Assembly Hall

I do agree with the 24-hour gate camps being difficult to sustain medium-to-long term for any alliance, especially with multiple access points into a region of space. Small, effective gangs will always find a way to punch through any blockade if not with skill, then just by playing the time (or time-zone) game. However, this was not quite the point I was trying to make.

The proposal here is that by equating an alliance's activity in a given system to an alliance's ability to keep the said system, this would eliminate vast sov holding of relatively empty and unused systems (as they would drop sov due to their lack of activity) and that this in turn would promote smaller alliances to establish themselves in 0.0 as a result.

I would argue that two alternative scenarios are more likely: 1) A lot of unclaimed space which is still partroled and traversed by an alliance that owns 5-6 key systems in a region; 2) An exponential increase in alliance pets and renters in order to maintain activity in a region. The alliance that owns a region of space would only need to camp entries into its territory and patrol it's unclaimed space in order to maintain control - and you could argue this is something that is already occurring.

Therefore, for a small alliance to get into this region of space, to set up POSes and industry and to maintain it's presence will be difficult. The larger alliance in this region will have its entry gates camped (or watched), its resources pooled and with no sov bills to pay given this proposal, a very hefty wallet to field large capital fleets.

I believe this to be less likely simply because of the matter of incentives. Large alliances like to maintain swathes of territory at the very least because there are tangible benefits to doing so. Currently, sovereignty reduces POS fuel costs by a large margin for the sov holder, and permits the sov holder to throw up various structural upgrades including the capacity to anchor certain arrays. If the space was merely unoccupied, these incentives would not be present.

Maintaining a choke hold on empty space is a lot of work, and far less attractive if you're not getting any benefit from it. They wouldn't even be getting bragging rights from having more colored dots on the map. Distance in nullsec is largely illusory, in any case, especially with jump networks and bridging. If large alliances can't arbitrarily throw up cyno jammers, their borders will be much more porous.




This is a possibility. The proposed system would provide a better balance between large and small alliances, but it wouldn't guarantee success of small alliances. It's certainly feasible that large groups will maintain their hold over vast swathes of territories by bringing in untold numbers of renters and pets.

And you know what? That would be a good thing. Currently, most of nullsec is empty. A large alliance making sure every system has enough renters/pets to keep the economic indicators high means a densely-populated and interesting nullsec. There would be plenty of opportunities for raiders, pirates, and opportunists to slip through the cracks. And you can bet that, even among the pets/renters, there will be drama, personality conflicts and outright infighting.

Activity is sov i think isnt going to make it easier to take sov from the big power blocks where they control alot of systems in a region,but having to be more active means more targets for others which i think is a good thing.

When ccp change local as a intel tool in 0.0 that will be intresting to see how the pets of sov holders cope.I said about this once to some friends in 0.0 and they reacted like the end of the world had come,and it was only when i noticed post i saw about it was a few years old that there was a major sigh of relief from them.

If ccp leave things as is 0.0 will stay a wasteland.
There was something ccp suggested about making things easier for small alliances to operate in 0.0 but they are taking baby steps,because they dont want to upset the main sov holders.They could do things alot quicker and better by doing it a different way,but they would upset the main sov holders more.
I doubt much will change with the way things are so will leave it at that.

One of the benefits to this system is that it lessens the impact of the 'bored blob' syndrome. If a small sovereignty holder has done well in maintaining its claim strength, a bored superblob jumping in from across New Eden won't be able to do much in a single evening. It would take days of solid around-the-clock harassment to start making a dent in SEI.

That implies dedication on the part of the attackers, and a coordinated plan for taking control in the system over the period of a week. That's more :effort: than a bunch of bored hub pilots and supercap alts are usually willing to put up. Larger alliances can still wrest systems from smaller alliances, but they'd have to be serious about it. And, there's far more opportunities for the small alliance to fight back and use assymetrical warfare.

Apparently there's a need for something over which big fleet fights to happen. While it's beyond me what fun or what sense of accomplishment it gives to participants (other than 2-3 FCs), it's a big selling point fro CCP, I'm told.

(Which, incidentally, explains the affinity to blob warfare - it's that kind of people, the mindset, reached by CCP's message),

How could you even consider the possibility of this being a good idea?

EVE PVE is tedious as hell. Forcing people to do it is bad. Forcing entire alliances to fly into hostile space and rat for a week is even worse.

You didn't read the rest of the forum did you?

I honestly have no idea what a good fix is for Nullsec. What I do know is that between Moon Mining, Sov and the recent anomaly changes, Nullsec is broken. Pretty much completely broken. Nullsec needs some serious reworking and attention. Does that mean give Nullsec everything and make it better for everything than anywhere else? No. That would be bad.

Not even that so much - how the hell are you ratting while waring with another alliance in nullsec? Ratting activity would (hopefully) drop off for the war effort meaning the more you fought, the less you earned. Destroy your empire by being involved in PvP? Bad idea that leads to "blue nullsec".

No - we don't need highsec industrial and NPC killing focused measurements for this portion of the game.

What we do need, as stated elsewhere, are reasons for them to fight, win and lose space - even more wealth is not a good way to go but competition for what wealth is there might work.