Proposed Sovereignty Change: Don't use it, Lose it faster

     Between the 16th and early 20th centuries, the British Empire reigned over almost a quarter of the Earth's land mass, holding sovereign control of approximately 458,000,000 people in 1922. The Spanish Empire at around the same time had a monumental amount of land as well, totaling 7.72 million square miles of land and governing just under 70,000,000 subjects. The Russian Empire claimed around 9,000,000 square miles of cold tundra and held most of it for 200 years. The Mongol Empire held the same amount of land to the south during the late 13th century, taking control of the lives of 110,000,000 people.

What do all of these empires have in common? None of them exist anymore.

    If history is any credible source, the one thing that can be certain of any civilization is that it will rise, and it will fall. The fall of an empire can't be attributed to one specific factor, but is a combination of multiple variables, such as economic disparity, political corruption, financial strain, or internal conflicts caused by cultural or religious differences.
     The recent debates over the current system of declaring sovereignty in nullsec have prompted me to research more about history, specifically in regards to the decline and eventual destruction of civilizations. Throughout all of my research, the only good analogy I have found to the sovereignty structure grind that currently exists in Eve is the siege of a castle. Like the siege of a castle, the invaders must slowly grind down SBUs and eventually the IHUB itself, much akin to using a battering ram on a castle door or sappers to weaken a castle's walls.
     The siege of a castle is not fun, and the defense of a castle under siege isn't fun either. However, it's an extremely effective way of determining sovereignty both in history and in Eve. Coming from somebody who has never participated in any nullsec blob fights, it seems that the issue with the current sovereignty mechanics isn't so much the mechanics for flipping control of a system, but the amount of time that it takes in order to do so. Therefore, I propose we modify the sovereignty mechanics so that space that is less used by an alliance is easier to take control of.
     Note my specific wording: easier. The major issue that most players have with the "Use it or Lose it" sovereignty concept is that it goes against the sandbox element of the game; in other words, it forces an alliance to utilize all of the space that they control, even if they don't want to. By modifying this idea so that the amount of health that a sovereignty structure has is directly proportionate to the amount that the system is used down to a base amount, capturing an enemy alliance's outer territory isn't nearly as much of a strenuous task.
     Using a "Don't use it, Lose it faster" system also allows invading alliances to use more advanced macrostrategy when tasked with capturing enemy space. For example, if you know that two outer rims of an alliance's territory are hardly ever used, then depending on the number of ships that you have at your disposal, you can effectively split up your siege forces so that you're structure-bashing two different regions at the same time. It would still be optimal to have all of your forces attacking a single system, but the option to split your forces so that one fleet is harassing a system while another is dedicated to sieging a specific system, forcing the enemy alliance to work under even more pressure and possibly make more mistakes.
     From a development point of view, a system like this would be easy to add in. Since it's not a complete overhaul of the sovereignty system and is just a major change, it won't require as much development time as a complete overhaul would. Not only that, but large nullsec alliances wouldn't have to prepare for huge changes the way they would if a complete overhaul of the sovereignty system was in the making.

It's definitely not a perfect idea. But an imperfect idea is better than telling CCP that "X and Y are broken, please fix them."

Comments

  1. What metrics would you measure the "usage amount" by?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Things like number of npcs killed, amount of mining, pi, etc. These things are already used to 'rate' certain parts of systems.

      I agree with the poster that this change could be a huge improvement to the game and make alliances think twice before taking more systems.

      Thanks for the post Nalestorm

      Delete

Post a Comment