The Voices Have Spoken. But To What End?

Making it’s rounds today was the masterful piece of grandstanding by TheMittani that garnered support quickly throughout null sec leaderships at an astounding rate. When you look at the list of names, you could get easily impressed by the political clout that stepped up to “put aside” feelings and unite around TheMittani for the greater good of null? Call me a bit pretentious, but nothing null blocs have done or supported could ever be construed as less than self-serving, in my opinion. Not that I don’t disagree with some of it’s points, but when I see remarks such as:

“…remove the current need for vast coalitions”

I have to start calling suspect to the true intentions of TheMittani.  I was further spurred by my initial thought that this was rather reactionary and sudden when I caught Tales from Taz‘s blog who brought up some of the very suspicions I had myself. In retrospect, I think Taz is right on the money and what we are seeing is a knee-jerk reaction that we all knew was coming when CCP Greyscale warned that his sledgehammer of doom was going to come down again on the subject of force projection.

To go a bit deeper, if we went into an occupancy-based system of sovereignty, what would be the downfall to owning space? Is it going to be more of a time sink rather than isk? Would this mean that these large alliances would NEED  carebears from high sec to come rat and mine for them? Serious PvP pilots aren’t going to want to spend a whole hell of a lot of time ratting, much less mining.

Up until now, it’s been an isk sink. Before Dominion, one had to litter the area with towers. In present day, we have so many structures like SBUs to grind through that it makes pre-Dominion look like the appetizer before the main meal. Now, along with all the towers, the isk sink to maintain sov is more expensive. This was a design mechanic and once we got the Tech moon nerf, the situation became more desperate. Instead of pushing the edge of the envelope and the scattering of those moons causing more conflict, the opposite happened. B0tlrd came into being and suddenly the large alliances lost the willingness to risk the R64s. Publrd put a lock on assuring that everyone’s renter income would be secured. The riskiest area in the game had now just become the most risk adverse.

In an occupancy based system of sov, renters wouldn’t have to rent. Instead, the landlords can save all that isk from having to pay for sov and just make like the Mafia, shaking down lesser corporations and alliances for protection money. They could charge the current day amount and not have ANY of the bills to go with it. This is why I believe that there will be some form of mechanic in place if one wants to fly their flag on a map. By limiting force projection, the threat to the lesser entities diminish the further away one is from reach. Not to say that it still can’t be done. The idea to put NPC null stations in every region gives large entities clone bay options to put their foot in whatever region they choose. Who needs force projection when you can just clone jump there and wage guerrilla tactics on whomever you want?

This was PRECISELY the complaint when I was with Li3 and FA. FrFrmPukin and other CFC voices were very verbal in their objections to the fact that here we had guys launching fight after fight against  us and there was no way we could totally push them out because they staged in NPC stations. Now suddenly, the CFC puts forth an idea to make that possible in every region of the game??? Ya, I got reservations about that. Call me skeptical.

Larger forces such as Pandemic Legion will always have a motivation to helicopter-dick whomever they choose as long as there’s a fight. If you force the lesser entities to fight and lose, you’ll drive the lesser entities out. The other option? Batphone. There’s quite the possibility that going to this kind of sov mechanic will put more Batphones in more hands and build more alliances out of need rather than convenience. In this way, Coalitions will NOT be forced out of existence, but rather more Coalitions of smaller entities with a Batphone to whatever “big boy” is shaking them down to provide said protection. In this sense, publrd can still continue. Renting doesn’t make one bit of difference.

Overall, this “agreement” MUST be construed as reactionary since it was drafted AFTER the CSM Summit. Otherwise, this would have been the perfect ammunition to arm the CSM with as they sat down with CCP. Instead, TheMittani is acting as a de facto CSM representative, but legitimizing his spearheading by gathering CSM support. I asked TheMittani via Twitter why this was not drafted prior to the CSM summit. He has thus far not responded, nor do I expect him to.

In short, please don’t jump on the bandwagon without taking an objective look at the consequences of precisely what we’re asking for…we just may get it.


3 thoughts on “The Voices Have Spoken. But To What End?”

  1. I actually found the specific ideas suggested in the statement to be banal and relatively commonplace.

    This was a significant statement not for what was said, but the implications of saying it. All of the null-sec content generators who remain, along with a good portion of the CSM, told CCP that sov mechanics are a critical issue. They implied – rightly, I believe – that null-sec is on life-support and needs to be reworked in a meaningful way that allows more people to be involved and actively prevents an equilibrium from being established (much as the CFC/N3/PL stalemate is).

    There is a bit of a threat involved… players have been logging off in droves – USTZ is just barely above 20k – and every day they stay logged off is a day they realize that perhaps Eve isn’t the most important thing in their world. Once a tipping point about that factor is reached, those players may be lost for good. CCP isn’t going to find a bunch of new players who don’t know about Eve (they don’t exist), so keeping current players is essential if CCP wants to remain a business.

    The result of a botched rework of null-sec is the loss of all those content generators in the area of space that best exemplifies everything stated in CCP’s marketing campaigns.

    The specific suggestions or changes are irrelevant. That everyone CCP depends on recognizes that they’re losing logins in droves and that they’re in agreement that CCP gets this one chance to fix it… that’s something CCP needs to take notice of.

  2. Doesn’t camping of the cloaky kind make occupancy based sov rather difficult to sustain? I don’t know anyone who’s happy to rat or mine in a system that has reds in, especially as you generally never know what’s going to come through their cyno when they do eventually decide to drop.

  3. tl;dr “Goons said it therefore it must be bad”. Like these reactions to this agreement aren’t knee-jerk reactions with extra tinfoil. Goons have been known in the past to push for change even at their detriment (see tech nerf for example), and overall if you look at what they are asking for, it hardly looks like it would serve them well. People have been asking for this type of sov for a long time, and this is the null people simply telling CCP that they too think it’s a good idea. I don’t understand who it is that would argue against it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s