Posted - 2008.01.29 11:52:00 - [3]

 

I can sort of understand what your getting at, but at the same time im a little confused. Can you clarify what you mean by controlling? eg as in opening the space for all comers, or restricting to alliance members only? I would think only the second option would be viable of those two options.

But at the end of the day, as always happens, control will collapse into internal bickering and end up in war.

As for how, a large coalition of alliances could do it, but then again its already being done, see BoB and Goon/Red Alliance.

If some other alliance managed to conquer a large portion, they would constantly be under attack from smaller and (possibly) larger corporations.

I personally dont think its possible, short of an iron fisted control with a rampantly war like alliance who would defend their space ruthlessly.

But thats just my 2 isk

Posted - 2008.01.29 12:39:00 - [5]

 

Originally by: Ebodhisatva

---

Edited by: Ebodhisatva on 29/01/2008 11:36:11
If we would take a look at the Chinese EVE server, wouldn't we have a picture?

---

*snip*

Back on topic :

Conquering 0.0 is something which possibly might happen. However chances are not too good, that such an endeavor will succeed.

Personally, i can't imagine a Meta-Aliance with the manpower necessary, to last very long. It would take alot of like-minded CEOs, backed up by each corp member with the same and sole interest in conquering 0.0.

If the past has taught us anything it is, that the larger an Alliance or Corporation is, the more it loses its edge(s). Compare that to a sword : You can sharpen it only to a certain degreee, when you cross the limit, the blade becomes edgy and not balanced anymore.

Make the sword to big or heavy and you need more than 2 hands to control it. The results won't be too good.

-------------------

Is it worth conquering 0.0 ?

That depends entirely on what each individuals goal is in the game. Some people collect isk, some assets, some POSes. Maybe someone wants to collect solar systems he controls.

In this question lies the answer to the first question you asked, because you will need alot of people who have the same goal, thus making it worth for them - controlling as much space as possible.

-------------------

What would be the consequences ?

Lets assume, some Alliance had conquered 0.0 and is largely in control of it. What would happen ? First, the most hardcore-pvpers would split due to an increasingly lack of targets. Second, they would band together to do, what they do best - shoot at targets, where there are lots of targets aka the conquered 0.0, their former allies.

Third, most likely this process will encourage others to do likewise and the whole "0.0-Empire" will slowly start to crumble.

In the end, nothing really new here. In RL, there is a name for it : Evolution.

Oro Masut


Edited for off topic comment - Wrangler

Posted - 2008.01.29 12:58:00 - [7]

 

We need to conquer it when you get the ability to rename regions/const/systems. That to truely make your mark and defend your territory. As it is now you can easily move to another region without too much loss.

Losing the region named after you/corp/alliance is a greater blow than losing a few Motherships along the way.

Hopefully I too then will be able to claim my cottage and keep my name on the map. And it would give some relation to the real world, with countries assisting each other, fighting each other and so on.

So does it need to be conquered, yes I belive so it's the normal evolution imo.

Posted - 2008.01.29 13:34:00 - [9]

 

I've been here since the start, right after the servers were up, and I've seen alliances and blocs both come and go. The current conflicts are very similar to the old, for many of the reasons already mentioned, specifically that expansionist blocs will fall in on themselves, which is the only real reason that these groups fail.

The common theme is that it comes down to governance - if you look at the NPC empires they have rigid control structures with fixed delineation of responsibilities and a balanced production regime of maintenance. It is this fundamental infrastructure that is missing from the 0.0 alliances and 0.0 space is general, which is why we see these huge super-alliances and meta-blocs collapse.

I'm not denying that the current groups have either the manpower, the resources or the expertise to build long-lasting empires: I do deny that they have the soft skills - the overarching leadership, drive and structure to do so. Most of these groups are together because of ideals - whether it be PvP or even empire-building itself - but I have never seen one yet lay down a structured plan of timelines, objectives, goals that span anything more than a few weeks. (I am omitting the 'let's take over X region as part of an ideal, not a plan).

Even when you look at the conflicts themselves, there is no indication of overall plans and aims. There are fleet commanders - extremely good ones I hasten to add - but there are no commander-in-chiefs or rear admirals who sit back and direct affairs with a wider scope, a wider view. There are tactics in Eve warfare, but there is no strategy.

Combined with a lack of leadership there is also a lack of balance. Everything in Eve comes down to balance, starting from what skills to train, through what to equip your ship with right up to the makeup of your group, and it is missing in the scale of empires, which contributes to the internal collapse of alliances. This again comes down to ideals - if your group is of a PvP ideal, then the majority of people you will recruit will be combatants: but the combatants only give you the room to expand, not the facilities. The major success stories of PvP come from those roving bands that have no fixed abode or at the most a very very small one - enough that can easily be defended by a small group. With the super-alliances they expand and expand and expand well past the point that they can continue military dominance and defence of the space they claim, and at such a rate that the few people creating the infrastructure behind them can't keep up. This causes a real vulnerability involved in those spaces just behind the 'front lines'.

The balance missing is that of infrastructure v. expansion, consolidation v. conflict.

Those are what I see as the causes, but the effects are plain to see to everyone. Even in infrastructure-driven alliances such as ISS used to be there will come a stage in its development where in-fighting begins, due simply to the numbers of people involved. This is due to the lack of central governance - it's always a small group that get together to create an alliance, and it's said that you should never go into business with your friends because it'll just end in misery. The small core group 'controls' the alliance, and eventually perceived injustices will come to the surface and the alliance will fracture, if not splinter entirely. This process is accelerated if you then take the conflict/consolidation dichotomy into account for an expansionist super-alliance, as raiding parties from enemy groups will get through the holes into the vulnerable space constantly, which many will see as a lack of leadership and that they can do things better 'their way', so again it fractures.

There is a solution, but I need to make my money (and my name) somehow, so I'll keep it to myself

Posted - 2008.01.29 13:37:00 - [11]

 

This really all boils down to what CCP will allow. If a "meta-alliance" forms in 0.0 and realises they have a stable environment, then whats next to keep everyone busy and from shooting each other?

Empire.

Can this meta alliance then proceed to involve itself in the upcoming race wars? It is possible for 1 "alliance" to control a region of 0.0 space, but they must have a goal after that. If concord declares it will not intervene in the Empire wars then why couldnt an alliance start claiming low sec space next to a 0.0 jump off point.

Allow Empire to be seiged and race police to be destroyed. One can already take them down easy enough but something would have to be done about the respawn. CCP would have to do something about regulating how neutrals are treated by the seiging alliance but still allow fights between the race police and taking of stations etc.

Posted - 2008.01.29 14:51:00 - [13]

 

Granted i haven't been playing EvE long, but one of the deciding factors of the game was the whole 'political' and 'territory' aspect of the game. It opens up many new facets of gaming that haven't really been explored elsewhere.

As for 0.0 it seems that it most definitely can be conquered and controlled, at least for a time. The "coalitions" that exist today (going off CAOD forums) exist and operate with each other to achieve a common goal.

Often it seems it's for alliances to offer mutual protection, or to wage a war against another coalition. Alliances that are deemed to be weak or non-contributors are often swallowed by a more powerful alliance.

But the biggest downfall of these 'coalitions' is actually where their strength lies. Numbers. As far as i can see, there are alliances of varying sizes that ally together to form large coalitions, but the more people/alliances that you add into one mix, the more chance that there will be internal conflict *at some point* and this will lead to an implosion. Not always the case, but definitely a strong possibility.

As for consequences, i think for newer players such as myself, to find a footing or be able to get involved in the 0.0 end of things, we have to find a suitable alliance to join first, as opposed to finding a suitable corp (not always the case).

My humble opinion :)

Posted - 2008.01.29 14:55:00 - [15]

 

A possible solution to prevent a player a empire that manages to conqurer 0.0 from falling in on its self due to a lack of threats and challanges is for the leader of the alliance to set up some fake wars between differnt factions in the allaiance, allwoing the PvPs to vent their need to shoot somebody. These fake wars would have to be regulated by the alliance and factions leaders to make sure they dont get out of hand and of couse it would work a lot better if the pilots involved in the fake war didnt know it was fake.

Also minor splits in the alliance could be a good thing just to make wars so PvPs can fight, but the problem occurs when to many splits happen at once destroying the alliance.

So realy to mantain control of the entire 0.0 there has to be a some competition, either real or fake, that will put up a fight to allowe PvPs someone to shoot at but ultimently wont prove to be strong enough to be threat to the domination of the Alliance.

Posted - 2008.01.29 15:18:00 - [17]

 

Quote:

---

Can 0.0 ever be conquered? Why would anyone want to try? Should they, and how they might go about such a task? Moreover, what might the consequences for the inhabitants of EVE be after such rampant colonialism is concluded?

---

0.0 will always be attracting, with high liberty and high rewards. So a lot of people will want to try to control it. If they feel strong enough they should try.
If a small group succes to control 0.0, they can create strong restriction for all players, breaking the T2 supply or anything like that. Large group are not able to create such effect by being too big.

If you wait, some time a more dictatorial alliance will be created to be able to do it.
If you create tools to allow small group to control larger group, it will be faster to realise.
If you create tools to make group work together without beeing incorporated, you will developp concurrency and market economy in 0.0 (like in the real world). Total control will become impossible. Money will rules again.

Sorry for my poor English

Posted - 2008.01.29 15:45:00 - [19]

 

Originally by: Threv Echandari

---

Excellent Post.

---

I agree with everything Threv wrote. He hit the issue square on the head, imo.

Posted - 2008.01.29 16:33:00 - [21]

 

I would have to put forth the 2 following points, and one easy fix all suggestion.

1. Whether it is worth it or not to conquer 0.0 regions does not matter, it is what people WANT to do , not what is good for them that drives them.

2. If game mechanics such as the ability to actually control items such as gate guns, police forces, standings issues (like empire where you need standings to put up towers) allow it, people will take 0.0 and make it a home.

The Fix all.

Regional Sov (same as constellation sov but bigger where one constellation is capital)
Incorporate all or some of the abilities the Sovereign powers in empire have to restrict and control their space and let the game play itself. It's just that simple. You don't need to throw new toys into the sand box, just make the box bigger to accommodate bigger kids!

Posted - 2008.01.29 17:02:00 - [23]

 

Edited by: Pilk on 29/01/2008 17:19:44
I was under the impression this was already the case on the Chinese (Serenity) servers.

That said, it's very likely that this is the sort of thing that can only happen early in the lifecycle of an instance. Over any non-trivial length of time, a territory-holding alliance develops pockets of players who are, to put it delicately, slightly less than purely-dedicated to PvP. As these weak spots emerge, an enterprising external force can strike at a weak spot, forcing nearby elements of the juggernaut to respond. As this continues, three things happen in rapid succession:

1. The "weak spot" characters start to get good at PvP, since they (can) no longer carebear all day.
2. The "weak spot" characters (presumably a corp responsible for defense of this system/region) start to be resented (or at least made to pay higher taxes) by the people who are coming in and saving their carebear bacon.
3. The "weak spot" characters/corp gets booted from the 0.0-dominating alliance.

Now you've got a PvP-capable force, fat on the riches of a 0.0 region, and who is bitter towards the people who booted them. Guess whose side they join! Thus, while it's possible to generate 0.0 hegemony for a short while, my argument is that it cannot last.

For an alternate view as to why it couldn't happen, one can simply look to the facts of the matter. In order to conquer all of 0.0, you need some very bloodthirsty PvP'ers willing to set their alarm clocks at all hours of the day and night (or simply an indivisible, unholy horde, but if you're an indivisible group of 99% of the players on the server, all my arguments start to break down). Once you've conquered all of 0.0, what do those PvP'ers do? They either straight-out quit, they stop playing, or they turn on themselves, the latter made all the easier by the fact that their PvP compatriots on the side of whatever perceived division they're now fighting against have quit or stopped playing.

I could make another argument as to why this can only happen on fresh instances, but I'd need a copy of Flash and about three days of programming. Suffice it to say, given any serious amount of conflict, it quickly becomes the case that there are people you simply won't fight alongside for a while. Yes, those fade, but unless there's a galactic peace accord signed for a few months (which is effectively what happens at server startup; nobody's ever fought each other before), the shifting tides of "I won't work alongside these guys" mean that you can't build a coalition covering all of 0.0.

Lastly, you'll always have Waagaas and Cinnanders available to start war where there was none.

--P

Posted - 2008.01.29 17:12:00 - [25]

 

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.

Once a single unified force controls the galaxy, it's only a matter of time before the true PvPers in this game do what they do best -- sow dischord, spoil the best laid plans, and ultimately fracture the coalition to the point of anarchy. Friends will distrust friends. Every new player will be seen a spy, thief or assassin. Through a mix of paranoia and corruption, the leaders will alienate their power base and they will be toppled.

So has it been since the days of Alexander and Caesar, so will it continue forever.

Posted - 2008.01.29 17:45:00 - [27]

 

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Edited by: Shadowsword on 29/01/2008 17:04:35

I don't think one power bloc will ever control all of 0.0, or at least not more than a few weeks. To have an healthy alliance absolutely require that alliance to have a number of good pvpers, and without enemies, the pvpers go inactive, or leave that alliance for another more agressive. Alliances without pvpers inevitably fall prey to alliances with pvpers, so the only way to keep your alliance alive and growing is to keep it in a state of constant fight.

The day one power bloc cause such fear that even it's strongest designated preys lose the will to fight and chose to run, is the day that power bloc will start hemorraging power, and eventually be destroyed.

---

I think if a power bloc has the resources to take 0.0, it should have the foresight to plan for when the conquest is complete. If I was in charge of an alliance about to win all of 0.0, I would be tempted to quickly manufacture a new enemy (a "rebel alliance" for instance), no matter how insignificant they might be. One needs fear to keep the guns prepped and the population in check - bless 'em.

- Z

Posted - 2008.01.29 17:53:00 - [29]

 

As i see it... (IMHO)

The way to control the entire universe is by not controlling the entire universe at the same time.
Don't conquer and destroy other alliances, take control of them.
Never EVER let anyone know that you are in control, rule without being seen or known.
And keep doing business as usual, let the alliances you control wage war and keep it at a level where you always have enough resources to combat the alliances you don't control.

If you, by invisible links can control two or more big alliances at war with each other...
Then you are indeed controlling the universe!