Monday, July 7, 2014

What does "I'm a Sov-holder" mean?

It obviously means that the alliance you belong to has IHUBs. Great. But what does it mean about you, the individual? I mean if you say "I'm in Marmite Collective", it means that you are roaming or camping in highsec, looking for war targets (usually in PvE ships) to kill. If you are in CODE, that means that you are suicide ganking miners and haulers. If you are in Pandemic Legion, one rightfully assumes that you have or work to have a supercarrier and fish for capitals between supercapital battles.

But what does "I'm in a sov-holder alliance" means? A few months ago, you could say "I'm in the EVE endgame, fly in the most powerful fleets, only even stronger sov-holders can stop me. I'm the top predator of the EVE food chain." But recently I've checked the losses of CFC and found that most of them are not caused by other sov-holders but small "pirate" groups. Later found that the CFC, one of the largest sov-holder has less kills than an average player. Finally the Goons, the commanding alliance of CFC rats more than anyone else. Some top predators!

The solution is that "I'm a Sov holder" isn't a declaration of power. It's a declaration of income source: "I'm making ISK from nullsec anom ratting and moon mining". Some people are mining in highsec, others run missions, incursions, FW complexes and some people are ratting in nullsec anoms. They are the Sov-holders and Sov is the space they rat in.

The perfect form of the Sov-holder is the renter. The perfect form of landlord is Pandemic Legion, who conquer vast space with their supercapital fleet. The practically exisiting Sov holders are a hybrid of these two. Their internal politics define how far they are from the two extremes: NC. fights a lot and rats little, while Goonwaffe flies only in crucial combats and rats all day.

Anyway, one must understand that Sov-holder isn't some goal to reach, some top to achieve. It's a way of income. You can become Sov-holder today, without any preparation or skill: rent some land. If many people rent from the same landlord, he becomes stronger and conquers more land. He became stronger from your money, so actually you made that land conquered. You can also enlist to the countless Sov-holder alliances if you don't mind paying your rent in F1 pushing instead of paying. But the crucial questions that decides if you are made to be a Sov-holder is "Is your main income source shooting red crosses?"

I'm not sure what is the "endgame" of EVE, or if there is any, but being a line member in a Sov-holder is surely not it. This doesn't mean that he can't be good in PvP or in something else, but no more than any random player.


Anonymous said...

A holder is someone who owns space, not rents it. Renters can only do what they are allowed to in the place they live and can be evicted by the holder any time. You're mixing holders with people living in that space.

Gevlon said...

The holder needs the renter more than the other way. It's the renter who is in control.

Anonymous said...

Not if there are multiple renters ready in line to make the deal. Then the current renter has no leverage. That's how things are now.

Gevlon said...

Not really. There are 3 renter empires and many open systems.

Anonymous said...

No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, the renters do not hold power. You can keep saying how much sov holders need renters, but at the end of the day they are still paying for a product they want or need, where there are plenty of people who would pay in their place if they tried to use their "power". If a renter chose o stop paying and keep the space it would be over quicker than they could blink, regardless of landlord.

With pandemic legion, they are simply another "sov holder". They also rat, they don't just sit around in supers chuckling. They are also proven to be weaker than the CFC. The only difference is that you like them more, so your opinion is biased.

You are right though, "I'm a sov holder" means nothing really but the space you live in. Just like owning a wormhole means nothing or claiming to own a portion of high/low. It's just a declaration of where you operate and nothing more.

There is no "endgame" because it's a sandbox game, with no set goals or ladder metrics, it's just something you play for the enjoyment in whatever way you want. People get caught up in the idea that the whole game is supposed to be tiered with highsec being the worst, then low, then wh, then null. That's not how it works. All sections of space have content for all ages of player, and moving between them is a decision to be made by anyone, not a sign of progression.

Gevlon said...

You compare an individual renter with the whole landlord. Of course from this comparison the latter looks stronger.

You should compare "renters" as a group with "landlords" as a group and then the result become obvious.

Similarly, an individual customer holds no power over the restaurant and can be bounced by the owner. Yet it's clear that the restaurant is for the customers and not the other way.

Esteban said...

I am waiting for the moment when your reasoning leads you to conclude that an uprising of the underclass is a historical and economic inevitability.

Gevlon said...

Who said "uprising"? Customers don't need to uprise to ruin a corporation. They just have to stop buying its service.

Anonymous said...

If the corporation provides satisfactory services for a reasonable, from the customer point of view, fee, there is no point for the customer to loose interest in the corporation.

Gevlon said...

Indeed not. However giving someone good service isn't really "dominating him", more like "serving him".

Anonymous said...

No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, the corps do not hold power. You can keep saying how much alliances need corps, but at the end of the day they are still paplinking for a membership they want or need, where there are plenty of people who would join in their place if they tried to use their "power". If a corp chose to stop fleting up and keep the space it would be over quicker than they could blink, regardless of alliance.

see what I did there?

Anonymous said...

Serving as in being a servant? Far from it. It's a mutually beneficial deal. A customer can find a new corporation, but a corporation can also find another customer. If there's a lot of demand for a service with not enough supply, it's the customer that must fight to get it.

CFC Grunt said...

It's neither serving, nor dominating. It's entering an agreement - in most cases one that is mutually beneficial.

Customer (Renter) agrees to pay the fee and follow the rules. In exchange, the rental corporation provides services.

Renters tend to be dumb and lose expensive ships, yet still are able to afford more - in addition to their cost of renting. It likely means the agreement is working out for them.

The CFC already demonstrated how "in control" exactly Renters are. A bunch of them broke the rules, were evicted, their POSes destroyed and new renters put in place.

There was no uproar, no protest from other renters.

DJB said...

Again, this is a seller's economy.

N3/PL and CFC hold the deeds. If anyone wants to live in null and do sov related things you have to go through them.

Asking for the masses to boycott them is like suggesting that people boycott telephone service prior to 1982 in the U.S. when AT&T was the only provider. Next month the best manufacturing and refining locations will be in nullsec. People will need to be in null to be able to compete for price. The null lords have the location.

The masses have a choice between bad deal, worse deal or no deal. They're going to choose bad deal or stop playing.

Gevlon said...

Anonymous is right with corps. But same goes for sov-null line members: if you break the rules, you get kicked and another one takes your place.

Does a line dude has any power to steer the alliance politics? Does that makes him a slave?

But let's use another viewpoint: that space is held FOR renters. That's objectively true. Therefore that space would lose purpose without renters.

Provi Miner said...

and Provi? no renters there. Yes we hold sov but we hold it one of two ways: A: we can out last any who evict us or B: our front yard is so messy that no one wants to evict us.

Now you are right the rental empires need renters, you are wrong that it is renters who control. renters like the current set up it works for them (they don't want control, in fact they pay a good sum to avoid control). Fairly safe, no reason to stop buying the service. Yes sov holders serve renters but like wise renters serve sov holders this is a plus plus relationship.

Malcanis said...

If renters were capable of or even inclined to the kind of co-ordinated group action to advance mutual goals that your analysis implies then they'd be in the sov-holding groups, not a renter corp.

The dark dirty secret of renting is that most renters are *happy* to rent.

They don't want to get involved with the politics - when the space they rent changes hands, they just pay a different guy is all. They don't want to get involved with the sov wars or the metagaming or any of that. They just want to run anoms or plexes and maybe do a roam or two on a weekend.

Anonymous said...

You should compare "renters" as a group with "landlords" as a group and then the result become obvious.
Why should I? Renters aren't a group. They don't work together, they don't work for common goals and they sure as hell aren't going to team up against landlords. Even if the renters did team up, they wouldn't have the strategic knowhow or the leadership structure to succeed. Every corp CEO would want to be in charge, but it really can't work that way. Do you really believe it could? Honestly?

see what I did there?
Yes, I saw you misunderstanding how pap works. For starters it's on an alliance level, not a corp level. You also have to understand that alliances choose to be part of that coalition, but don't necessarily share pap. Around a quarter of the CFC don't use pap links at all and use their own methods to ensure their corps are playing their part. Sov holding alliances work together for a common goal, and yes, that means they have to show up to fights, because if they didn't, they'd lose their power. Renters are individual groups with no common goals who don't need to work together because their landlords ensure their safety. There's clearly a difference, though trolls would undoubtedly not admit it.

Anonymous said...

Well, no matter whether renters of sov holders have the power, Gevlon ponts out that living in Nulsec is not that much endgame as CCp or Nulsec Alliances advertise it to be.
Whether ratting in Null or flying Lv4's, the challenge is the same: None. In highsec one can get ganked, in Nulsec as well. As long as no neuts or awoxers are present, rattin in nullsec is far safer then in Highsec.
So much for risk/reward... CCP!
I know a lot of people who lived in Nul for a while and find it strictly boring, while admitting that the income is better, but so what?
They were tired of stratops, politics and bitching, so they returned to Highsec...

Subscribe to the goblinish wisdom