Friday, January 18, 2013
Null Sec: Ownership VS. Sovereignty
I’ve been toying around with this idea lately, relating to ownership in nullsec –specifically the ownership of outposts, upgrades, and etc.
What if ownership wasn't tied to Sovereignty at all? What if anyone could build anything they wanted, and upgrade any system they wanted to, without having sovereignty?
It seems we've always equated sovereignty to be ownership, and ownership to be sovereignty. Doesn't this limit us? Shouldn't alliances that want to take power be able to take power –and those who care little about power, and just want to build stuff be able to build stuff without feeling like they have to ‘plant a flag’? Or becomes something that they aren't?
Of course, the sovereign party would be able to see outposts and upgrades and other structures being built in ‘their’ space –and perhaps we could setup some sort of handy interface that allows them to send ‘bills’ to these people. We could call it ‘rent.’ (What a novel idea?)
And those getting billed could pay…or not. Maybe they blow off the sovereign party and maybe they hire mercenaries for protection against them. Maybe they build up their defenses, and make it almost not worthwhile to come after them. Or, maybe the sovereign party is forced to ignore them due to imminent attack from somewhere else.
Single players, and very small corps could broker deals with outpost owners…paying docking fees or a smaller version of ‘rent.’ Outpost and infrastructure owners could pay the larger ‘sovereign’ alliances. Small ‘hubs’ could develop, with multiple outposts being built in a single system by different corporations and/or alliances—all sharing in the cost of hiring others to protect the area.
It would be similar to what seems to happen naturally now –a sort of feudal system, except that corporations and alliances could build infrastructure completely under the radar, outside the scope of brandishing ‘sovereignty’ and power.
Farms and Fields or Furrows…or whatever they call it…seems somewhat off, somehow. As does all this talk about ‘using it or losing it.’ It’s like telling a large PVP alliance that overtakes the Amarr/Minmatar war zone that they shouldn't be able to have Sovereignty unless they do a lot of mission running….or that they should have to mine or something. That’s just silly.
Why not just let the warlords be warlords, the farmers be farmers, the builders be builders, and simply give them the tools to come up with their own ways of interacting with each other?
Make sovereignty more about power and control, and less about ownership and industry.