These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated] How to repopulate nullsec - a question for highsec/WH players (and CCP)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Strike Severasse
#321 - 2011-10-21 19:23:24 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
One thing that would really kick the butt, and I would like to see in all of Eve, is the ability to warp from one system to the other with your own jump drive, just like we have seen in Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.

Let's face it, the bubble/blob camp is the one thing that kills (lots of stuff) small gangs and provides gank pipelines.
....
Gates have to go for 0.0 to become interesting for both defenders and intruders. At the least, being deposited randomly into the target system would be an improvement.
...
Get rid of gates or make ships that can jump without them, without having to be a JF, like a low slot module or rig, and even I would leave high sec behind forever.


YES YES, gates keep high and low/null from mixing!!! Entice high into Null/Low by making jumping easier. Special jump options or...

>>>> Jump EXIT a GATE at 150 K !!! not 15k <<<<<

This is a 5 minute fix in code!! 5 minutes to a more open EVE, common do it!

Gate campers would then have to be active and work for their rewards.
High sec ships would not have to take stupid risks, just calculated risks for entering Null/Low sec

More people in Null/Low and we all win.

Better game play, better distribution, better understanding of the other side. WIN = WIN

.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#322 - 2011-10-21 19:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
We need sentry drones.

Drop them at a gate or put them at the entrance to a WH. They should warn the owner if one of the options / red / bad standing / war / neutral comes through.

Then mining would get much better in both WH and null.

(Naturally it would count against one of the drones that you can operate so less rat drones or mining ones)

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Faith Sunstrider
#323 - 2011-10-21 20:01:39 UTC
As a high and low sec pilot, that went once to the npc null sec to ratting, the gate camps are the worst.
How can you deal with huge blob of 20 ships + a lot of warp bubbles while you are in a simple assault ship?
Ad'Hakim Tahous
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#324 - 2011-10-21 20:06:18 UTC
KaarBaak wrote:


........ I don't care for CTAs, abrasive FCs, rules about when I can and cannot do non-corp/alliance activities. I don't care for politics and peoples' hurt feelings causing me to PvP. I don't care for mandatory operations and rules about who I can and cannot sell my stuff to or buy from..........

Big smile )


Tried it on other characters.... null sec is exactly what the occupants have made it..... and a number of pilots have very little interest in "their" game.

The option to null space is alive and well..... W-Space ftw!
Zelphinine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#325 - 2011-10-21 20:33:04 UTC
I'll echo the whole 'small fish' and 'nothing for the common folk' sentiments, no need to rehash what's been stated quite clearly by others.

Bring in some nullsec capship PvE and I might consider going back to dealing with all the nullsec alliance bullshit. Otherwise I'll stay in hisec incursions where I can be social, meet people, have fun, make money, get to use fun toys and play how I want, when I want, where I want.
Strike Severasse
#326 - 2011-10-21 20:38:39 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
We need sentry drones.

Drop them at a gate or put them at the entrance to a WH. They should warn the owner if one of the options / red / bad standing / war / neutral comes through.

Then mining would get much better in both WH and null.

(Naturally it would count against one of the drones that you can operate so less rat drones or mining ones)


W-Space is to quiet already, we need beacons on WHs entrances from K-Space

okay i'll conceed, very tiny beacons, not 100% scans... see nice

.
Maman Brigitte
Death of Rats
#327 - 2011-10-21 20:58:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Maman Brigitte
xh'neivers wrote:
Maman Brigitte wrote:


As it is, drone regions require an advanced infrastructure to exploit, and punishes groups that cannot work together seamlessly. Drone goo makes the drone regions a very different EVE experience, one which switching to bounties would destroy.

Plus, if that's not enough reason for you, turning drones into bounty rats would turn on a new isk-faucet without turning on a new isk-sink. The result might be inflation. Mineral prices would go up, but not because more people were mining, instead because the value of isk would be dropping.


I'm sorry, your argument for not removing drone loot is that it would mean you would have to mine for the materials that are available because your in 0.0 anyway?

0.o

What, you mean like almost everyone else?


The stated objective is to get more industrialists into 0.0 and give them a more relevant role.

Drone regions is the only space in 0.0 where there's a large contingent of industrialists with a relevant role.

Trying to fix the problem by destroying the only economy that already conforms to your goal is, as dmw so elegantly put it, ********.

The math behind drone regions is actually kinda weird, but it works. Allow me to explain.

Rare minerals from drone loot is actually quite rare. Industrialists in 0.0 tend to mine only ABCM anyway, so drone loot doesn't actually dig into their profits from that ore very much. It generates a veritable *ton* of the crap minerals that no one mines, and this renders local manufacturing viable where it otherwise would not be (like everywhere else in 0.0).

If the concern is impact on high-sec markets, the costs associated with shipping Tritanium to high-sec from the drone regions is such that all value would evaporate from the minerals by arrival. Thus, drone-goo actually has very little impact on high-sec markets at all.

What, then, you ask, is holding down prices of minerals across the EVE market?

Simple.

Daily respawn of belts in high-sec and easy availability of class 1/2 wormholes with high-value hidden belts.

We used to have a few industrialists who would, whenever times got slow, throw up towers in wormholes, strip them bare of minerals, and then pull down the towers and move into a new one. This is easy, fast, surprisingly low-risk and generates an enormous quantity of isk.

Drone regions isn't the problem... and it's certainly not keeping indies out of 0.0... far from it - it's offering them a home where they're *wanted* and *needed*. We can't import stuff. We're just too far out. We *have* to build it.

If they want more industry in null, they want null to look more like drone space, not the other way 'round.

That's all I'm saying.

*edit* ooh, though some of our pirates suggest putting concord kicks on drones, as it stands they're kinduf... um... locked out of high-sec because they can't farm concord faction haha. >_< */edit*
X Dead
Doomheim
#328 - 2011-10-21 21:05:56 UTC
Currently I spend the vast majority of time in High mainly because I no longer have the time to invest for other than casual play and living in nul doesn't really support that mode. I'm not saying it can't, but I'm not so ISK-rich that I can afford to have caches of assets in various systems to jump to if the system I am in when I next log in is locked down.

Some alliances expect or require fairly large time investments, and if not the alliance then similar demands are often made at the corp level and not being able to meet expectations there can create internal tensions. I've been lucky and not always had such problems although I have seen it many times (I start to feel guilty about not making CTAs and so on.

Taking opportunistic pot-shots at other solos, and kill-mail whoring in a stealthy ship are pretty much the only options in nul if solo – I wouldn’t really expect that to change as otherwise it would be like letting poachers into your farm.

If CCP made guerrilla warfare against assets more feasible or created mechanisms for “leaching” off larger organisations it might make things a bit more fun on both sides. Perhaps the ability to steal from structures or the like? Such facilities with valuables in real life (yeah, I know "but this is a game") have had real-time guards and there seems to be little analogue in Eve presently in that Alliances will high asset concentrations need to invest relatively little to retain these. I guess it comes down to there presently being minimal asymmetric conflict opportunity where a small can do some harm to a large (unlike in real life).
PARD0
Pardus Freight and Salvage
#329 - 2011-10-21 21:28:57 UTC
Null is just like high, but much worse, because of alliance obligations, capital abuse, gatecamps, napfests, logistics etc. etc.

Pvp is either non existant or pure **** (I don't understand in all honesty how the endless stream of cloaky roamers manage to stay awake during their roams. Nor why ganking some afk n00b every other day is considered such a big feat. The other common form of pvp, gatecamp, manages to be even less fun than the roams.)

So there's no point in "repopulating" something that is so clearly broken. Convert half the sectors to lolsec and WH and be done with it. Null dwellers wont even notice the change since they use 1/10 of the sectors they "own" anyway/
Adelphie
The Lone Wolves.
#330 - 2011-10-21 21:35:36 UTC
So people are tired of having superpowers claiming space that isn't used.

Would it work then to have the cost of claiming Sov invsersly proportional to the activity in a system?

Have an extremely high base cost of sov, which is quickly reduced by having active pilots, rats killed and ore mined. Unused sov should be very expensive to maintain, whereas heavily utilised space should be close to free.

Any thoughts?
Strike Severasse
#331 - 2011-10-21 21:38:06 UTC
PARD0 wrote:
Null is just like high, but much worse, because of alliance obligations, capital abuse, gatecamps, napfests, logistics etc. etc.

Pvp is either non existant or pure **** (I don't understand in all honesty how the endless stream of cloaky roamers manage to stay awake during their roams. Nor why ganking some afk n00b every other day is considered such a big feat. The other common form of pvp, gatecamp, manages to be even less fun than the roams.)

So there's no point in "repopulating" something that is so clearly broken. Convert half the sectors to lolsec and WH and be done with it. Null dwellers wont even notice the change since they use 1/10 of the sectors they "own" anyway/


What your saying is Null is the same old thing, caught in time. Oldies doing the same thing over and over.
What you need is fresh blood that has not been trained by these oldies, you need High sec and to get them, you need to buffer the amount of deaths somehow.. so figure the path to let LOTS of people into Null

The worlds are diff yet with some middle buffer ground, they can mix for the better of both sides.

Yeah yeah and you killmail whores, how'd you like blobs of BC from high descending on you?

Say YES to mixing worlds or go hide deeper in Null where the oldies lifestyle has not changed.. yet.

.
Caldari Acolyte
Shark Enterprises
#332 - 2011-10-21 22:18:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari Acolyte
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now.
Adelphie
The Lone Wolves.
#333 - 2011-10-21 22:20:58 UTC
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit.


This is good in theory but not practice as it's too easy to get around.

Someone else said it earlier "Turn corp tickers on overview lads, don't shoot xxx"
Caldari Acolyte
Shark Enterprises
#334 - 2011-10-21 22:35:32 UTC
Adelphie wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit.


This is good in theory but not practice as it's too easy to get around.

Someone else said it earlier "Turn corp tickers on overview lads, don't shoot xxx"


That may or may not be true in some instances, but the main reason is to limit the size so that Alliances can't hold on to huge pockets of null because of the sov cost simply because of less income. Tech moons should be redistributed in null evenly to help this situation
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
#335 - 2011-10-21 22:39:02 UTC
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now.


Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening? Blink

......................................................
Adelphie
The Lone Wolves.
#336 - 2011-10-21 22:45:34 UTC
Xpaulusx wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now.


Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening? Blink


Can't tell if sarcasm mode was on there Blink

I think it's clear that something needs to be done to make large entities less appealing, but putting artificial constraints just won't work as they're too easy to game.

See the post I made earlier about making unused sov more expensive - This would compact large alliances into smaller areas, which will cause backbiting and bitiching and naturally breakdown powerblocs, whilst opening the door to new alliances to claim space.
Strike Severasse
#337 - 2011-10-21 22:55:28 UTC
Adelphie wrote:
Xpaulusx wrote:
Caldari Acolyte wrote:
Bust up these huge coalitions by limiting Alliance sizes and limit how many can be set to Blue by Alliances, then you'll see dramatic changes in null.................real change. let null burn for a bit. Null shouldn't be a bluefest like it is now.


Exactly what needs to be done. CCP are you listening? Blink


Can't tell if sarcasm mode was on there Blink

I think it's clear that something needs to be done to make large entities less appealing, but putting artificial constraints just won't work as they're too easy to game.

See the post I made earlier about making unused sov more expensive - This would compact large alliances into smaller areas, which will cause backbiting and bitiching and naturally breakdown powerblocs, whilst opening the door to new alliances to claim space.


A max alliance size, yes!! but...
they would just have joined alliances, still the not blue would help make null a more player place then a few gangs owning it.

+1

.
coolzero
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2011-10-21 23:08:51 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
This thread is pretty awesome. You guys will get a few 0.0 changes this winter, smaller ones that should improve quality of life.

One thing I'm thinking about, but not entirely sure about is this: Putting bounties on drones instead of minerals. Mining used to be a viable way of making money in nullsec, but the increase in available minerals has driven the price down. I'm wondering if putting bounties on drones won't give mining a bit of a revival and put some life back in 0.0.


yes that would help...but also inc a say t3 mining barge..no need for more yield just a better tank to at least give us miner some better life out in o.o
Vigilant Archer
Doomheim
#339 - 2011-10-21 23:50:19 UTC
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
When CCP fixes industry and logistics in null sec, who will go there until null sec alliances fix their "come live in null sec" scams?

Which one do you folk living out in null sec have control over?

We have a bunch of industrialists in our alliance but they do just about everything industry related in empire space. If CCP manages to make nullsec industry worthwhile they will relocate. As for pubbie industrialists...idgaf

Mara Rinn wrote:
You could try — just as an example — talking to the folks to do industry in null sec. Learn what their pet peeves are. Learn something about the processes required to produce the replacement ships that you love so much.

Talking to them isn't going to change the fact that it is always more efficient to do industry in highsec and ship the finished goods to nullsec.

Mara Rinn wrote:
While your attitude is that you're doing people "favours" by destroying their freighters and industrial base that they were hoping to contribute to your alliance, you are your own worst enemy: you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Like I said we already have plenty of people in our alliance doing industry so who cares if some random pubbie corps don't trust us...that freighter massacre in EC- was hilarious.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#340 - 2011-10-22 00:02:06 UTC
What turns me off to nullsec is just how carebearish sovereignty is. Chaining belts, pirate-attracting sov structures, et cetera. Couple that with the fact that I would be just one more cog in the profit machine of a major alliance and I have no interest in being there. It sounds like a tedious and uninteresting life compared to what I do now.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.