The tragedy of commons is a well-known economical problem, described by the anecdote: "herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. It is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the quality of the common is damaged for all as a result, through overgrazing. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all."
In more precise terms, when the cost of an action is shared by all while the benefits are private, the rational interest of every individual is to perform the action, even if they know that at the end, the costs will be higher than the benefit, because if they don't do it, they still have to bear the costs of the actions of others. The tragedy of commons can only be prevented by regulation or privatization. In both cases an individual or body assumes control over the resource (or parts of it) and fends off those who would exploit it for their own benefit at a greater cost of all.
How does it manifest in the current EVE wars? The star systems can be utilized for various activities if they are protected from enemies. The costs of having systems is to raise an army capable of protecting it. Even if the individual agrees it and finds protection of the systems a worthy goal, the rational self-interest is to not waste resources defending it but hope that others do. If he chooses to defend, he puts in his resources and everyone receives the benefits. If the fleet wins, all members of the alliance equally win the system. The guy who spent a year of training and billions of ISK to fly a supercap don't get more sovereignity than the guy who disappeared for a week and played an anonymous alt for fun.
For this reason the block where the governing body has more control over the resources (not pilots) will win the war, regardless the amount of total resources or pilots. In simpler words, the wealth of the pilots is irrelevant, the wealth of the alliance matters. Clearly not SoCo or DotBros has such funds but CFC and HB. Everyone mention tech moons as the source of CFC-HB power and they are right, however they don't see how. 1T/month seems huge income, but if we divide it by 20K pilots, we get lousy 50M. The members of SoCo and DotBro could clearly overcome this disadvantage by farming a few hours every month. I'm sure they do farm. However what they farm goes to their individual wallet, while moon money go to the wallet of the leadership, allowing them to use it on the war effort. The leaders are motivated to use money for war, the individuals are not.
The above can not be broken by individualists, even if they all agree that army is needed and defeating the enemy is a worthy goal. Since formal control over players cannot be assumed (as you can't force players to log in a video game if they don't want to), only financial control can happen: an alliance that wishes to defeat another must have higher alliance level income. Ergo, the members doing PvE must be taxed or donations must be collected. From this chest the leadership can buy ships and pay pilots to spend their time on shooting structures, camping gates and so on.
Obviously the above assumes that "defeating the enemy" or "capturing sov" is an individually accepted aim of the members. If it's not, such alliance will be destroyed in a minute as the members quit it instead of paying the tax. The philosophy "I don't care about politics, I just care about myself and I move where I can" is completely legitimate. One can be a freelancer, one can live in highsec, lowsec, NPC-null, unprotected wormholes hoping no one finds. These are valid, philosophical choices.
However what SoCo did is not a choice, it's a mistake. They choose to be a powerblock and they did not fill up a war chest hoping that members will act against their personal interest and defend the alliance on their own costs. They clearly didn't. When the enemy were strong, they did not undock or did not log in, while CFC-HB happily waste fleets in uncertain battles. The pilots did not lose anything on this as they are fully reimbursed.
If you choose to be a powerblock, you must have a budget to fund the common goal: defending your land and capturing more.
Friday morning report: 147.3B (5.5 spent on main accounts, 3.6 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.2 on Ragnarok, 2.6 on Rorqual, 2.4 on Nyx, 2.8 on Avatar, 17.4 sent as gift)
In more precise terms, when the cost of an action is shared by all while the benefits are private, the rational interest of every individual is to perform the action, even if they know that at the end, the costs will be higher than the benefit, because if they don't do it, they still have to bear the costs of the actions of others. The tragedy of commons can only be prevented by regulation or privatization. In both cases an individual or body assumes control over the resource (or parts of it) and fends off those who would exploit it for their own benefit at a greater cost of all.
How does it manifest in the current EVE wars? The star systems can be utilized for various activities if they are protected from enemies. The costs of having systems is to raise an army capable of protecting it. Even if the individual agrees it and finds protection of the systems a worthy goal, the rational self-interest is to not waste resources defending it but hope that others do. If he chooses to defend, he puts in his resources and everyone receives the benefits. If the fleet wins, all members of the alliance equally win the system. The guy who spent a year of training and billions of ISK to fly a supercap don't get more sovereignity than the guy who disappeared for a week and played an anonymous alt for fun.
For this reason the block where the governing body has more control over the resources (not pilots) will win the war, regardless the amount of total resources or pilots. In simpler words, the wealth of the pilots is irrelevant, the wealth of the alliance matters. Clearly not SoCo or DotBros has such funds but CFC and HB. Everyone mention tech moons as the source of CFC-HB power and they are right, however they don't see how. 1T/month seems huge income, but if we divide it by 20K pilots, we get lousy 50M. The members of SoCo and DotBro could clearly overcome this disadvantage by farming a few hours every month. I'm sure they do farm. However what they farm goes to their individual wallet, while moon money go to the wallet of the leadership, allowing them to use it on the war effort. The leaders are motivated to use money for war, the individuals are not.
The above can not be broken by individualists, even if they all agree that army is needed and defeating the enemy is a worthy goal. Since formal control over players cannot be assumed (as you can't force players to log in a video game if they don't want to), only financial control can happen: an alliance that wishes to defeat another must have higher alliance level income. Ergo, the members doing PvE must be taxed or donations must be collected. From this chest the leadership can buy ships and pay pilots to spend their time on shooting structures, camping gates and so on.
Obviously the above assumes that "defeating the enemy" or "capturing sov" is an individually accepted aim of the members. If it's not, such alliance will be destroyed in a minute as the members quit it instead of paying the tax. The philosophy "I don't care about politics, I just care about myself and I move where I can" is completely legitimate. One can be a freelancer, one can live in highsec, lowsec, NPC-null, unprotected wormholes hoping no one finds. These are valid, philosophical choices.
However what SoCo did is not a choice, it's a mistake. They choose to be a powerblock and they did not fill up a war chest hoping that members will act against their personal interest and defend the alliance on their own costs. They clearly didn't. When the enemy were strong, they did not undock or did not log in, while CFC-HB happily waste fleets in uncertain battles. The pilots did not lose anything on this as they are fully reimbursed.
If you choose to be a powerblock, you must have a budget to fund the common goal: defending your land and capturing more.
Friday morning report: 147.3B (5.5 spent on main accounts, 3.6 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.2 on Ragnarok, 2.6 on Rorqual, 2.4 on Nyx, 2.8 on Avatar, 17.4 sent as gift)
0 comments:
Post a Comment