These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Corbexx for csm 8, Improving nullsec

First post
Author
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-01-27 14:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: corbexx
After living in wh space for several years and hearing countless nullsec people comment on wh space I thought it time for some one from wh space to run to help improve null sec.

My platform and suggestions to help improve nullsec.

Harder site but worth more isk, loads of nullsec alliances seem to be moving in to wh space so seems they want sites like wh space has.

Sites would be worth more in nullsec, you'd need properly fit carriers, dreads and a small gang of people not just 1 ratting carrier, the bs in these new sites would also nuet loads point and do way more dps than what your used to at the moment, but they would be worth more isk.

Officer spawns just seem to simple. lets help industry by changing the way these are made.

I'd like to get rid of officer spawns, you'd have new sites called "officers hide aways" these would be like your new improved combat sites but would do even more damage you'd still need 8 or more people to do them either with multiple logi or triage carriers. Once you have killed all the officers guards you could loot his hide away (needing a high skill in archeology) this still woudln't give officer mods just plans to use these you'd probably need a dedicated 30 million science character to invent something out of it, You'd also need to find some random gas and crap and harvest this as well react said gas to polymers make some parts from the salvage and then combine it all with your invented copy and walla you have your officer mod.

No more bounties yes concord are happy you kill these pesky pirates but they want to see proof.

I'd like to remove bounties but don't worry the sites would be worth more isk you'd just have to take your tags to concord in hisec and turn them in for your lovely improved isk, This would also help hisec wardecs.

Nullsec just isn't safe enough at the moment.

I'd push for local being removed this would be to make it safer for you while your in sites so others coming in don't know exactly how many there are of you in the system.

Sov grinding no one like it, it sucks!!!!

To improve this stations would get just 1 reinforce timer but you could alter this with stront up to a max of 41 hours. As people in null are not wanting to grind stations I'd improve this sov war mechanics and just say hey if your station is killed after the reinforce timer all your **** is gone everything. This would not only speed up sov wars but make future ones even quicker, assuming you haven't rebuild the outposts.

Blobs yeah ok everyone hates these as well.

Gates would have a set mass limit per hour about 3billion for 1 hour is what i think is reasonable (30 bs's one way).

Titans and super carriers, if you don't like the blobs you sure as hell don't like blobs of super caps.

I'd push for the distance between systems be increased by a gazillion light years, This would stop caps from jumping about but still make them viable for system defence where they are built. While this might seem a bit harsh i would also push for normal carriers and dreads to use gates (there mass would still count towards the hourly limit mind).

To make fights more interesting lets add effects. Wormhole people love them, seleene designed them you'll love them.

I'd push for systems in nullsec to get different effects, this would help change fleets in nulllsec as you tailor your fleet to the system effect, I mean who doesnt want magnatars in null (obligitary,magnatars, how do they work comment) I'd make this effect random and would change daily after down time so you would have to scout ahead of time to check what effect it was before sending a fleet in, Que benny hill music when your armour fleet jumps in to a pulsar system on the way to your destination.

New gas sites.

With officer mods needing to be made we'd put random gas clouds in to null space that can be cleared and sucked, This would help promote industry in nullsec.

Balancing the account.

With the introduction of new gas sites in nullsec i feel it would only be fair to remove something. That something is ICE, yep we'd remove it from all of nullsec, it would be in hisec and lowsec only. This would hopefully make ice mining in hisec worth more and encourage way more suiciders on them. I'd push for lowsec ice to be way way better than hisec to help encourage people there, yes i know i am running for a nullsec spot but hey spread the love, and by god does lowsec need some.

I think everyone in nullsec would agree these would be a vast improvement on the current system.

Vote for me, Corbexx. To bring a better nullsec to life.
Lanalor
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-01-27 15:05:26 UTC
I support these changes.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-01-27 15:05:58 UTC
corbexx wrote:
After living in wh space for several years and hearing countless nullsec people comment on wh space I thought it time for some one from wh space to run to help improve null sec.

My platform and suggestions to help improve nullsec.

Harder site but worth more isk, loads of nullsec alliances seem to be moving in to wh space so seems they want sites like wh space has.

Sites would be worth more in nullsec, you'd need properly fit carriers, dreads and a small gang of people not just 1 ratting carrier, the bs in these new sites would also nuet loads point and do way more dps than what your used to at the moment, but they would be worth more isk.

Officer spawns just seem to simple. lets help industry by changing the way these are made.

I'd like to get rid of officer spawns, you'd have new sites called "officers hide aways" these would be like your new improved combat sites but would do even more damage you'd still need 8 or more people to do them either with multiple logi or triage carriers. Once you have killed all the officers guards you could loot his hide away (needing a high skill in archeology) this still woudln't give officer mods just plans to use these you'd probably need a dedicated 30 million science character to invent something out of it, You'd also need to find some random gas and crap and harvest this as well react said gas to polymers make some parts from the salvage and then combine it all with your invented copy and walla you have your officer mod.

No more bounties yes concord are happy you kill these pesky pirates but they want to see proof.

I'd like to remove bounties but don't worry the sites would be worth more isk you'd just have to take your tags to concord in hisec and turn them in for your lovely improved isk, This think this would also help hisec wardecs.

Nullsec just isn't safe enough at the moment.

I'd push for local being removed this would be to make it safer for you while your in sites so others coming in don't know exactly how many there are of you in the system.

Sov grinding no one like it, it sucks!!!!

To improve this stations would get just 1 reinforce timer but you could alter this with stront up to a max of 41 hours. As people in null are not wanting to grind stations I'd improve this sov war mechanics and just say hey if your station is killed after the reinforce timer all your **** is gone everything. This would not only speed up sov wars but make future ones even quicker, assuming you haven't rebuild the outposts.

Blobs yeah ok everyone hates these as well.

Gates would have a set mass limit per hour about 3billion for 1 hour is what i think is reasonable (30 bs's one way).

Titans and super carriers, if you don't like the blobs you sure as hell don't like blobs of super caps.

I'd push for the distance between systems be increased by a gazillion light years, This would stop caps from jumping about but still make them viable for system defence where they are built. While this might seem a bit harsh i would also push for normal carriers and dreads to use gates (there mass would still count towards the hourly limit mind).

To make fights more interesting lets add effects. Wormhole people love them, seleene designed them you'll love them.

I'd push for systems in nullsec to get different effects, this would help change fleets in nulllsec as you tailor your fleet to the system effect, I mean who doesnt want magnatars in null (obligitary,magnatars, how do they work comment) I'd make this effect random and would change daily after down time so you would have to scout ahead of time to check what effect it was before sending a fleet in, Que benny hill music when your armour fleet jumps in to a pulsar system on the way to your destination.

New gas sites.

With officer mods needing to be made we'd put random gas clouds in to null space that can be cleared and sucked, This would help promote industry in nullsec.

Balancing the account.

With the introduction of new gas sites in nullsec i feel it would only be fair to remove something. That something is ICE, yep we'd remove it from all of nullsec, it would be in hisec adn lowsec only. This would hopefully make ice mining in hisec worth more and encourage way more suiciders on them.

I think everyone in nullsec would agree these would be a vast improvement on the current system.

Vote for me, Corbexx. To bring a better nullsec to life.

Lol
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
No Response
#4 - 2013-01-27 16:54:45 UTC
This sounds like crap. Who'd want to play in a game like that?

http://www.wormholes.info

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#5 - 2013-01-27 17:15:19 UTC
It sounds like your plan is to basically turn 0.0 into W-space with stations. Wouldn't it be easier to just make the case for stations in W-space if that's what you want?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2013-01-27 17:38:53 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
It sounds like your plan is to basically turn 0.0 into W-space with stations. Wouldn't it be easier to just make the case for stations in W-space if that's what you want?


I think if you asked people from wh space they would all say its the least broken space and working well (although i do thinksome minor changes would help maybe c4's getting dual statics).

with the recent not going to war of certain coalitions for various reasons (tech or just sov grinding sucking depending on your view), it seems that nullsec needs sorting and what better way than to change some of the broken isues with stuff that is known to work.

You often hear people from nullsec comment on how nullsec is broken, in general you never hear wh people say wh's are broken.

Would you not want destroyable outposts? wars would have meaning, there would be much more at risk.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-01-27 18:34:59 UTC
corbexx wrote:


Would you not want destroyable outposts? wars would have meaning, there would be much more at risk.


Destroyable outposts are something you have to be very careful with. Do you also want the notional "small group" to be able to have a chance in nullsec? If so, they're a bad thing - they'd be a mechanism that might prompt a larger neighbor to beat up the smaller simply to destroy their station(s), when they might have otherwise ignored them.

Of course, your solution prevents that with arbitrary restrictions on movement. Unfortunately, they and the rest of your suggestions clash with the "theme" of nullsec: empire building. Any fixes need to keep that theme in mind while doing the "sorting" that you say (correctly) that nullsec needs. The fact that w-space is supposedly the "least broken" is no excuse to simply throw out nullsec mechanics and replace them with w-space - the two regions are supposed to be distinct, eliminating that distinctiveness is a poor approach.

Claiming that removing local would make you safer though... heh. You're cheeky, I'll give you that.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#8 - 2013-01-27 18:41:11 UTC
mynnna wrote:
corbexx wrote:


Would you not want destroyable outposts? wars would have meaning, there would be much more at risk.


Destroyable outposts are something you have to be very careful with. Do you also want the notional "small group" to be able to have a chance in nullsec? If so, they're a bad thing - they'd be a mechanism that might prompt a larger neighbor to beat up the smaller simply to destroy their station(s), when they might have otherwise ignored them.

Of course, your solution prevents that with arbitrary restrictions on movement. Unfortunately, they and the rest of your suggestions clash with the "theme" of nullsec: empire building. Any fixes need to keep that theme in mind while doing the "sorting" that you say (correctly) that nullsec needs. The fact that w-space is supposedly the "least broken" is no excuse to simply throw out nullsec mechanics and replace them with w-space - the two regions are supposed to be distinct, eliminating that distinctiveness is a poor approach.

Claiming that removing local would make you safer though... heh. You're cheeky, I'll give you that.


Quoting this before you edit... :P

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2013-01-27 18:43:10 UTC
Two step wrote:
mynnna wrote:
corbexx wrote:


Would you not want destroyable outposts? wars would have meaning, there would be much more at risk.


Destroyable outposts are something you have to be very careful with. Do you also want the notional "small group" to be able to have a chance in nullsec? If so, they're a bad thing - they'd be a mechanism that might prompt a larger neighbor to beat up the smaller simply to destroy their station(s), when they might have otherwise ignored them.

Of course, your solution prevents that with arbitrary restrictions on movement. Unfortunately, they and the rest of your suggestions clash with the "theme" of nullsec: empire building. Any fixes need to keep that theme in mind while doing the "sorting" that you say (correctly) that nullsec needs. The fact that w-space is supposedly the "least broken" is no excuse to simply throw out nullsec mechanics and replace them with w-space - the two regions are supposed to be distinct, eliminating that distinctiveness is a poor approach.

Claiming that removing local would make you safer though... heh. You're cheeky, I'll give you that.


Quoting this before you edit... :P


Wasn't planning to edit. Overall point of the post - nullsec is about empire building - remains valid, even if the OP and his replies are, as you told me, a joke. Bear


ps, sorry to spoil the joke.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2013-01-27 19:02:41 UTC  |  Edited by: corbexx
mynnna wrote:
corbexx wrote:


Would you not want destroyable outposts? wars would have meaning, there would be much more at risk.


Destroyable outposts are something you have to be very careful with. Do you also want the notional "small group" to be able to have a chance in nullsec? If so, they're a bad thing - they'd be a mechanism that might prompt a larger neighbor to beat up the smaller simply to destroy their station(s), when they might have otherwise ignored them.

Of course, your solution prevents that with arbitrary restrictions on movement. Unfortunately, they and the rest of your suggestions clash with the "theme" of nullsec: empire building. Any fixes need to keep that theme in mind while doing the "sorting" that you say (correctly) that nullsec needs. The fact that w-space is supposedly the "least broken" is no excuse to simply throw out nullsec mechanics and replace them with w-space - the two regions are supposed to be distinct, eliminating that distinctiveness is a poor approach.

Claiming that removing local would make you safer though... heh. You're cheeky, I'll give you that.


Do small groups have a chance in nullsec at the moment apart from as a pet or merging in to a large alliance, By stopping super caps jumping means the entry in to nullsec would be much lower and smaller groups who could get a foothold could then build them for defence. Limiting jumps would encourge a much higher concentration of nullsec space with outlying systems more defended.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#11 - 2013-01-27 19:33:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
I believe Mynnna is trying to state - and I would agree - that W-space and Sov 0.0 are two different types of space that support two different types of playstyle. Sov 0.0 is "broken" for small allianes in the same sense that W-space is "broken" for large alliances; that is to say: unsuitable.

Trying to turn sov 0.0 into a poor copy of W-space might seem like a good idea to people who like the W-space lifestyle, but what does it leave for people who want to be part of a mighty space empire? In short, CCP have explicitly designed a vast area of space specifically to support the small corp/alliance lifestyle, and that space is W-space.

So the answer to your question is that small corps and alliances who want to stake out a little patch of vacuum to call their own should look to W-space, not sov 0.0. Sov space is for those who want to be involved in the 'Great Game' of powerbloc politics. NPC 0.0 has a different role (actually several roles), but still distinct from W-space.

Rather than seeking to make one into a poor copy of another, I believe that we should ask CCP to recognise and enhance the different playstyles that these different species of space support. And put some thought into creating new types of space that support new in game lifestyles.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2013-01-27 19:55:40 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Small groups don't have much of a chance, but that's first and foremost because large groups require so much space. The emphasis on moon income means we take swathes of space that we don't necessarily use very heavily ourselves (as in Tribute), but on the other hand our line members do use large chunks of our space in Deklein.

So. If CCP successfully reduces the value of individual moons and spreads it out into other moons, its less incentive for sprawl... especially if the overall value of moon products decreases as well. Meanwhile, increasing the potential population density of ratters in a system means we don't have to sprawl out just so our people have ratting space; this can be achieved through measures like higher number of active anomalies per system as well as new content like w-space style group activities. Combine those with the integration of usage into sov as I've very roughly outlined here and I think you have a recipe to encourage small empires... or rather, empires suited to the size of the group.

That last line is really the key. I've got no problems with changing mechanics to allow smaller groups to compete, but I want it done in a more dynamic way, one that lets them carve their niche but doesn't arbitrarily punish and restrict the larger alliances... and I'm not even talking about Goons and TEST here, since we're exceptional. I'm talking about the relatively smaller groups like Nulli Secunda (2400 members) or Banderlogs Alliance (1700ish) or Li3 federation (~1200). By null standards they're all fairly small, but by what you're used to in W-Space, they're enormous.

The other facet of this is how to prevent a big alliance from crushing a small neighbor that took a few nearby systems "just because", and how to prevent it without limiting the ability of bigger groups to duke it out. That one's a lot harder. The above ideas play a role - if an alliance has all the space it needs, there's less incentive to go take more, at least. But if the big guy wants to just because? Or because the small guy has become too much of a nuisance? Or because the big guy has a friendly small guy he wants to give the space to? How do you stop that? And should you, for that matter?

Regardless of whether you should or not, gate limits are, I feel, a poor answer. And while even CCP has talked about "looking at" power projection in the past, I don't think that taking such an extreme step as to relegating supercaps to system locked defensive tools is a good approach, either, especially if the excuse is "to help the small guy".

Malcanis wrote:
I believe Mynnna is trying to state - and I would agree - that W-space and Sov 0.0 are two different types of space that support two different types of playstyle. Sov 0.0 is "broken" for small allianes in the same sense that W-space is "broken" for large alliances; that is to say: unsuitable.

Eh sort of. If a small guy can come in, carve out his niche, and make himself an unattractive target for arbitrary squashing, then great. I'm not about to say "little guy get out". fully support that, and the mechanics to shrink the necessary size of empires (thus giving them the chance for some unclaimed space in which to try) tie in nicely with the F&F concept and some of the other ideas I've got. It's whether there should be any limits that prevent him from being summarily flattened that I'm unsure of, and its the idea that the empire building grand scale type of theme should be thrown out to allow small scale play that I'm staunchly opposed to.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

QT McWhiskers
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#13 - 2013-01-27 21:12:31 UTC  |  Edited by: QT McWhiskers
Ignoring the trolling and talking the serious here. It should go like this. Instead of shooting stations into oblivion, which makes no sense, it should work with sov. IE you kill the sov, the station becomes neutral until a new TCU is put up. This would get rid of one of the structure grinds necessary with sov.

Next shooting outposts... kills them. Then the game takes all of the loot that is in the station, destroys 50 percent of it, and the rest would be inside of the indestructable station husk that stays there for 24 hours. This way you now have actual risk and reward for killing stations.

Stations should also be able to be shot without any kind of SBU. The normal reinforcement timers would still be there, but the ever so fun ninja station gank would become viable.
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
No Response
#14 - 2013-01-28 04:16:30 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I believe Mynnna is trying to state - and I would agree - that W-space and Sov 0.0 are two different types of space that support two different types of playstyle. Sov 0.0 is "broken" for small allianes in the same sense that W-space is "broken" for large alliances; that is to say: unsuitable.

Trying to turn sov 0.0 into a poor copy of W-space might seem like a good idea to people who like the W-space lifestyle, but what does it leave for people who want to be part of a mighty space empire? In short, CCP have explicitly designed a vast area of space specifically to support the small corp/alliance lifestyle, and that space is W-space.

So the answer to your question is that small corps and alliances who want to stake out a little patch of vacuum to call their own should look to W-space, not sov 0.0. Sov space is for those who want to be involved in the 'Great Game' of powerbloc politics. NPC 0.0 has a different role (actually several roles), but still distinct from W-space.

Rather than seeking to make one into a poor copy of another, I believe that we should ask CCP to recognise and enhance the different playstyles that these different species of space support. And put some thought into creating new types of space that support new in game lifestyles.


"Vegeta, what does the troll meter say about this thread?"

http://www.wormholes.info

corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2013-01-28 09:37:52 UTC  |  Edited by: corbexx
Malcanis wrote:

So the answer to your question is that small corps and alliances who want to stake out a little patch of vacuum to call their own should look to W-space, not sov 0.0. Sov space is for those who want to be involved in the 'Great Game' of powerbloc politics. NPC 0.0 has a different role (actually several roles), but still distinct from W-space.


I think it highlights issues when you say if your a small alliance you dont belong in nullsec go to wh space, Now this isn't ment at a dig at you or your alliance but. didn't you take a load of space just after atlas's fall and then not manage to keep hold of it, The fact that the only reason you have space now is it was gifted you by test and that without there backing (or more the point of the hbc's backing) you probably wouldn't have it. The fact that your a fair sized allaince (and have your merc's and associates) with a decent name and i guess a sizeable super cap fleet. The only way you could get space was to join hbc to get it, what chance to smaller groups have.

mynnna wrote:
this can be achieved through measures like higher number of active anomalies per system as well as new content like w-space style group activities. .


Well i guess you agree with atleast 1 of my idea's

I do find it interesting that you do have slightly different views on null with mynnna being more happy to change mechanics to allow smaller groups to compete, while malcanis wants to keep it how it is for empire builders.

I still do believe one way or another local has to go it's just being used for something its not ment to be.... Intel, What about a comprimise of a small sov upgrade that gives a delayed local of a couple mins but could easily be incapped by a smallish gang (10 players maybe more)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#16 - 2013-01-28 11:21:53 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

So the answer to your question is that small corps and alliances who want to stake out a little patch of vacuum to call their own should look to W-space, not sov 0.0. Sov space is for those who want to be involved in the 'Great Game' of powerbloc politics. NPC 0.0 has a different role (actually several roles), but still distinct from W-space.


I think it highlights issues when you say if your a small alliance you dont belong in nullsec go to wh space, Now this isn't ment at a dig at you or your alliance but. didn't you take a load of space just after atlas's fall and then not manage to keep hold of it, The fact that the only reason you have space now is it was gifted you by test and that without there backing (or more the point of the hbc's backing) you probably wouldn't have it. The fact that your a fair sized allaince (and have your merc's and associates) with a decent name and i guess a sizeable super cap fleet. The only way you could get space was to join hbc to get it, what chance to smaller groups have.


Indeed. We had several options: remain more or less unaligned and independent in Curse or some other NPC region*; go to W-space; join a bloc.
But there's no way to make sov 0.0 viable for medium sized non-aligned alliances like INIT were without crippling travel to such an extent that you basicaly replicate W-space.

And if you do that, in which area of space will it be viable to create a mighty space empire? Do you think that this shouldn't be a supported playstyle? You'll need to produce a very strong justification to CCP in order to convince them to eliminate a style which many more players evidently prefer in favour of one which many fewer do.


*I'm all for CCP adding more NPC 0.0. I've said before that the North in particular needs a Curse-style region; close to empire, lots of stations, several empire connections. I had a blast living in Curse, and I'd unreservedly recommend it to any small-medium sized groups looking for a place to live in 0.0

Anyway, enough about my ideas. Apologies for diverting your thread. I wish you success.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2013-01-28 16:10:37 UTC
corbexx wrote:

I still do believe one way or another local has to go it's just being used for something its not ment to be.... Intel, What about a comprimise of a small sov upgrade that gives a delayed local of a couple mins but could easily be incapped by a smallish gang (10 players maybe more)

http://themittani.com/features/local-problem-tale-two-solutions

I like Rhavas' approach to local. P

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Holy lanyaie's
Doomheim
#18 - 2013-02-01 00:05:05 UTC
I couldn't take this serious when I saw cor and nullsec in the same title.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2013-02-01 05:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
That all sounds like a lot of effort, what if CCP just seeded some wormhole stabilizer BPOs instead and we all moved in?
Side bonus: wormhole space would actually have pvp.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#20 - 2013-02-01 05:43:54 UTC
corbexx wrote:


Would you not want destroyable outposts? wars would have meaning, there would be much more at risk.


Well wars already had meaning really. Lots of alliances would failscade, or have to leave null or join faction warfare or something. If you won you got bragging rights, or more moons and income, perhaps more safety to build supers and such.

If anything with destructible stations it reminds me mostly of how some players want more bottom up in the game. Less reliance on tech for money, and more resources around.

It does seem perfect, can rat and such and make tons of ISK, then go around blowing up people's stations, would be a dream world.

It does seem rather hard to start that bottom up approach though. Perhaps it is too happy, too perfect, too dreamy. Lots of players tell me EVE is never suppose to be that way though. Perhaps the player who achieves this dream, should be given a pony that can breathe in space, and he can fly it around, enjoying the fields and opportunities that awaits him.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

12Next page