a sales pitch for an alternative sov mechanics implementation. Who knows, maybe a CSM member tipped off the alliance leaders about “another Dominion-style expansion making the existing mechanics of sovereignty even worse than they are today.” This letter could be an attempt to force CCP Games hand in the opposite direction. After all, the sandbox can be a pretty messy place. Damn, I think my tin-foil hat is a bit too tight.
The EVE Hermit mentioned how in the recent o7 show CCP Greyscale made one interesting remark:
“It has got kind of stagnant out there, people have, the major coalitions have basically solved the game and figured out how to win, and now they are winning and now it is boring for everybody”
He also mentioned how “CCP are working on fitting in some changes in the short term to try and have an impact on this.” You can read the full article here, but certainly the signatories appear to know something we do not.
This brings up the issue of “Gatopardism” which is an old Italian concept in politics which is more familiar than one might think. “Gatopardism” in short, is the act of changing something drastically so that in the end, nothing really changes and all remains the same. It is curious how the many signing players are the very same players who are responsible for the current state of null-sec. I can’t be the only one wondering if a hypothetical alternative would reshape the nullsec landscape so dramatically, it forced the current null-sec power players to line up and sign the letter.
On the other hand, when was the last time CCP Games listened to an outspoken minority of the EVE Player base and delivered? That was a some time ago, and it took more than a handful of disgruntled players, a metric-ton of forum vitriol and most of all, the perfect timing.
The Mittani and the rest of the null signatories do not have any of these elements at his disposal. In fact, CCP Games does have the upper hand now. The rapid release cycle is a well-executed strategy which keep the majority of players engaged and itself prevents of any individual or group from instilling a major discontent among the player-base.
CCP Games is consistently delivering mini-expansions – the latest of which is due to release in a few hours – and many players haven’t even finished toying with the goodies that came with the previous Crius release.
Mail Lite, one of our team members gave an insightful opinion on how he perceived result of an occupancy system:
Occupancy based system ownership/increased support for multiple players in each system will just make more systems available for rental as they will not need as many to keep their ISK farmers busy. That will cause more alliances and pets to come into low sec and might encourage smaller roaming gangs, but they will still be allied to one of the big ass coalition-alliances.
Also, this will make some systems completely unattackable as it will be more likely to see 100+ pilots in each home system. Imagine trying to attack a large alliance that has all its pilots ratting and farming in a concentrated area rather than spread out. That will be hard to do. The only bit I do like is the Null NPC zone for each region. That would undoubtedly encourage some smaller roaming gangs and NPC null alliances to station out there.
Regarding those small “NPC null zones for each region”, I am sure a large coalition like Pandemic Legion or the CFC would love to have access to those null pockets too. Not to mention how it would make things easier for a 10,000 strong coalition to stump on smaller entities, like in the south.
The truth is that if a system like this were to be implemented, CFC would still exist. NCDOT and PL will also exist and their combined renting empires would keep existing, in fact the whole “player-density” concept would work wonders for cramming more renters into less systems. This does not necessarily means unoccupied systems will be ups for grabs for smaller entities, because as it happens now, it is not necessary for a large coalition to hold sov to exert control over a given solar system.
The big guys will remain the same, only with better access to other regions.
The idea of this opinion piece is not to blast the occupancy letter but on the contrary, encourage a deeper and proper conversation of what’s truly beneath it and its repercussions. And to explore the fairest alternatives to turn null-sec into a brazen hell once again.
Just to be clear, at EN24 we are on both sides of the fence here; our Bobmon signed the occupancy thing, I do not, for the reasons stated above. But again, I don’t see it entirely as a bad idea and its not an idea originated from any of these signatories. But maybe the timing might not the best to actually make a difference in the short term. Also, if there exist yet to be revealed alternatives, I would like to at least know what those options are.
I do agree with the signatories on that letter than the current Sov system could be better. The Sov Mechanic is old and needs a better alternative. The mechanics and the time to do these tweaks to Sov is a decision solely of CCP Games. They are the game designers, we are the players and there is a CSM in place to communicate this sort of disagreements.
Speaking of which, I would strongly recommend to carefully read the soon to be released CSM minutes from the past summit. They might shed some light on some of the questions I have stated.
In the meantime enjoy EVE: Oceanus release and lets look forward to Phoebe and Rhea to be released, and only then we could start thinking about pushing CCP Games hand to do something more drastic, if only to hope that in the case that everything change, things won’t remain the same.
