Content Shouldn't Be a Dead End: Example Contested Sovereignty (CoSo)

TL;DR: The following mechanic is nothing more but a mere example of what is described in the general section below it. The idea is more about the general section, less about this specific example which probably has its flaws.

Just to get hated by Nullsec and giving them some action:


Original Version before discussions (read only for context)

One disruption % per constellation, fed by two independent inputs.

1. PVE Disruption

  • Hacking/combat sites spawn anywhere in the constellation, open to anyone (explorers, small gangs, rival alliances).
  • Good rewards for aggressors, regardless of whether it ever leads to a sov flip.
  • Completing a site as attacker raises disruption %.
  • Penalty rate on reversal: 1% gained costs 1.5% to undo. Partial progress isn’t free to erase.
  • Multiple sites run independently, defenders must triage the whole constellation, not just clear one system and move on.

2. PVP Disruption

  • Real kills against the sov holder’s members anywhere in the constellation add to the same %.
  • No active reversal, just passive decay as hostility cools down (for example by sov members clearing hostiles in their own space).
  • Can’t be gamed: kills only ever add to disruption, never subtract.

5-Stage Escalation Ladder

Stage Name Effects
1 Unrest Sov index starts dropping · minor EHP/resist penalty (barely noticeable) to structures · subtle “disrupted” map indicator
2 Strain Reinforcement timers shortened · EHP/resist penalty increases · moon/skyhook extraction slows
3 Breakdown Bubbles weaken · jump bridges intermittently fail · sov index/upgrade effectiveness drops further
4 Collapse Jump bridges fail outright · bubbles disabled
5 Corrupted Cyno jammers offline · local chat degrades to WH/Pochven-style · extraction bottoms out

Those are examples of possible effects. Nothing more, nothing less. Actual effects can differ in kind and variety.


Revised Version (after discussion with Gerard)

Two problems came up with the original version:

  1. Rewarding only attackers for clearing sites left defenders with nothing, decreasing disruption was their only incentive, which felt unfair.
  2. The PVP Disruption input can be gamed, not the way I first assumed (sacrificing out-of-alliance alts to fake battles and lower disruption doesn’t work if PVP can’t decrease disruption in the first place), but in a subtler way: to avoid ever raising disruption, defenders would only undock when a win is guaranteed, bigger ships, more numbers, safer fights only. On top of the usual “don’t red our killboard,” you’d now also get “don’t increase our sov disruption,” which pushes toward more risk-averse play, not less.

Revised approach, reframed as an update to the existing ADM system instead of a separate parallel mechanic:

  • PVP Disruption is dropped entirely.
  • Defenders/holders doing PVE in their own space increases boni and adds positive effects for that system/constellation, same as it works today.
  • Attackers/aggressors doing PVE in that same space decreases boni and adds negative effects, this is the new part.
  • Both sides get rewards for completing the respective sites (type/amount can differ)
  • The 5-stage effects above were only examples and can be replaced with better/more useful ones.

This moves it closer to the suppression/corruption-style mechanic we already know, just scoped specifically to sov-holding and driven purely by PVE activity from both sides.

Sites can also be designed in several scales, 1 person, 2 people, 5, 10, and so on, each with a different scaling effect. This keeps it accessible solo or in a small gang, while still giving larger groups a reason to bring more numbers for a bigger impact.

This is meant to add guerilla warfare tools for small to large groups, harassment that actually costs the holder something if left unchecked, opening a window other blocs can exploit if they want to. It’s not enough to take sov outright, that still needs real numbers and capitals. It’s enough to make comfort expensive, and to let small groups participate in a much bigger picture. Even if they can’t take sovereignty themselves, they could be the drop that causes the overflow, tickling someone else’s sense of opportunity that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.


And now a more general thing detached from the proposal above:

I believe EVE needs more mechanics that work for groups of different kinds and sizes, and content shouldn’t be gatekept behind having a certain group size in the first place. Mechanics can scale, with the scale of the effect scaling alongside it.

A lot of PVE still works like this: take L4s as one example, run them against NPC ships, collect ISK and salvage, maybe get ganked on the way home, and that’s it, nothing else happens. No effect on anyone, no effect on the world. Same with data sites, relic sites, combat sites. Sure, they give loot. But that is their only reason of existence. Take the loot away and those activities become useless completely. You can have PVE activities giving loot AND having effects on players or the environment around them. Maybe this also takes away the feeling to go for the best ISK/h activity, if activities bring more than just pure money.

I’m fully aware L4 missions as they exist won’t ever affect other players or the environment, that’s just their nature. I’m not saying PVE activity should cease to exist, it should have visible effects for players and the surroundings.

That’s the point: content like that should be phased out and replaced with something better, not kept around forever just because it’s familiar. Every action a player takes should affect other players or the environment in some way, at whatever scale that ends up being.

This should apply to PVE same as to PVP. Example: overmining the same system over and over could deplete it, reducing its normal resource output and forcing miners to actually spread out to other systems, some safer, some less (lucrative for PVP in lesser safe systems). The overmining state would decay passively over time, slightly faster than it builds up, so 5 Ventures mining daily barely move the needle. A full Orca fleet with 10 Hulks grinding the same system daily pushes overmining up faster than the passive decay can offset, and the system actually starts running dry.

Make the world react to what players actually do more. Make it a more living thing. Why? In the end the players wrote the best stories for this game so far.

1 Like

If you think a bit further, this obviously will be gamed. Players already are very risk averse, but what you suggest leads to even more risk-averse gameplay than we see today.

If the defender wants to have fun facing a hostile T1 fleet with a T1 fleet of their own they should be able to do so at risk of losing their ships only.

If you heavily punish the defenders with ‘sov disruption’ for losing some ships because they face a threat with equal force the end result is easily predictable:

Defenders will stop undocking fun fair fights, but only do heavy escalation with minimal risks of loss. T2 ships versus T1 fleets. Cruisers versus frigates, drop Marauders on your fun roam. Capital ship escalations whenever you bring anything big.

Newbies? They get told to dock up and stop experimenting whenever hostiles show up to minimize lost ships and the sov disruption that comes with it.

Gate camp? Best drop 30 blops on it not just to make space safer for allies but also to minimize the ‘disruption’ they cause to the sov.

Are some of these strategies already present in much of the null sec gameplay?

Sure!

But what you wish to do is to enforce ‘overkill’ as the only viable strategy, by punishing fair fights, experimentation and fun. Players today can decide to lose a few ships as long as they can afford it, but because of your idea they aren’t only losing a ship on defeat, the entire alliance also is punished by losing hold on their sov if a member decides to take some fun risks.

I do not think an even bigger emphasis on risk aversion is healthy for the game.

1 Like

You have a point on the PVP part. But the risk-aversion problem isn’t unique to this proposal, it’s inherent to basically any consequence-bearing PvP mechanic in EVE. Humans are risk-averse by nature, and unless someone has so much ISK they genuinely don’t care, most players tend to not throw ships into a “fair fight” just for the sake of it, game or not.

That’s already true today. We literally have corps/alliances telling members not to do certain things in certain ways just to avoid redding the corp/alliance killboard. And that is not even a useful measurement at all. Redding a killboard means practically nothing if the person doesn’t even fly corp/alliance fittings.

The real question (in my opinion) for any PvP mechanic isn’t whether it causes risk-averse behavior, some amount of that is unavoidable. It’s whether the net activity it creates outweighs the risk-aversion it also causes.

And I honestly admit: I don’t know for this proposal. That would be reading tea leaves at least for me. Sure people always tend to think it would drift people away like about every new thing added, but surprisingly people are really adaptive to new things. But I think it would probably add to the “don’t red our killboard” also “don’t add to our sov disruption percentage”. That definitely would happen in some alliances and I can’t argue that away.

As mentioned in the text, the entire proposal was just one example idea of “make player action more count” to get away from senseless activities and also consist of a PvE variant both sides can actively and “equally” engage in (as equal as it can get with one party actually living in the space and having direct access to those pve sites, hence the penalty rate on reversal idea to offset that a little bit).

Making PvP contribution “fair” for both sides is always difficult, especially in EVE where you can just create some alt accounts of opposing sites and fake activity, battles (between your own alts to generate some lost/won battles) etc.

We have it today and it’s pretty bad.

Luckily such groups that try to avoid red on their killboard are making a choice and other players can make the choice not to join a group that cares about such cosmetic things as killboard colour.

What you suggest however creates even more risk aversion with this time real game consequences for that ‘red killboard’. Not just a few groups will care about a red killboard, a red killboard now has real consequences for groups and it will now be a gameplay feature to avoid that red killboard.

Flying a few cheap affordable T1 frigates and losing them for fun is now actively hurting your alliance.

The problem with measuring “PvP contributions” is that it’s going to get gamed if it can get any advantage at all.

If both sides can boost or reduce their hold on sovereignty this means for example that the defender can simply sacrifice a bunch of ‘unaffiliated’ alts in disposable ships for a quick boost to sov.

Honestly, the only thing that losing a ship in PvP should result in is the loss of that ship. Anything more than that creates perverse incentives to be gamed and exploited.

2 Likes

Thats why I didn’t suggest a way for defenders to reduce the disruption via PVP. But I agree with you totally regarding the other concern. Players will do what they always have done: Just come with bigger, better and more ships to avoid stuff. In this case not to avoid fights, but to avoid the sov disruption.

Regardless of the specific sov-disruption proposal (which, again, was only one example, like the overmining), the only solution would be not making PVP count. At least for mechanics meant to be small to large scale with scaled effects.

On the other hand that could penalize PVP-only or mostly-PVP players as they have no other chance to effect things around them but to engage in PVE.

However, I don’t think we should keep everything as it is forever, re-using the same 20 year old mechanics again and again without giving some things some twist.

This is not an issue.

PvP players benefit from PvE mechanics because PvE mechanics mean there are players in space to shoot.

Also many PvP players will also do PvE on the side, or group up with others who also do PvE in this cooperative game, so some players can take on the PvE side while others do PvP to kill enemies when both of these actions contribute to holding sov.

1 Like

Sorry I’m not sure I quite get what you mean by “both of these actions contribute to holding sov”.

I have a guess though: It’s regarding the PVE sites and with both actions you mean “doing the PVE site to increase/decrease sov disruption” and “doing PVP to prevent hostiles/defenders from doing the PVE site”.

So: doing the site for your own party and preventing the other party from doing it.

Did I get that correctly?

Edit: Also, based on the discussion with you I striked the pvp part in the initial post with an explanation Edit as I agree that it can be gamed in a negative and non-healthy way.

Also I only mentioned Rewards for clearing the sites for attackers/aggressors, not for defenders, so the only incentive for defenders would be “decreasing sov disruption” which sounds a bit too unfair. So I rewrote it that both sides get rewards. They can differ in type and amount of course.

1 Like

Yep, that’s what I meant!

Being able to do PvE in hostile systems to corrupt them sounds like a good idea.

Currently there are similar mechanics with ADMs where PvE affects how well sovereign space is held, but it iconically boosts the ADMs by doing PvE in their space while your idea would reduce the hold the defenders have on their space if hostiles can do PvE in that space.

I like your idea better.

But maybe it needs to be made as an update or replacement to the existing ADM system, and not just add yet another system with a very similar purpose.

1 Like

I forgot about ADM uff…

Yeah makes sense to see it as an update to the existing ADM. Maybe as an addition to keep the ADM boni.

Defenders/Holders can increase Boni and add positive effects for systems/constellations by doing PVE
Attackers / Aggressors can decrease Boni and add negative effects for systems/constellations by doing PVE

(Wouldn’t go regionwide, thats a lot)

My stage example with possible effects were only examples anyway and can be replaced by better/useful effects.

This would bring it somewhat close to supressed/corruption mechanic, just for sov-holding and based on PVE alone (at least input wise). PVP can be used to make a stand in increasing/decreasing by warding off enemies.

Edit: I have rewritten the entire entry post to deconfuse it a bit. It now includes the old version I suggested and the one after our discussion (which I appreciate btw. Really good input).

That sounds a lot like “faction war” and what I hear from basically everyone who talks about it thats a pretty awful design.

What I don’t really get is the “core idea”? What purpose does it serve? “Make the game more interesting” - for who? The people who live there and maybe spent months and billions to build up their sov levels there surely don’t want others to come over and “make things interesting by force”.

Not even talking about multiple timezones… most people simply need to work, sleep and have other things to do, EVE is a game for them. So they go to to bed on Friday evening, just to get an emergency ping on 0600 at Saturday morning that some “invaders” have done 23 anos and hacking sites and the system is about to be “corrupted” soon. CTAs nobody wants for every crappy FW multiboxer coming over with his site-running-setup optimized to increase corruption quickly.

If you want to “corrupt sov” in that system, bring a proper PvP fleet and attack the structures and Sov Hubs?

In what way does it sound like Faction War(fare?)? Genuinely asking.

And sure, I get that people who got comfortable in their own space don’t want anyone making things difficult, ever. But is that the actual “sovereignty endgame”? Turtle in your own encapsulated chunk of space, hope you outgrow your neighbor faster than they outgrow you, and in the best case nobody ever has to fight anybody? Just giving my opinion but that’s not a vision of the game, that’s just describing a stalemate.

On timezones: best ship is friendship, and friends exist in every timezone, no. Also worth repeating, this is a slow buildup over multiple stages, not a hard timer. You’re more likely to get blindsided by a fleet dropping on your sov hub with zero warning than by a percentage that’s been climbing for probably days.

And “bring a proper PVP fleet and attack the structures and sov hubs” is just restating the current rule. So are we fine gatekeeping sov entirely behind being in a big alliance, all racing each other to be the bigger deterrent so nobody ever has to actually get disturbed? If we look at real life there are more solutions to cracking a nut except bringing a big enough hammer, why not apply it to the game via engaging mechanic?

Isn’t that Pirate-FW called “Insurgencies” based on the same system of one side being able to “corrupt” a system and the other to “supress” it? Having 5 stages with different effects?

Where is Sov-Space somehow “encapsulated”? If you want to bring content there, form a fleet and do it. Filaments, wormholes, BlackOps or just standard gates are your friend. But make sure you can fight, not just some cheap Hacking Frigates and AnomalyRunners. Bring something that equals the value of what you want to challenge.

So, if that already works to challenge someones sov, why don’t you just use that?

Yes, Sov should be limited to groups that are able to muster big fleets, able to defend an area against most invasion attempts. We can discuss the issue of “force projection” to make sure a central standing fleet can’t just hop around and defend a 100 systems at once via cyno bridges, all fine.

But mechanics to basically poke someone with cheap hackers and basically riskless anomalyrunners into losing his sov without really investing anything, no. Unless you can field a large fighting force, you can’t claim the system for yourself anyway, so why allow you to contest him so easily just to annoy him? Mechanics with the goal to just to harass people are never a good idea. They can be abused and will be abused to literally drive people out of the game by permanently pressuring them.

If it’s only engaging for one side but forced on the other, it isn’t a good mechanic. If you want to challenge someone who invested billions over months, go bring a similar investment in time, effort and value to the field and accept that you will probably pay quite a toll in lost ships for trying.

You seem to misunderstand one thing. The mechanic isn’t about flipping sov and never mentions it with a word. But it could lead to neighbours with bigger fleets causing to attack you, caused by small gangs gradually decreasing your influence, if you don’t hold it. But you do you. I’m not here to convince you whether it’s a good idea or not. I just gave one example of how the game should have more meaningful mechanics.

This idea just adds one more form of content. Or rather adds on an existing, as we see with ADM already delievering the positive features. So I am basically adding negative features for not catering to your space. Nothing more, nothing less. You still need to bring the big guns to actually conquer the space.

Thats not an argument. For two reasons. Mentioning existing mechanics don’t invalidate adding new mechanics per se. Second and even more so, when the new mechanic doesn’t challenge the sov itself.

I agree. But I disagree on the point that only big fleets can disrupt sov. If warfare were always about only bigger and better, why do we have hacking, intelligence service etc. in real life?

So it is difficult for over weeks to keep your space clean of pokers?

Because OTHERS might have the firepower and then the reason to go for it.

There’s a counter and that is: engaging

If a pretty big fleet is dropped on your space it’s rather onesided engaging with the other side being forced as well?

Doubt. Because the least thing such neighbours need is a “good opportunity”, it’s the political consequences attached. And for those consequences the “corruption” or “supression” of such a system absolutely don’t matter. Because when the structure timers occur, you will have to deal - most likely - with a full defense fleet of the sov holders alliance or even block. And the neighbours leadership people know that.

But you should. Thats the idea of a forum. Someone presents his ideas and thoughts, others challenge it. Then the arguments speak for themselves. If your idea isn’t worth being defended, is it worth being considered?

Yeah, fine thing. And I offered concerns you might accept, deny or use to make changes to your idea.

One thing I learned from playing (strategy) games for all my life:

You always need some kind of “Defenders Advantage”, else the game itself is over too quickly once one side has any kind of momentum. In EVE that part is even lacking. And your idea seems to make the problem worse.

Content “forced” on people by asymmetric guerilla tactics will make people avoid what allows others to force that content upon them. In the worstcase, they avoid the game alltogether because their daily experience is one of annoyance. And since every game is a trade of “lifetime for fun”, not many people decide to do the trade if the “fun” part is exchanged for “duties”.

“Homebases” always need a very strong layer of inherent defense against assaults. They are the last resort, the backbone, the reason to “keep playing”. Design a game in a way where the home position can be challenged too easily (or even asymmetrically) is a recipe for failure. It must be hard to challenge someone in his home in any way, so he can retreat there, rebuild and go out again on the map where there are resources to claim, positions to conquer or enemy troops to engage.

IF you want to go on with your idea, you should keep those 3 points in mind. In the system/constellation you want to “corrupt” are other players and they probably live there. Your effort to poke them must be way higher than their effort to repel your attempts. Else the system will not be a good addition to the game.

I get the point about matching investments. Contesting something should roughly cost what building it cost, and I agree with that in general. I just think it shouldn’t be all-or-nothing, we can add smaller-scale versions of mechanics, too. Because if we require matching investment on top of the inherent home-turf advantage defenders already have, the bar for attackers doesn’t stay level, it keeps climbing. And if nobody can realistically clear that bar, nobody bothers trying. That’s just a stalemate with extra steps.

And this isn’t forced to be asymmetrical either. Defenders raise their bonus, aggressors lower it. In numbers: starts at 0, defenders grind it to +5 via PvE, others grind it back to 0 and eventually -5, but that takes a long stretch of time, plenty of time for defenders to react. Not a one-day thing. Defender’s are on home turf too, with quick and safe access to whatever PvE they need. Aggressors are usually there on a one-sided roam or daily at best, and have to go back to their own space in between, giving defenders room to revert some or all of it. It’s a tug of war, not “big fleet shows up one evening and flips +5 to -5 running eight sites”. That’s exactly NOT what this idea is for, otherwise we wouldn’t need the mechanic at all, just drop big fleets, pray and enjoy the tidi.

Forced? Sure, plenty of mechanics in this game are forced and people are fine with that as long as there’s a way to counter it, which there is here. Could it become a duty? Maybe, big maybe, if one bloc gets swarmed by dozens of people across timezones for weeks straight. Fair point. But if this idea meant dropping a system from +5 to -5 in a single week, yeah, that’d be bad design, agreed.

It’s meant to sit at a similarly low entry cost as stuff that already exists though, like how you can jump into nullsec right now and rob people of their ESS or their skyhooks. Investment to loot a skyhook is as low as 50 million with basically no real countermeasure besides setting a time window and hoping someone’s around to defend. Ten minutes, tops, main ESS banks even less. Unlike that though, this idea isn’t meant to deliver fast results, and that’s intentional. It should create longstanding conflict, not a quick smash-and-grab.

That’s the scale I’m going for. Tug of war involving roams and small gangs too, not a replacement for big fleet action turning actual sov.

Regarding homebases needing a strong layer of inherent defense. You already made the point yourself that big neighbouring blocs wouldn’t care about a system slowly corrupting, since it’s the political consequences that matter to them, not the meter, and they know full well they’d be facing the sov holder’s full defense fleet regardless, with some kind of penalty for the disrupted sov, whatever that ends up looking like, doesn’t have to be the examples I suggested. So if the actual big blocs next door aren’t opportunistically pouncing on a disrupted sov with affecting Mali, who exactly is this “strong inherent defense” supposed to be protecting against? The ones actually using this mechanic would be roamers and small gangs, and they already face plenty of inherent barriers: taking actual gates, gambling on filaments, or BlOps-dropping into space owned by people sitting on wealth built up over a decade or more, sometimes backed by players who’ve been around longer than most alliances even exist.

So basically the two things you’re worried about, homebase defense and effort ratio, both end up protecting against a threat that barely materializes, while making it harder on exactly the group the mechanic is meant for.

Which brings me to the third point of “effort to poke must be way higher than effort to repel, or don’t bother”. I get why: stops cheap harassment from grinding down people who invested heavily. But push that to its logical end and it creates a problem on the other side. If poking always costs noticeably more than repelling, what’s the incentive for smaller gangs or newer players to even try? They’re risking real stuff against a structurally higher bar with a good chance of losing it for nothing. Either they skip the mechanic entirely, which loops right back to the “what’s the point of this then” question, or they try to engage anyway and keep bleeding resources for nothing, which is basically the same burnout problem you brought up earlier, just happening to the aggressor now instead of the defender. So where do we draw that line without just shifting who gets worn down instead? And if the answer is “bring more people, bigger fleets”, that kind of defeats the point of this being an scaled from entry to big-level mechanic in the first place, meanwhile defenders can just “as easily” counter by pulling in more people from more timezones.

Neither of us is a game designer (I assume) so I’d leave the actual numbers to FC. Whatever we discuss here could get completely reshuffled by them anyway depending on their balancing goals IF this idea ever gets to them. So in my opinion we don’t have to argue out every single aspect. We mention pain points, agree on some, discuss solutions for others, and agree to disagree on the rest, leave them in this thread so if the idea ever gets picked up, the concerns are at least on record.

So, to sum up where we disagree:

On investment symmetry: you say “Sov should be limited to groups that are able to muster big fleets, able to defend an area against most invasion attempts,” which I support, while I also want to propose smaller-scale entry points alongside that, not replace it.

On the purpose of the mechanic: you’re essentially asking “what’s the point of this if it doesn’t actually threaten sov the way a big fleet does,” while I see the point in it not being another big-fleet-vs-big-fleet mechanic, but a lower-stakes layer for roams and small gangs that big fleet play was never meant to cover.

On where the burnout risk sits: you’re worried constant low-effort pressure wears defenders down over time, while I’m pointing out that setting the poke-to-repel ratio too high just shifts that same burnout onto smaller groups and newer players instead. And if that’s the standard, any new mechanic causing conflict between two sides is basically dead on arrival, since someone always ends up carrying the brunt of it.

Does that idea need balance? Yeah, definitely. Is it our job to create that balance here? In my opinion: No. Someone proposes a general idea, people like or dislike the core concept of it and balancing is a thing for FC.

Edit: And yes, it basically is Insurgency just in nullsec. But “everyone saying it’s a bad design” is too vague. What is a bad design. It affecting highsec? The way the number gets shifted? The speed the number gets shifted? The shifting design itself? The activities for shifting those numbers? They are boring, yes. The specific Boni/Mali? And who is everyone? Your typical highsec carebears who complain that some travel routes can get bubbled? The people living in affected systems?

Okay. I would suspect it will remain pretty niche content then. Because you neither would get much content (aka PvP) out of it nor rewards, at least not in amounts you could make with the same gang somewhere else.

But well, the question is, would it even make a difference for a system where active people live or wouldn’t they just “automatically” grind back their index to full +5 just from their daily activities?

I think I get what your intention is with that and you are probably right, most of Nullsec will hate you for it :). If it isn’t something that pressures players into immediate duties else they lose their home, I think I am mainly fine with it. The amount of effort and time it takes to “corrupt” a Sov-systems against the amount of effort and time to “supress” it has to be at a fine balance tho. But, effects and amounts can always be balanced later on.

Thank for the explanation.

Well, are all nullseccers active in all their systems they own? Or do some may have more property than active players? And the exact balance between usefulness and uselessness would be for FC and CSMs to figure out I’d guess.