open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Pondering The Win - the ultimate EVE counterfactual
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

The Knights Templar
Posted - 2008.01.31 08:50:00 - [61]

I believe that at the current state no one block can control 0.0 space or at least all of it. Why? It all comes down to one fundamental thing ... human nature.

EVE online is an environment rich in many different cultures and background, in the game and out of the game. And just like the real world no one entity controls all of it. There are just too many different backgrounds all competing for a spot of its own.

I think we might be able to see a good portion of 0.0 controlled by a power block based on a European Union type of style. Now if we can get details on the China version (single culture) of EVE we might actually see a single controlling block control all of 0.0 there, but again even though they are all Chinese there is even cultural difference within a nation that would allow for competition and conflict to enforce their way of life and style of doing things.

So either everyone must be willing to submit and live with a single goal and way of life, or you need some sort of tyrant society able to take total control and maintain control over all of it. However, history has clearly show that it is short lived: the rise and fall of the Roman empire, French empire, British Empire, Persian empire - so many races have tried to take over Europe and failed to hold it. So many empires have risen to take control of the world and they have all come to an end.

So in my mind with the current cultural barriers, a single control is near impossible to attain. I think many will come close and even seem to attain it but will never truly control it. It is just human nature to destroy, conquer and make the world British erm I mean ...LaughingYARRRR!!

Reem Fairchild
Punic Corp.
Posted - 2008.01.31 17:56:00 - [62]

t's theoretically possible to take control of all of 0.0 (except for NPC space), but to then hold it is not. And that's simply because this is a game and we are playing it to fight others. If there's no one to fight, what's the point? (And if there is, then obviously you don't control all of it.) Anyone who is into the combat side of Eve would quickly get bored and stop playing, leave 0.0, or simply break off from his alliance and start shooting them instead.

Universal Exports
Cult of War
Posted - 2008.01.31 19:25:00 - [63]

For a brief moment in time you might be able to find a large enough movement to conquer all of 0.0 in an effort to be part of somthing that has never been done before. It is possible that this movement of this size can be made and that only way in which this can occur is if two of the largest factions each controlled one side of the bored and then decided to merge in order to form this epic alliance.

Keep in mind that it would not ever be able to occur via one side conquering all territory because once the amount of targets begins to run low pvp elements in the faction will turn on each other, being in a swarm of blue all the time sucks for PvP. Furthermore it will be hard to deal with the enemy because each faction you defeat will eventually unite under one banner to fight you until you have an equal sized monstrosity which really hates you.

Should any alliance accomplish this against all odds, it is highly likely the alliance would be broken within 2 weeks as it splits into factions again. Lets face it if everybody is your friend and you play this game to PvP, you need to make more enemies.

Ioannes Murkon
Posted - 2008.01.31 21:00:00 - [64]

Edited by: Ioannes Murkon on 31/01/2008 21:00:51
Originally by: Adhar Khorin

Capsuleers in EVE are first and foremost volunteers. Any regime (coalition) that truly wanted to colonize all of 0.0 would require true soldiers/employees, because there are logistics and industry matters that *must* be done, and there's a fairly small percentage of the population that finds those activities "fun" for any length of time. Beyond short bursts of "let's get these towers up!", the long term maintenance of the colonial infrastructure becomes in essence a bureaucracy.

Without the ability to compensate players in any meaningful way for performing the mundane tasks (you know, the ones that don't require adrenaline and Red Bull) that colonialization requires, large-scale holding of space over long periods of time isn't tenable.

You win this thread.

Seriously. Smile

After running 3 successful online guilds, I know firsthand that one of the most important, and overlooked, requirements for a good guild is simple admin work.

Everyone wants to have fun, blow stuff up. Few want to plan the ops, handle the logistics, process and interview the applicants, enforce internal rules, negotiate treaties and contracts, ect.

To conquer all of 0.0 space, you'd have to hire people to not only PvP 23/7 but have a dozen or so logistical/admin types working in shifts as well.

Esna Pitoojee
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2008.02.01 01:07:00 - [65]

In order to 'conquer' 0.0, a truly massive increase in player population will have to occur.

However, this will result in a large revenue increase for CCP, allowing them to buy more server systems and increase the size of the EVE universe.

In order to conquer this new territory, more players will be needed, and a spiral begins, ultimately preventing 0.0 from being fully 'conquered'.

Roy Gordon
Caldari Advanced Response Division
Power Of 3
Posted - 2008.02.01 09:46:00 - [66]

There is a potential downside to this debate that CCP should seriously consider.
If an alliance, or coalition of alliances, started a major expansion and conquest of Null Sec space, this could lead to a lot of players leaving the game.
Well, lets look at what happens during real life conquests.
Conquest generally starts with an invasion of the enemy’s territory. This leads to two things happening, a proportion of the enemy fights desperately to prevent their territory being conquered, but an even greater number upsticks and heads for safer territory. Once the territory has been conquered the aggressor builds up its forces and then moves onto the next target. Rinse and repeat.
In game terms this would equate to the PvP’ers battling to prevent their bit of Eve being taken from them, whilst the non-PvP’ers, miners, traders, mission runners etc all head for Empire space. And refugee’s spread panic and fear amongst those who they flee to.
If the conquerors manage to take down the opposing PvP’ers they are forced either to flee to space controlled by another Alliance, who may not want them anywhere near them (‘damned by association’), they stay behind to fight a guerrilla war, or they too flee to Empire to lick their wounds and plan their revenge.
I suspect it would be at this point several things would happen. Panic and a bit of fear would set in those Alliances bordering the conquered region, and some players who had been foisted out of their Null Sec homes would be so cheesed off that they may well leave the game.
And I know exactly this has happened. People I know who have been kicked out of Null Sec due to a well-known alliance moving in their territory have become so despondent that they have left the game entirely.
So, before you go promoting the ideal of a mass conquest of Null Sec, just think about the possible impact on the game.

Posted - 2008.02.01 11:57:00 - [67]

I think it is possible to take a vast chunk of 0.0 space but to fully controle that amount of space would take years of hard fighting. Once that happence the allience would find itself against a hardened force of alliences with the commen goal of taking back what was lost.

My own 0.0 goal is to get good standing with as many alliences as possible so that I can get as much safe passage as I can for my supply runs and maby, just maby, build up enough of a reputation that people will request my services. But its still early days in a sigilRazz

Istvaan Shogaatsu
Guiding Hand Social Club
Posted - 2008.02.01 13:09:00 - [68]

Originally by: Alz Shado
Edited by: Alz Shado on 29/01/2008 17:12:41
This is why metagaming -- scamming, backstabbing, and corp theft -- are allowed by CCP. Because once a military solution is impossible, the only way to beat such an enemy would be by espionage and sabotage.


Defensores Fidei
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.02.01 14:06:00 - [69]

Q: Can 0.0 be conquered.

A: Yes. I don't see any reason why it could not.

Q: Why would any coaliton of alliances want to conquer all of 0.0?

A: To set a challenging goal for their coalition. To have epeen waving rights. Most players involved in conquering 0.0 will do it for the challenge of competing with others that want to prevent them from reaching that goal. The motivation is the conflict, and not the in the conquering. You might as well ask what anyone would do once they conquer the whole world in a game of Civilization. Simple, they quit the game and start a new one. The fun is in the journey and not in the destination.

Q: What might the consequences be of such rampant colonialism.

A: Make no mistake, this is not colonialism. Paradoxically enough in EVE, the more civilized you would be able to make a certain system (raise its security status), the less desirable it becomes in terms of resources offered. Each 0.0 controlling entity thrives best in the systems with the lowest(currently pre-assigned and static) security ratings. That is because such areas offer the best rats, roids and exploration sites. There is only one 0.0 entity I know of that can acutally be termed colonialist, and that is CVA. The rest of conquering entities are akin to Mongol hordes, with no real intentions to colonizing any further than neccessary.

0.0 players are driven by competition and resources. Conquering 0.0, let alone colonizing it would be anti-thetical to both goals in the current EVE enviroment.

Q: What would the consequences be for the inhabitants of EVE?

A: For those who rarely venture to 0.0, there wouldn't be really big consequences. Perhaps if the conquering 0.0 alliances with their drive to compete will want to get new competitors they will seek out Empire entities and declare war upon. However, such entities will want to avoid such inherently unwinnable conflicts.

Brother Welcome
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.02.02 12:24:00 - [70]

Edited by: Brother Welcome on 02/02/2008 12:28:33
To be clear, this isn't about alliances controlling a few regions, this is a study about coalitions of alliances - player-empires - dominating 0.0.

The bottom line for Eve is that materiel in the truest sense comes into the game from outside. Player time. Since we want to consider a permanent occupation of 0.0 by a coherent polity, we must give that polity the means to assimilate incoming players and survive the loss of outgoing players. That may not be as different from RL as some commentators above have felt. Do we not all eventually leave this world?

Anyway, to that end such materiel as can be permanently built in Eve-space is relevant, but more relevant still is the continuous incarnation of the recognisable political entity. Players at present have no means to accomplish that. They lack the basic tools RL nations have available to them.

Most significantly, they lack the power to create executive structures such as a judiciary, well featured tax administration, organically state aligned police force, and self-perpetuating executive structure.

At a minimum, players would need to be able to create laws, have them policed by forces with no discernible separate loyalty (could be bots), be able to apply taxes of appropriate complexity, and constitute a government with clear rules for exchanging members without changing nature.

Setting aside that Eve is a game played for fun, so one might encounter tremendous resistance to limits on individual will, players have next to none of the mechanisms they need. It would be possible to write those mechanisms into the game, but I wonder if it would be good to do so? Time will tell.

The ideas captured in the Eve constitution for players and representative council are chip in this block. It would not surprise me if the long-view of Dev is exactly that: giving players effective executive powers. The question for me is if Dev will impose a single structure, let's say a kind of idealistic classical democracy, on the game, or will rather make mechanisms with which players craft their own structure.

Until such mechanisms exist, I believe as many others above do, that any polity will fall apart too quickly to justly be deemed to have met the criteria this thread opened on.


Posted - 2008.02.04 00:47:00 - [71]

Edited by: duckmonster on 04/02/2008 00:48:40
Bump because its an interesting discussion.

Heres my take. 0.0 in theory could be controlled by a single alliance, and in reality it won't happen any time soon, as long as CCP keeps an eye on potential 'game breaker' imbalances (Such as titan proliferation, or Sov 4 proliferation).

Theres a likelyhood that 0.0 will come close, but not quite, soon to a pretty global blue situation, should (and its no certainty at all) BOB fall. Most of the north and south are blue and the drone regions are pretty anti-bob as well (and anyone who isn't is likely to get stomped by the pvp hungry guys in Smash/Roadkill, or the russians. )

BUT, thats a temporary situation, caused by the excitement of the biggest trophy in the game , BOB.

IF BOB dies, everything changes.

The Goons have long recognised that without a hot war, the membership gets bored and drifts. I'm fairly certain many of the other alliances have made similar analysis. No ones really sure where the next war will lie. Tortuga vs RSF? Maybe Tri might gang up with a couple of other more freelance groups and have a march on the north? AAA might get bored and turn on someone. Perhaps the Drone regions might combine forces and march north or south. Who knows, but the seeds of conflict are already long planted (For instance AAA vs KOS. Where do the various 3rd parties align on THAT mess?), or perhaps Triumverants innerant wandering might attract some attention up that way. Maybe the North and the South might decide to set each other red for a "gentelmans ageement" war (which would be hard, because certainly Razor and Iron have really grown on us goons. Nice guys.) . Nobody really knows, other than the fact that it won't last forever.

But what about this. Consider all of the renters from BOB's old territories , and former BOB allies (LV/V corps etc) that have been displaced and made homeless by the war. Whats to stop them deciding on bloody revenge on the RSF. Theres probably upwards of 10,000+ players who've been displaced by the coalition in this war.

Now, putting that aside, there is also bit of a no-win situation for an alliance that really does make a play at this. Damn POS'

The Goons are pretty adamant that should they 'win' the current war, they'll probably take a bit of delve, along with the rest of the RSF & Friends, maybe rent out some southern territory, and expand no further. Our logistics guys simply are overworked, and the permissions system combined with the EVE metagame make it too dangerous to have too many POS guys. If you can work on THIS pos, you can also work on THAT pos. Part of BOB's withdrawal from the South was probably a product of the same phenomena.

Some things COULD tip the balance adversely towards total hegemony. Sov 4 (Its an absolute bastard to crack a sov 4 system) and Titan spamming (Titans are total fun-killers used offensively. Put 6 a side in a system, and anything sub-caps might as well not even turn up to play. Nobody gets to have fun at all.)

But as long as CCP keeps tabs on that, then things should remain nicely unstable politically, with lots of podding and shenanigans for all.

And I *DO* hope CCP realises that a single alliance controlling the game is a terrible thing. Only alliances with Sov in 0.0 can build caps (I think). And without caps, you can't defeat 0.0. If a hegemon alliance bans non allies from having Caps, the game has 6 months left to live tops.

Veretas Skies
Posted - 2008.02.05 19:57:00 - [72]

Posting here because it's a neat topic.

I recently joined Goonfleet about 2 weeks ago during one of their newbee drives. I haven't had this much fun in a MMO in a very long time, and this is honestly the first time I've actively sought out PvP. It's great flying around in space with buddies and blowing **** up.

Now, I don't speak for goonfleet as a whole, especially since I'm a newbie. However, I doubt we would make the same mistake as BoB originally did and subsequently caused them to retreat back to Delve. There is just so much you can conquer and keep tabs on at the same time.

I don't know what's gonna happen after the war, and I don't really care. As long as I can keep playing and do a little pew-pew laser action, I'm fine.

Adamant Stehl
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.02.06 04:01:00 - [73]

To make 0.0 empire the true lure, CCP should offer a cash (RL Cash) prize to the heads of corp, alliance, coalition whatever it is.

You want to see dedication and what is possible, Show Them The Money!

I have no clue how to implement this but then again, Im not a Dev.

Posted - 2008.02.06 12:43:00 - [74]

Originally by: Ormen Tuttle
TCF comments, free trade zone, renters, etc

While what you're saying is nice and all, and maybe it is the future, there are a lot of flaws with this system.

Without going into specific detail, unless TCF wants to play defensive for the rest of their existence, it will be entirely impossible to ever maintain their "free trade zone."

I know from personal experience that it's possible to enter deep into wicked creek, take out multiple renters + TCF, and leave with no losses.

It takes them far too long to assemble their gangs to actually respond in a reasonable amount of time.

And the whole renter concept just gives people a false sense of security. This makes it a lot easier for pirates to enter into the area and swiftly take out 4-5 of their ships before anyone realizes what is happening.

Serge Tahlon
eXceed Inc.
Minor Threat.
Posted - 2008.02.06 12:52:00 - [75]

i dont think this is ever truely possible.

every political situation that we see in eve is temporary.
Granted, some "empires" will last longer than others but in the they will all wither and die and be replaced by some thing new.


Posted - 2008.02.07 16:12:00 - [76]

Thank you everyone for your input so far into this discussion.

To help with this big study we're doing, I've put together a survey and I'd like a few people to "beta test" it before I open it up to the EVE masses. If a few people could see if the questions are clear and easy enough to understand that would be great. Feedback here or to my email ( will be welcomed.

Alliance Survey - BETA

The survey is to find out what people's opinions are about their own alliances, and, in some cases, alliances in general. The survey does not ask for any character or alliance names so everything is very anonymous.

Thanks in advance

- Z

Janu Hull
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.02.07 16:39:00 - [77]

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Originally by: Alz Shado
Edited by: Alz Shado on 29/01/2008 17:12:41
This is why metagaming -- scamming, backstabbing, and corp theft -- are allowed by CCP. Because once a military solution is impossible, the only way to beat such an enemy would be by espionage and sabotage.


A legend speaks. Laughing

Janu Hull
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.02.07 16:44:00 - [78]

Originally by: duckmonster
Only alliances with Sov in 0.0 can build caps (I think).

I think that might be limited to supercaps, but I wouldn't take that as gospel. A recent unveiling screenshot of a Red Alliance Leviathan was in lowsec, so it might even be possible to cook them there, unless that's just where it happened to be seen for the first time by outsiders.

Otherwise, top notch post.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.02.07 21:59:00 - [79]

I know it isn't really what you mean, but essentially the alliances of Providence are currently working toward colonising 0.0. Getting along not bad as well with relatively stable control of territory / sov, attracting neutrals and slowly building a network of outposts as well as the wider economy across the region

I think most alliances go through stages of "lets get some 0.0" "lets consolidate our fresh 0.0 gains" "lets build up isk so we can gain more or do more"

But eventually you come to a "what now?" situation, like I think Tri and a couple of others have done. Totally secure in space and bored of just "making isk"

For my alliance, CVA, there is always a new threat on the horizon, and if not, always more development to be put into defences, making isk and creating an area attractive to neutrals as we try to raise the area to something equivalent to some of the mostly low sec empire regions (we already have the same / no-better ores Rolling Eyes). The real "what now" will come in the unlikely event the region is actually handed over to the empire. That is the real end game, building an empire, over just taking and holding space and all activities geared toward those two objectives

Alz Shado
Posted - 2008.02.07 22:13:00 - [80]

Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Originally by: Alz Shado
Edited by: Alz Shado on 29/01/2008 17:12:41
This is why metagaming -- scamming, backstabbing, and corp theft -- are allowed by CCP. Because once a military solution is impossible, the only way to beat such an enemy would be by espionage and sabotage.


Yeah, don't look so's all your fault. Pray my wife never finds out where you are. Wink

Posted - 2008.02.09 05:35:00 - [81]

History shows us time and time again that no empire born of military conquest can endure forever. For that matter what can? But military victory isn't the only way to achieve a goal. Economic warfare often accomplishes what military conflict can't. It wouldn't be easy. Different regions contain different resources. Player's needs are served by a variety of items. So finding that one thing that can be controlled and using it to then dominate the game might just be a pipe dream.

But suppose someone could corner the market on say... Megacyte. Wouldn't this person or group be able to make demands of BoB and Goon both? They might not own a single system but they would have conquered not only 0.0 but empire as well. Interestingly enough, in such a senario, pvp not only would be able to continue but it would be profitable for the controlling entity to allow it to continue so long as the pvp remains directed away from them not towards them. Conversely should that person/persons find themselves the target of pvp, their greatest weapon would be to withhold the needed resource from their enemies.

Is such an arrangement maintainable for the long term? I don't know. I frankly don't know if it's even possible to achieve. But it'd be interesting to see someone try. :)

Zaiyo Modi
Posted - 2008.02.09 06:02:00 - [82]

Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 10/02/2008 04:24:33

It is apparant to me that the two fundamental aspects of eve-online, the system of ship-to-ship combat and the fixed world filled with stations, stargates and npc's, offer the player different ways to play the game according to their playstyle as more aggressive or carebearish.

I am sure the ship combat system is the game's backbone and the dominant part of peoples fascination with eve-online, but allthough the combat system evolves with time, I feel a lack of evolvement of the overall world mechanics to offer a richer gaming experience, to give the player the tools to create an environment fit for a space mmorpg.

Specifically, I am missing tools for creating stuff that would flesh out a player's life in eve-online:
-Player housing in space.
-Corp facilities in space other than pos'
-Ships that are not necessarily a tool or a weapon platform.
-Interactive tools to be used between players like hailing a nearby ship using in-game voicecoms.
-Evolvement of the way ships move between systems in the galaxy of eve.
-Having a system where players somehow can interact with npc's beyond mission-running.
-Tools for empirebuilding, like fun work in building up a system of logistics, where skill and carefree planning support ambitions of making a name for oneself in a grand space opera.
-Having npc's maintain basic services of above mentioned logistics, allowing automation for running a business or service of sorts, and also becoming another set of possible targets in ship to ship combat.

Surely a balance can be achieved between a players ability to create all this stuff and having other players their ability to bring about havoc, without ruinings players sense of achievement in the long run.

Some kind of practicality and interdependancy feels neccessary to sort of having a living space opera. Where it is more impractical to destroy on a whim any object that can be shot up, a sturdy construct like a player's housing in 0.0 or low securit systems for example.

Also, if a space faring culture of people are to be dependant on having basic logistical needs, utter destruction of assets by an invading force will ultimatly lead to logistical issues for the invading force itself. Conquest would then offer variants of choices in dealing with an enemy, like chosing to append conquered assets for own logistical needs somehow, or start a rampant destruction of stuff to favor own systems with services behind frontier systems.

With a more dynamic system of empirebuilding, the possibility of big scale griefing, where a group of people go on a doomsday campaign to rid the world of what before was known as fixed functions like stargates, then some natural countermeasures like slow regeneration would be in order as long as the buildup is not too trivial.

The point of it all is offering more choices and more power to the players to shape the environment and take advantage of opportunities with the game mechanics, without denying the basic need for people to pew pew.

Beyond Divinity Inc
Posted - 2008.02.09 08:28:00 - [83]

I really wish I had something cool to say. The problem is everyone here is really smart and uses big words. But all that aside, CCP, do this kind of player involvement more often will you? It makes the game more fun.

I can't remember exactly but wasn't there some contest that the winner was given a statue somewhere? I also vaguely remember every player getting a Jovian gift thing. Fun things to spice it up, keep doing it!

Zaiyo Modi
Posted - 2008.02.09 12:34:00 - [84]

My bad, I'll work on a rewrite.

Kallius Petrovich
Warping Into The Sun
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:04:00 - [85]

What would it mean for an alliance to conquer 0.0?

You could get sovereignty, but the nature of player policing is such that elements of alliance control could always be challenged by individuals.

Further, in order for there to be a single dominant coalition, there needs to be agreement on a form of government.

Agreement means more than people just saying "hey, I agree." It means that the alliance in question needs to discover the best manageable form of government that works in the eve-online framework. Some people clearly have some ideas about what works, and we can take a few pages out of real world history, but the key thing that I see in this game is that we don't yet know what works the best.

Any player-made government needs to be able to cope with projecting power over vast distances without requiring of its police and military that they work it like a job. It seems to me that there's a fundamental limit on how much peace a government can keep just because there comes a point where enforcement just isn't fun unless someone's breaking the law or violating sovereignty (I mean an alliances social sovereignty over space, not the game mechanic).

One of the things that any government must deal with is also this: where does the government derive its legitimacy? In the real world, this comes from being born in a certain physical area and being subject to the laws of that territory and being a part and inheritor of that territory's history. There is no such thing in eve. There is some history, but the point is that new people will always bring their own ideas of what's legitimate. Since there will always be questions of legitimacy, in my opinion, there will always be room to challenge any global government that forms.

Since enforcement, and therefore rule of law, are virtually impossible, and the source of legitimacy is always, by the nature of the game, in flux, I would say that no single government, and therefore no coalition of alliances, can ever completely subjugate the whole game for more than a little while. These are pillars of the state in the real world, and they are by and large unattainable in this game.

All I can see is the business arrangement, which ultimately leads to friction in alliances when better opportunities are available, which I assume is by design. At least, I would prefer to play a game in which there is never total domination.

Chaotic Balance
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:51:00 - [86]

Edited by: Empyre on 09/02/2008 18:53:21
i really think the conquering/colonizing of 0.0 has yet to truly be exercised in a genuinely thorough manner. but i think the game mechanics for these tasks are just fine.

one complaint i have is how easy it is for spies, thieves and the like to undermine the integrity of complete organizations. it's literally one person taking down the morale and infrastructure of an entire corporation or alliance.

i know this has been discussed and beat to death but it really deserves repeated mention until there is an appropriate counter-balancing feature. what this could be i don't know, simply because you can't really force people to disclose all their characters and accounts.

there is something cheap feeling about a person who can lie their way repeatedly into organizations and make off with billions in assets in a single small move, only to delete the character and start the process all over again. the same can be said for someone who plays a loyal role while feeding critical intelligence about operations.

sure, you can anticipate some moves and try to fake out the spy but they will continue to adapt and can easily take those tactics to another character. there is literally no recourse for those actions. the whole thing just distracts from being able to enjoy and utilize the full potential of fleet combat operations.

don't get me wrong, i've come to accept the 'darker' roles in eve. it would just be nice if a single role couldn't cripple an entire operation of hundreds of other people, or at least had some accountability or counter-recourse actions.

edit: in summary, the whole 0.0 theater could be a lot more fulfilling and entertaining if a single person couldn't undermine the entire thing.

Posted - 2008.02.09 19:55:00 - [87]

Edited by: Tzar''rim on 09/02/2008 19:59:45
It's impossible.

The more ground one alliance gains the less targets they get to battle, to a point where either PVPers have to travel half the galaxy to find a fight or where large areas of space become empty because they're fighting somewhere else.

The more people you get the less you can control them, at some point(s) people will break off, get into a fight and splinter off.

Apart from that, if it WOULD happen there would be no more targets, and since this is a PVP game (stressing the game part here) people will on purpose break off and start trouble in order to be able to PVP.

also, controlling space means being in control of people, ironfisted control at times in order to have the p/muppets do as you want them to do. This might work IRL but here, in a game environment, it's much more difficult. Having said that certain entities or people are trying exactly this (and in a lot of cases, succeed).

Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Posted - 2008.02.09 21:05:00 - [88]

Can 0.0 ever be conquered?

Since every system/region is pretty much the same as the next one it really doesn't make much difference where you reside in Eve. What matters is what you do with that space once you have it.

The Romans taught us that to conquer without improving the lives of the people living there makes you plunderers. Their lasting 'Empire' remains to this day in the language, science, religion and other aspects of the local culture.

In my probably controversial opinion, the only real conquering Alliance in Eve are CVA who have won a region with more than just ships and POS, but also a unique philosophy (no... not just NRDS!) offering anyone mature and respectful enough safe haven to dwell there as part of that community doing what pilots in Eve do.

The rest of the alliances in game are essentially plunderers out for their own interests (including those building outposts that only they themselves can use) without any care for anyone else who might want to 'play' in 'their' space.

My opinion of these alliances is pretty harsh since their 'control' of that space is merely leaders trying to maximize their profit from anyone dwelling there so they can buy more ships, POS, Tech2 BPOs and then lay claim to yet more space without offering anything different really to the next plundering alliance.

If the question were: Can all of 0.0 be controlled by a single alliance or coalition of alliances?

0.0 already is effectively fully controlled by alliances by them stopping traffic in and out at choke points and smacking down any 'non friendly' Sovereignty claiming POS within hours of their claim.

However the time and effort required by a single entity (be it alliance or coalition) to police and control all of 0.0 would not really be worth the benefit of having this claim since it really would be self defeating in terms of 'having fun in PVP a game' without any real enemies to fight.

Amarr Vyktor! Razz

Kallius Petrovich
Warping Into The Sun
Posted - 2008.02.09 22:25:00 - [89]

Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
Can 0.0 ever be conquered?

Since every system/region is pretty much the same as the next one it really doesn't make much difference where you reside in Eve.

Would be nice to see some sense of terrain within systems, no? It would be interesting to see the kind of social structures that would form around different terrain types.

I suppose geopolitics exists in this game in the sense that alliances that are near each other tend to fight, but it would also be neat to see Napoleon defeated by the Russian winter (or its equivalent in space).

In any case, your point about what is done with the space is exactly what I mean by legitimacy. The ruled must regard the government as legitimate (in your point of view it appears that minimally interventionist rule of law is a prerequisite to that).

Posted - 2008.02.12 12:19:00 - [90]

Can't wait for factional warfare and the possibility to war dec NPC corps (if it actually gets allowed). This would really encourage people out into 0.0 . ATM people i talk to are too scared to go out there, for the most part of NPC owned 0.0 there are actually some very quiet spaces, but they dont believe me when i say that. Political climate also affects peoples will to head out into the fun town (because 0.0 IS imo the best place in eve, empire is laggy and i get too excited when i see an iteron), if corps were blue to all then they could go where they like and ignore the whole BoB + co vs Coallition and the other large fights in the north (appologies im not aware of who vs who as this doesnt affect me) etc... However you dont have to be a brain surgeon to realise that no-one will ever be blue to all. 0.0 is also home to -1 space, the most lucrative space in the game, home to faction/officer spawns, VERY nice exploration sites. Its a shame too many people are happy to sit in a mining belt and still hit the big isk. I welcome the prospective changes to mining, maybe they will tempt people out into deeper space. I also would like to see the size of 0.5 and above space shrunk, this would reduce a little of everything and again tempt people out into 0.0 . As a Lowsec pilot of nearly a year now, I really recommend it, ive never had soo many on the edge of my seat moments ranging from fleeing from blobs to killing motherships, just not on your own and in the right corp.

This increase in players would certainly change 0.0 . How is too unpredicatable (as is the nature of gamers). I think current sovereignty will really limit peoples ability to take new systems, for example sov 3 will allow jump gates and cyno jammers, which means fast reinforcements and no capital attacks, That would really limit an enemy's ability to create an effective fight. But fighting and politics are the only way to conquer 0.0 . No two ways about it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only