These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2012-05-26 15:08:00 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
In other words, you've forgotten about the reaction to Incarna.

Where any where did I write after the release of a patch. Please learn to read these errors are rather embarrassing.

The reason I'm pointing out incarna was because that was an actual reaction to when CCP did something wrong, and that was the culmination of 18 months of bullshit coupled with a **** expansion.

And last I checked, the increases prior to any patches were minute, the majority of the increases came after. The lack of one in this case is easily explained by the fact that while it was an expansion, it wasn't a big expansion, and Diablo 3 has been in beta for a while, and was launched the 15th of may, i.e. 8 days prior to inferno.

Less hype than other expansions and another game which a lot of people want to play = an impact in the number of people who are online. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2012-05-26 15:50:18 UTC
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: summer's here.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Vricrolatious
HIgh Sec Care Bears
Brothers of Tangra
#183 - 2012-05-26 20:48:44 UTC
Two step wrote:
Null Sec - Will Winter be the TotalHellDeath patch? What is 'The Ultimate Plan' for where CCP sees 0.0 heading?

Farms and Fields? Ultracaps? Supertitans? What should CCP do to "fix" 0.0? Or is 0.0 just fine as is?


Two Step, if you're still looking for ideas... I wrote a thing

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113939&find=unread

WIDot, Best Dot, Even Sans Dot! -Vric
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2012-05-26 20:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
gonna repost this

Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Here's a good idea:

Make "military sov" buildup (required for most sov-based advantages) based on multiple factors instead of just million-hp structures and time. Howabout TCU + Occupancy of system (read: activity) + Length of time owning system + Planetary ownership (DUST) + Nu-Faction Warfare-style "combat metric" (defaulting to sov holder) = Total level of sov. In return, the cost for owning a system decreases drastically as level of ownership increases. Perhaps the exact EHP of stations would be effected by the strength of the hold on the system.

Power projection of expansive alliances is curbed since much of their space isn't used enough to unlock jump bridges, and alliances would deliberately choose not to take needless systems in order to streamline costs. AFKing in station has a serious penalty to it as two out of five of the claims to the system are lowered by not defending it. The DUST integration serves as a tiebreaker and a way of fomenting conflict with otherwise heavily advantaged alliances.
Frying Doom
#185 - 2012-05-27 01:00:38 UTC
Just thought I would repost this good idea.
Traidir wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
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?

I suppose the only reason not to allow this, is that that your fleet actually has to be in space and vulnerable during the jump out delay or that period of vulnerability becomes meaningless. Docking up or, for that matter, just bouncing around from safe point to safe point and staying in warp would mitigate a lot of the risk.

Perhaps another short period of immobility on top of the jump drive delay would be in order then (meaning no warps, no docks). After, say, 5-10 minutes of "cool down" from the jump, the cap ships in the fleet would again become mobile and free to move about the system while they wait for the system's jump delay to cool down.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#186 - 2012-05-27 01:37:32 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
And last I checked, the increases prior to any patches were minute, the majority of the increases came after. The lack of one in this case is easily explained by the fact that while it was an expansion, it wasn't a big expansion, and Diablo 3 has been in beta for a while, and was launched the 15th of may, i.e. 8 days prior to inferno.

Less hype than other expansions and another game which a lot of people want to play = an impact in the number of people who are online. vOv

The increases prior to all previous patches were quite noticeable even the first several after the game was launched. The expansions have come in the wake of other game releases before and it had no effect on the population increases. Alot of Expansions have had less publicity than this one. This expansion even had a pre patch with Inferno is coming plastered on it.
Your arguments fall flat, oh and I'm not a meteorologist but I believe there have been expansions released before when this "summer" thing you speak of has occurred.

Eve has gotten dull and the lines blurred hi-sec is now just a land of gankers and pirates, lo-sec is pirate infested(As it always has been, and good too that some thing has stayed the same) and Null sec is just stagnant and boring. Worm holes are too big a leap for alot of players as you never know where your access to normal space will be the following day so you could be stuck there for months with little hope of resupply.

Due to the number of subscribers that are hi-sec carebears I believe CCP will probably end up making Hi-sec a safe zone(can't say I agree) but it will probably end up as a non-pvp zone to protect and increase their subscribers, CCP is a business after all.

Null Sec is stagnant and needs to be made more dynamic, I am perfectly aware the Goons don't want things harder for them in their safe little space but we need change. An alteration of the Sov system is a good start as is a jump drive nerf. Oh and Local must die if anything just so you can take surprise raids into enemy strong holds(It's not much of a surprise if they see you coming from 3 systems back).

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2012-05-27 01:55:46 UTC
Quit pointing the fingers at Goons. We've been keeping null dynamic. We even brought some of that dynamism to highsec.

And quit being such an obvious gimmick. No one wants to turn nullsec into w-space just so you can gank ratters and still find your way home afterwards. Sounds like you are the one that wants things to be safe.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2012-05-27 01:56:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Due to the number of subscribers that are hi-sec carebears I believe CCP will probably end up making Hi-sec a safe zone(can't say I agree) but it will probably end up as a non-pvp zone to protect and increase their subscribers, CCP is a business after all.

This won't happen.

Frying Doom wrote:
Null Sec is stagnant and needs to be made more dynamic

Yes, nullsec sov warfare needs to become more dynamic.

Frying Doom wrote:
I am perfectly aware the Goons don't want things harder for them in their safe little space but we need change.

I've no idea what you mean by this.

Frying Doom wrote:
Oh and Local must die if anything just so you can take surprise raids into enemy strong holds(It's not much of a surprise if they see you coming from 3 systems back).

If you think local'll have any effect whatsoever in sov warfare, then I have a bridge to sell you in san fransisco. All it'd do is make the act of actually living much less appealing.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#189 - 2012-05-27 02:11:12 UTC
Lord Zim there are now pages and pages of replies to your statements showing that you can never understand that you have lost an argument.

My favorite so far was when you were asked if you were 8, you made a glib reply and Caliph Muhammed responded

"No. I'm asking a question of an adult who can't defend his ideas/line of thought and resorts to juvenile tit for tat posts because he knows hes out of his league."

Goonswarm have shown there inability for rational thought by war decing everyone who disagrees with them like school yard bullies. You used to be a great alliance now you are just spoiled brats.

This pretty much sums it it, we are all aware you don't know what your talking about but keep babbling in the hopes that everyone else will just give up.

My comment about goons was exactly that, it seems to be the Goonswarm members primarily that don't want their safe little haven made easier for attack, you want your cake and you want to eat it too. I wasn't specifically talking about sov with the removal of local but yes it help it would remove a valuable intel tool that shouldn't be there.

Hi-sec should be safest or why bother having it.
Lo-sec should be less safe than hi (so like it is now, with some improvements)
Null sec is lawless space it should be dangerous (We have money should not matter at all, or why can't a hi-sec pilot buy gank protection if money is the answer)
Worm holes are for the elite players so crazy that they have food thrown at them through bars so they dont bite your hands off.

They created the System Security levels for a reason.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2012-05-27 02:21:43 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Hi-sec should be safest or why bother having it.

It is the safest.

Frying Doom wrote:
Null sec is lawless space it should be dangerous

It is.

Frying Doom wrote:
Worm holes are for the elite players so crazy that they have food thrown at them through bars so they dont bite your hands off.

I'd assume it is.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#191 - 2012-05-27 02:33:11 UTC
This one wasn't a bad idea for local so I thought I would repost it here

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Throwing my 2 ISK worth into this topic.


Empire controls 2 areas of space, high security and low security. Players showing up in Local chat channels is intel provided by Empire Factions. Null security is controlled by Alliances and as such they have to provide their own intel. Null security systems need to be patrolled by the Alliances controlling SOV for intel.

High security local chat channel shows everyone.
Low security local chat channel shows Criminals and War Targets.
Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV.
Wormhole local chat channel shows no one.

All local chat channels show players who speak and as long as that player remains in that system, that player's intel is available in Local chat.

EDIT:
NPC Null security local chat channel would be like Wormhole local chat channel.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#192 - 2012-05-27 03:10:27 UTC
"Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV."

ah so in essence roaming gangs can't be seen in local but they can see all their potential targets in local

this is clearly an excellent, well thought out plan

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#193 - 2012-05-27 03:17:19 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
This one wasn't a bad idea for local so I thought I would repost it here

NPC corp opinions are dismissed as worthless for a reason

edit: oh and now you're in one too, i guess water finds its own level

ban npc corp posters from csm forums
Frying Doom
#194 - 2012-05-27 03:41:15 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
This one wasn't a bad idea for local so I thought I would repost it here

NPC corp opinions are dismissed as worthless for a reason

edit: oh and now you're in one too, i guess water finds its own level

ban npc corp posters from csm forums

Strangely I don't just consider my own ideas as valid, unlike some people.

Oh and to make you happy I applied to join a corp Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2012-05-27 04:07:00 UTC
Might as well make all of null npc space, because no one is going to pay sov fees to be camped inside what is basically a crappy wormhole. One with more risk and less reward than existing wormholes.

You know, those wormholes that already do everything you want, and then call the people who play there lunatics. At least the entrances are transient so they can't get camped inside.

Now who is playing the "want your cake and eat it too"? CCP provided exactly what you are asking for, and gave an accordingly greater reward. They had the foresight to make the entrances move so people couldn't get perma-camped. People here keep pointing it out, and you yourself admit that such a place is just too hard for you.

2000 plus systems of your perfect Eve, and you admit it is too poo flining insane for you to handle.


Can you just go away now and let the grown ups talk?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#196 - 2012-05-27 04:09:55 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Strangely I don't just consider my own ideas as valid, unlike some people.

Nor do we, we just consider this particular idea dumb.

Frying Doom wrote:
Oh and to make you happy I applied to join a corp Lol

What, you're moving back into your old corp so you'll live up to your hardcore, risk-loving reputation?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#197 - 2012-05-27 04:14:35 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Strangely I don't just consider my own ideas as valid, unlike some people.

Nor do we, we just consider this particular idea dumb.

Frying Doom wrote:
Oh and to make you happy I applied to join a corp Lol

What, you're moving back into your old corp so you'll live up to your hardcore, risk-loving reputation?

Actually you seem to consider any idea spoken from anyone not in the goonswarm dumb. I will admit this idea needs some work but its a good starting point.

No I'm not going back to my old corp as anyone familiar with inferno would know I could not do that for 7 days.

Maybe you should familiarize you self with the game you claim to be an authority on.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2012-05-27 04:23:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually you seem to consider any idea spoken from anyone not in the goonswarm dumb.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions based on incomplete and/or faulty data. I have no problem with ideas which aren't ****, but I do have problems with ideas which are ****.

Frying Doom wrote:
This one wasn't a bad idea for local so I thought I would repost it here

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Throwing my 2 ISK worth into this topic.


Empire controls 2 areas of space, high security and low security. Players showing up in Local chat channels is intel provided by Empire Factions. Null security is controlled by Alliances and as such they have to provide their own intel. Null security systems need to be patrolled by the Alliances controlling SOV for intel.

High security local chat channel shows everyone.
Low security local chat channel shows Criminals and War Targets.
Null security local chat channel shows Alliance and Allies controlling SOV.
Wormhole local chat channel shows no one.

All local chat channels show players who speak and as long as that player remains in that system, that player's intel is available in Local chat.

EDIT:
NPC Null security local chat channel would be like Wormhole local chat channel.

If we're going to make a tweak to local, then this idea is almost workable. The only thing which needs modification is, "null security local chat channel shows everyone to the SOV alliance and its allies, neutrals or reds get no info".

There you go.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#199 - 2012-05-27 04:30:56 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

If we're going to make a tweak to local, then this idea is almost workable. The only thing which needs modification is, "null security local chat channel shows everyone to the SOV alliance and its allies, neutrals or reds get no info".

There you go.

Are you saying the allies ect.. get to see each other and chat and the neuts and reds gain no info from local but neither do the sov holders gain info on the neuts and reds. Which I like.

Or that the sov holders should get free info on the reds and neuts and the enemy forces get nothing. Which just makes life harder for the attackers and life easier for sov holders. Which would suck.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#200 - 2012-05-27 05:02:51 UTC
Another idea I thought I would post here that might help small alliances move into null that might be worth pursuing.
Vricrolatious wrote:
A couple thoughts I’ve had on how to improve nullsec, though I’m sure many members of larger Alliances (starting with my own,) will disagree on the use of the word “improve.”

Alliance Home / Capital System:
-An Alliance that claims sovereignty over two or more systems will claim one as a Capital System
-Maintenance fees on upgraded systems that the Alliance claims (after selecting their Capital System) will be based on distance (in light years) from the Capital System, the greater the distance in light years between the Capital System and upgraded systems, the greater the cost per month
-Capital Systems would be changeable, but no more than once every month or if the Capital System is conquered

System Bonuses:
-Systems that an Alliance have sovereignty over should give them bonuses to help defend them
-Bonuses should provide a boost to shields or armor, these would be selected by the Alliance and used through the IHUB in that system, unupgraded systems would give no bonus
-Bonuses would be lower the farther the systems are from the Capital System
-Cost of operating Capital and Super Capital ships (in fuel) would increase or decrease based on distance from Capital System, the greater the distance in light years, the more it costs

Fortress / Port Systems:
-Selecting an upgraded station system as a Fortress / Port System would reduce the monthly maintenance fees to the same rate as the Capital System
-Only one Fortress / Port System per constellation
-Nearby upgraded systems would have a slight reduction in monthly fees based on distance
-Capital and Super Capitals fuel costs would increase or decrease based on their distance from Fortress / Port Systems on top of distance from the Capital System
-Defense bonuses would be greater in Fortress / Port Systems

These changes would allow Alliances to better defend their space during times of invasion, would be costly to larger Alliances that over extend their borders and limit force projection for Capital and Super Capital Ships.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!