These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How come null is so empty

First post
Author
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#21 - 2012-12-08 09:15:40 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Two words: "Dynamic sec status".
As you develop a system, the sec status slowly goes up, and the value of everything in it goes down.
That means a tech moon has a finite lifespan until the sec status of the system is too high to support a tech moon.

Conversely, a system that is empty with no activity slowly loses sec status, and the rats/moons/asteroids get more valuable.

Gone are the static blue alliances.
Hello nomadic groups constantly exploring and fighting over riches that ebb and flow depending on the activity level in that system.

Someday a 0.8 backwater might become a -1.0 trusec, and a -1.0 might become a 1.0

Great, now tweak it so that Jita will go to something like 0.4 please


If activity dropped off in a system, any system, enough, then yeah 1.0 would become eventually 0.4 or lower.
It would be extremely unlikely that a trade hub would become low sec or null, since they would self-perpetuate based on activity.

But you would have dynamic chokepoints, as 0.5 systems flipped to 0.4, and vice versa.
And all those empty tracks of systems in null would be filled with explorers looking for the freshest tech moons/rings to replace the ones petering out since a moon mining array would slowly raise the sec status of a system.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#22 - 2012-12-08 09:28:07 UTC
Midnight Pheonix wrote:
Didn't you get the memo? Null-sec power bloc's all blued each other for the holidays and are spending the time killing red crosses to RMT enough isk to buy christmas presents.


Why would that make null empty? Surely if it's all peaceful and safe, it should be hunning with activity?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2012-12-08 09:30:39 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Two words: "Dynamic sec status".
As you develop a system, the sec status slowly goes up, and the value of everything in it goes down.
That means a tech moon has a finite lifespan until the sec status of the system is too high to support a tech moon.

Conversely, a system that is empty with no activity slowly loses sec status, and the rats/moons/asteroids get more valuable.

Gone are the static blue alliances.
Hello nomadic groups constantly exploring and fighting over riches that ebb and flow depending on the activity level in that system.

Someday a 0.8 backwater might become a -1.0 trusec, and a -1.0 might become a 1.0

Great, now tweak it so that Jita will go to something like 0.4 please


If activity dropped off in a system, any system, enough, then yeah 1.0 would become eventually 0.4 or lower.
It would be extremely unlikely that a trade hub would become low sec or null, since they would self-perpetuate based on activity.

But you would have dynamic chokepoints, as 0.5 systems flipped to 0.4, and vice versa.
And all those empty tracks of systems in null would be filled with explorers looking for the freshest tech moons/rings to replace the ones petering out since a moon mining array would slowly raise the sec status of a system.


So your idea to get more people into 0.0 is to punish them for developing their territory? Because Sov space is just too good right now and that's what's keeping people from living there?

Or did I misunderstand and you want 0.0 to become completely uninhabited?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Frying Doom
#24 - 2012-12-08 09:36:28 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Two words: "Dynamic sec status".
As you develop a system, the sec status slowly goes up, and the value of everything in it goes down.
That means a tech moon has a finite lifespan until the sec status of the system is too high to support a tech moon.

Conversely, a system that is empty with no activity slowly loses sec status, and the rats/moons/asteroids get more valuable.

Gone are the static blue alliances.
Hello nomadic groups constantly exploring and fighting over riches that ebb and flow depending on the activity level in that system.

Someday a 0.8 backwater might become a -1.0 trusec, and a -1.0 might become a 1.0

Great, now tweak it so that Jita will go to something like 0.4 please


If activity dropped off in a system, any system, enough, then yeah 1.0 would become eventually 0.4 or lower.
It would be extremely unlikely that a trade hub would become low sec or null, since they would self-perpetuate based on activity.

But you would have dynamic chokepoints, as 0.5 systems flipped to 0.4, and vice versa.
And all those empty tracks of systems in null would be filled with explorers looking for the freshest tech moons/rings to replace the ones petering out since a moon mining array would slowly raise the sec status of a system.


So your idea to get more people into 0.0 is to punish them for developing their territory? Because Sov space is just too good right now and that's what's keeping people from living there?

Or did I misunderstand and you want 0.0 to become completely uninhabited?

Yeah that would be wonderful, you reward people for doing nothing.

Isnt that already the problem?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#25 - 2012-12-08 09:48:53 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
Why bother to engage in actual nullsec PvP when your killboards can look so awesome from highsec ganking? Those guys dont shoot back, and your not going to get a super-massive capital fleet titan bridged onto your face.


Mostly because most actual PvPers do it for fun (as in, they look for good fights against competent opponents where victory actually brings satisfaction and loss brings respect).

Killboards are meaningless, good hunts and combat is what PvPers strive for, not K/Ds.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#26 - 2012-12-08 09:51:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
[

So your idea to get more people into 0.0 is to punish them for developing their territory? Because Sov space is just too good right now and that's what's keeping people from living there?

Or did I misunderstand and you want 0.0 to become completely uninhabited?


I see that Test has added another 1% growth this week, up to 10.500 members.
Goons are a paltry 8600 members.
Yeah, null sec alliances are just fading away right now.

What this would do is force null sec players to actively explore all of null sec on an ongoing basis.
And heavily industrialized zones are inherently more safe.

The U.S does not build its carriers and subs in Alaska. They build them in areas where it is safe.
You want to heavily industrialize / populate an area? No problem. Just expect that area to experience lower crime rates (less valuable rats), and lower availability of resources (less valuable ore and moon goo).

And just like asteroid belts, moons/ rings would naturally dissipate as the sec status went up.
Alliances that need moon goo to support themselves would have to actively explore for more of those precious resources.

Just like nations do today.

I am not saying that there is a finite amount of resources in the game.
I AM saying that as one supply of moon goo shrinks in a heavily industrialized space, another supply increases in some unknown, undeveloped area of low/null.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#27 - 2012-12-08 09:56:31 UTC
Because null doesn't have it's specialty and attractiveness: everything you can find in null happens elsewhere with more intensity (WH = ISK farm, low = PvP, hi-sec = human interactions).
Mr Pragmatic
#28 - 2012-12-08 10:08:12 UTC
I don't go to null b/c all the gates are camped to get into it. And plus I consider NULL space for the belligerent undesirable of eve.
Why leave Hi sec? Its got PVP, ISK, MISSIONS, MINING. All these you can have with out some ass hat looking to KM whore.

Super cali hella yolo swaga dopeness.  -Yoloswaggins, in the fellowship of the bling.

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#29 - 2012-12-08 10:09:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Lipbite wrote:
Because null doesn't have it's specialty and attractiveness: everything you can find in null happens elsewhere with more intensity (WH = ISK farm, low = PvP, hi-sec = human interactions).


Trust me, there is a lot more PvP in nullsec.
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#30 - 2012-12-08 10:33:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tian Jade
In short, some alliances got mega rich with moon goo, which proved to be much more profitable and requiring less work then mining or ratting. With these riches they could easily set up ship replacement programs and drive out the smaller alliances in less profitable space who still relied mostly on mining or ratting.

Over the years living in null turned into being a mindless drone for these mega-alliances or at least sell yourself and your free time into a semi-slaved status, which in turn made living in null unacceptable for everyone whose brain was not completely rotten.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#31 - 2012-12-08 10:37:43 UTC
Tian Jade wrote:
In short, some alliances got mega rich with moon goo, which proved to be much more profitable and requiring less work then mining or ratting. With these riches they could easily set up ship replacement programs and drive out the smaller alliances in less profitable space who still relied mostly on mining or ratting.

Over the years living in null turned into being a mindless drone for these mega-alliances or at least sell yourself and your free time into a semi-slaved status, which in turn made living in null unacceptable for everyone whose brain was not completely rotten.


Fun fact: the most successful nullsec alliances do not require anything of members, and let them do as they please.
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#32 - 2012-12-08 11:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tian Jade
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tian Jade wrote:
In short, some alliances got mega rich with moon goo, which proved to be much more profitable and requiring less work then mining or ratting. With these riches they could easily set up ship replacement programs and drive out the smaller alliances in less profitable space who still relied mostly on mining or ratting.

Over the years living in null turned into being a mindless drone for these mega-alliances or at least sell yourself and your free time into a semi-slaved status, which in turn made living in null unacceptable for everyone whose brain was not completely rotten.


Fun fact: the most successful nullsec alliances do not require anything of members, and let them do as they please.


Yes and I have also seen how proud you are to the fact that your members act like junior-school-bullies to everyone else. Does it really surprise you that people don't even want to play with your type?

About success lets see it one example

Alliance A: Has secured early a region with lots of moon goo, could afford a few hundred supercapitals and is practically immune to damage.

Alliance B: Lives in a NPC region with lots of PvP activity and a few very good players but certainly not as rich as A

Alliance C: Lives in the more shallow Null regions without access to high end moon materials. Their playerbase has a smaller number PvPers and the majority of their players are people who mine and rat and only go PvP for fun once or twice a week.

What will happen is: B will declare C as weak carebears and start roaming gangs on a daily basis, place cloaked ships into their mining and ratting systems try anything to bring their activity to a halt. They are also less likely to attack A, since they are independent from mining and ratting as primary ISK-sources.

Then A with the constant pressure from within to keep their players entertained and find targets for their supercapitals will join the fight against C. From their point of view B has very few sovereignity structures which make them uninteresting for their capital fleet. C has some outposts, more POS and it is known that it can put up only limited resistance.

The final result: A and B are steamrolling C, some forum drama, even more threads of members of A and B how awesome they are. The space of C is taken by A and B. For the reasons mentions above both have very little interest to use that space and the members of C have scattered to the winds.

After a few month with fewer and fewer targets within their reach B also splits. Some of their players joining A others going into lowsec or different null regions.

End result: A has all the space it does not use or really want. B and C are gone. Repeat these things a few times all over null and you know why entire regions with lots of outposts have become empty wastelands.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-12-08 11:22:43 UTC
We call that "survival of the fittest".
Tarn Kugisa
Kugisa Dynamics
#34 - 2012-12-08 11:25:04 UTC
nullsec: full of people who care about the future of the game

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to troll everyone you meet - KuroVolt

Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-12-08 11:26:34 UTC
Tian Jade wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tian Jade wrote:
In short, some alliances got mega rich with moon goo, which proved to be much more profitable and requiring less work then mining or ratting. With these riches they could easily set up ship replacement programs and drive out the smaller alliances in less profitable space who still relied mostly on mining or ratting.

Over the years living in null turned into being a mindless drone for these mega-alliances or at least sell yourself and your free time into a semi-slaved status, which in turn made living in null unacceptable for everyone whose brain was not completely rotten.


Fun fact: the most successful nullsec alliances do not require anything of members, and let them do as they please.


Yes and I have also seen how proud you are to the fact that your members act like junior-school-bullies to everyone else. Does it really surprise you that people don't even want to play with your type?

About success lets see it one example

Alliance A: Has secured early a region with lots of moon goo, could afford a few hundred supercapitals and is practically immune to damage.

Alliance B: Lives in a NPC region with lots of PvP activity and a few very good players but certainly not as rich as A

Alliance C: Lives in the more shallow Null regions without access to high end moon materials. Their playerbase has a smaller number PvPers and the majority of their players are people who mine and rat and only go PvP for fun once or twice a week.

What will happen is: B will declare C as weak carebears and start roaming gangs on a daily basis, place cloaked ships into their mining and ratting systems try anything to bring their activity to a halt. They are also less likely to attack A, since they are independent from mining and ratting as primary ISK-sources.

Then A with the constant pressure from within to keep their players entertained and find targets for their supercapitals will join the fight against C. From their point of view B has very few sovereignity structures which make them uninteresting for their capital fleet. C has some outposts, more POS and it is known that it can put up only limited resistance.

The final result: A and B are steamrolling C, some forum drama, even more threads of members of A and B how awesome they are. The space of C is taken by A and B. For the reasons mentions above both have very little interest to use that space and the members of C have scattered to the winds.

After a few month with fewer and fewer targets within their reach B also splits. Some of their players joining A others going into lowsec or different null regions.

End result: A has all the space it does not use or really want. B and C are gone. Repeat these things a few times all over null and you know why entire regions with lots of outposts


Now imagine how all of this could change if size was not a static advantage/disadvantage. Removing local, making ship detection signature radius based, altering cyno/jumping would shake things about greatly.

C would then be able to roam in their small groups, avoiding detection most of the time, be more mobile, harassing A and B, striking critical supply chains. Because of C being so small, they would not have to rely as much on PoS's/moons and perhaps even keep a few secret such. A would be forced to spread out to defend their entire space because C can just come in from anywhere. A could also try and simply steamroll C but then C could just as easily fall back or move elsewhere for the time being.

And let's not forget. This would also open up the opportunity for tiny D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L to also harass the big and bad A. Whilst they won't be able to deal outright damage and take down stations after stations, they will at least for once be able to fight something that is that much bigger without being crushed in 5 seconds.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#36 - 2012-12-08 11:29:07 UTC
Tian Jade wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tian Jade wrote:
In short, some alliances got mega rich with moon goo, which proved to be much more profitable and requiring less work then mining or ratting. With these riches they could easily set up ship replacement programs and drive out the smaller alliances in less profitable space who still relied mostly on mining or ratting.

Over the years living in null turned into being a mindless drone for these mega-alliances or at least sell yourself and your free time into a semi-slaved status, which in turn made living in null unacceptable for everyone whose brain was not completely rotten.


Fun fact: the most successful nullsec alliances do not require anything of members, and let them do as they please.


Yes and I have also seen how proud you are to the fact that your members act like junior-school-bullies to everyone else. Does it really surprise you that people don't even want to play with your type?

About success lets see it one example

Alliance A: Has secured early a region with lots of moon goo, could afford a few hundred supercapitals and is practically immune to damage.

Alliance B: Lives in a NPC region with lots of PvP activity and a few very good players but certainly not as rich as A

Alliance C: Lives in the more shallow Null regions without access to high end moon materials. Their playerbase has a smaller number PvPers and the majority of their players are people who mine and rat and only go PvP for fun once or twice a week.

What will happen is: B will declare C as weak carebears and start roaming gangs on a daily basis, place cloaked ships into their mining and ratting systems try anything to bring their activity to a halt. They are also less likely to attack A, since they are independent from mining and ratting as primary ISK-sources.

Then A with the constant pressure from within to keep their players entertained and find targets for their supercapitals will join the fight against C. From their point of view B has very few sovereignity structures which make them uninteresting for their capital fleet. C has some outposts, more POS and it is known that it can put up only limited resistance.

The final result: A and B are steamrolling C, some forum drama, even more threads of members of A and B how awesome they are. The space of C is taken by A and B. For the reasons mentions above both have very little interest to use that space and the members of C have scattered to the winds.

After a few month with fewer and fewer targets within their reach B also splits. Some of their players joining A others going into lowsec or different null regions.

End result: A has all the space it does not use or really want. B and C are gone. Repeat these things a few times all over null and you know why entire regions with lots of outposts have become empty wastelands.


Wat.

First off, no one ever wants to shoot structures. People in nullsec alliances generally want good fights, or gudfites as we call them. Alliance B and Alliance A would be constantly shooting at each other, because ratters and miners don't put up fun fights. For example, take a look at how much interest those alliances you consider to fall into category A show in category C space (places like Providence or the Drone Regions).

Alliances that fall into category B don't die, they are eternal harassment groups. Take a look at Pizza, as terrible as they are. They have fun shooting at groups that fall into Alliance A's category, do it exclusively, in dirt cheap ships, with no infrastructure to speak of. You can't kill that sort of alliance, they just do their thing and poke at the weaker elements of the group.

In reality, you have the big category A alliances brawling with each other, while smaller groups form up between battles to go have fun shooting at category B alliances, who are constantly doing the same to the category As, while the category Cs just sit around in their crappy space and occasionally have to deal with bored lowsec pilots who like easy kills.
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-12-08 11:33:12 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tian Jade wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Tian Jade wrote:
In short, some alliances got mega rich with moon goo, which proved to be much more profitable and requiring less work then mining or ratting. With these riches they could easily set up ship replacement programs and drive out the smaller alliances in less profitable space who still relied mostly on mining or ratting.

Over the years living in null turned into being a mindless drone for these mega-alliances or at least sell yourself and your free time into a semi-slaved status, which in turn made living in null unacceptable for everyone whose brain was not completely rotten.


Fun fact: the most successful nullsec alliances do not require anything of members, and let them do as they please.


Yes and I have also seen how proud you are to the fact that your members act like junior-school-bullies to everyone else. Does it really surprise you that people don't even want to play with your type?

About success lets see it one example

Alliance A: Has secured early a region with lots of moon goo, could afford a few hundred supercapitals and is practically immune to damage.

Alliance B: Lives in a NPC region with lots of PvP activity and a few very good players but certainly not as rich as A

Alliance C: Lives in the more shallow Null regions without access to high end moon materials. Their playerbase has a smaller number PvPers and the majority of their players are people who mine and rat and only go PvP for fun once or twice a week.

What will happen is: B will declare C as weak carebears and start roaming gangs on a daily basis, place cloaked ships into their mining and ratting systems try anything to bring their activity to a halt. They are also less likely to attack A, since they are independent from mining and ratting as primary ISK-sources.

Then A with the constant pressure from within to keep their players entertained and find targets for their supercapitals will join the fight against C. From their point of view B has very few sovereignity structures which make them uninteresting for their capital fleet. C has some outposts, more POS and it is known that it can put up only limited resistance.

The final result: A and B are steamrolling C, some forum drama, even more threads of members of A and B how awesome they are. The space of C is taken by A and B. For the reasons mentions above both have very little interest to use that space and the members of C have scattered to the winds.

After a few month with fewer and fewer targets within their reach B also splits. Some of their players joining A others going into lowsec or different null regions.

End result: A has all the space it does not use or really want. B and C are gone. Repeat these things a few times all over null and you know why entire regions with lots of outposts have become empty wastelands.


Wat.

First off, no one ever wants to shoot structures. People in nullsec alliances generally want good fights, or gudfites as we call them. Alliance B and Alliance A would be constantly shooting at each other, because ratters and miners don't put up fun fights. For example, take a look at how much interest those alliances you consider to fall into category A show in category C space (places like Providence or the Drone Regions).

Alliances that fall into category B don't die, they are eternal harassment groups. Take a look at Pizza, as terrible as they are. They have fun shooting at groups that fall into Alliance A's category, do it exclusively, in dirt cheap ships, with no infrastructure to speak of. You can't kill that sort of alliance, they just do their thing and poke at the weaker elements of the group.

In reality, you have the big category A alliances brawling with each other, while smaller groups form up between battles to go have fun shooting at category B alliances, who are constantly doing the same to the category As, while the category Cs just sit around in their crappy space and occasionally have to deal with bored lowsec pilots who like easy kills.


If "harassment" really occurred on such a scale as you claim then I doubt people would be complaining about how empty and inactive null is.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#38 - 2012-12-08 11:37:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Gillia Winddancer wrote:

If "harassment" really occurred on such a scale as you claim then I doubt people would be complaining about how empty and inactive null is.


In my entire time in nullsec, I don't think a single day has passed where I was logged on for longer than an hour and a hostile gang didn't roam through. The people complaining about how empty null is are people who went in once, for about 2 hours, roaming through systems no one uses for good reason, and then coming to a conclusion. Feel free to read the statistics I posted earlier regarding PvP numbers in Null vs Low vs High.
Tian Jade
Bad Bumblebee Incorporated
#39 - 2012-12-08 11:38:38 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
We call that "survival of the fittest".


I call it poor game design. 3 or 4 years ago a lot people were warning that this would eventually happen. About survival of the fittest, well it is more survival of the ones best adapted to this CCP created mess.

But the OP asked why Null is mostly empty and I gave an answer. It is a null problem and no changes to highsec or lowsec will have an impact on this as the cause of null being empty are actually in null.
Codie Dunier
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-12-08 11:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Codie Dunier
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Two words: "Dynamic sec status".
As you develop a system, the sec status slowly goes up, and the value of everything in it goes down.
That means a tech moon has a finite lifespan until the sec status of the system is too high to support a tech moon.

Conversely, a system that is empty with no activity slowly loses sec status, and the rats/moons/asteroids get more valuable.

Gone are the static blue alliances.
Hello nomadic groups constantly exploring and fighting over riches that ebb and flow depending on the activity level in that system.

Someday a 0.8 backwater might become a -1.0 trusec, and a -1.0 might become a 1.0

Great, now tweak it so that Jita will go to something like 0.4 please

Bam, and none of the hundreds of carebear traders will visit Jita anymore, causing Jita to become a wasteland. I can't believe a Goon would make such a suggestion. You want carebears to go there so you know where you can find them and kill them, don't you?

Tian Jade wrote:
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
We call that "survival of the fittest".


I call it poor game design. 3 or 4 years ago a lot people were warning that this would eventually happen. About survival of the fittest, well it is more survival of the ones best adapted to this CCP created mess.

And isn't "Survival of the ones best adapted" the exact same as "Survival of the fittest"?