Archive for March, 2011

Triumvirs

Posted in Uncategorized on March 28, 2011 by cailais

I’m going to talk about Captains Quarters (CQ) and CSM6. Bear with me, the two are not unrelated.

CQ, the first iteration of Incarna has come under some criticism for straying from EVE’s well trodden path of ‘internet spaceships’.  Many wonder what purpose it can serve in the game – a seemingly pointless pile of eye candy.  For EVEs current players there’s some truth in that, but that’s not the rationale behind CQ or Incarna.  CQ are for the new player; it will be the gate, or decorated archway through which a player transitions from reality into the world of New Eden. Ever noticed that? How many games, notably MMOs, have you enter into a game through a transition? MMOs are much like stories, and as many writers will tend you, in order draw your reader through a story your lead characters must likewise move through ‘door ways’ from Act to Act. The characters of fiction are pushed through these doors – from their normal hum drum (and boring) lives into life changing and often life threatening events.

So it is with the Captains Quarters.

EVE, despite its moments of brilliance, is in player terms something of a leaky bucket.  New players join but, all to often, fall off its vertical learning curve.  You can view this quite nicely at the moment by reviewing the old topics from the EVE Online Forum and noticing how few avatars have updated pictures: those are the departed players of EVE.  Most new players quit within the first six months and its small wonder as they struggle through the complexities of this amazing but manual free game. CQ aims to smooth that process whilst still instilling that sense of amazement.  Perhaps, like me, you can recall undocking in EVE – thinking ‘hey space is pretty big…’, only to open the universe map with a ‘holy crap this game is massive.’ Consider that from the perspective of a new player who goes from their CQ, to their hangar view, to a system and then to the universe map.  The word ‘depth’ probably doesn’t do it justice.

Appreciating how a new player might view EVE is difficult for both developers and players – which brings me rather nicely to the CSM. The CSM is hailed as being a collective of experienced vets who know what’s best for EVEs future. Or do they? Despite vast experience, perhaps of Alliance Warfare,null sec politics, or market manipulation these veterans of EVE are quite possibly the least qualified to speak of a new players experience or aspirations. Much has been made of the usurpation of CSM6 by the power block of Goon Swarm, led by The Mittani….

Some have decried the methods used by this Null Sec power block, and fear the repercussions for EVE should the ‘bees’ choose to bring the whole edifice crashing down. Whilst there might be a risk that the legitimacy of CSM6 is spoilt by the Triumvirate of The Mittani, Seleene and Meissa Anunthiel (other observers discount the other candidates as little more than The Mittani’s hench men) its worth remembering that the CSM really only works as a sustained pressure over time on EVEs development – instead of a sudden shock; tidal forces rather than tidal waves.  Those who hope for instant results are likely to be disappointed.  What will be unfortunate is that if the Triumvirs don’t get a quick impact they will want to “expose” the CSM as an irrelevant sham – which is rather to miss the point entirely.

There’s little doubt that this CSM6 will produce not a small amount of drama and controversy (the nectar that all bees love) and some will get caught up in that but I would personally caution about getting that wrapped up in the detail.  Because, as the empty avatar pictures of EVE show time moves on and players move on.  This is just one CSM amongst many, just a handful of players amongst thousands.  In the not too distant future new players will be emerging into their Captains Quarters, blinking in the bright lights and marvelling at the universe beyond and by then the Triumvirate of CSM6 will be a short and largely forgotten footnote in EVEs history.

C.

Advertisements

Fan Fest ’11 Retrospective

Posted in EVE Online on March 26, 2011 by cailais

Another FanFest has come, and gone.  Viewing fanfest remotely has its advantages, you can remain slightly distanced from the fervour and enthusiasm that CCP whips up so well.  Whilst watching the latest ‘vision’ trailer would send a shiver of expectation and excitement down the spine of any EVE player you don’t need to have too much of a cynical nature to wonder if we haven’t heard a lot of this before.  I’m not blaming CCP however – FanFest has established a well proven formula for success and part of that formula has to included a healthy dose of enthusiastic optimism.

The high light from the ‘CCP Presents’ presentation for me has to be Torifans description of improved boosters and changes to contraband.  Having players act as ‘customs’ to catch smugglers makes considerable sense in my book and turns a previously lack lustre PVE mechanic into a potentially interesting PVP mechanic.  I don’t have any real gripe about the idea of smugglers needing to pass contraband ‘face to face’ either.  Some players will decry this, and complain that CCP is somehow forcing them to utilise Incarna but being realistic no matter how anti-incarna you might be its hard to deny that it has to mesh into EVE somehow and have a relevance beyond just dressing up.  Off grid shady deals and gambling sits in the right ball park and if the thought of decanting into a pod really bothers players that much they’ll just have to forgo that part of the game – in the same way that if you loath mining you have to suck it up and get minerals from loot or the market.

Visually much of what is on the mid term future looks very nice – with the re worked turrets looking a particularly nice touch.  I won’t be holding my breath for ship decals or re worked nebulae.  These improvements have been mooted at almost every single Fan Fest and whilst I’m sure they’d be appreciated by many players my confidence in the “Soon tm” scale is limited.  The captains quarters equally look stunning but perhaps will have the greatest impact upon the new player as they enter into EVE.  Again this is no bad thing per se, even if I’m mildly jealous not to have the opportunity to experience EVE from such a perspective myself.  Incarna, as proposed in previous, Fan Fests looks impossibly far off with suggestions in and around the margins of the presentations that CCP are marking time before the technology can match their proposed vision of crowded station hubs and corporate facilities.

For all of the hype, hollerin, f**kyeahs and whoops the moment that struck me most was Hilmars impassioned plea to us, the players, to get out there and market EVE.  Are CCP concerned that EVE has an image problem? He certainly seemed to suggest that its breadth and diversity was difficult to market effectively and that perhaps the expansion of the player base is not increasing as fast as CCP would wish.  With new MMOs on the horizon such as Guild Wars 2 and (closer to EVEs demographic) SWTOR CCP have good reason to be concerned. Star Wars Galaxies fail cascade brought a significant chunk of players to CCPs table – SWTOR will certainly threaten that.  In many respects I think CCP is missing a fundamental feature of EVE that it has never really capitalised upon and ironically was quite literally staring them in the face – it’s players.  Not perhaps in the traditional sense of customers being your best marketing tool but the actual personalities EVE creates.  EVE is unique not because it is a cold harsh universe, or has shiny spaceships.   It’s unique because its single sharded nature creates true characters – Rettic, Chribba, Roc Weiler, Mittani, Verone, Jade Constantine, OmberZombie, Mynxee, Crazy Kinux, Rixx Jarvis, Akita T, Pottsey, the list goes on and on.

In what other MMO can a player achieve such notoriety, fame or infamy? Istavaan Shogotsu single handedly brought a mass of players to EVE with the GHSC heist.  Was it the heist that was important? Maybe.  What was more important was that you could be that person, meet with them, fight them or denounce them. And it doesn’t stop there because  that degree of…..relevance applies at every scale from the smallest corp to near empty systems. EVE’s greatest strength is its players, not because they pay the bills, or because they create the content of EVE but because unlike any other MMO each is relevant, individual, unique. EVE might be an MMO, and CCP may be over 600 strong but provided it celebrates the achievement of the individual it will draw others to it like moths to a flame.

C.

The Tides of War

Posted in EVE Online on March 25, 2011 by cailais

CCP Greyscale has revealed the next plan for Null Sec with his latest dev blog received, predictably enough, with a cascade of  complaints on the forums.  In essence Greyscale describes that by altering (and in some cases quite drastically) the comparative value of cosmic anomalies in null sec a greater degree of conflict will result.  His reasoning goes (and there is some logic in this) that the current mechanism of equal anomaly values across null sec makes every system ‘equal’ and therefore there is no value in contesting control over any specific system.  We can describe this as a ‘flat’ universe: one which where ever we look is uniform or nearly uniform everywhere.

However I believe that Greyscales proposal to modify the comparative value of systems based upon their ‘true sec’ rating is also another ‘flat’ universe and does little to address the underlying symptom – stagnant territorial control and a reduction in widespread warfare.  Whilst it’s possible that we would see a ‘dash for the cash’ as the Null Sec Alliances raced to land grab the most valued systems and the attendant conflict that would result once the dust has settled EVE would fall back into stagnation.

Taking a broad overview we could see each system in EVE as being an ‘ISK faucet’ – rather like a fountain of oil bursting up from the earth waiting to be tapped by who ever gets there first.  The most valued faucets will of course be fought over – but only initially.  Once the established major Alliance powers are in place the ability to remove them will become increasingly difficult.  The rich will indeed get richer and the poor poorer.  The fundamental issue of course is that, unlike a natural resource like oil, these ISK faucet systems will never run dry.  They will continue to pour ISK into the wallets of those who control them: much like the old 10/10 plexes did years ago and moon goo does today.

Static resources, especially eternal static resources naturally promote a set status quo or stagnant environment.  In some cases this might be seen as a good thing – allowing stability to thrive and commerce to follow: at least for those fortunate enough to own said resources.  However for EVE, a game which relies heavily upon change to fuel the furnace of conflict, this is a poor design decision.  Easily implemented maybe, but no better for it.  We would see a brief flurry of activity as the alliances dashed around null sec, and then they would settle and stagnation would return.

To my mind a more preferable mechanic would be to have the ISK faucets gradually run dry, or nearly dry: diminishing in value over time.  A resource rich area one day becomes a resource poor area as time progresses.  The inhabitants of that once wealthy ground must migrate or starve – and it would be these shifting populations that would generate the friction and pressure to instigate conflict. EVE already has the tools (at least in theory) to create such shifting sands.  PI uses diminishing resources on the planetary scale (no doubt through fiendishly clever algorithms), Incursions spawn across constellations in a pseudo random manner and exploration offers the ability to Alliances to find new ‘ISK Faucets’, new reservoirs of wealth to tap and exploit for profit.

A side advantage of dynamic resources is that vacuums will open that could, at least theoretically, allow new entities and fledgling Alliances to move into Null Sec.  These new entities might conceivably strike it lucky as resources begin to pool in previously resource poor areas. The speed at which the resources of EVE, be those anomaly spawns or moon goo, “shift” around EVE would of course need careful balance – and their depletion might only occur at sloth like speeds but they would eventually create migratory pressures on Alliances.

Coupling these concepts with those I outlined in my previous post regarding Sov ownership being described in “non absolute terms” (a percentage factor of influence) and I believe we start to come closer to a EVE universe that actually has the illusion of ‘life’ – shifting hues of influence, shifting sands of resources – that would make it a complex but infinitely fascinating environment.

C.

Be bold Pilot.

Posted in EVE Online on March 24, 2011 by cailais

The latest round table from Fanfest (blogged about here at EVE News 24) makes for interesting, if slightly depressing, reading.  The general theme (splitting up the blob) remains focused on adding small scale objectives and a generic argument over whether it is possible to engineer EVE in such a fashion that the social grouping of players can, in fact, be fractured.

The depressing thing is that the ideas being put forward appear to be only slight modifications of the current ideal – that of ‘capture the flag’ mechanics.  We appear to be trapped in a mold whereby Sovereignty is defined as either being held, or not held. “On” or “Off”.  This is problematic for a number of reasons. By having Sov as a ‘binary’ mechanic it is natural to conclude that its state (“on” or “off”) can be determined through a single definitive action.  That is to say that through a single contest (or a protracted contest) a tipping point is reached that flicks the Sov switch to a new state. Because Sov is determined in this fashion a ‘decisive’ action is best achieved through massing force at one point in time and space. The defender likewise can prevent that ‘switch’ by doing the same.  In short there is no granulation; no shades of grey.

I think we (the players) and CCP have approached Sov in this fashion because most RTS games operate like this – you destroy the ‘capital’ of your opponent and win a given chunk of territory.  It’s a theme common to board games as well (RISK, Axis & Allies etc) perhaps best described as “tile ownership”.  Tile ownership is great in some respects as it gives a clear and unambiguous idea of who is winning the game, and equally who has won the game overall.  Board and RTS games need this of course as they are relatively short lived in game time terms and tend to be 1 v 1 contests.

EVE, however, has no such constraints.  I think we should instead be looking to a Sov system that is described more in terms of graduated influence.  Instead of saying ‘Widget Alliance ‘owns’ PX-6RY we would instead say that ‘Widget Alliance’ has 78% influence over PX-6RY.  One might expect that within the over all sphere of influence an Alliances ‘core’ systems might well be extremely high – perhaps 99% or 100%.  Essentially completely uncontested.  Fringe systems however would be “fuzzy” in the sense that there would be no definite owner but could be said to be shared amongst Alliances.  The degree to which this state of “fuzziness” was through mutual agreement, stalemates or outright warfare would of course depend on the individual circumstances.

Why would implementing something along these lines effect ‘blob’ warfare though?  Firstly by having a vaguer more granulated approach to describing Sov we might say that even small combat forces could, within reason, have small scale impacts upon the Sov ‘tally’.  A 5 man gang could knock the Sov % of an alliance down by 1%, a 300 man gang would do just the same – its not the numbers but the frequency of their pressure and influence on a system that would be key.  Sov would be more of a fluid idea of ‘influence’ that spills over like water into adjoining systems.

How would we effect the % score though?  I would suggest this would come through a range of ‘influencers’ – player ship kills in a system for example, trade volumes, mineral reprocessing, and so forth.  The more an Alliance is active in a given system the greater its % of influence.  Wouldn’t this encourage blobs to form? Perhaps not. If we consider that Alliance A has 100% influence in a system.  Alliance B moves it’s fleet in and the value of influence splits 50%/50%, Alliance A moves out and Alliance B now has 100% influence – provided it stays there. If Alliance B pursues Alliance A into the next system of course a % of influence would drop in the system behind it.  In simple terms influence degrades over time.

Think of it more like an entropic idea.  If you live in a house you maintain it, add new furniture, cut the lawn, a new lick of paint here and there.  Your ‘influence’ is readily apparent. Leave that house and, over a protracted period of time, it will start to decay.  Furnishings will rot. Pipes burst. Paint peels and fades. You might hold the deeds to that property but over increasingly protracted periods of time that claim of ownership’s legitimacy fades as well.

He who tills the land; owns the land.

Would this be a carte blanche for botters and macros? Not entirely.  Such automated creatures are far more vulnerable to small scale incursions into their territory.  They are, on the whole, incapable of adequately defending themselves and easily interrupted and disrupted by small forces or even individuals. Relying on automatons to increase a % Sov would be foolish in the extreme as whilst they could account for some ‘activity’ even a minor force would disrupt this activity and cripple it. Space would still need to be patrolled through force of arms and over the long term – as opposed to a smash and grab mentality which is so conducive to massing a large fleet and then moving on.

Whilst we still consider Sov in terms of black and white, held or lost, on or off we will remain shackled to a rather basic board game of win, or lose.  EVE I believe offers the chance to mix the pallet and provide more ambiguous shades of grey if only we are bold enough to accept it.

C.

 

All roads lead to Yulai

Posted in EVE Online on March 10, 2011 by cailais

As FanFest 2011 creeps over the horizon to bathe the faithful in rays of awesomeness the CSM has launched a pre emptive volley at CCP with respect to Incarna.  The cynical may suggest that the is the CSM acting out of self interest, perhaps hoping to garner a few more votes to secure subsequent terms, or to avoid the flak if Incarna proves to be a bitter disappointment to the players.  What is clear is that the CSM have some not inconsiderable concerns…

” Our first and most crucial concern is that there is little evidence so far of a roadmap for this feature. We are extremely concerned that development of Incarna, the most significant addition to EVE since Beta, is being done in an ad-hoc, on-the-fly manner.

Second, we wish to re-iterate our unanimous objection to the forced integration of Incarna into the general Eve experience, and that we strongly urge CCP to ensure that any new systems will not adversely affect the performance of the EVE client.

Third, regarding metrics, we feel that forced integration will not provide a true picture of the usefulness of the features, while at the same time, these metrics will be used to justify Incarna. As in any area of business, using flawed metrics to justify resource allocations can only lead to poor decisions.

Fourth, while we agree that CCP’s decision to stage the release of Incarna in small chunks is a wise one, we feel that it is very important for CCP to expand their messaging and provide a clear and detailed vision of the future iteration and potential of Incarna, so that players who are highly invested in the current core gameplay of EVE will be able to better judge the value they will be receiving for the large amount of time and effort being invested in Incarna by CCP.” CSM open letter to CCP 7 Mar 2011.

I’ve witnessed a selection of FanFests since 2006.  At first they filled me with excitement regarding forth coming features.  I would trawl through every comment, watch every video, for the smallest snippets of what would come to pass.  Over time the cynic has taken over and I have become accustomed to those promises of ‘amazing awesome soon(tm)!’ features being either rather lack lustre or completely non existent.  In my naivety I believed the hype.

Incarna is a classic case in point.  We have seen images, even video, of glorious avatars striding through opulent stations, glimpses of player owned bars, promises of corporate offices, retail shop fronts and more.  All of it of course being ‘awesome’.  Years have passed.  Finally we are told the initial release will be our “Captains Quaters”.

One room. No poker matches. No dens of scum and villainy. No battle maps of the universe.  No one else.

It’s hard not to feel a little cheated. We’ve been spun a line by those clever marketing guys who are chuckling away knowing that they’re about to pull the self same stunts and dangling the carrot of hope and ‘soon(tm)’ before our eyes.  It’s a sad thing to say but the CSMs call for a road map, a plan, is a fruitless one.  CCP have never had a plan per se – instead they ride the wave of popular culture.  Farmville is popular? Planetary Interaction. Group content increasing sales? Incursions. Facebook driving the industry? Eve Gate.

That’s not to say these things are bad, or even unwanted – but they’re not planned.

The big question that hangs over Incarna is to what degree it should interface with and be integrated with today’s EVE.  Leave it as an optional extra and, if it is not well received, then it will be forgotten. A wasted effort piled onto the various other features like Factional Warfare that CCP will promise to return to, but in fact won’t bother.  Integrate it fully – almost enforce its use when players dock and CCP runs the risk of alienating a good proportion of its player base that simply don’t want to touch it.

So what should CCP do? Force players to automatically decant from their capsules into the eye candy of a captain’s quarters? Or leave them the choice to sit and spin their ships in station?  And once decanted what can a player do? Access the market? Should players be able to access ‘Incarna’ game play features from space? What are the Incarna game play features?

CCP remains silent, content it seems to allow the resulting vacuum to be filled by speculation and rumour.  Fuel to the furnace of the hype machine such speculation powers the marketing of EVE, tempting in those who fall under its spell.

C.

 

Imagine a Null Sec….

Posted in EVE Online on March 1, 2011 by cailais
Welcome to the twenty-fifth installment of the EVE Blog Banter, the monthly EVE Online blogging extravaganza created by CrazyKinux. The EVE Blog Banter involves an enthusiastic group of gaming bloggers, a common topic within the realm of EVE Online, and a week or so to post articles pertaining to the said topic. The resulting articles can either be short or quite extensive, either funny or dead serious, but are always a great fun to read! Any questions about the EVE Blog Banter should be directed to crazykinux@gmail.com. Check for other EVE Blog Banter articles at the bottom of this post!

This month’s topic comes to us from @Tetraetc – “Tetra’s EVE Blog” – who asks: “Have Alliances and the sovereignty system limited the amount of PVP and RP potential in Null sec? Imagine a Null Sec where anyone could build outposts wherever. Would the reduction of the alliance game mechanic, and the removal of the sovereignty game mechanics (or the modifcation of it from Alliance level to Corp level for that matter) force more PVP into Null sec, or would giant power blocs like the NC still form themselves?”

Right now I’m sharpening a knife, a metaphorical knife that I intend to slip between the ribs of the sovereignty system and twist. Why? Because the current sovereignty system needs to die a cold, harsh death.  Neither it, nor alliances limit PVP – that’s a bit like saying the wind and rain ‘limit’ the weather but what it does do is make that weather oh so predictable.

Tetreatc suggests the hypothetical scenario of removing the Sov system – create a completely free form and undefined mechanic one that would no doubt require local knowledge rumour and hearsay by which to determine who ‘owned’ what bit of space.  Whilst this has its merits it is perhaps the antithesis of the current mechanic which rigidly defines in yes/no terms who controls what.  We could term the current system an Imperial system – lines are drawn on the map and whilst those lines wont reflect exactly the conditions on the ground they are broadly accepted as a rendition of the ‘truth’.  It’s a peculiar system, one readily acceptable to modern western thought.  ”

I ‘own’ this system, look you can see by that little coloured dot on the map”.

Unfortunately it is the only system and there is only one way of achieving it.  Because of this EVE’s territorial wars are largely homogeneous in that they look the same everywhere.  It doesn’t really matter if you should join the Northern Coalition or the Southern – their mechanisms for holding space and the benefits of doing so are exactly the same.    the means of waging war, contesting that space, defending that space are equally exactly the same.  You see its not the quantity of PVP that occurs but the variety of PVP that really counts. Variety means that the nature of PVP in given conflicts will appeal to different play styles and different groups of players.

By way of an example (and without going into the hard specifics) let’s imagine that alternative means of holding sovereignty exists – each with their own advantages and disadvantages.  We’ll call the current mechanics the Imperial System.  Our first alternative we’ll call the Political System.  In this version sovereignty is decided not by force of arms, but by votes.  Sov can be contested by competing alliances through a democratic voting process – persuasion, propaganda, bribes and cajoling are the tools of war here.  In our next alternative we have the Tribal mechanic.  Here corporations, not alliances, form a patchwork of sov ownership – perhaps the rewards are weaker but you need to remove each corporate ‘tribe’ through system kills to disable sov. Or perhaps in the tribal system POS structures are a determining factor, or planetary structures.

Each variant, tribal, imperial, political can compete against another variant – e.g a Imperial Alliance can wage a type of ‘war’ against a Political Alliance.

Now these are simply random ideas that dropped into my head as I type (please dont start critiquing them as honestly I have not given much thought beyond this) but the point is you could have different mechanics available favouring different play styles (guerillas, piracy, industrial complex, trading cartel, nomadic, etc etc).  The relative rewards would vary and the strengths and weaknesses of differing methods of holding sovereignty would be a critical choice. For example the ‘Political’ mechanic might result in poor moon goop extraction, or reduced complex spawns but would be harder to take down through raw military firepower.  Existing mechanics (like faction warfare) could be another alternate mechanism.

Rock, paper, scissors writ large.

Which brings me nicely to the ‘RP’ question.  Why favour one alliance over another in the current mechanism?  Sure, some players will have long standing feuds vs BOB/IT/Goons/Solodrakban or whatever these guys are calling themselves these days – but the new players, the one we should hope to entice into null sec, and the existing players who have no strong motivation (RP or otherwise) might be drawn to a cause.

Long ago, at least in my dim and distant memory, I recall ISS Alliance being prominent (in Providence if I recall).  I mention them because as far as my memory serves their aim was to ‘hold space’ but make it more open and accessible – encouraging trade within Null Sec.  This type of approach may have worked well with our hypothetical ‘Political’ mechanism (“I’m voting for these guys – they’re maintaining order!”).  Perhaps like minded players would be drawn to such a flag, or to another touting an industrial heartland.  They are not however because ultimately these things do not effect the outcome of a conflict – only massed fleets bashing hit point towers do.

I’m not suggesting we should impose a system of mechanics that makes the current method of waging warfare and holding sov obsolescent: plenty of players love and enjoy the current mechanics and like nothing more than huge fleet battles.  A place should always exist for this type of game play.  But perhaps there are other means, methods of ‘fighting’ that are not dependant upon how big your fleet is, or how many Titans your alliance owns.

Variety and diversity are, in my view, the things that will draw players to null sec and will pull even the attention of those who look on from the outside wistfully thinking “yeah, I could get involved in that….”

C.

In closing congratulations and thanks to CK for reaching the milestone of 25 Blogbanters.  No doubt with more to come…

Participants:

  1. BB25 What sov changes will come? | A Mule In EvE
  2. Confessions of a Closet Carebear: Alliances and Sovereignty
  3. Blog Banter 25: Nerfing Nulsec « OMG! You’re a Chick?!
  4. Have Alliances and the sovereignty system limited the amount of PVP and RP potential in Null sec? | Nitpickin’s
  5. Blog Banter #25: Alliance and Sovereignty Limiting PvP in 0.0? | Sarnel Binora’s Blog
  6. Blog Banter #25 – Mad Haberdashers
  7. Alliances and sovereignty | Eve Online Focus
  8. …Shall we not Revenge?: BB 25: What if the Alliance vanished?
  9. Blog Banter: Alliances and Sov
  10. EVEOGANDA: BB25: Sov ‘n Go!
  11. » TBG:EBB#25 – Alliances and Sovereignty To Boldly Go
  12. Freebooted: BB25: Leviathans of the Deep
  13. Wrong Game Tetra ~ Inner Sanctum of the Ninveah
  14. EVE Blog Banter #25 – Human nature what art thou? | Way of the Gun
  15. Who cares about Sov? – Hands Off, My Loots! ~ well sorta like an entry! :p
  16. The 25th EVE Blog Banter: Alliances and sovereignty – The Phoenix Diaries
  17. Achernar: The space commute
  18. Wandering the Void…my EvE musings. – Blog Banter: Alliances and sovereignty
  19. (OOC) CK’s Blog Banter #25: How To Break EvE. « Prano’s Journey
  20. Captain Serenity: Blog Banter #25 – Crappy mechanics
  21. Helicity Boson » Blog Banter #25 Nullsec and sov.
  22. BB #25 – “With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth?”
  23. More to come…