The Vision Thing

Avatar
He isn't talking about what nullsec could be; he's talking about what it is.
Avatar
I think most are missing the point...the dangers of conquerable stations have been outlined previously in an older article and they stand pretty scary hypotheticals. Non-conquerable stations aren't wahts wrong with 0.0The real problem is two fold for 0.0. Bottom up alliance funding and SOV mechanics. Poor alliances that struggle to pay the bills and space that is crap because its crap not because of the poeple who live there need to be addressed to allow new up and coming alliances to compete instead of doing what they do now...join a Coalition.
Avatar
There is no magic bullet to stop people banding together in larger and larger groups if that's what they need to do to achieve their goals. Rather, the best solutions involve introducing incentives for people to also break apart and betray those groups.Improving 'poor space that is crap' will only shift the colors around the map. Groups that can successfully conquer and hold regions will do so. 'New', or more precisely, unaffiliated, independent groups will be stuck with whatever is left and the only changes will be relative to the new 'good' and 'bad' space.
Avatar
I'm waiting for the next articles, they should be pretty interesting :)
Avatar
Great article.
Avatar
There is a saying in the game design world: "Design objectives, not features". What you've put forward pretty much captures the meaning of that saying.The reason for it is that if you design the objectives (ie, what it is you want to achieve with an aspect of your game) first, the design of features becomes clear and consistent.If you design the features without having the over-arching objectives clearly defined first, then you get a set of features that are uncoordinated and sometimes counter-productive. Much like 0.0 is now. That dev-blog you linked went some of the way to rectifying this, but I don't know just how much the guidance in it has been drawn on to inform new features since."Player Empires" sums up the concept nicely.
Avatar
Yeah, definitely agree, this sort of thing needs to get posted to the Jita Speakers Corner
Avatar
I think the author didn't convey the true definition of blob warfare vs. Small gang warfare. Even if the fight is even odds (200 vs. 200), the individual pilot skill at that point becomes less relevant as your actions on the individual level are reduced to simply clicking your broadcast window and hitting F1. That is the real problem with blob warfare and not the "they brought N+1, therefore blob" whining that you more commonly see.
Avatar
Good article. While I sure many will voice their views on what null sec 'should be'. I'll just say, I'd like a null sec that rewards time commitments, devalues numbers, is easy to set up, and about as easy to tear down (for the other guy) to create a non-static salad of fighting that might see a group's sov slowly drift across the map as they win some fights, and lose others.Say this is one thing, I know. Doing it another, I agree. But I'm still here after six years playing the same game, its got something nothing else has.
Avatar
one of the things you mentioned is raiding empiresone of the main problems i see in eve is that you can't really raid them in a spontanous way- there is no such thing as stealing the daily production of a technetium moon-.no way to steal stuff out of a refinery (and no reason for refining to be instant)- no such thing as raiding a colony or a customs office- no hacking into a research POS to steal some BPCs or to fuck up the success rateadding such things would certainly vitalize 00 space, there would be a sudden need to defend your assets and income. it would also make ships explode and people work together. good things.
Avatar
If you are going to leave the game for a while, you should put your stuff in low sec or npc null sec anyways. There's no guarantee that when you come back in a month that system will not belong to a hostile alliance. Sure you can carrier out your expensive ships if you have a carrier, but most don't have one. I see this argument quite a bit against destroyable stations, but we already have similar risk and no one complains about it.
Avatar
Weaselior for CCP Reality Check 2013
Avatar
hey look a cookie cutter complaint about ~blobbing~
Avatar
They don't need to complain about stations switching, it such a completely different mechanic to destroyable outposts it's not even worth comparing.1. Yes, if you are active people jump shit out before it even happens, or organize it's removal, otherwise:2. Leave the shit there and personally flip over to the opposition.3. Leave the shit there and just wait for time when the alliance you are in or one you are in in the future takes it back (or is blue to someone who has).4. Sell everything you own there on the market, in most cases you can recover the entire value of your assets. Remote market skills exist you know?5. Firesale. It's like Christmas to the rank of file when you conquer a major enemy trade hub. People throw shit up on public contract for for 50-90% of market value recovering large amounts of liquid ISK and handing over cheap assets to the enemy.This isn't "similar" risk to destructible outposts at all and currently your wealth is never under any real risk when you aren't actually in space with them, like it should be.
Avatar
"So what ? Who said the goal of that game was to stockpile billions upon of billions of stuff in conquerable 0.0 ?"EVE is a sandbox, it's not up to you to decide whether this is the goal of the game. Stockpiling billions of stuff in nullsec means legitimately living there for the majority of players. Take that ability away and people aren't suddenly going to go "oh well, guess I better change the way I play and never have any assets". No, they are going to move out of player conquerable space and keep everything in NPC null or lowsec. Sov is already a ghost town in most places, there is no need to give people another reason not to live there.A corp hanger in a station isn't going to do much good when the station is completely destroyed is it? POS are even more vulnerable then stations, they can be destroyed at the moment and you don't see large amounts of alliance members keeping their crap in them. As for capitals, even if it wasn't a completely broken feature and has been since it was implemented, who is going to trust some bitter super pilot with their personal assets?If you want to see nullsec burn, fine, I can get behind "more war". Give something for us to legitimately fight over then instead of just the ability to smug post on kugu.
Avatar
I also forgot to add that CCP will actually transfer assets out of a hostile station for you if you have been un-subbed for a certain amount of time. Within the last few months someone who is now blue to me and resubbed actually had their super moved from hostile space to friendly.CCP know the acquirement of expensive assets throughout the lifetime of a pilot is a "carrot on the stick" for most players and they would be fools to allow the option to wipe them out in one fell swoop.
Avatar
Someone needs to read an economic book if you think China has achieved any sort of economic balance, internally or externally, socially or politically. China is at best the PL/TEST of the world (dependant on Big Dady's charge card for stability) and at worst a house of cards a few decades (hopefully, for US and EU) from collapsing in on itself once again.
Avatar
As much as you (and many others) might like it to, devaluing numbers won't happen. I mean, CCP can try, but virtually anything you can think of to do it, those with the numbers still have an edge, even if it's just in the form of being able to hit more targets at once.
Avatar
Funnily enough, much of what you just said will be covered in the followups. ;)
Avatar
So why not bridge the two complaints here... have an real way of upgrading systems (or perhaps even consitlations) as a whole... powerful groups will be able to more easily make their space better than conquer, but in turn will make for pretty awesome targets for those that can come together to kick them in the teeth.You don't need good space and bad space to encourage blowing up ships... that pretty much comes with installing the game.
Avatar
He was talking about the China server, not IRL china.
Avatar
He's no more interested in it than I was when someone suggested it in response to one of my articles. At least, I don't think he is.
Avatar
exponentially just means it's increasing by a constant power... X^1.1 is exponentionally increasing, so it need not be an obscene number results from fairly large empires. What it would require is for large groups to decide if it's worth while to actually take more space. Interesting idea might be to have deployable upgrades that lower the rate of increase or base, but make them fairly easy to destroy (on par with say a medium tower, with no modules). Give them a static timer, say 2 hours (long enough to orginize a fleet, not so long that attackers get TZed out)... creates an amazing target for guerilla warfare and a sort of achilies heal to large empires.
Avatar
Funny, when I lived in nullsec there was no need/point/way to cultivate space into a 'home' you'd feel compelled to defend. Or any way to meaningfully raid others space except to catch the odd ratter. It might be a bit like this, but its far from the rosy vision outlined in the article. My memories are all of pointless but fun cheap ship roams driven by players wanting to shoot things, not game mechanics.For that it needs changes, I have no idea what those should be because its been a while since I lived there.
Avatar
TL;DR: 0.0(or how 0.0 should be) vaguely described in no more than 5000 words...honestly don't understand the number of positive comments!
Avatar
If you're linking to CCPs vision document, you should also link to part 2 of it: http://community.eveonline.com...CCP is not lacking a vision for 0.0. It's lacking action, as we are still running on Dominion sov mechanics. Thruth is, it's a massive undertaking, and I'm not sure CCP will ever pull it off. Realistically we're only gonna see some iteration on the current sov system.
Avatar
I agree there is a couple of things that realy would revitalize nullsec.but step1 for that is the NEW POS code. without that backbone i suspect thoes dreams are none existant. here is a couple of other ideas.Dust mercs can be used to conquer a station thus giving the nullsec powerblocks an alternate way of *messing* with there opponents. Dust merc should be able to be transported on EVE ships to its deepspace area thus giving Blackops battleship something new to do (transport small strikeforce way behind enemy lines messing with stations in enemy home regions.Dust mercs should be able to force a Capsuleer force to either enter space or to be killed in station when the raiders start to attack there ship
Avatar
I always quite liked the idea that NPCs would slowly ship goods from a destroyed outpost to the closest NPC station. That would allow the attackers to deny their target access to assets for the duration of a conflict but avoid the "fuck this I'm living in empire" problem.
Avatar
*whoosh*
Avatar
...Or the need to defend assets in 0.0 will drive risk-averse players back in hisec, where refinery is better, research is better, production is better, etc.(Ok, besides moongold. But we all agree moongold is The Broken.)
Avatar
You have a point.But for that, you can always revamp (finally!) lowsec.Nullsec is (or should be) for homes to be burned, not for the clash of gangs.Bringing a lowsec style of play into nullsec will leave nobody satisfied. An empty lowsec (check) and a "misunderstood" nullsec (check).
Avatar
Actually it's Walltreipers: https://evemaps.dotlan.net/all...Wallpapers was our joke on them.Awesome defense of T-IPBZ, still. Mucho respect for the guys. They are my heroes while still being my enemies.
Avatar
In my experience 0.0 is only about the thankless slogging through endless and pointless structure shoots and the occasional rare fleet fight that didn't involve endless false starts and waiting for nothing.It is true that my personal experience is limited to a single year and only two alliances but of all the people I knew who left HiSec for Null only one remains there. Most of us having moved to WH space, LowSec or back (shudder) to HiSec because the majority of us were tired of the top 1.2% of our alliances command structure scamming themselves a shiny new super from the hard work of everyone below them and the massive ego storms that are typical of most alliances internal politics on top of the time sink that is Dominion Sov mechanics.
Avatar
Your right, which is a big issue for the game I think. Turns the game into one of several possible snore feasts. I can see one side being dominate and choosing not to invade or decimate their foe. And turning null sec into a "We let these guys have space because we need someone for our membership to go kick once in awhile" While never really being threatened.I mean, I ask this of the GSF and alies: When was the last time a major threat to your holdings and sov presented itself that was not precipitated by some act of internal sabotage? I cannot find any recent one. That indicates to me that aside from possible meta-gamming means, certain groups are not assailable in their holdings because they have been so successful in diplomacy.Thats not those groups fault, but look at who is doing the invading, and who is changing 'success' as a green kill board, or the 'isk war'. Its not the currently 'invading' folk. So where does that lead null sec to in the future? I think that is a fair question to ask.
Avatar
Its a popular view with more people that with less people. Why that is up to debate. But this site is a sounding board for certain philosophical bents, despite their attempts to attract other view points. Who wants to write a alternate view point just to be told your dumb by a bunch of people with other views. But alot of the points are valid even if projected though a colored lens.
Avatar
As one of the barbarians hammering at the gates and a small-gang afficianado (as an aside, I think Weaselior strawmans small gang pilots, but w/e), one of the problems I see is that with the current mechanics is that a small roaming gang can't do much of significance. Thanks to a mix of local and intel channels, killing ratters functions primarily as an idiot tax rather than a danger to an alliance's income, and there's pretty much no viable target in between a ratter and a POS for them to threaten, and threatening a POS requires a fleet. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a single roaming gang should be able to knock over POSes and stations willy-nilly, but persistent banditry should be a serious problem, not an annoyance.On the other foot, there seems to be very little scope for empire building in what is notionally the empire-building space of EVE. It seems like it amounts to either being a landlord or a techlord. One is a glorified racketeer, the other an oil tycoon. In either case, it seems like 'empire-building' seems to consist of acquiring money in nullsec and using it to import an empire from highsec, since you certainly can't build one in null.
Avatar
When you can transport Exotic Dancers in a Rifter, you should be able to transport dust guys too. No reason for a black ops battleship.
Avatar
Small-gang target proposal:"Pirate Magnet", Anchorable object(takes 12 hours to unanchor, functions while unanchoring(no idea if this is possible)), costs ~5 bill ISK, if destroyed gives you a reward worth ~1 bill ISK, relatively low HP(destroyable by say a 5-man ahac gang in 10-20 minutes). Broadcasts its location in the system it is in.While it's functional it spawns pirate rats at a rate that gives a max ISK return of say 150 mill/hour.Once placed it's huge money for the user, at a significant initial investment. It's also stuck in place for at least 12 hours and easily scouted out. It also provides a decent reward to any small gang that comes by and makes a go at it. Cost/Reward numbers obviously tweakable.The general gist of the idea being, create anchorable targets for small gangs, make them worth money to kill. Make them profitable if and only if the owner can keep it safe for say 6-7 days. It doesn't have to be permanently deployed(no one would use it then due to weird TZs) but when it is deployed it can't be taken to safety immediately.Idea may or may not be atrocious(it probably is).
Avatar
I love this shit. I mean the article as a whole is pretty good. But the amount of negativity in the first paragraph is amazing. One might think you were born in nullsec and are forced to live there for some reason. Well, the fact is that CCP must have done something right or this article wouldn't have been written...
Avatar
Thanks for the insight! As a long time resident of hisec, I don't really pay attention to null. This interesting article has educated me on what nullsec could and should be. :)
Avatar
The problem with such a mindset is that it largely replicates the trends we have at the moment. Passive income do not encourage pilots to fly their ships in space and as structure-interaction is one of the features that grow much stronger with numbers (than a spontaneous amassment of ships) that kind of gameplay will keep having more and more groups band together to create larger but fewer sovereign actors.The groups you define as "raiders" and "conquerors" in EVE today can be said limited to roughly 5 groups. It has been like that, at any given time, for almost as many years. Prior to that i would argue there were more actors (it has steadily gone down since). There is definately skin shed (eg., Test forming their own coalition), but the amount of actors do not splint (eg., when Test formed their coalition they did it with PL who in a sense already were their own coalition and made 1+1=1, not 2).That's the problem with the current system that i belive Weaselior want to shed some light on by incentives for more variation of groups to interact in nullsec (as in every sec). In the current system the "raiding" and "conquering" are the only factors of relevance. If you revitalize the other factors you will have more groups interacting in nullsec - it will bring content to your space by having things you can do in it and things other groups can do with it, or with you.At the moment those "outside" groups are limiting themselves to other areas of the game. They create mini-games in their own regions (those mini-games feed an "honor fight" mindset, which is boring and dumb). For a small group it's easier to kill a Super than to "raid" or "conquer" under current mechanics. I think that illustrates the issue quite well. The 1b POS is more daunting to smaller groups than the 20-80b Super, and there are plenty of Supers dying at smaller scale (in lowsec etc).Either you want (A) a game where all those "scales" interact in all types of space (that's how it used to be), or you want (B) a game where all those scales are given a type of space each and don't interact with each other (that is what is happening at the moment, the trend).As a "barbarian" there are many things i and Weaselior don't have in common, but i'd like to think we both subscribe to (A), a shared "vision" of the game as a whole (and nullsec as the most open end of that sandbox).It relates back to the discussion TestGruntBestGrunt raises below as well. It's not about getting a lowsec feature to nullsec, it's about getting all those features to all secs so we don't divide the game into isolated little islands. I'd like to think even a member of a large coalition enjoy fighting a smaller gang at a smaller scale from time to time (and just don't sit on jabber playing other games while waiting for an alert about a CTA).If varied content get delivered to your doorstep i would imagine it's even more appealing. At the moment there is no incentive for door-to-door delivery of spontaneous content as the only thing a smaller roaming group can hope to achieve is provoking a fight they at least have a remote potential to win or kill enough ships to make a dent in. That is entirely at the whim of the resident, the provocation can be avoided or they can be given fights they have no outlook to win, or fights they have no outlook to make a dent in ("throw a few free ships at them"). It's not them giving you the fight, it's you deciding wether to give them the fight, despite them comming from far away to interact with you. If you don't give them content they will cry "blob" and stop interacting with you. Everybody loses, unless you are a player who don't want to play the game (and just want "empire safety" for your business endeavours, or casually login when a CTA is called). I don't think the game should be designed around an empire mindset or not playing the game.
Avatar
Let me add some perspective to that last segment just to clear it up: If you assume a "barbarian" mindset today the problem isn't really you getting killed. The problem is not being given a fight (because you don't threaten infrastructure or economy, as economy is infra), or being given a fight you can't take - so you don't take it (a "fuck off fleet"), alternatively being given a fight you don't want to take because it's pointless (trade blows with a cheap throw-away gang, where you are either at risk while they are not, or where no one is at risk; it becomes a jousting tournament or fighting for the sake of good fights).When everybody fly the same cheap ships, you get less variation of tactics (rock-paper-scissor) and when we get less variation of tactics numbers get more pronounced and complaints about "blobs" or mindsets of "fair, good and honorable" fights begin to thrive (as if we fly the tactics in the same ships those factors for variation die down, while numbers and execution flare up). In naive terminology numbers is "blob" and execution is "skill". Then you get the almost parodic and dumbed-down definition of those terms ("kids with skills"), instead of constructing a problem-solving discourse around them and deal with it. Targets that involve burning fields or raiding small villages effectively counteract the "skill mindset".I applaud Weaselior because i belive he tries to illustrate those problems with these articles.

CCP has never really articulated a vision of 0.0. Well, that’s not true — they once published a rambling devblog about their 0.0 “vision.” Over the years, their changes to 0.0 have been virtually random: every expansion, CCP tweaks things that are obviously out of balance, tweaks things that someone has gotten convinced are out of balance, or adds a new feature someone else thought would be cool that usually breaks the balance achieved from the first two points. But lacking a vision of what 0.0 is supposed to be, CCP has never been able to set a goal to work towards over multiple releases. Many of the developers at CCP have never really lived in 0.0, and as a result they don’t really seem to understand what it is and what it should be. Their “vision” is an amalgamation of pointless slogans that lack the coherence a vision needs.

People tend to view a “vision” as the sort of trite crap that middle-managers spout while they try desperately to understand what the hell their engineers are talking about. That’s not the case. In EVE, we have a massively complex game, with massive amounts of people interacting with each other to produce staggeringly complex results. It’s not easy to intuitively understand what’s going on, how something will affect the game, and why a seemingly small change is of massive importance.

CCP’s “vision” is a proud product of the sort of middle-management committee product that gives the notion such a bad reputation. It is a series of trite slogans that offer no overarching theme of 0.0, nothing to unify the disparate components of 0.0 that need work or modification into a coherent whole. It is the product of various interest groups getting their own individual shoutouts that will be honored only when they happen to be useful justifications for whatever someone wants to do anyway. The sole attempt at an overarching vision – [turn up to 11?] – is remarkable in how little it actually says: there are few “visions” that could offer less insight into what is good or bad for 0.0.

A vision is a way to understand the system both as it is and as it should be through analogizing it to something we understand well. A good vision gives you the structure to make sense of the game as it is, and gives you a clear idea of where it should go, why it should go that way, and how to get it there. This article will attempt to lay out such a vision.

The Vision

0.0 is a place for empires. Everything that is great about 0.0 has not come from turning the highsec experience “up to 11”. It’s a consequence of the struggles between alliances over space. It’s a consequence of the vicious struggle for power that has occurred almost unceasingly for years. Small struggles, tiny alliances fighting over a single station, lead to the sort of titanic struggle between an alliance at the height of its power and an insurgent group of barbarians that have achieved unimaginable success at toppling one minor (and now forgotten) empire after another that gives EVE a rich history no other game can match. It makes even the most hideously unfun activities (failing to load a grid for over an hour trying to jump into a system, to finally play a minor role in a gigantic battle playing at 1fps if you’re lucky) be fondly remembered even after years. It’s what creates the vibrant metagame of diplomacy, politics, backstabbing that make 0.0 such an interesting place that it can feature in the New York Times and the BBC. It’s what can draw people into such a brutally unforgiving game and keep them engaged for years. Understanding 0.0 as a place for empires, where space nations rise through conquest, stagnate, fight off raiders, and eventually succumb to outside invaders recreating the cycle.

The typical 0.0 imperial experience involves starting from a constellation or two, conquering your neighbors, conquering their neighbors, defeating the regional power and setting yourself up as the New Roman Empire, fending off attacks on your outlying regions, bleeding yourself dry, and inevitably getting sacked and watching another power take your place. Or you play the part of the barbarians: raiding out of the wilderness at the borders of the empire for plunder and the fun of it. This has happened for as long as sovereignty mechanics have been in the game and will continue happening until the servers shut down.

Because 0.0 is a place for empires, all that matters is sheer power exercised through any means available. It is not a “wild west,” a place with no rules where every man is for himself. Instead, it’s much like the ancient world: the rules are set and changed by force majeure. The Right of Conquest is alive and well in 0.0: whoever lives in an area has earned the right to live there through force of will and force of arms.

That sort of empire-based gameplay is what 0.0 is for and what CCP should try to improve. 0.0 is a place to build empires, for empires to fight, and for empires to be torn down.

Understanding this vision allows for a much greater understanding of what 0.0 is for and needs to be. It allows us to break down EVE combat and analyze it through a much better lens than the usual honorfight-based nonsense. Understanding what the combat is — and what it should be — gives a much better understanding of how it should be fixed and improved.

The idea of 0.0 as a “wild west” has done significant harm to attempts to revitalize 0.0. The vision of 0.0 as a solo, anything-goes place has led to an increasing desolation where vast swathes of territory only occasionally see tumbleweed pass by. The “farms and fields” initiatives pushed by various CSM members have been the start of a better vision for 0.0: emphasizing the need to allow people to build. Building is important for two reasons. First, it gives people a personal attachment to their space. When people can build, they will put down roots in an area, strive to make it better, and create a much more vibrant region. Years ago, when outposts were a massive investment, alliances would work hard to develop and improve their space. Now, with outposts relatively cheap (mostly due to people and alliances becoming much richer) and most regions already developed, dropping outposts is no longer an event.

Second, building invites conflict. An attacker will be much more intrigued by the notion of seizing or burning a well-developed region. Seizing outpost after outpost (most useless as anything but a place to dock that the defender took from someone else and doesn’t care about) gets boring fast. Destroying something valuable, that took the defender a great deal of effort, time, and money to build? Well, that’s more like it. In addition, the emotional attachment the defender gains from building up their “home” incentivizes them to fight. There’s not much point in fighting tenaciously to defend, say, Scalding Pass when it’s no better or worse than any other region. But if it’s your home? Then you’re much more willing to fight for it because you’re not just fighting for one of many identical regions: you are fighting for your region. This is especially true if you’ve made investments in the region that can’t be easily and cheaply regained.

Not only does this idea of 0.0 as a place for empires give a better understanding of the need to build, it gives a better understanding of what 0.0 combat is and how it should be improved.

Often, CCP has thought in terms of “blob warfare” or “small-gang warfare”. Neither has ever been a useful way to think about combat. There is a casual assumption that “small-gang” warfare is “good” and “blob warfare” is “bad”. What “blob” warfare is has always been fairly easy to define: it’s whatever those people who beat you by bringing more people did. Small-gang warfare is instead thought of as the counterpoint, where supposed quality takes precedence over quantity. But what exactly it is, besides “not blobs” has always been somewhat fuzzy. This poor conception has plagued 0.0 as people push for changes to favor small-gang warfare without really understanding what it even is. EVE players have defined small-gang warfare merely by numbers for years without truly understanding what it is and what makes it exist. Needless to say, without understanding what it is and what makes it exist, you can’t really improve it.

Instead of defining combat by the numbers, it’s better to define combat by the goals: why are people fighting? Many empire players have a vision of fighting as a hounorable joust or duel: evenly matched people line up to fight each other and the better man wins. Many small-gang warfare aficionados claim this is what small-gang warfare is and is all about. Nothing could be further from the truth. In EVE, most fighting is predatory: someone’s trying to leap on you and butcher you. Generally speaking, for combat to exist, the victim must have some reason for doing whatever exposes them to attack, and the attacker must have a way to bring enough people to make fighting them a reasonable preposition. This ranges from merely ratting while inattentive of local all the way up to merely making a home in a region full of Technetium.

0.0 combat falls broadly into three categories: raiding the fields and putting the peasants to the sword, sacking villages, and conquest. Here, again, the empire metaphor is useful because it allows us to think about how people are fighting and why, through a prism we’re all pretty comfortable with (whether it be from our entirely reputable history knowledge or from the trashiest fantasy novels one can imagine, or even through a well-regarded fantasy and HBO series with a little over-emphasis on rape).

Putting peasants to the sword — ganking ratters and miners — provides the basic low-level combat anyone can get involved with at any time, but ultimately has little effect on the stability of the empire. Sacking villages -continual raids on infrastructure and hostile moons - provides the lifeblood of 0.0 combat; these are smaller battles that allow you to profit through war and fight without the full commitment of a sovwar. Not only do these sorts of battles provide fights to keep players entertained, fights over income sources can escalate and spark a greater war or even bleed an enemy dry and lead to an internal collapse (breaking a technically superior opponent through guerilla warfare). Lastly, there is conquest, the overwhelming sovwar dedicated to invading your neighbors territory, going into their home and taking or destroying everything they’ve built. This provides the overarching narrative and struggle that drives everything that makes 0.0 great: the high level intrigue, the metagaming, the empire-building, and the vast amounts of destruction needed to keep 0.0 fresh.

Unfortunately, each of these tiers is currently plagued with longstanding issues. In a following article, we attempt to name all of these and explain our reasoning behind them. Future articles will attempt to provide solutions.