These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eternum Praetorian
Doomheim
#441 - 2011-10-25 12:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Avila Cracko wrote:
gen we get some more CCP responce here?



They got tired of everyone's half baked, brainless and game breaking suggestions. X



You used to be able to get a bunch of battleships, and a whole bunch of friends... and take some sov. Now you need a whole bunch of capitals and supercapitals and EVEN THEN YOU STILL CAN'T because there are just so many of them now.


Not to mention, how do you even get those supers in the first place? Oh yea you need sov first Roll






Fix:

There is none, Null Sec will never change because people don't want to fix it.

Nullsec PVP 2006
Current Nullsec PVP [At Present]



You cannot fix that, and no one cries louder then nullbabies who lose their "I win" button.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]
Yiole Gionglao
#442 - 2011-10-25 12:53:18 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
betoli wrote:
Adelphie wrote:
[quote=betoli]
The only thing duller than mining (imo) is watching people mine - so it will be dificult to motivate people to do that without significant rewards, which with the current state of null mining will just never happen.


So there are two ways of achieving that. Either mineral prices are good enough to pay for 2 players time including compensation for the boredom, or barges are survivable to allow a corpmate in the same system doing something else, to arrive and get points on an attacker before the barge goes pop (I don't care if the barge survives, so long as the aggressor takes a risk). We do want to avoid the situation where miners dock up because a single unknown player (or AFK cloaker) pops up in local, because thats a seriously unfun mechanic. I think that should be the goal of any survivable barge tweak or new barge ship.

An expensive HULK has around what 22K EHP? So it only has around 45 seconds survivability against anything cruiser class. Is that enough for the most expensive tankable option? Whats a realistic time for a corpmate pissing about somewhere in the system to arrive??


You can get a Hulk above the 30k EHP mark with nothing more than ordinary meta and T2.


And nothing less but harming your mining amount by 1/3. Also, as 30k EHP won't make you last anywhere outside of hisec, that means you're suggesting that Hulk pilots should limit themselves to earn around 3 million ISK /hour, which is prettty much a way to finance a tanked fit worth 300 million...

All in all ORE ships are a joke, they apparently are conceived to dwell in Hello Kitty Online rather than a place where ships worth 200 million last seconds to a bloody ganker worth 50 million.

There should really be a miner battleship with the abbility to mount both strip miners and a BS tank... Lol

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an alpha / And so it's you
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#443 - 2011-10-25 12:59:40 UTC  |  Edited by: betoli
Malcanis wrote:
betoli wrote:

An expensive HULK has around what 22K EHP? So it only has around 45 seconds survivability against anything cruiser class. Is that enough for the most expensive tankable option? Whats a realistic time for a corpmate pissing about somewhere in the system to arrive??


You can get a Hulk above the 30k EHP mark with nothing more than ordinary meta and T2.


Yeah - I am sure you can, but perhaps not without hurting mining amount a lot, which then hurts the profitability problem more. And we are talking about a 200m ship, which isn't on the radar for newer players at all.

If I were redesigning the range, I'd try to get the T1-2 stripper barge to give that 30k buffer, and the T2-2 Stripper barge to give more like 40-45k (without compromising yield) - basically battle cruiser sized buffers and roughly tier-2 yield. I'd leave the high yield 3 stripper ships for properly guarded fleet ops and high sec.

I think CCP tried to make the single stripper fits more tankable, but the single stripper and minerals prices don't really make that work.... and the buffer still isn't big enough.
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#444 - 2011-10-25 13:11:05 UTC  |  Edited by: betoli
March rabbit wrote:

YES. mechanic is OK.
and NO. Problems with covering your losses or paying for protection are very rare in 0.0 space.


You cannot pay people for protection if they can make more ISK doing something else, than you make even before splitting the profit. Thats why a surviveable barge makes sense, because your protection force only has to be in system, not sat around eating doughnuts. Its a relativistic problem, not an absolute one.

I daresay that mining for 5 hours without kersploding would payback your hulk cost....
Severian Carnifex
#445 - 2011-10-25 13:14:29 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
betoli wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

Edit: I also suspect there is a lack of organisation. Surely they have fleets with PVPers and ratters, who could warp to the rescue quickly? Systems don't have hundreds of ways in and why not bait those cloakers out, have some people just a gate away.

you forgot we speak about game here.... What?

almost noone will spend their time like in RL job to protect you... We play for fun. this means:
1. Noone will stay for hours on gates or in belt just to make you mining safer
2. People will try to rescue you if you are attacked
3. You can die before anyone even will notice you were attacked Lol



This mechanic is OK. That your friends can't be arsed is just fine, CCP cannot fix your friends. The thing that is not fine, is the fact that mining is uncompetitive with other stuff to the point that you cannot cover a) ship losses or b) pay a protection force.

YES. mechanic is OK.
and NO. Problems with covering your losses or paying for protection are very rare in 0.0 space.

Real problem of 0.0: too low risk for rewards you get there. That's why goons plag in empire (too much money and too low fun in 0.0), that's why bots, that's why shiny ships with deadspace modules even for ratting.....


+1
Billy Colorado
Evasion Gaming
#446 - 2011-10-25 13:30:02 UTC
@betoll. You've pretty much nailed it. Maybe not the mechanics of it, but the spirit, at least.

The ISK carrot. If there were a way to balance mechanics such that what you've proposed became a reality, it really would move Eve closer to the grand sandbox it ought to be. More ISK generated by players, exchanged by players, and less ISK printed by NPCs.

Somehow, I think the above could breed a new kind of corporation. Actual mercenaries. Give the high sec station gamers something to do.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#447 - 2011-10-25 13:39:26 UTC
Cur wrote:
effing forums, ccp please fix this bullshit "no html" code i get for using youre own "bold" function.


REMOVE STATISTIC REPORTING FROM 0.0

Not all of it, but the following:

Rats killed per system
The ability to remotely view soveregnity upgrade levels (force people to physically visit the system to see if its got it - only allow the corp that owns the tcu/ihub to remotely view)
Jumps per system



ITT - People trying to come up with creative ways to hide their bot activities.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
bornaa
GRiD.
#448 - 2011-10-25 14:52:39 UTC
remove mineral drops from drones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#449 - 2011-10-25 14:55:23 UTC
bornaa wrote:
remove mineral drops from drones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


remove meta-0 loot drops and scrap metal from rats
Perramas
DreddNaut
#450 - 2011-10-25 15:04:57 UTC
betoli wrote:
bornaa wrote:
remove mineral drops from drones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


remove meta-0 loot drops and scrap metal from rats


Both great ideas! Another great idea to help spread out high sec players more AND give 0.0 players more targets, turn 30% of 0.0 space into high sec systems. That way you wont need more players in 0.0 as those there wont have to go through as many empty systems to find a target that wants PvP.

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people- Eleanor Roosevelt

Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#451 - 2011-10-25 15:45:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lharanai
null sec carebears are bored and want more pvp, fine, but give them enemies not cannon fodder


NERF HIGH AND NULL SEC

edit* and let me guess where the mighty null sec alliances have their industrials...yes HIGH SEC, where are the Industrial bots...oh HIGH SEC again

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Severian Carnifex
#452 - 2011-10-25 16:06:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
bornaa wrote:
remove mineral drops from drones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



HO HO HO MERRY CHRISTMAS ... just for Christmas time... :)



p.s.
and that post under quoted have something in it...
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#453 - 2011-10-25 16:09:23 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
bornaa wrote:
remove mineral drops from drones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HO HO HO MERRY CHRISTMAS ... just for Christmas time... :)

p.s.
and that post under quoted have something in it...

I have nothing against more bounty and less loot .. since I hardly ever bother to loot or salvage anyway! ;-)
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#454 - 2011-10-25 16:23:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Metal Icarus
AttentionAttentionAttentionUNDO THE SANCTUM NERFAttentionAttentionAttention



PROBLEM SOLVED.
you are welcome.


This thread is stupid, it is obvious what caused null to deflate like a balloon.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#455 - 2011-10-25 16:25:43 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:
Undo the Sanctum nerf.


What was so abhorrent in the first place as to bring it about?

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.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#456 - 2011-10-25 16:36:39 UTC
Lharanai wrote:

edit* and let me guess where the mighty null sec alliances have their industrials...yes HIGH SEC, where are the Industrial bots...oh HIGH SEC again

you failed. try again your guess Cool

- where is the better PI? HIGH_SEC
- where is the better asteroids? HIGH_SEC
- where it is cheaper to put POS? HIGH_SEC

oh... waitaminit..... Shocked

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Lharanai
Fools of the Blue Oyster
#457 - 2011-10-25 17:06:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lharanai
March rabbit wrote:
Lharanai wrote:

edit* and let me guess where the mighty null sec alliances have their industrials...yes HIGH SEC, where are the Industrial bots...oh HIGH SEC again

you failed. try again your guess Cool

- where is the better PI? HIGH_SEC
- where is the better asteroids? HIGH_SEC
- where it is cheaper to put POS? HIGH_SEC

oh... waitaminit..... Shocked



I see YOU see the point

Edit* be honest and ask yourself who profits more from a safe HighSec, newbs and casual players or organized large null sec alliances with alts. NullSec needs to be nerfed too, because it is too easy to claim. Don't get me wrong here, large alliances with their oganization should be able to claim a big part of null, BUT they should not be able to claim the majority of null sec as they do.

There should be a relation between the size of the claim and the size of the alliance but not that you have to have a certain size to sucess overall and if you don't, forget null, thats what keeping a lot of players out of null. And not that crap that HighSec dwellers are all carebears, they just don't want to be in giant alliances but if you are not you don't have any chance to establish in null, therefore null is just good enough for roams.

Somewhere in the forums I read that the probability to get killed in null by roamers is higher then by the mega alliances, what does that tell us, people are not afraid of null, they just don't want to live there because they just can't establish in null.

Seriously, don't take me serious, I MEAN IT...seriously
Skunk Gracklaw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#458 - 2011-10-25 17:09:18 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Metal Icarus wrote:
Undo the Sanctum nerf.


What was so abhorrent in the first place as to bring it about?

You could make a little more money doing sanctums than you could doing level 4 missions in highsec. That was the horrible crime.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#459 - 2011-10-25 17:40:35 UTC
March rabbit wrote:

- where is the better PI? HIGH_SEC Worm holes
- where is the better asteroids? HIGH_SEC Worm holes
- where it is cheaper to put POS? HIGH_SEC

oh... waitaminit..... Shocked


Fixed.

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.
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#460 - 2011-10-25 18:44:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Metal Icarus
Skunk Gracklaw wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Metal Icarus wrote:
Undo the Sanctum nerf.


What was so abhorrent in the first place as to bring it about?

You could make a little more money doing sanctums than you could doing level 4 missions in highsec. That was the horrible crime.


Whats horrible is that lvl 4's make to much money. They should really nerf lvl 4 missions and bring back sanctums to all fully upgraded Ihub'd, w/ lvl 5 military nullsec systems. (TAKES A TON OF WORK TO GET THEM) What benefit is null if ANY lvl 4 agent can out do all low true sec systems. Those low truesec systems are largely unwanted by the larger alliances, but now no one sees them to be worth the trouble at all.

JUST 1 SANCTUM WAS ALL THAT WAS NEEDED.... but no... CCP decided null should be empty and hardly any pvp should be there. They decided that only large alliance can exist there and no small holding should live there without renting from the powerful.

After all, what is the f***in point of going down to null if you can't even make more than a lvl 4 mission? Everything else is hard enough, why take away the best incentive?

I have read those reasons which CCP has posted and NOT ONE OF THOSE STATED GOALS HAVE BEEN REACHED.

NOT ONE ******* GOAL


all they did was kick out small alliances and stop CASUAL PVP in its tracks and made it easier for large alliances to take a large swath of Null.

(Here once was a paragraph which called for someone to be fired. I took it out because he should just be moved from that position)

then again maybe that person should be..... There was a horrible crime commited... and it was not perpitrated by nullsec....

CCP, you have a criminal in your midst. Crime? Raping the little girl that is nullsec.

Evil