Dominion: CCP Forgot About the Small Guys
Cal - And now for a guest post by a good friend of mine, Schwigg. Schwigg serves as the Logistical Commander in New Bastion, and offered to share his insights into the Dominion sov changes:
Schwigg - I recently re-subscribed to EVE to reunite with several friends (including Cal) who were giving the game another spin. I've had an on-and-off relationship with EVE since 2004, so I've seen many patches come and go. I was especially excited about the upcoming Dominion expansion because it was originally pitched as the event that was going to change 0.0 for the better. I lived out of 0.0 in a previous EVE stint and had a blast - if Dominion meant more of that, I was game.
If you've read the other posts on Cal's blog, you know that our corporation, Arrogance Unlimited, is still in the growing stages. That didn't worry us at first, because the initial dev blog about Dominion had this to say about small corporations like us and the 0.0 situation:
And the smaller groups, the newer organizations hoping to gain a foothold in the Great Game, are left begging for crumbs around the edges. Who's going to let security-risk nobodies into their back yard when they'll never be able to compete pay as much as a single dysprosium moon?
We're not convinced that this is the best, most interesting, most dynamic and most emergence-friendly state of being for nullsec, so we're going to make some changes.
That sounds great! Unfortunately, I don't see how that is going to happen with the expansion.
I guess part of my disappointment is that I was expecting the large, established alliances to have to consolidate their space, leaving holes in-between where new, much smaller alliances and their pilots could stake their claim. This consolidation was going to be because it would become more and more expensive for alliances to claim additional systems. I guess I read too far into this quote from the Breaking the Chains dev blog:
...the more space you spread your ‘Dominion' across, the more expensive it will become to maintain your stargate network. We do not want to see alliances holding space simply for the sake of holding it or just making their color on the map bigger.
When I saw that, I read "the more space" / "the more expensive" to mean "in a non-linear way". My mistake, I suppose.
In fact, I would argue that it's going to become easier, and potentially cheaper, for large alliances to claim large areas of space. Without the need for POSes, which require periodic fuelings, and with the addition of automatic billing, alliances just need to make sure they have enough cash in their wallet to cover the bills - they don't even need to visit the systems they claim anymore. This ISK can be generated anywhere, including by alts, safely running missions in empire.
So what's to stop me, the little guy, from claiming an unused system that's merely another colored sovereignty dot on the map? Two things: 3* hours of anchoring and 400M ISK for each SBU I need to make things vulnerable.
"But Schwigg, right now you'd have to anchor POSes, which cost up to 400M ISK each, and defend those."
Correct. But I thought the point of this patch was to *change* things and make it more appealing and potentially easier for more pilots to move into 0.0 space. The structures have changed, but the fundamentals are the same. Instead of fighting at moons, you're fighting at stargates; instead of shooting POSes, you're shooting SBUs/TCUs.
"But Schwigg, three hours isn't that long. Just suck it up and gate camp."
It's an awfully long time, compared to what CCP was alluding to in the Break the Chains blog:
"Conquest of space in Dominion will differ greatly from what exists currently, as will the ability of roaming gangs to cause an ‘AFK Empire' no end of frustration."
There is nothing "roaming gang" about watching a timer for three hours. Also, in the current system, the attacker doesn't have to put their anchorable assets on the line in order to cause damage to an enemy's infrastructure. Now, I'm paying at least 400M (for a dead-end system), and more like 800M+, and then waiting 3 hours or so for the *opportunity* to shoot at an alliance's important structures. Yes, I could run around taking pot-shots at POSes, but one of the things this patch *is* doing is devaluing POSes through reduced moon goo prices and the changes to sovereignty. So "meh".
Even at three hours (and recall, it is currently set at six), if an alliance is so big that they can't muster a defense after 1, maybe 2 hours - do they really have a claim to that space? Especially with two reinforcement timers that will last days beyond the initial assault. Seriously, what does 3 hours buy the defender that 1-2 hours doesn't? If the alliance doesn't get some sort of warning message when the anchoring starts, 3 hours is even worse, because it's not even buying the defenders time to counter the assault.
On the flip side, if the defenders find out I'm anchoring in their system and they *do* have a reasonably-sized defensive force at the ready, there's not a huge sense of urgency in a 3-hour timer. I could easily wrap up the complex I'm running, slow-boat it back to my system, grab an appropriate ship (and a snack), then head out to squash the little guy when it's convenient. Meanwhile, the attacker has to sit there the entire time.
What are my options, then, as a member of a small-to-medium sized corp in a small alliance? I could just bite the bullet, suck up to an established alliance, and pay rent - but that doesn't appeal at all. Let's be honest: anyone out in 0.0 would love to be doing so under their own flag. I want to be a homeowner, not rent an apartment.
Sadly, one of the most effective ways to have an impact on the larger alliances in 0.0 space will be to head to their hub systems and cloak up while afk, forcing their ratters and miners to head for the hills. And that's no fun for anyone. I would much rather see a system where smaller groups could pick away at the exteriors of an alliance's sovereign system.
All criticism without suggestion for improvement is useless, so here's my obligatory idea for what could have been done. There are likely to be holes, but I'm open to discussion.
First, take away the need for the attacker to anchor such an expensive piece of equipment on such a long timer. The idea of hit-and-run was exciting, and the current implementation is anything but.
I'm not against the idea of system upgrades or levels of sovereignty, but what if the sovereignty level (and available upgrades) were based on the number of adjoining systems that you control? A "singleton" system would be the base level, with no bonuses. If you control the system next door, both systems would gain a defensive/logistic bonus of some kind - maybe you would gain a POS fuel bonus or the ability to anchor gate guns (!) at the gate in-between the systems.
If you control a system and two systems next door to it, additional bonuses would be granted, up to... constellation control. Once you have control of all of the systems in a constellation, then you can anchor your cynojammers and jump bridges.
This system makes "crossroads" systems the most valuable to own/defend, as they have the most systems next door, therefore having the most upgrade potential through bonuses. It also allows hit-and-run tactics by making it necessary to defend your entire constellation. A small corp could try to knock out your control of one of the end-point (therefore least-bonused) systems, which would reduce the bonuses of the next system and so on. Wouldn't it make sense for fringe systems to be the weakest? For the big alliances, a mobile force that takes out any system in the constellation would then allow the cap ships to move in for the big carnage.
Also, make it increasingly expensive for a single alliance to control multiple systems, in a non-linear way. To throw dummy numbers out there, if you control one system, rent is 100M/each. If you control two, it's 200M each (400 total), and so on. Large alliances might try to get around this by having alt alliances grab territory, but alt alliances in an adjacent system wouldn't count towards the bonuses and wouldn't count towards constellation control.
Is this any better than the current system? Are you disappointed with the outcome of Dominion with regards to the un-established alliances? Let me know in the comments.
*A recent dev post stated that CCP realizes 6 hours is long and that they're "...looking at reducing that to probably three hours. Maybe."
Dominion – Lies and Let Down
When Dominion was first announced, I was ecstatic. The list of items and long overdue fixes seemed to be exactly what EVE needed, if done correctly. Stale 0.0 environment with complacent-but-dislodgeable power blocs? "No problem!" CCP said. "We're implementing new sov changes that will open up 0.0 for the little guys! We love the idea of small gang warfare being able to effect the new sov system!"
Or so they promised. I'll admit, I drank the Coolaid. I love 0.0, but have long grown tired of blob warfare and the existing power blocs. Small gangs, which I prefer, being able to disrupt/impede sov in the "big boy's" systems sounded ideal!
The details about how that will all play out, though, have now been released...and don't I feel like a sucker. Let's break down what has to happen for a "small gang" (nice one CCP) to disrupt the sov in a system.
- Purchase SBU's...which run 400M each
- Yay for pricing the little guys out of the equation CCP. Remember, not all of us have access to moongold. Not all of us sell GTC or PLEX for ISK. 400M for many corps is quite a bit...but 400M is only what it would cost you if there were only a single gate (read: dead end) into the system you're disrupting. Most systems I've been in have at least two. And since you need the SBU's on 51% of the gates, that means 800M ISK required easy. See the previous notes about 400M being quite a bit for many corps.
- Anchor and online the SBU's...which is currently set at six hours
- Now, as a person that has long enjoyed roaming gangs into enemy territory, I will share with you a secret that CCP seems to have forgotten when they proclaimed this an activity that small roaming gangs can do: "Staying put for any length of time when in enemy territory allows the enemy to amass overwhelming force to remove you." The military calls this "Dying in Place." For a normal roaming gang, this means staying put for even 15-20 minutes, not to mention six hours (or the three that they said they're considering), will get you blobbed to death by the enemy.
- Besides that...six hours...are you serious CCP? That's 1/4 of the damn day to be sitting on your ass, dying in place, protecting structures that can't move, and can't fire back. SIX HOURS! Six hours to try and desperately maintain superiority over a system when the enemy has 5, 10, 50, or 100 times the number of pilots to call upon to force you out. To hell with complaining about roaming gangs not being able to take part in this...small alliances won't be able to either. The likelihood of a small alliance being able to maintain the necessary coverage against a larger alliance (or bloc of alliances) over a full six hour period is slim-to-none.
I don't care about the rest of the steps. They seem reasonably fine. But the entire premise that they're built on is broken. Taking a step back, let's look at the parts together.
- CCP releases horribly overpriced system where both large and small alliances can't hope to hold much space.
- CCP revises the numbers so that, to hold a simple system without the upgrades, you're looking at between 30 and 75M isk a month.
- A simple change here of making the price of holding a system rise the more systems you hold would be ideal. It would force larger alliances to contract some, while opening up the possibility of a small alliance holding a very small number of systems themselves.
- CCP then releases details explaining how they're changing the boring "hey, we're shooting shit slowly for hours and hours" method of sov switching to "hey, we're shooting shit slowly for hours and hours". Wait...those look familiar...
Now, if CCP had gone with just #1, the entire landscape of 0.0 would change overnight. NPC 0.0 would be packed beyond belief, as would wormholes. But no, they had to go with #2, which means that 0.0 will remain status quo. See, Goons just putting a basic TCU in 100 systems won't cost them anymore than putting 1 small tower in each of those systems does. Which means they get to keep each of those systems (remember, everyone that has sov in a system is getting a free TCU in said system on Dec. 1st).
Prior to Dominion, it wouldn't have been a crazy deal for a small corp/alliance to get together 50 pilots for the hour necessary to go in and remove that tower. Get in, get out, get gone. A small portion of the map changes, until the Goons decide to do what they do (be asses) and take it back with 500 pilots.
With what we know about Dominion, the small corp/alliance doesn't stand a chance. Get in...anchor/online SBU's...wait six hours while crossing their fingers and hoping the Goons really don't care about getting a fight. Remember, of course, that the fight is guaranteed since the attackers can't just leave the SBU's. And remember that the SBU's aren't insurable, they're structures, and cost 400M each. In the pre-dominion example, the attackers at least have the opportunity to maybe succeed, as they'd be able to destroy a small tower in a matter of minutes, not giving the Goons time to respond. But post-dominion? No way in hell the Goons can't get 50 (knowing them closer to 200-500) pilots to respond over the course of six hours.
So not only will the status quo not change, it will become more firmly entrenched than ever. No more nipping away at a larger alliance's territory here and there because they can't respond with overwhelming force in time. Now they've got all the time in the world (ok, a full 1/4 of the day) to respond with more than what you have, or to conduct a lightning raid against the SBU's.
Rejoice land-holders. While your jump bridges and cyno jammers may cost a bit more to hold and maintain post-Dominion, you won't have to worry about losing territory again unless hit by overwhelming force...but that was the case already wasn't it?
And CCP, thanks again for giving small gang warfare the shaft. We don't want to be able to take a system with the small gang warfare, but we'd love to disrupt it. You know, the way that you said we could when you first started announcing these "awesome" changes to Dominion.