A Look Back To The Future Of Null Sec

Perhaps the single dev blog that influenced the way I play EVE Online was written by CCP Greyscale.  Published on 15 August 2011, "Nullsec Development: Design Goals" convinced me that CCP planned to nerf high sec and if I planned to play EVE for years instead of months, I needed to get out of high sec.  The following sentence got my full attention:

"Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3"

I knew I didn't want to go to null sec or live in a wormhole, so that meant moving to low sec, where I fly today.  The goals were not set in stone and were published over three years ago.  But I thought that with another CCP Greyscale dev blog, "Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound," causing such a ruckus (and threadnaught) last week, that traveling back to the Summer of Rage might lend some insight on the rationale behind the contents of last week's dev blog.

The White Board From 2011

Before I continue, I want to stress one very important point.  The 2011 dev blog was not a concrete proposal and things changed.  For example, in the dev blog, CCP Greyscale included this statement:

"Nullsec should be the only place we're injecting (at least some of the) ices, zydrine, megacyte and morphite into the game. This ensures that nullsec mining retains a unique value proposition, and guarantees that mining time for these types is priced according the risk and effort involved in nullsec extraction."

As we know, in Kronos sites with arkonor began to appear in low sec, thus decreasing null sec's monopoly on megacyte.  But some things don't change, and since CCP Greyscale wrote the both the 2011 and 2014 dev blogs, I think we can see some of the thinking behind last week's announcements without having to ask a member of the Council of Stellar Management to violate the NDA agreement.

I know that a lot of people are upset with the reduction of the jump range for non-black ops ships down to a maximum of five light years.  But three years ago, CCP had the following thought about the rate of movement of ships:

"Bigger ships/fleets travel slower

• As the amount of power your fleet can deploy increases, its mobility should decrease. Small, flimsy fleets should always maintain a mobility advantage over big, dangerous ones. This ensures that a wider range of fleet compositions and sizes remain valuable, catering to more preferences and playstyles. It also makes fleet composition more a case of selecting the right tools, and less of just dumping the whole toolbox onto the floor, encouraging players to innovate tactically and strategically."

Not only is CCP making trying to jump a fleet ahead of a fast moving gang difficult if not impossible, but counterproductive over distances exceeding 20 light years.  Also, if the logic from the 2011 dev blog holds true, don't expect capitals to receive any speed or alignment buffs either.

A lot of people are upset that the logistics for null sec will become much harder.  But looking at CCP Greyscale's words from 2011, that's kind of the point.  Let's look at some of the design goals published back then.

"Weak spot for big groups

• Logistics should be a weakness for larger organizations of players. It should avoid being tedious, but it should remain a major point of concern as size increases, and be one of the primary drawbacks of growing beyond a certain size."

People want to limit the size of the big guys like the CFC and N3/PL?  Want to make room for small corps and alliances to get a foothold in sovereign null?  Looks like placing a natural cap on the size that depends on a group's tolerance for logistical pain is one of the ways to do that.

"Moving large volumes should be a group effort

• High-volume shipments should be a special occasion, and as much as possible we should encourage them to be a group activity. These tend to be high-value shipments also, and bringing players together to appreciate and protect the value created, and put them in a position where they're likely to interact with other groups, is a positive thing."

"Wait a minute!," a lot of people will say.  "That's impossible."  Not if the industry changes that began in Crius are followed up by improvements in the resources null sec residents can extract in 2015.  And if the 2011 dev blog is any indication, that is probably in the cards:

"[Null sec industry] 99% self-sufficient by volume

• For further discussion. People building things in nullsec should only need to travel to empire (or more than a couple of regions across nullsec) for low-volume supplies. This requires that industrialists have a ready supply of low-end minerals available nearby in nullsec, without breaking other systems or goals. (Likely means some way of mining low-ends in a massively more rapid manner compared to current tools.)"

 "Good reasons to trade

• Any investable activity (ie, one where we want people to consider settling down and developing some space to do it) should have clear reasons and opportunities to trade with nearby nullsec regions to increase efficiency. This needs to be balanced with other mechanics such that simply conquering five regions is not the clearly optimal solution, while remaining a viable option."

Crazy talk, right?  Or is it?  Since reprocessing was capped at 55% with Crius, null sec industrialists have complained that high sec miners are not cooperating with their need to transport compressed ore.  The jump freighter changes will only exasperate the problem, giving null sec alliances a greater incentive to develop local resources.  In effect, the high sec miners' refusal to inconvenience themselves is helping CCP implement their plans for null sec.  That is, if the design goals from 2011 are still valid.

And I think those goals are still valid.  Here's a passage from CCP Greyscale's 2014 dev blog:

"Over the medium term, we see the potential for more substantial changes in the nullsec status quo as the various competing parties work to adjust their internal objectives to the new situation; it seems plausible that the general reduction in travel capabilities will lead to more localism, but we don't want to make any firm predictions in this area. We're confident that these changes improve the overall system of lowsec and nullsec gameplay and take them in better directions, but any set of changes that would allow us to accurately predict their consequences would by their nature be too simple to be interesting for very long."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The possibility exists that everything I typed above is utter crap and the release of the CSM Summer Summit minutes on Halloween will prove I spent too much time mining this weekend.  But if I'm right about some of the reasoning, then maybe more people should bookmark CCP Greyscale's previous dev blogs.