It's been a long
time since I've been excited about EVE, and as a consequence, it's
been a long time since I've written about EVE. Phoebe got close to
making me excited, I saw the potential for change, but it just wasn't
enough. FozzieSov on the other hand has gotten me very excited about
EVE.
Fozzie recentlyreleased a request for feedback about the new system, and if you
haven't already responded, you really should. Be warned though, the survey site has a 90 minute timer! If you need
to make a longer response than that allows, be sure to type your
answers out in a separate document and copy paste them in.
This survey and its
prompts really forced me to sit down and think about my concerns for
the new system. Overall, I'm pretty positive about it, but there are
a couple glaring concerns, let's dig in.
FozzieSov's Timezone
Mechanics have really worried a fair number of people. For the
purposes of this blog, we'll call the new timezone mechanic
FozzieTime. FozzieTime introduces several concerns, some of the most
vocalized being centered around aussies being unable to take sov.
I'm not going to say
that aussies won't have issues taking sov, but I think this isn't too
big a deal. It is my understanding that right now people fear that
aussies won't be able to find content as a result of FozzieTime. I
think that's wrong. Players have historically repositioned themselves
in game to congregate where content is found. We can look back and
see evidence of this in the great dog piles of old; BoB War One, BoB
War Two, DRF vs NC and more recently in Goonswarm Vs TEST 'we're just
here for good fights' and the Halloween War.
If we take the
notion of players moving around for content as fact, then it is safe
to say that players will shuffle themselves into whatever
configuration ensures content. This means that people playing in the
AU timezones will likely want to be neighbors with those playing in
China, India, Japan and Vladivostok Russia. This conclusion is drawn
from the way timezones wrap the world. If you take a look at the map
below, you can quickly determine where in the world you'll want your
adversaries to be from to ensure content.
This means that over
time we should expect to see nullsec reshaping itself to have
adversaries within overlapping timezones relatively nearby. The
specifics of this are hard to pin down. However, given the relative
ease of taking sov and the difficulties of holding it I would expect
to see empires contract such that appropriate adversaries can be
found in less than fifteen jumps.
There are also
concerns about the difficulty of holding sovereignty under the
FozzieSov system. The relative difficulty of retaining sov demands
that players congregate in smaller areas of space. This need to
centralize combined with the timezone specialization created by
FozzieTime means that there will be a vastly increased number of
simultaneously active players in a given system. This introduces what
we'll call the Concurrent Highsec Parity problem.
In between PVP
encounters, players like to build up their isk, they also like to
minimize their risk and maximize their isk. In nullsec, this most
commonly takes the form of running anomolies. However the current
system has a relative concurrency cap. This is a deep issue, so stick
with me.
Nullsec isking for
the average player has to compete with all other forms of isking. The
general measure of isking is isk/hour, and while everyone has
different numbers, nullsec isking is generally considered to be
on-par or below highsec isking for the average player. That is,
nullsec isking is generally considered to be at or below highsec
parity. It is important to note that not all anomolies are created
equal and not all systems spawn the same number of anomolies.
Currently, a nullsec system may be in one of five 'security bands'.
Each security band spawns different numbers of sites and different
types of sites. These spawns are further influenced by the military
index and the associated upgrades.
Depending on ship
type and location, different sites will pay out the highest isk/hour.
However it is generally agreed that fully upgraded systems in the
bottom two bands (0.0 to -0.4) are capable of supporting between one
and three concurrent ratters at highsec parity. Meanwhile a fully
upgraded system in the top band (-0.9 to -1.0) is generally
considered to be able to support between 8 and 15 concurrent ratters
at or above highsec parity. It is important to note that if you
exceed the maximum number of concurrent ratters everyone's isk/hour
goes down. This is because there aren't enough of the optimal sites
to go around, so players have to use less optimal sites or race each
other to claim a site. Put enough concurrent ratters in a system and
everyone's isk/hour sinks below highsec parity.
Currently, nullsec
alliance ratters spread out across the alliance's space to avoid this
problem. As you can see in the map of Deklein below, there are
ratters active all across the region. Imagine what would happen if
you tried to cram them all in a single constellation.
While there are a
lot of nifty design elements at work in the current anomoly system,
when you combined FozzieSov with it, you have a problem. As stated
earlier, FozzieSov makes alliances want to minimize and centralize
their space, then fill it with as many pilots as possible. FozzieTime
makes alliances want to have all those people online in the same four
hour chunk of time. When those pilots aren't fighting, they'll be
isking and that means lots of concurrent ratters in very few systems.
As discussed above, that will force everyone's isk/hour below highsec
parity. This will in turn see players going back to highsec claiming
the isk was better there.
This poses a
significant issue to FozzieSov as it will reduce the number of
players in nullsec. As you can imagine, this runs counter to CCP's
stated goal of increasing the nullsecpopulation.
There is also a
rather interesting conclusion to be made here as well. With the
current anomoly system, FozzieSov will actually create a relatively
rigid maximum alliance size. That is it will be difficult for
alliances to sustain numbers that exceed their space's maximum
concurrent ratter at highsec parity limit. This of course runs
counter to FozzieSov's stated desire not to enforce some arbitrarylimit on the number of friends or allies you can have. (Goal #3, Paragraph 3)
FozzieSov obviously
intends to contract empires, and I think that's a very admirable
goal. However constricting the player count at the same time is a
very unwelcome change. To get around this, FozzieSov needs to include
a solution to the Concurrent Highsec Parity problem.
Solving
Concurrent Highsec Parity
As with everything, we need to take a deep look at the system before
we change it. The Concurrent Highsec Parity problem results from
FozzieSov forcing players together and the Anomoly system forcing
people to spread out.
We know from Fozzie's blogs that CCP wants more people in nullsec and
that they don't want to force arbitrary limits on the players. What
we don't know is whether CCP wants the players to have to spread out
for isking. For the purposes of this discussion, let's look at the
current system and contrast it against the apparent effects of the
new system. First off, let's look at the influence map, specifically
the top left corner.
Given the changes FozzieSov brings to the table, I think it's safe to
say that the monolithic Goonswarm Federation owning one and a half to
two regions is not desired. It appears to me that FozzieSov is
intended to reshape the map to look more like Tribute & Vale of
the Silent, with six alliances in them.
If we take this to be fact, then I think it is safe to say that CCP
wants alliances to have to spread out a bit, but not beyond a few
constellations.
This conclusion forces us to acknowledge that systems shouldn't have
an infinite concurrent highsec parity limit. If they did, there would
be little to no incentive for players to expand. It is worth noting
that Concurrent Highsec Parity is very good at inciting players to
move and expand. We can see it at work in every well populated
nullsec region in the game today. It doesn't actually limit the
number of players in a system, and it doesn't abruptly stop players
from doing things. Since this exists in the game, I think it's fair
to say that CCP actually wants to retain it. This assumption could
even be backed up by Fozzie stating that nullsec income is fine. (Phase 3, first quote box)
Moving forward with this assumption, what are the dials that can be
turned to increase or decrease the number of players anoming happily?
Option One
- Increase the amount of isk in all anomolies so that more types of sites provide income at or above highsec parity. This would definitely raise the number of concurrent ratters at or above highsec parity. CCP also has a lot of tools available to increase the amount of isk in an anomoly, my preferred method for this would to add LP as opposed to higher bounties, 'blue loot', salvage or better drops.
Option Two
- Increase the number of high end anomolies being spawned. With more anomolies, more players can rat at or above highsec parity. This wouldn't change the isk/hour of any given pilot beyond what is currently expected.
Option Three
- Do both One & Two
You'll notice that there are really only a few solutions here. Yet
CCP still has a number of options when it comes to exact
implementation.
We are left with one glaring question though. We know how to change
the maximum number of concurrent ratters at high sec parity, but we
don't know what we want that number to look like.
So really, the question here isn't how or what do we do to fix this
problem. The question is how many players do we want to rat in a
single system? We of course have to be aware that the answer to this
question will impact how far alliances spread.
If I had to pick a number, I would say the ideal minimum is ten. I
say ten because that would allow an active, but small corp to make
its home in a single nullsec system without problem. The maximum
should be based on system rarity. That is, we know that systems with
lower security are rarer, so the number of concurrent ratters at or
above highsec parity should increase as security goes down. Perhaps
with a multiplicative effect?
This will provide an incentive at the alliance leadership level to
fight for lower sec space. More members in a smaller space makes it
easier to defend and more easily manage logistics.
While history has shown that leadership motivation is all that is
needed to make alliances do things, it is worth noting that there is
an opportunity here to help drive more people into nullsec. If the
average isk/hour was always above highsec parity, even in the first
and second security bands, there would be more incentive for the
average player to move to nullsec. I would advocate adding a new ihub
upgrade that adds LP to rat kill payouts.
There are many ways to make an LP system work. But the core goal is
to add more isk for anom rats without impacting other parts of EVE
while still requiring extra player work somewhere.
I think making these changes would help craft EVE's nullsec into a
much more vibrant community.
On a more
personal note
Discussing the value of adding more isk reminds me of when the drone
lands were first added. There was all kinds of consternation about
the logistics problems of shipping loot to highsec. Yet as soon as
word got out about the billions in Zydrine being shipped back,
EVERYONE ran to check it out. It was literally the only thing people
were talking about. I recall my first GSC was worth something like
800 million. It was a true gold rush, and it got players out into
those new regions like you wouldn't believe.
That kind of environment is where I'd like to see EVE going. A place
where nullsec is the promised land. Yeah, you get your shit pushed in
constantly, but damn if you aren't still getting rich doing it!
- islador
- islador