These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Null Deal: A Statement from Sovereign Nullsec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#401 - 2014-09-29 19:11:51 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Janeos wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin.

So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?

The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?

It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there.

You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change?


I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV.
HeXxploiT
Doomheim
#402 - 2014-09-29 19:14:17 UTC
What a bunch of horsecrap. This is like Exxon Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto putting forth suggestions on how to run the economy.

Keep nulsec difficult to get to. Sporadic Npc space in nulsec is great but but having it everywhere is like having highsec in nulsec and sort of defeats the purpose.

Packing solar systems with trillions of isk worth of profits would only prevent nullseccers from spreading out. Nulsec is not supposed to be safe. Risk vs reward remember? Make them earn their money. There is plenty of isk to be made in nulsec.

Really not concerned about what the mega alliances and coalitions(the talking heads) think would be good for eve.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#403 - 2014-09-29 19:14:30 UTC
Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec. It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps. Now codewords like "density" are used to call for buffing the scraps as well. Of course this will just lead to more renting, and not make the rank and file members any better off.

What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#404 - 2014-09-29 19:20:27 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Veers Belvar wrote:
Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec.


Null sov has zero missions, escalations are rare and anoms earn less than level 4s in high sec and every time a neutral enters local all pve activity stops(when did this last happen in high sec).


X Gallentius wrote:

It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps.
So who is renting S-D in Dek?

X Gallentius wrote:

What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming.


We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#405 - 2014-09-29 19:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
Jenn aSide wrote:

The whole idea here is to make null sec more active, more chaotic, more 'fun' and 'accessible but small groups'. NPC null in every region does the opposite. It makes traveling safer (no more having to sneak a cyno into hostile space or light a cyno in low sec space that everyone and thier space-mommas are in super cap range of) and it gives allainces someplace to store material and ships that can never be taken away.

It makes the big guys stronger while not doing jack for the little guy. Every new npc null constellation should be named some variation of 'Malcanis' (Malcanium, Malcanistan etc) because Malcanis' law will reign supreme lol.

I'm not jumping on the 'selfish conspiracy' bandwagon. I think Mittani and the rest have good intentions with these ideas, but I think these ideas are fatally flawed.


This is exactly what I was thinking. The only people this is good for is the few major alliances. How does it improve 0.0 if goon can drop supers in a system and gain control at any time?

All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.

baltec1 wrote:
We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.


No, you are literally asking CCP to let you drop your massive cap/super fleets in any system and take control at any time.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#406 - 2014-09-29 19:33:09 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.


What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#407 - 2014-09-29 19:34:42 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:

All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.

please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over

don't worry, I'll wait
Prince Kobol
#408 - 2014-09-29 19:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
The thing is all this discussion is pointless because CCP will never make such sweeping changes, not because they are scared to (though they probably are as no matter what they do they will most likely **** off 50% of the players in null) but because I believe they simply do not have the manpower or expertise any more to do so.

Look at the majority of changes they have made in the last 2 years. There has been nothing which would / has constituted major coding work.

What has been been proposed and many other idea's like would be a massive undertaking involving a huge amount of man hours. Essentially it would be a Jesus feature, something which many people here have argued against many times in the past.

I simply do not believe that CCP have the experience or technical expertise or the will any more to pull something like this off. You look at all the staff that has left in the 12 - 18 months.. all that experience and technical expertise gone, who has replaced them?
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#409 - 2014-09-29 19:36:27 UTC
Goonswarm Federation: 11k members, Sovereignty 232 systems. 11k/232 = 47 players / system. You're pretty much there already aren't you? Why do need more income?


Why continue to rent? Competitive pressures, still super lucrative.

1. Look at "Renting vs. Asakai" chart.
2. “As much as we hate renters, we hate the idea of being on a losing end of a war more, so it's a natural move.”

Goonswarm and others will likely be forced to be maintain their rental empires simply because the other guys will as well.

What you may likely do is put your Western Co-Properity Sphere alts wherever another side is trying to take your rental sov. You'll also move your pvp guys to the same area as well. Rental empire maintained - at greater rates of return than now.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#410 - 2014-09-29 19:37:00 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:


No, you are literally asking CCP to let you drop your massive cap/super fleets in any system and take control at any time.


We want those nerfed too.

This letter is simply to do with dealing with our need for massive empires.
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#411 - 2014-09-29 19:37:04 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Petre en Thielles wrote:

All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.

please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over

don't worry, I'll wait

uua-f4

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#412 - 2014-09-29 19:38:32 UTC
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
Petre en Thielles wrote:
All these changes would do is let the already huge alliances take control of even more of 0.0. The only way I could support this is if it was simultaneous with a significant nerf to caps/supercaps.


What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.


I guess people don't get this. The only reason there are parts of nullsec that don't belong to the signatories of this proposal is that they literally cannot be arsed to grind the EHP down to take it.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#413 - 2014-09-29 19:39:15 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
X Gallentius wrote:
Goonswarm Federation: 11k members, Sovereignty 232 systems. 11k/232 = 47 players / system. You're pretty much there already aren't you? Why do need more income?




That is almost five times more people than the best null sov system can support. We want to reduce GSF to only being able to hold Dek.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#414 - 2014-09-29 19:42:07 UTC
Ereshgikal wrote:
I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV.
You're saying Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm are not renting that space? They didn't take that space to gain passive income? That they wouldn't find a way to continue maintaining their cash cow? That they couldn't charge more rent because that space would be more valuable?
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#415 - 2014-09-29 19:43:17 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.

No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away.

Fun fact: you can already kill 500k rats in one system in a month, check RQNF-9 in the Dotlan August toplist. Since 97M rats were killed, 180 systems could support all the ratters under the current mechanics. Hint: there are 3200 nullsec systems. And this isn't easy enough for you and want more nerfs?

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#416 - 2014-09-29 19:47:56 UTC
Angelique Duchemin wrote:

What do you mean "even more"? the signatories already own 90% of nullsec and the remaining 10% only exists with their good graces.


That was my point...why make it easier for them? Sov is a mechanic keeping those on that list from grinding out the last 10%.

Retar Aveymone wrote:

please point out on a map the spots we have not taken over

don't worry, I'll wait


As I said, I am very OK with the proposed changes, but we need a nerf to caps/supers to go along with it.

Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:
I guess people don't get this. The only reason there are parts of nullsec that don't belong to the signatories of this proposal is that they literally cannot be arsed to grind the EHP down to take it.


Yes, I get this. And that is the point. sov is the only think keeping the remaining null not held by major alliances away from those alliances.

baltec1 wrote:
We want those nerfed too.

This letter is simply to do with dealing with our need for massive empires.


No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#417 - 2014-09-29 19:49:41 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:

No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away.


This might seem like a strange question but isn't that what a high population alliance SHOULD be able to do? Defend its ratters/miners and utilize their space to make ISK? There is also a reward for playing well and being able to put 50 carriers into your general defense.

The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.

Every day I'm wafflin!
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#418 - 2014-09-29 19:49:46 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We want those nerfed too.

No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

Are you aware of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction?

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
SuKahn
UK Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#419 - 2014-09-29 19:54:07 UTC
Great Idea i support this :P
Schwa Nuts
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2014-09-29 19:55:23 UTC
I approve of this Goonspiracy.