These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM7 Summit Topic: Null Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-05-24 09:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
Frying Doom wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
You live in Null space it should be lawless and hard.


if you think living in nullsec is at all "effortless" you probably shouldn't talk about nullsec

Well its not exactly hard, Especially for the large alliances, Lo-sec is a lot more dangerous.


so you are absolutely disgusted by the fact that large alliances can devote resources to keeping their space secure, as opposed to the hisec carebears who feel entitled to safety that they do not work one bit for?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
cBOLTSON
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#82 - 2012-05-24 09:58:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Tarkelan wrote:
  • distribution of tech moons
    • This isn't the problem you think it is.

    Tarkelan wrote:
  • sphere of influence of super alliances is to huge -> limit the power projection capabilities of super alliances to give smaller alliances and even corps the chance to get a piece of Null without being forced into a renter system
    • Remove JBs and all jumpdrives. Power projection problem solved.



    Do it. Make all caps have to go through gates like everything else. Twisted

    The good old days of Unreal Tournament, fragging and sniping on Facing Worlds, listening to Foregone Destruction.......
    Frying Doom
    #83 - 2012-05-24 11:14:57 UTC
    Richard Desturned wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    Richard Desturned wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    You live in Null space it should be lawless and hard.


    if you think living in nullsec is at all "effortless" you probably shouldn't talk about nullsec

    Well its not exactly hard, Especially for the large alliances, Lo-sec is a lot more dangerous.


    so you are absolutely disgusted by the fact that large alliances can devote resources to keeping their space secure, as opposed to the hisec carebears who feel entitled to safety that they do not work one bit for?


    No I am opposed to the abilities currently given in Null sec do not make them tough lawless space.

    With no concord to prevent indiscriminate killing it is actually easier to remain safe in Null than it is in hi-sec. The people in Null really need to harden up there is not much of a challenge in it when you can just kill everyone entering a system unlike in Hi-sec where pirates can be indistinguishable from the victim right up till they fire. Also the opposite exists where you don't have enough people to counter the invasion of the system at that time so you can just dock up if you see a neut or a red in system.

    Doesn't sound very nasty to me.
    Hi-sec = no warning until you are about to die.
    Null-sec = warning given as soon as someone enters system or previous systems using simple cloaked alts.

    I think big alliances in a permanent state of combat is a great idea and great for the game, I think large alliances stagnating and using jump bridges to be able to attack small groups of players kind of sad.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Signal11th
    #84 - 2012-05-24 11:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
    Richard Desturned wrote:
    Signal11th wrote:
    You know in nearly three years of living in 0.0 i've only ever seen 4 (yes it's that exact) Goon roams into whatever region i've been living! aNd considering I've pretty much been at war with you lot for that period I find it quite sad.


    yeah generally wulfpax are the losing side's strategy

    hint: not ours



    Yes mate didn't see many of your wolfpacks when you only had a few systems a few years back?

    As I'm digressing replying to the dangles I have to concurr with Lord Zim even though for my alliance would put a crimp on it and get me some flack (as has already happened)

    Remove local, all bridging etc etc make the space vast again, way to easy for alliances (including ours) to project power from one side of the map to the other with in reality little risk.

    I know none of this will happen (well secretly I'll just be happy with getting rid of local)

    Considering it's an open universe/galaxy whatever, it's perception wise really very small. I look at the map and go humm how long will it take to get from one side to the other and the answer is not very.

    God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
    Serina Tsukaya
    Dropbears Anonymous
    Brave Collective
    #85 - 2012-05-24 11:42:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Serina Tsukaya
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    But if Moongoo is so pivotal in the operation of the average alliance, then having all of it on the hands of but a few stifles conflict as strong quickly becomes untouchable due to the infini-ISK of goo.

    Having a feudal system like we have in Eve is perfectly fine, but it should have been allowed to develop on its own and not appear out of nowhere due to mechanics.

    Quarter to one half of goo to PI with upgrades available through sovereignty.
    Quarter of goo to exploration and other DED spaces with existing/revised upgrades available through sovereignty.
    Quarter to one half of Goo remain on moons.

    Conquering a system upgraded for one or the other has a high'ish chance of "leaving behind" some of the upgrade. Moons will still be the premiere ISK faucet due to the passive nature of it but with more of it around, made available by playing the game (emptying a hangar/silo once a week is not playing the game Big smile), more entities get to set up replacement programs thus not only driving but creating conflict (weapons tend to be used when acquired in Eve).
    Spread the goo around (PI+Moons) and fill gaps with whopping big mining/industrial potential and the drive is reinforced even further plus you open the door for hubs and manufacturing powerhouses to develop in null .. rather than most industry being in high-sec with crap ferried back and forth.


    Why is it in the hands of so few? Because they're the only ones that want it enough.
    Move it to PI? People would pocket it personally, and none of it would ever find it's way to the alliance.
    Move it to DeD complexes? People would hoard it for personal use and alliances wouldn't be able to use it for ship replacement programs. Drops from sites would also mean a highly unstable supply rate which would make the prices bounce daily like a kid bouncing on a bed, high on sugar.

    Holding sov is the largest isk sink in the game, and Moon mining isn't an isk faucet, isk isn't being brought into the game from an external source. Goo is traded for isk that was obtained in the end by bounties or mission rewards, those are isk faucets.

    Here's a slightly better idea:

    No moon goo in ring mining for highsec, small amounts of very common to common moongoo in lowsec ring mining, null gets uncommon to rare. (leaving the rarest stuff, Neo and Thul, to moon mining only).

    Rarest stuff stays in moons as a passive way of obtaining currency to keep their sov, and make it worthwhile aswell.

    Increase the amount of tech moons slightly, or the amount of materials harvested, alternatively reduce the amount needed for construction, whilst increasing the need of other materials. Make more different types of moon goo profitable to run, so that those can help sustain smaller alliances, whilst larger ones just can't be bothered to take systems for them.

    Add a small increase in sov expenses per system held, to miginate the advantage of holding a bunch of systems and being filthy rich, making alliances more inclinced to think more about which systems are worth holding, and which just aren't creating any income for them, and therefore aren't worth the expense.

    Or, keep it how it is and have them fix poses and rebalance the ships. Rebalancing would be a great oppertunity to modify those bpos/bpcs after all.
    Nicolo da'Vicenza
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #86 - 2012-05-24 15:09:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
    Frying Doom wrote:

    With no concord to prevent indiscriminate killing it is actually easier to remain safe in Null than it is in hi-sec. .

    Agreed, we should make all of space nullsec so that everyone can enjoy our high level of safety.
    Elite, experienced corps like "The Trade Guild" shouldn't be left out.
    Shepard Wong Ogeko
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #87 - 2012-05-24 20:08:07 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:


    No I am opposed to the abilities currently given in Null sec do not make them tough lawless space.



    Why should sov null be tough and lawless when it allows a group to gain control of it and make changes to it?

    It is not some sort of lawless wild west. It is an area conquered and held by what amounts to petty kingdoms up to great empires. The groups of players that have sovereignty get to make "laws", like NBSI, report intel, join homeland defence ops, and docking up when you aren't in a pvp ship doesn't need to be a law because its just common sense.

    The sov system allows for players to civilize the frontiers. To bring stations, and infrastructure and player support to a blank slate and to create content that often rivals what ever canned npc stuff highsec offers.
    Frying Doom
    #88 - 2012-05-24 23:34:38 UTC
    Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:


    No I am opposed to the abilities currently given in Null sec do not make them tough lawless space.



    Why should sov null be tough and lawless when it allows a group to gain control of it and make changes to it?

    It is not some sort of lawless wild west. It is an area conquered and held by what amounts to petty kingdoms up to great empires. The groups of players that have sovereignty get to make "laws", like NBSI, report intel, join homeland defence ops, and docking up when you aren't in a pvp ship doesn't need to be a law because its just common sense.

    The sov system allows for players to civilize the frontiers. To bring stations, and infrastructure and player support to a blank slate and to create content that often rivals what ever canned npc stuff highsec offers.

    Your argument begs the question, if Null is conquerable by the Sov system, and made into feudal kingdoms then following the normal course of history shouldn't you then be getting attacked by larger alliances like the Amarr to increase there space?

    I don't argue that docking up makes good sense, just that giving the supposedly hardened players free intel tools like local, really detracts from it, or to follow your argument with the sov system. You want Local you should have to pay for the intel tool.

    To my understanding Null was made to be tough, you argue that because you can take i over it should be easier and safer?
    You hardly make the case that Null players are the best players in EVE, just that Null players want Hello Kitty out there.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Richard Desturned
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #89 - 2012-05-25 05:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
    Frying Doom wrote:
    I think big alliances in a permanent state of combat is a great idea and great for the game, I think large alliances stagnating and using jump bridges to be able to attack small groups of players kind of sad.


    removing local and jump drives will benefit smaller alliances how?

    i mean I understand that you've never left hisec but I'd really like to know the basis of this argument

    npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
    Traidir
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #90 - 2012-05-25 06:23:04 UTC
    I'm rather fond of the notion that cap ships can navigate beyond the stargate network. How 'bout instead of removing Jump bridges and drives, they add increased risk to the procedure of jumping a fleet across the map?

    For instance, if they were to add a delay before the jump drive could be reactivated of, say... 10-15 minutes, a fleet would have to plan carefully before committing itself to a distant location.

    If they wanted to get really tricky with it, they could have the time delay increase based on the number of ships jumping into a system (the Devs could claim that jump drive use has begun to tear at the fabric of space causing "subspace instability", requiring jump ships to slow down or risk their own destruction). Thus if 5 capital ships jump into a system, no ships from any fleet may jump out within a 15 minute window. But if 20 cap ships jumped into a system, no ship could jump out for 30 minutes. 40 cap ships -> 60 minutes... ect...

    In this way, capital fleet engagements would nearly guarantee destruction for one of the fleets (and the victor would risk being swooped down upon by additional cap ship fleets, which would again increase the jump out timer, setting up a nice little domino effect).

    Also, capital ship fleets would be more vulnerable when moving fleets around, since before the final jump in, the ships would need to move in smaller groups to avoid the longer timer delays. This creates additional opportunities for portions of the fleet to be "tackled" (or at least attacked) as they transit.

    Thoughts?
    Spikeflach
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #91 - 2012-05-25 06:41:42 UTC
    Traidir wrote:
    I'm rather fond of the notion that cap ships can navigate beyond the stargate network. How 'bout instead of removing Jump bridges and drives, they add increased risk to the procedure of jumping a fleet across the map?

    For instance, if they were to add a delay before the jump drive could be reactivated of, say... 10-15 minutes, a fleet would have to plan carefully before committing itself to a distant location.

    If they wanted to get really tricky with it, they could have the time delay increase based on the number of ships jumping into a system (the Devs could claim that jump drive use has begun to tear at the fabric of space causing "subspace instability", requiring jump ships to slow down or risk their own destruction). Thus if 5 capital ships jump into a system, no ships from any fleet may jump out within a 15 minute window. But if 20 cap ships jumped into a system, no ship could jump out for 30 minutes. 40 cap ships -> 60 minutes... ect...

    In this way, capital fleet engagements would nearly guarantee destruction for one of the fleets (and the victor would risk being swooped down upon by additional cap ship fleets, which would again increase the jump out timer, setting up a nice little domino effect).

    Also, capital ship fleets would be more vulnerable when moving fleets around, since before the final jump in, the ships would need to move in smaller groups to avoid the longer timer delays. This creates additional opportunities for portions of the fleet to be "tackled" (or at least attacked) as they transit.

    Thoughts?


    I'm assuming your delay idea would only apply to ships wanting to jump out of a system. Otherwise if one alliance jumped a large amount of caps into a system, the delay would make it impossible for the defending alliance to get a counter fleet into the system.
    Traidir
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #92 - 2012-05-25 06:44:11 UTC
    Correct, delay only for jumping out.
    Frying Doom
    #93 - 2012-05-25 07:05:08 UTC
    Richard Desturned wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:
    I think big alliances in a permanent state of combat is a great idea and great for the game, I think large alliances stagnating and using jump bridges to be able to attack small groups of players kind of sad.


    removing local and jump drives will benefit smaller alliances how?

    i mean I understand that you've never left hisec but I'd really like to know the basis of this argument

    If you can not figure that out maybe you should metagame less and play more. Also I did not say remove jump drives just make them less efficient requiring more jumps at a higher cost. Local should die in null or if your the government you should pay for it, if you want it. I would recommend as a station improvement (ie. only available where stations are built by players) It is a free intel tool that makes life too easy for defenders and harder for raiding parties.

    Love the pointless slagging off.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Frying Doom
    #94 - 2012-05-25 07:13:51 UTC
    Spikeflach wrote:
    Traidir wrote:
    I'm rather fond of the notion that cap ships can navigate beyond the stargate network. How 'bout instead of removing Jump bridges and drives, they add increased risk to the procedure of jumping a fleet across the map?

    For instance, if they were to add a delay before the jump drive could be reactivated of, say... 10-15 minutes, a fleet would have to plan carefully before committing itself to a distant location.

    If they wanted to get really tricky with it, they could have the time delay increase based on the number of ships jumping into a system (the Devs could claim that jump drive use has begun to tear at the fabric of space causing "subspace instability", requiring jump ships to slow down or risk their own destruction). Thus if 5 capital ships jump into a system, no ships from any fleet may jump out within a 15 minute window. But if 20 cap ships jumped into a system, no ship could jump out for 30 minutes. 40 cap ships -> 60 minutes... ect...

    In this way, capital fleet engagements would nearly guarantee destruction for one of the fleets (and the victor would risk being swooped down upon by additional cap ship fleets, which would again increase the jump out timer, setting up a nice little domino effect).

    Also, capital ship fleets would be more vulnerable when moving fleets around, since before the final jump in, the ships would need to move in smaller groups to avoid the longer timer delays. This creates additional opportunities for portions of the fleet to be "tackled" (or at least attacked) as they transit.

    Thoughts?


    I'm assuming your delay idea would only apply to ships wanting to jump out of a system. Otherwise if one alliance jumped a large amount of caps into a system, the delay would make it impossible for the defending alliance to get a counter fleet into the system.

    Just a quick thought. How about a percentage chance to land in the wrong system increased by the amount of distance of the initial jump. Say 0.1% chance of error of being out 2-3 systems over a small jump and increased by the number of light years jumped, with a catastrophic error occurring say 0.01% of the time increased by the number of light years (eg. end up going in a random direction). Just a thought.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Nicolo da'Vicenza
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #95 - 2012-05-25 07:14:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
    Yeah okay that's enough out of NPC corp forum alts and "The Trade Guild" members of what they think a region they have never lived in and have no experience with should be. We need worthwhile suggestions on how to improve the space, not people with jump drive envy angryposting.
    Frying Doom
    #96 - 2012-05-25 07:17:14 UTC
    Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
    Yeah okay that's enough out of NPC corp forum alts and "The Trade Guild" members of what they think a region they have never lived in and have no experience with should be..

    Yeah yeah very funny, Have lived there so HTFU princess.

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Traidir
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #97 - 2012-05-25 08:06:21 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:

    Just a quick thought. How about a percentage chance to land in the wrong system increased by the amount of distance of the initial jump. Say 0.1% chance of error of being out 2-3 systems over a small jump and increased by the number of light years jumped, with a catastrophic error occurring say 0.01% of the time increased by the number of light years (eg. end up going in a random direction). Just a thought.

    Without an additional delay to jump drive reactivation that would amount to a small momentary risk (since no system wide cyno marks your incoming jump) of appearing in the wrong system + an additional cost in fuel to attempt the jump a second time.

    With an additional delay, that could definitely add some risk to power projection; though as a capitol pilot, I would not be at all comfortable with having such a "random" risk lose me billions of isk worth of ship and modules.

    I think the risks involved should remain calculated ones.
    Frying Doom
    #98 - 2012-05-25 08:21:51 UTC
    Traidir wrote:
    Frying Doom wrote:

    Just a quick thought. How about a percentage chance to land in the wrong system increased by the amount of distance of the initial jump. Say 0.1% chance of error of being out 2-3 systems over a small jump and increased by the number of light years jumped, with a catastrophic error occurring say 0.01% of the time increased by the number of light years (eg. end up going in a random direction). Just a thought.

    Without an additional delay to jump drive reactivation that would amount to a small momentary risk (since no system wide cyno marks your incoming jump) of appearing in the wrong system + an additional cost in fuel to attempt the jump a second time.

    With an additional delay, that could definitely add some risk to power projection; though as a capitol pilot, I would not be at all comfortable with having such a "random" risk lose me billions of isk worth of ship and modules.

    I think the risks involved should remain calculated ones.

    ok so like I said just a quick idea(probably would stink to loose billions to chance), on the delay could you still dock up in the 10-15 minute delay?

    Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
    Shepard Wong Ogeko
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #99 - 2012-05-25 08:22:44 UTC
    Frying Doom wrote:

    Your argument begs the question, if Null is conquerable by the Sov system, and made into feudal kingdoms then following the normal course of history shouldn't you then be getting attacked by larger alliances like the Amarr to increase there space?


    I think it is clear that the devs intend sov nullsec to be fought over and held by players. And with that they also set aside npc owned nullsec and faction warfare for those that want to fight over npc space.

    Quote:

    I don't argue that docking up makes good sense, just that giving the supposedly hardened players free intel tools like local, really detracts from it, or to follow your argument with the sov system. You want Local you should have to pay for the intel tool.


    Hardened players don't go running around without knowing what is going on around them. And we do pay fees for every system we have sov over. And you are traveling between systems through a metaphorical and literal "gate", so your presence might as well be announced.

    Quote:

    To my understanding Null was made to be tough, you argue that because you can take i over it should be easier and safer?
    You hardly make the case that Null players are the best players in EVE, just that Null players want Hello Kitty out there.


    Null can be made safer and easier through effort put forth by the players. The bridges and towers need to be fueled, the sov fees have to be paid, isk and materials need to be moved around all the time or it all comes to a halt. And that has to be done with no Concord showing up to punish trouble makers for us.


    And for those that really hate local and jump stuff and docking stations, ccp added and even more hard core, uber elite area called wormholes made up of over 2000 systems. You might want to check it out rather than reinventing the wheel.
    Serina Tsukaya
    Dropbears Anonymous
    Brave Collective
    #100 - 2012-05-25 08:24:55 UTC
    Increase the amount of low grade rocks in the belts in proportion to the truesec status, not just rarer rocks but more rocks. Allow the creation of a Alliance wide wallet that has it's access roles granted by the Ceo of the executor corp. If the alliance holds sov, that wallet will be used for the paying of sov bills.

    Add a territorical conquest war declaration that may be declared between sov holding alliances. These declarations don't affect the players in highsec but will allow the generation of a war report between the two alliances that also include the taking of systems. This would be a fun tool to see how the overall war is actually going, and given that the new war declaration system is still fresh, there's no Legacy code excuse not to do it.


    Allow sov holders to change the connections of the jump gates in the systems they hold sov in. There's a range limitation and the systems cannot be disconnected from the entierty of the network, nor can they be disconnected from any of the regional gates. (at least one route through each regional gate must be avalible from all null systems in that region.) Only one gate per system can be altered in this fashion, requires strategic index level 5 in both systems. The change can only be done once every three months, and will reset if sov is lost. This will allow the sovreignty holders and the alliance themselves to feel as if they are actually shaping the world of eve around them, and giving holding sov a extremely meaningful impact. No changes can made to a system's gate connections or it's connected system if sov is contested. Changes to the gate network are warned at least 24 hours in advance, and the changes occur duing the next downtime after that.

    Since all gates are paired, no gate will be left out as changes have to be made where two pairs are formed, requiring holding 4 systems with strat index 5 to be able to make any changes at all.

    This will make taking a region more interesting and challenging, as how to get from a to b can change often. This also works as a double edged sword, as bad planning of the network will make living in that region of space a nightmare.

    Alternatively, allow sov holders to build one additional gate in each system that can be connected to one they've buildt in another system. Gates are Entierly distructable with several reinforce timers.


    And last:

    A device similar to a SBU, that must be anchored in close proximity to the ihub, has a slightly long online/anchoring time, that disables Cyno jammers, jump bridges, and cyno beacons. It would be a fairly weak structure that has no reinforce timers, costs a few billion isk, but has the ability to allow for disruption of infastrucutre and by disabling cyno jammers, give attackers the chance to bring in heavy support, instead of having to shoot the cyno jammer itself at a death star in a sub-cap fleet. The cost of the unit would conteract the "I'll just leave this here to screw with you" As it's rather expensive, and with lowish ehp, it should be destroyable by a 150 man battle ship fleet. This adds a level of complexity to the sov warfare, incentivises conflict and the risk /reward of using it would be in line with generel eve design principles. Not to mention this device would be a source of threat to alliance intrests, and so the deployment of one will most likely trigger a series of fights to take it down, unless those that deployed it want to throw away that kind of money.