The Real Problem With Sovereignty

Avatar
This does not solve structure grinds, how about we find a method of conquring sov without the bit that is practically mental self mutilation via boredom and repitition.
Avatar
I've been thinking and talking with a few corpmates about this very idea. And in the end we all agree that this would be miles better than the stagnation that the game faces today.
Avatar
Do you know why the idea of removing moons sucks? Fight generators. There aren't enough things to motivate people to actually fight now, much less having those that there are removed from the game.Stations? Let them fall, Systems? No big deal, but CSAA's in build and Money Moons nearly ALWAYS get a fight.We need more things that generate fights, not less, I'm sorry if you don't feel one group or another didn't get enough moons but maybe you should go try to take some, at the very least you'll get a fight out of it, something EVE is sorely lacking at the moment (and all the fights that are happening generally are happening over the thing you want removed from the game).
Avatar
There are so many great ideas in this plan which is why i'm sad that it's fundamentally flawed. This proposal not only undermines the effort that nullsec holders, especially larger ones have already put into the game. These alliances hold cast tracts of space as they have the means to control them. Simply putting in a sustem that allows newer entities to try and waltz in next door will never work solely because their position will be untenable due to the miltary power of larger coalitions/entties. Space does not dictate power, it is the othe way around completely.Also, increasing true sec by holding space? Really? Because there's so much reason to hold space the ?? "But that's what we want" I hear you cry! Well sorry to burst the highly disillusioned bubble you seem to be living in but this will simply result in entties holding specific systems for tactical reasons and keeping the rest (which are incidentally still well within the "front" of their space). No entity that could not previously succesfully attack/defend will miraculously be able to given this proposal.Tl;dr fundamentally flawed with little logical application. Some very good ideas however.
Avatar
Very good point.
Avatar
Is it just me, or does it seem like 3-4 people at least are posting under the name Vyktor Abyss? Either that, or someone has quite a few personalities, based on the number of 'This is Great' 'This Sucks' posts under the same name....
Avatar
It's a bug, refresh the page and the proper names show up
Avatar
No downside? What about the billions of isk a month it costs to do it? The cost of all the Ihubs and TCUs? Taking/holding sov isn't free by any means. The point you don't seem to grasp is that no matter the cost of holding an entire region rather than just the 10 systems that matter is that it will be paid, every time, before an alliance allows someone to set up shop in their back yard. To really make it work, holding large areas of space would have to be so expensive that the biggest blue blobs in the game couldn't manage it, how do you expect a plucky young 300 man alliance to hold more than a single system somewhere? A single system, mind you, that the big blue blob can take from plucky-young-upstarts. on a whim?
Avatar
This short exchange between you both is an interesting read. Coupled with a local chat delay it could really spice up null sec pvp. Ithink you're on the right track personally
Avatar
I really think it could just be as simple as the timer on a TCU being tied to the indy and military level in a system, that being said i really like this idea except for that true sec should be directly correlated to how much activity is in system, since sec status is tied to empire strength, the more an alliance uses it the more it becomes theirs, this gives alliances a strong center but with weak edges, where conflict can be easily created, I do believe that taking sov should be a PVP activity rather than a PVE activity, so while PVE could strengthen your claim to the system, PVP and killing something would be required to loose it, I like the idea of the TCU system but it needs to be tweaked to make defending unused space harder.
Avatar
How about another "Sov is so awful that even nominally sov-based alliances go out of their way to avoid interacting with the mechanics and the growth of genuinely new sovholding organizations is badly stunted" article?This is exactly the same sort of mentality that leads to bittervets bleating about how terrible it is that newbies are coddled by non-useless tutorials and vaguely intuitive UI.
Avatar
No moons. No Sov structures. No incentive to take occupied space. No incentive to generate isk in sov space. You create a skeletal sov network with jump bridges et al, and everything else is sovless. Better income, and no costs.Anyone tries to move into a small chunk of space you cannot be bothered to Sov up? You sit on them like the behemoth you are.You've removed a whole bunch of conflict drivers and replaced them with alliances bullying members to generate isk in shitty true-sec for the 'good of the swarm'.I did think it would be cool if the pirate factions got involved in space without Sov though ..
Avatar
This changes nothing.Big alliances control large areas of space for tactical reasons. Whether or not that space shows up on dotlan as someones sovereignty or not is irrelevant. A big alliance will not let a smaller (and hostile) entity settle in it's backyard, period.Letting players manipulate true-sec would probably encourage the large coalitions to control even more space. The more systems you can include in a rotating farm-schedule, the more systems you have at any given point with perfect truesec.That said, I like the sound of your idea and it might have been a more fun one that what is currently in place, but it would not provide smaller entities an easier way into null.
Avatar
So don't remove moons - go the other route:Step 1 is establish your claim via a tower. This grants, we'll say, .125 'Sov Points' for a small, .25 for a medium, and .5 for a large.Step 2 is establishing industrial activity at the moon. Moon mining doubles the effective Sov Points gained by a tower.Sov Points accumulate monthly, and can move the system closer to higher TrueSec status. The higher the TrueSec, the more efficient all industrial activities in the system are - a %-based bonus to moon harvesting, ice/ore mining yields, etc, offset by a matching penalty to 'rat activity.Or they can move a system's TrueSec standing downward - mining and industry become inefficient and expensive, but ratting becomes more and more profitable. In effect, you're intentionally creating a no-man's land, a slum, a (to borrow a phrase from something that I think had spaceships) wretched hive of scum and villainy.Moons would still get fights - in fact, every tower in a system would directly affect the profitability of mining and industry in that system. People not in your alliance putting up a tower in your space would directly offset your existing infrastructure. You'd have to kill it, or it'd eat into your Alliance's profits, slow down your Alliance's long-cycle manufacturing, etc etc.
Avatar
.......no.
Avatar
I think there's a fundamental flaw in your premise. I understand where you're coming from, but I think part of what you're looking to use to generate that trade-off is backward.If we want our internet space empires to be limited in scope, but still behave in recognizably imperial ways, then what we're really looking for is for our large groups in EVE to behave like our large groups IRL do.If we want the emergent sociology of real people, then we have to encourage individuals to behave the way they would IRL. And that means the systems that support and guide that emergent behavior have to model the systems we see IRL. To that end, industry and mining/resource extraction are at their most efficient and profitable in safe, well-developed areas. Yes, new resources eventually have to be located, but let's face it, nobody's been mining the same rock for forty years in EVE. Nobody's been extracting the resources of an entire moon for even fifteen.That, in turn, gives a real value to establishing those safe and well-developed areas. And in attacking them - when a fleet comes through on a roam, you want to form up, or maybe they'll just go and shit up your infrastructure. Oh, maybe they won't kill a tower, but they might push one into Reinforced, which costs you its Sov Points.And otherwise, why bother creating the 'safest, most well-defended areas' you're talking about? Why not just spread the numbers as wide as you can, and just hit the panic button to form up for fleets?Of course, that'd mean more pressure to expand, not less.
Avatar
This is a joke, right? Tell me you're joking. Nobody wants to go back to towerspam sov mechanics.
Avatar
The truesec scaling with sov as described will not do what you think it does. People will still hold vast swaths of territory, only the systems they rat in will never be the ones they build in, and they will rotate as the truesec changes within their territory. Small alliances will still have no shot of holding territory in sov null. Having truesec scale the way you describe will actually make taking providence worthwhile, because you can burn out all the stations and residents and then its truesec will change to being actually worth a damn. Right now the providence alliances only live there because no one else wants their shitty space.
Avatar
I for one would put an alt in Joe Bob's Brand New Alliance.
Avatar
It really strikes me that the problem is that there is no infrastructure right now, that is worth is, with the exception of building supercaps, and it wouldn't take long for 1 or 2 groups to produce the entire basic needs of null; supers aren't lost /that/ often that a few dedicated groups couldn't easily control it, Everyone else would just become PL clones, roaming around, killing anything that moves, and taking all the best stuff. You make more money, so you can just buy from the couple of groups that settle down, why kill them? They sell you your supers. Sov would become something to actively avoid; which doesn't sound fun. I don't think that simply making it descriptive will solve much at all for the exact reasons you stated; large entities will always be able to muster the resources they require.As part of a smaller group who hopes to try to make a break into null, the main fear is simply being snuffed out; largely by supers. Even if we can field 100 people for a timer to try to take a system; it won't matter; another alliance can field 100 people and some percentage can reliably be in supers. If we lose 100 BS + support, that's painful as hell, if another group does, they giggle and offer free replacements to everyone.
Avatar
Just use your SC fleet. It takes no time at all with SC's. Stop being risk averse about it. You want to clean up sov use the right tools for the job. Cutting down a tree with a hunting knife would suck too, its why we made the axe, and the chainsaw. Sov mechanics are fine, you just need to stop being faggots about.
Avatar
The problem with making it easier for small alliances to take space is that you are taking from MORE players than you are giving to! Dreddit itself, for example, has 4800 characters why should Random Nobody Corp with say 500 people be able to take much of anything from them? why should 500 be better/more important than 4800? I do think that shifting trusec around as ratting activity fluctuates would be nice, but I don't think tying sov into that is a good idea
Avatar
POS Warfare? NO!There is a reason for it's removal in the first place.
Avatar
"With the current sovereignty system, there are few if any internal pressures that restrict the size of large alliance territories."Logistics burnout, maybe?
Avatar
So the goal here is to prevent any kind of empire building, to lower the income from settled systems and that will somehow create this awesome 0.0? To me it sounds more like everyone and their mother will move to high sec. You can nerf 0.0 only so much before high sec is better isk/effort and everyone just sticks with that.Not sure what all 0.0 haters think that eve would be without empires and massive battles. This is only game where you can have 1000v1000 battles. If you want 4v4 go play whatever else. Empires and massive battles are what brings people to EVE. Everyone in high sec is what kills the game.
Avatar
I like your system in a way... in another way, it will lead to a big expansion of the sov holding space of large alliances. There will be a defensive parameter on the outside and then, similar to rotational crops growing, ratting space inside that parameter. Only now that space is only used to 30% (I made up a random number) while the rest is left to recover.
Avatar
More or less this. Warning: incoming :words:.The current issue with sov is that the big power blocs are holding lots of space that remains unused. Punishing people for actually using their space is counterintuitive and counterproductive. People need to be motivated to make actual use of their space and the more they use it, the more valuable it should become. I think that if you rat a lot in a system, the rats in that system should become more valuable and the reward for mining in that same system should also increase, probably with some sort of upper limit on how much activity a system can support. At the same time, if you make it so that space becomes much easier to defend if it's well used, whereas unused space is a lot easier to attack, you open the door to smaller groups to take that space, make use of it, and through that create a stronghold for themselves that can be defended from large groups of attackers. Essentially, I'd like to take a leaf out of FW's book.In my idea, a well used system would give your alliance fleets free bonusses to ship HP and resists and the likes and it would give similar bonusses to the structures therein. This helps the large blocs to some extent, but if the amounts are sufficient, it will be a big boon to smaller groups since as long as they are active in their space, they will be able to defend it from fleets much bigger then their own. This would also generate content, because if you can disrupt the activities in the system, you can weaken the defensive party's hold on the system. A possible venue of attack would be a FW style 'offensive plexing' run or even an 'offensive mining' operation. In these cases you take a fleet of PvP ships to protect a group of PvE ships that will perform PvE activities in a defender's system to 'taint' their sov.I'd also like to change the way outposts work somehow, because I would like to make it easier for small blocs to grace their system with one without that causing trouble for any future holder of said space. Probably the ownership of said outpost would also fade away if sov of its system fades away and ideally it would be possible to disrupt a defender's activities enough to allow an attacker to access the outpost. Ideally I'd like to have this open up the door to another kind of attack where traders can come in and start buying up all the stocks, forcing the defenders' traders to bring in new stocks.Obviously this is mostly stuff that I've randomly come up with. There are still some glaring holes, for instance I've yet to come up with a way to combine this with generating opportunities for small gang fights without simultaneously causing big fleets to become even more powerful or causing large blocs to simply divide their large fleet up into smaller fleets to abuse any bonus that a small fleet would get.
Avatar
This would be problematic, it would still incentivise large power blocs to hold large amounts of space since they will need plenty of systems to rotate through. With the large amounts of activity that a large alliance goes through a system like a swarm of locusts, meaning large blocs would need similar amounts of space to what they hold today simply to support themselves. This does nothing for the little guy since if they dare to attack one of the bloc's systems they will simply get steamrolled out.
Avatar
This idea is horrible, it's like removing the sov system at all... it turns to be just a name on the door. And worse yet is the idea of making the system less valuable as you use it. There will be no territory to defend or to be, we will all become nomads bumping each other. It will suck to create all the bridging and logistic infrastructure all the time.
Avatar
I very much like the idea of Sov being dependent on activity. Carefully designed, such a system could almost completely fix the boredom of structure grinds, the "local" problem (make local variable based on sov etc) and could be integrated with a new POS mechanic. Surely someone at CCP has the creativity to create such a system that avoids the pitfalls pointed out in some earlier comments.
Avatar
Im not sure this will work.For example, lets look at Branch.http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/...Right now, theres 11 systems in Branch that are heavily ratted, with 5k kills a day (in rough rough numbers, it has about as many NPC kills as the hisec region of Essence - except Essence is even more concentrated, with 50k kills in a single system).Lets assume sov become dynamic ... we would simply move our ratters from our current systems to J7YR, CS- and so on.As far as sovreinty goes, UQ9 and 6NJ in Venal are two systems with interesting sov - SMA technically have owned UQ9, but when 401k can happily maintain a tower there - not place it to be destroyed, but maintain it - then I'd query whether the Sov SMA have means more than a flag. Similarly, 6NJ is Venal is unhealthy for uncloaked people who dont have standings with 401k. Do they have a sort of Sov there ... I'd say yes.
Avatar
"if they start spending all their time swatting down every small alliance that tries to take a system or two in the three entire regions they want to claim, they're going to spend all their time doing that, leaving them open to the larger alliances nearby.:Is this actually true ? Or will thes e little wars serve to harden them up, shake out carebears and train new FCFS ?Id be more worried about an alliabnce that doesnt see a war in years.
Avatar
What I"m worried about in this sov system is that it would create a more forced Master-Pet relationship. For example FA, we use our space in Fade to rat and use Pure Blind for its good moons and to stage from. Such a system would seem to force people to go and rat in systems that otherwise :arent worth it: and may end up having a pseudo renter system with say Solar and Solar citizens but by they must hold sov as well as rent...
Avatar
Nahh, under the proposed system, you'd live in Fade ... and then Zagdul puts out the word and you all leave Fade for your summer home in Pure Blind. Then, come winter, Pure Blind having been ratted out and Fade regenerated, you move back.Basically, space-using alliances would take twice the space they "need".This wouldnt affect moon-exploiting alliances like Pandemic Legion, who would continue to control moons rather than space.
Avatar
To do this, you'll have to detach the asteroids from TrueSec, as the only places where Mercoxit spawns is when TrueSec <= -0.85.
Avatar
The only problem I see with this is the time-zone issue. An alliance thats membership predominantly all live in one particular area/continent/country/whatever could wake up, login and discover their territory has been wiped out while they were asleep/at school/at work/whatever.Otherwise I think it's a very interesting concept that certainly should be explored by CCP.
Avatar
" take those benfits away or make them available without having sov and you completely remove the need for sov to even exist " I think that was the point he was trying to make with the article. however i do agree with you that it is a "solution" to a problem that is not there. but i think the OP was trying to explain a new way to handle sov and painted it as this is how you fix it.
Avatar
Why not combine the systems? Unclaimed systems improve in True Sec over time. Unclaimed systems with unclaimed neighboring systems improve True Sec even faster. Ratting in a system lowers True Sec, so you need to rotate ratting systems and preferably have whole pockets of unclaimed space in your territory.Make the Unclaimed Neighbors bonus constellation wide(maybe) and you have an even greater incentive for alliances to cultivate wild hunting grounds within their territory.
Avatar
It WAS descriptive though.Hideously broken and grueling, but it WAS a descriptive system.
Avatar
A thought about how refining and logistics could work. As a system becomes more "occupied", it gains better industrial capacity, so there is a benefit to living actively in space. Thus, the hunter types, that prefer to rat, have to roam into the wildlands, while the farmer types who process / build / whatever, benefit from the increased infrastructure / refining capacity / whatever that strong sov brings. This also provides an incentive to actually hold space rather than just "a name on the door".
Avatar
I'm totally in favor of the system where activity defines sovereignty.
Avatar
Actually onlining a cyno jammer while someone is on an op would be awesome emergent gameplay. It should not be as easy as dropping a POS and onling the module.
Avatar
He's not saying to remove the timers on your build infrastructure. Those still need to exist to an extent. You still need to have the ability to defend what you've built up.
Avatar
I really like where this is going. The idea that you must actually use the space to own it is what can save null-sec. One thing I disagree on is making occupation reduce the benefits of true-sec. In that case you are penalizing usage. But if the amount of usage required to hold sov was tweaked than this could limit the space owned by the large null-sec entities and possibly open up space for the little guy to get in. This could also mean passive-income could be eliminated, so that we wouldn't have the moons/sov and chicken/egg relationship now. If implemented correctly with a few other changes, we could even reduce the need for a supercap fleet as a prerequisite for sov-holding.
Avatar
Before this happens, manufacturing needs to be fixed so that there are less bottlenecks with moon minerals.Right now we claim space for the potential moon resources in the space. We map out a region based on it's income capabilities with that income coupled with planet resources and belts. Ratting has become less of an issue now that they rebalanced it with the hubs.That said, with hubs now being the cash cow of null sec, instead of havens/sanctums, there are few reasons to not just do lvl 4's in empire in your pimped out ship.There are deeper issues outside of farms and fields wand I suggested a 'rotating' system last year that fluctuated with activity. In order for this to work, the rats need to be made more valuable while not adding any more faucets to the game. This can be achieved by removing meta 4 from empire.
Avatar
If people are in their systems, you know, actually USING THEM (the horror!) then you could go fight them. If they won't fight then eventually the system could be yours. They would be forced to fight in order to maintain ownership.
Avatar
My two cents I'd like to add: When sov/truesec increases, decrease the rats but either don't touch, or improve, mining and industry. It makes no sense to arbitrarily decrease ore values, as this negates the effect of holding a system.I envision a space where each belt can have its own (weaker) refinery, funneling to a central factory, without the risk of rats. You can upgrade your belts just like you can upgrade your anomalies through the military defense index. There has to be a benefit to owning space, and it can't be combat oriented, because the home of the alliance should be at peace, unless threatened by another player alliance If you, a real space alliance, control a region, how do these rats simply appear in the middle of your well defended territory? It makes absolutely no sense. Vice versa, if you have low sov, the rats actually have power in that system, with their own sov structure and infrastructure that you must destroy or take over. Right now, rats simply feel like mindless NPCs, born only to die. If they were given more human features, such as putting down roots, owning space, and wanting to defend it, this may provide some more engaging content rather than just warping to a random point in space where red crosses spawn. Right now it feels like we're the Conquistadors fighting against hapless natives who don't know their hands from their feet.The other issue I disagree with is the rule of "NBSI". I walk around all day IRL interacting with people who are "neutral" to me, yet I don't shoot them on sight. The current rule applies because neuts will kill your ratters and interfere with your operations, but what about adding more incentives to allow neutrals through your space and only strike against them if they break your rules? You shouldn't have to be a part of the coalition to try and sell goods to them, or try and work in their space. Sure, if confronted, whatever diplomacy decides will go, and you can either exile them, blow them up, or allow them through. I feel like a true "empire" would have safeguards set up, such as some way to provide security for their residents and establish a feeling of safety. Currently, in the depths of alliance space, if a single neutral jumps into the system, you either run and hide, or stay and try to fight them. Why are they immediately an enemy to me? If alliances had some way of providing home security, through automated police forces, gate guns, or entry conditions, while still allowing neutral actors to pass through on certain conditions, I feel like a greater sense of "home" would be established.

Last week's article by Mynnna on the lack of opportunity for small independent entities in Null-sec talked a great deal about the political realities (both today and moving forward), but didn't really discuss the fundamental paradigms that make the current sovereignty system so hostile to newer or smaller alliances. Suggestions for changing sovereignty usually involve doing things like reducing jump ranges, splitting sov-holding structures into smaller, bite-sized pieces, or placing arbitrary limits on the size of sov-holding alliances. In the end, few of these will actually achieve the goals these people are usually trying to achieve.

Why? Because in the end, there are easy ways around all of these changes that are trivial for large alliances to do, and the current paradigm makes it easy, if not imperative, for them to claim huge tracts of space if for no other reason than to raise the barrier to entry for other alliances to establish themselves nearby. As long as that is in their best interests, they will continue to do so, even if that means operating more fleets or using more jump bridges or whatever else; if it is a question of resources, whether those resources are people, minerals, or ISK, large alliances will always be able to expend that effort. With the current sovereignty system, there are few if any internal pressures that restrict the size of large alliance territories.

The fundamental problem is not jump bridges or structures with hit points that are too high; the problem is that all of these keep the current paradigm: prescriptive sovereignty.

A Result, Not A Requirement

Simply put, prescriptive sovereignty means that sovereignty is a requirement in order to "do things" in your space. In order to build a shipyard, you need sovereignty. Want your space to be more valuable? You need sovereignty so you can build up your infrastructure hub. Want a cyno jammer to keep people out of your space? You need sovereignty. And in order to get that sovereignty, you need to perform some arbitrary task which has no value other than to give you sovereignty.

In contrast, a descriptive sovereignty system is one where "doing things" is what gives you sovereignty over your space. Building infrastructure (like factories, shipyards, or trading posts), mining, defending your territory, or whatever else adds "value" to the system. Think of it like a Homestead Act for Null-sec. You move into the system, improve it, and as a result your claim on that space is recognized.

A descriptive sovereignty system means an end to paying an arbitrary price for sovereignty, which is always easier for a larger alliance to pay. It means an end to sovereignty requirements for things like outposts, capital shipyards, or jump bridges. Instead, you can build those anywhere and they are what gives you credit towards sovereignty in that system. To take sovereignty in a system, you destroy the infrastructure someone else has built and put up your own. A system naturally gravitates towards an "unclaimed" state, where no one controls the system; this creates an internal pressure on alliance sizes, making it impossible to claim vast swaths of territory without the activity to support it. This creates expanses of unclaimed or disputed territories stretching between the home systems of various alliances. These gulfs provide a place where smaller alliances can establish themselves with no passive barrier to entry -- if a larger alliance wants to keep them from colonizing those systems, they must actively deploy military force to dispute the claim.

Sovereignty also shifts from a binary state (you either have sovereignty or not) to an analog state (you can have strongly-held sovereignty or weakly-held sovereignty), where the recognized sovereignty holder is simply the alliance with the strongest claim on the system.

The Return of the Wilderness

The most common complaint about Null-sec is that the vast majority of alliance-held space is seemingly empty aside from a few major trade hubs or fortified choke points. Most of those empty systems, however, are worthless due to a poor True-sec rating, while the current sovereignty systems make it even more important to cluster in a small number of systems to reduce spending on infrastructure upgrades.

Descriptive sovereignty turns this on its head. The value of sovereign systems is the infrastructure they provide; shipyards, trade hubs, refineries, defensive emplacements, and a tight defensive perimeter. However, this very activity is what makes it less likely for the various resources of Null-sec (NPCs in the belts and plexes, asteroids for mining, etc) to be optimal in these systems. Instead, True-sec becomes dynamic. As sovereignty in a system increases, the True-sec increases, making it less valuable for mining and ratting. The longer a system remains unclaimed, the lower its True-sec becomes. (Mary Titor discussed a similar idea with a much wider scope in a blog post; it's worth reading if you haven't already.)

What does this mean for established alliances? It means that in order to best profit from Null-sec, they will have to leave their trade hubs and well-traveled choke points and venture into the wilderness. This will provide a reason for conflict in unclaimed space, as they scramble to grab the best areas for mining and ratting which only last for a limited time before that very act begins to reduce the value of those systems. Meanwhile, new alliances moving into Null-sec will initially get a large boost to income, allowing them to build infrastructure in their space and eventually causing its value to decline. This starts the cycle all over again, bringing them into conflict with their neighbors.

This creates an internal pressure that acts as a soft limit on the size of an alliance's claimed space. Expanding too much and devouring the empty space in Null-sec is not only likely to be cost prohibitive (as creating enough infrastructure to have overwhelming sovereignty in huge regions of space would be extremely expensive), it will also damage their income potential, forcing them to range further and further out for better income. Smaller alliances that have a strong claim on only a few systems will be much closer to the wilderness areas.

All of these factors combine to create a much more diverse Null-sec which encourages conflict and competition for resources, whereas the current system promotes stagnation by centralizing resources and making these activities safer, rather than forcing players to make meaningful choices between protected, highly developed space and lucrative, dangerous space. In addition, it gets rid of an annoying "gamey" mechanic and increases immersion in the world of Eve.

Final Thoughts

I've intentionally avoided getting bogged down in too many details simply because the issue of exactly how such a system gets implemented or what variations you want to add to it is less relevant than the change of perspective. Just how much various activities contribute to sovereignty, or how disputed territories with multiple alliances' infrastructure are handled, or how to handle the migration from the current system to a descriptive sovereignty system is a much longer topic that is ultimately something that requires a lot more insight into Eve's innards and various metrics. 

Unfortunately, there are many caveats to this system. For instance, moon mining (and other forms of passive income) are antithetical to the goals of descriptive sovereignty, since they provide huge income streams with very little player involvement. The weakness of Null-sec infrastructure compared to High-sec infrastructure (with regard to mineral refining, for instance) also reduces the impetus for alliances to build up their own systems. And a descriptive sovereignty system would probably require the ability for alliances to raze the infrastructure of their enemies (including outposts) in order to truly work in the way described above. However, while these reduce the effectiveness of a descriptive sovereignty system, they don't make it worthless. In contrast, making small changes to the current prescriptive sovereignty paradigm is simply putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

I've been playing Eve since beta, and for the last seven years I have been with CAIN and the Fourth District. You may know me better as @Black_Isis on Twitter.