Being Knee Anderthal: EVE Blog Banter #25: Subtracting Sovereignty

Monday, February 28, 2011

EVE Blog Banter #25: Subtracting Sovereignty

Welcome to the twenty-fifth installment of the EVE Blog Banter, the monthly EVE Online blogging extravaganza created by CrazyKinux. The EVE Blog Banter involves an enthusiastic group of gaming bloggers, a common topic within the realm of EVE Online, and a week or so to post articles pertaining to the said topic. The resulting articles can either be short or quite extensive, either funny or dead serious, but are always a great fun to read! Any questions about the EVE Blog Banter should be directed to crazykinux@gmail.com. Check for other EVE Blog Banter articles at the bottom of this post!

This month's topic comes to us from @Tetraetc - "Tetra's EVE Blog" - who asks: "Have Alliances and the sovereignty system limited the amount of PVP and RP potential in Null sec? Imagine a Null Sec where anyone could build outposts wherever. Would the reduction of the alliance game mechanic, and the removal of the sovereignty game mechanics (or the modifcation of it from Alliance level to Corp level for that matter) force more PVP into Null sec, or would giant power blocs like the NC still form themselves?"

I believe there is a large hurdle for alliances to leap over in order to get into capturing sovereignty. Namely, playing the reinforcement game. Getting a fleet together is simple. Getting a fleet together that has the firepower and patience to reinforce a tower? Quite a significant commitment. Getting that fleet together three times in a row at different times on different days? A heroic effort.

For those who are ignorant of the current mechanics, here's a quick explanation. Unclaimed space is claimed with a Territorial Claim Unit (TCU). When that goes online, the system is yours and you can start placing buildings - Infrastructure Hubs (IHUBs) and Stations. All three of these building types are invulnerable as long as you hold uncontested sovereignty.

To take someone else's sovereignty, you have to plant Sovereignty Blockade Units (SBUs) at over 50% of the system's gates. At that point the IHUB and Station become vulnerable. Taking them down requires shooting them and waiting out the reinforcement timers. When those buildings are down, the enemy TCU is vulnerable. Destroy it and the system returns to a neutral state, ready to be claimed by its conquerors.

So what happens when you start tearing that system apart, piece by piece? First of all, the reinforcement timers. If reinforcement did not exist, an enemy fleet could storm a system and capture it within half a day. SBU's take 3 hours to come online, and TCU's take 8. In the middle of that is the timeframe for the IHUB to be destroyed and the Station to be conquered. A blob of supercaps would make it easy. This change alone can make a huge upset in sovereignty holdings, as a large alliance that is slow to react can lose systems literally overnight. For working types like myself, I'm away from EVE for 16 hours in a row every day when considering work and sleep. A successful alliance defense would require round-the-clock guard shifts across all timezones.

If taking down the IHUB and Station was not required, then the attack can be reduced to a single player in an Industrial carrying the necessary SBU's and TCU, plus a small gang to destroy the enemy TCU.

These changes would force such delicate instability that maintaining any amount of territorial claim would require eyes everywhere at all times and a reactionary force of minutemen available to repel any attack within a matter of hours. The week-long round-the-clock siege of 6VDT-H performed by my own alliance just a few weeks ago would be reduced to a lazy Saturday's activity. That hard work could be undermined the very next day. Establishing a flourishing market and profitable IHUBs would be next to impossible.

Breaking down sovereignty from alliance level to corp level would surely make things more granular, but it could also splinter the effectiveness of an alliance. Each corp would have its own staging systems and the coordination between corps could easily fall apart.

So the way I see it, removing some of the sovereignty barriers would definitely cause more PvP simply by making it easier for one group to force another group's hand. But make it too easy and the ability to change sovereignty becomes trivial with a blob force, and impossible to maintain when the opposing blob force shows up, all the while draining all the fun away from building a productive home.

So what happens when sovereignty disappears or it becomes utterly pointless? Then nullsec simply becomes lowsec without the GCC. Anarchy. A pirate's dream. All PVP all the time. Alliances degenerate into nomadic blobs or bubbly gatecamps. Lowsec becomes the carebears risking a shot at making more money versus the solo PvPers hellbent on stopping them. Meanwhile supercapital ships have nowhere to hide, and the prices of any kind of nullsec equipment skyrocket. Well, at least it wouldn't be safer than highsec.

Other responses to EVE Blog Banter #25:

Being Knee Anderthal

Monday, February 28, 2011

EVE Blog Banter #25: Subtracting Sovereignty

No comments:

Post a Comment