These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#721 - 2014-10-01 16:37:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
KatanTharkay wrote:

So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.


We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...



Sorry but this is disingenuous. What the blue donut wants is more space for renters.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#722 - 2014-10-01 16:38:35 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:


And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.


It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null. The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.

Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?



He's got you there. Practically everyone in null did sign the letter. (check the map.... giggle)
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#723 - 2014-10-01 16:40:01 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
knobber Jobbler wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:


And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.


It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null.

As I said, the doughnut.
knobber Jobbler wrote:

The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.

Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?


Sure, don't touch any of it for another couple of years, the cancer might just die out.

Oh wait... the doughnut wants content, but it wants to be forced into content... Oh well - let's change the mechanics then, why shan't we? \o/
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#724 - 2014-10-01 16:50:12 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:


And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.


It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null.

As I said, the doughnut.
knobber Jobbler wrote:

The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.

Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?


Sure, don't touch any of it for another couple of years, the cancer might just die out.

Oh wait... the doughnut wants content, but it wants to be forced into content... Oh well - let's change the mechanics then, why shan't we? \o/


From what I can see it will die out. It has already begun. Goon kill eve.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#725 - 2014-10-01 16:51:10 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
So out of all the stuff being shovelled in this thread you draw the line at the in game map being misleading??

It is my understanding that the eve map is a visual representation of live data displayed across the eve map. Please explain how this is misleading? Teach me.

EDIT while you're spouting facts, could you divulge your base line data for most bots are in high sec? I'd love to sink my teeth into the data base you pulled that from.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CZR9w3ftjY

And yes, the in game map is misleading. Take for instance ship kills, it only tells you a ship was killed, doesn't tell you what kind, or whether it was killed by another person, or an npc. The last time CCP gave us numbers they revealed that the most kills ship in high sec was the CONDOR you get free from tutorial missions lol.

Or take 'jumps per hour', a lot of what looks like "activity' in high sec is actually people who are at work/school (not at home) and no where near their computers auto piloting across high sec (something that doesn't happen in low, null and wormhole space).

Null, low and WH activity can be gauged by the ingame map. High Sec activity can not.



I'll just say I look at the map quite often. Players in space and players docked in station. Forget the skewed and misleading empire stuff and just look at Null. It's empty. Jumps in the last hour is pathetic across all regions. It sux out there. Regardless of how you paint HS - Null is void and empty. It's stupid to claim otherwise (pro hint- we're not dumb and we can all open the map and see what isn't going on in null)


That's a cop out. Null is several times larger than high sec, the activity in null is there, it is much more diffused than what happens in high sec. This will always be the case because a significant portion of EVE's players (and Gamers in general) are to weak in the grey area between their ears to put imaginary spaceships at risk in space not controlled by CONCORD. NO sov (or any other kind) change is ever going to change that.

And it's always been that way, since virtually the beginning (according to DEVs at fanfest) null has accounted for no more than 10-15% of character population, so this is nothing at all new.
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#726 - 2014-10-01 17:03:32 UTC
I still say fix the problem with coalitions and end them. That is the problem with 0.0.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#727 - 2014-10-01 17:06:24 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
KatanTharkay wrote:

So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...

Sorry but this is disingenuous. What the blue donut wants is more space for renters.
They can be well-intentioned, but they are also looking out for themselves at the same time.
It simply makes no sense to add more income to null sec.
1. You're rewarding entities that have decided to blue each for isk instead of creating content. You're not supposed to feed a cancer, you're supposed to starve it.
2. They will be "forced" to continue their (now more valuable) rental empires due to "competitive pressures". Status Quo continues.
3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)

If players really want content, then give them a good occupancy based sov and let them go kill each other. Bribing them with better isk making opportunities in null sec won't suddenly make them any more altruistic than they already are (not).
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#728 - 2014-10-01 17:06:43 UTC
More NPC nullsec space I can see the sense of, but not the odd constellation in every region. I'd prefer whole regions to revert to NPC control.

Two or Three regions should be enough. The east especially needs another NPC region or two. It's a wasteland.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#729 - 2014-10-01 17:06:57 UTC  |  Edited by: JIeoH Mocc
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I still say fix the problem with coalitions and end them. That is the problem with 0.0.


Ahaha, wow.

And how do you propose to do that, in a game environment that doesn't have "coalition" as an entity?
Would you prefer to see mega-alliances/corps (there were/are some already...)? Or just have small bodies being "friends" with one another? That's easily done even if the standings mechanism is altered or REMOVED.

So yeah, once you come up with a way that deals with the "n+1" problem in a sandbox... we'll get back to that.
For now try to stick to reality.

Speedkermit Damo wrote:
More NPC nullsec space I can see the sense of, but not the odd constellation in every region. I'd prefer whole regions to revert to NPC control.

Two or Three regions should be enough. The east especially needs another NPC region or two. It's a wasteland.


HOLY PETE!
Do you propose that someone will give up (or be ready to comply with a loss) HIS OWN region for the sake of making another NPC region? BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RENT?!

Heh, yeah, that'll happen.


Oh, here - http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/long-distance-travel-changes-inbound/

Now wouldn't the pockets in every region be compfy with caps/subcaps stashes and jump clones, eh? Specially when the supercaps are nerfed in such a way ... TIME TO CHANGE THE MECHANICS AMIRITE?
tryianid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#730 - 2014-10-01 17:12:24 UTC
Here I just wish to add my thoughts on the OP(I agree with the proposed changes) I apologize if anything I state here has been said before. sorry for any bad spelling or grammar I am typing this on laptop.

I agree that sov space needs to be changed so that only systems being used will offer rewards sort of how they have the index set up right now but on an even more large scale, for instance having Corps choose a system (with or with out a station) to use as a home system and everything that corp does (mining, ratting, moon mining, anything) is influenced from the home system out, kind of like how teritory grows for cities in Civ 5, Zerg from Starcraft, or undead from Warcraft 3 (im unsure but i thought they needed plague area's to grow) the more members, or the more activity the faster the 'influence' grows. At the same time tho if your corp suddenly goes inactive then you lose influence at a rate that would have to be tested for fairness and speed ect. As for the corp Home system i believe that a new Starbase should be added something a kin to a Large Tower but with a bigger bubble more allocated space for Hangars or Production, offensive or defensive capabiliteis, with the same base stats as a large tower tho nothing rediculous, more of a deepspace FOB (foward operating base) and not just another outpost) have the influence made so that if a Corp loses a FOB the influence generated lingers on but slowly retreats to nothing or if the corp only loses the homebase the other systems keep their influence but cannot gain more untill another FOB is established, some thing to bring more tacticle placement of bases not so they are worth the most but maybe a choke point as well.

On another note systems should be able to grow so that they can support more members ratting, or more members mining but to a limit (this could be based on -sec status or celestial bodies present) something fun would also be the more gate fire in a system causes npc's to spawn or gank inbound fleets (with some sort of bubble that a fleet needs to work together to kill, might not be the best way about my idea but something more interactive than just looking for players, it would also add a seperate element of tactics to large gang warfare if all of a sudden a 30 man NPC fleet landed on field just an idea tho not really refined yet)

you4 idea on the NPC systems and stations are great it would allow for more people to use such tatics that in my opion Rooks and Kings have mastered,as well i do believe that it would allow for more large corps or small alliances to try and hold sov if they have a nuetral staging point a few jumps from their sov. Instead of my idea in the paragraph above the NPC's could have "fleet/fleets" patroling their area as a sort of random event that happens (CCP would have to figure out bounties or loot so that they cannot be farmed or make them rare spawns like Faction)

(weak idea) Something interesting would be Deployment of temporary defensive structure, sort of like gate guns that help multiply a small gangs force in systems they have influence over, but only to a limit (based upon a hard start or a influence mesure or something of the sort) low tank low dps but something that might make a difference on small scale warfare but not effect large scale. They could deal damage increase resists, provide small rep bonus, increase tracking or some sort of small benifit. i realize this is not the best idea and im only putting it out there to see what it helps you guys come up with.

If you managed to make it through my ramblings i thank you and i welcome any feedback.

Regards tryianid
Alp Khan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#731 - 2014-10-01 17:12:51 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
No, we think you want to be safe because you are literally asking CCP to nerf your empires and your capabilities to wage war.

Treaties weren't enough because mistakes were made and suddenly B-R. You want to nerf yourself physically unable to harm each other, so your status will forever be stabilized. You want to be away from each other and want to feed your pilots with the kills of terribads so they never provoke the other empire.


'Pilots provoking the other empire' has never been a problem in the scale of starting a war before, so nobody has a motive to request game mechanic changes to avoid such a possibility.

B-R has never been an event that both sides of the fence wanted to avoid. On the contrary, it was a welcome event and such a confrontation was expected. Anyone can ask N3 and PL about whether they'd rather avoided a B-R or not. I'm sure they'd preferred that the outcome was such that they'd have emerged victorious instead of us, but no N3 or PL director or member would say that they wish B-R wouldn't have happened.

Everyone wanted a B-R. I'm pretty sure that everyone that was involved is glad to have been involved.

You have never been in a position to influence null strategy. You have never lived in null enough to understand it's dynamics, and these are showing in your nonsensical comments. You have no idea what you are talking about.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#732 - 2014-10-01 17:21:57 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
JIeoH Mocc wrote:


And yeah, i don't give a flying duck about how goons play, but when goons start to suggest self-serving mechanics changes ... I'd say it's a bit different from what you're presenting.


It's not just Goons though, it's practically everyone who lives in null.

As I said, the doughnut.
knobber Jobbler wrote:

The only naysayers are a few high sec guys wearing tin foil and some CVA guys. If you know about the history of CVA, the fact they want the status quo comes as no shock.

Now when will you, Gevlon and the other drivers of the south american bauxite trade suggest an alternative, let alone a constructive criticism rather than a tirade of vitriol which is frankly helpful to no one?


Sure, don't touch any of it for another couple of years, the cancer might just die out.

Oh wait... the doughnut wants content, but it wants to be forced into content... Oh well - let's change the mechanics then, why shan't we? \o/


So that'll be a no then.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#733 - 2014-10-01 17:22:48 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)

Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made.

Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space.
JIeoH Mocc
brotherhood of desman
#734 - 2014-10-01 17:26:08 UTC
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)

Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made.

Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space.


If anything, I'd reduce the income in 0.0 , it's a lot safer to carebear in null. than in lowsec, for instance.
Patty Loveless
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#735 - 2014-10-01 17:37:11 UTC
I'm fine with "NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them" as long as it isn't just about giving the blue donut all their own little pirate mission farm hubs. Make them NPC's with heavily nerfed agents (like max L3 Q0) and no security.

Other than that, it is nice to see you guys all agree how crap your blue donut has made this game.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#736 - 2014-10-01 17:46:36 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)

Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made.

Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space.


If anything, I'd reduce the income in 0.0 , it's a lot safer to carebear in null. than in lowsec, for instance.

If you make it safe, yes. But if i tried to go carebear in any space that i dont own how easy do you think I'll make isk? Take that away or even better just go somewhere you're not welcome and then compare it to low again. Pretty similar amounts of risk but the rewards are different. Thats why a lot of guys also had FW alts to farm the sites. And those were even more farmable than anoms in null.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#737 - 2014-10-01 18:06:43 UTC
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)
Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0?

If you want a competitive game, then you need to favor attack (movement) over defense (stagnation). If the current power (null sec holders) make more isk than the attackers(groups who have been kicked out or want to get into null sec), then there's no way for the attackers to succeed.

The defenders already have organization, inertia, capital advantages. Their passive isk stream is already superior to the potential invaders. Why does their "line member" risk free isk stream need to be superior as well? (which is a farse, btw. The "line member" isk stream is really a "passive rental isk stream").


Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#738 - 2014-10-01 18:14:49 UTC
JIeoH Mocc wrote:
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
3. isk making opportunities outside of null sec need to be better than inside null sec. Otherwise, entities that have been thrown out of null sec will never be able to build up a strong enough army to compete in null sec again. (Just like now)

Why? Why should the rewards in highsec be so great comparative to 0.0? Do we just want people running missions in highsec and then running back down to defend money moons in null? Null needs to switch the majot income sources from alliance level to individual level. So not necessarily just 'more money' in null, but switching how the bulk of it is made.

Not to mention how giving highsec residents more money doesnt mean theyll come spend it (in terms of ships and bullets) in null. If anything give NPC null a high income close to what null will be, in order to give venturing pilots a nearby income source as they launch themselves into null space.


If anything, I'd reduce the income in 0.0 , it's a lot safer to carebear in null. than in lowsec, for instance.


This is untrue. almost all of low sec income making (except FW PVE and belt ratting) is done in deadspace areas (missions, exploration etc) AND is more lucrative than whatr is available in null. The only way to get the 'super loot' in null sec (such as pithum a, b and c type invuls) is to farm low end (unprofitable) anomalies, where as the DED plexes that spawn in low sec offer these as potential rewards. including FW makes it more insane because you can make more isk doing FW missions in a STEALTH BOMBER than you can from doing null sec anomalies in a pirate battleship.

And don't even get me started on lvl mission blitzing with carriers (parked in a pos or station around the lvl 5 mission agent system so no need to even cyno around. You can make as much isk (after converting LP) with a Thanatos blitzing low sec lvl 5 missions (using fighters and aligned to the station or pos the whole time in a deadspace pocket that requires probes to fine) as you can in null With a NYX in anomalies that are NOT deadspace and don't require probes to find. I know this because It (blitzing lvl 5s) is how I make my isk now.

Nothing in null sec compares to the magical wealth teet that low sec has become, and all when low sec PVE is either safer (because of the deadspace) or cheap enough that the danger doesn't matter in the least (FW missions in stealth bombers or drakes).
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#739 - 2014-10-01 18:14:53 UTC
Regatto wrote:
Exactly! I didn't say they would need to fix their games, just their heads. As leaders of the biggest groups, they should try to make game fun for their pilots, shouldn't they?? I mean why are you even following somebody who doesn't give a crap about you and just focuses on himself? Instead of trying to tell devs how to fix the game way they like, they could think how their subjects can have more fun in this game.
And they do. They make it fun for us as best they can. You want us to go to all out war with each other so null doesn't remain stagnant, but mate, 10% tidi battles and grinding through structures is not at all fun. Having treaties which allow us to fight in smaller groups without having to grind each others sov is pretty much the best that can be done right now. Sov mechanics need to be fixed so it's actually fun to flip sov.

Jenn aSide wrote:
I might not be that high sec players are 'quiting' but rather that a lot of high sec alts accounts are being allowed to lapse. I know lots of people who only had extra accounts in order to train alts, now you don't have to do that because you can use plex to train alts on 1 account.
Just FYI, alt training on other account and with dual training is exactly the same in terms of ACU, since most people training alt accounts for something specific and can move them to DCT don't log them on anyway.

By the way, his charts are pretty much guesswork, since all the API can provide is Jumps, Player/NPC kills and the ACU, which discounts many other forms of activity such as trading, scamming, mining, PI, even blitzing missions. I'm a null player, yet when I log in I tend to log in a couple of null characters and like 4 high sec ones. I tend to jump (autopilot ftw) around a lot in highsec hauling items for trade, and be pretty much invisible to null sec stats since I don't rat.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#740 - 2014-10-01 18:17:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Their is no proof of 'leaking subscriptions'. Both the sub numbers and pcu counts people glean from EVE-Offline can be explained by CCP allowing multiple character training. EVE-offline never told anyone who was or wasn't an alt to begin with, so using it as a reference to say "subs and activity declined" is illogical.
Well the fact that CCP regularly celebrated sub increase and that has stopped is pretty telling. There's no confirmation, but I'd be willing to put money down to say that subs have declined. How sure would you be in your estimate (which again, it's unconfirmed) that subs have not declined?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.