These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frying Doom
#261 - 2012-05-29 00:36:43 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Every historical reference to lawless areas includes stories of people on the outskirts disappearing or being massacred, null should be the same.


The problem is, you don't take your historical references to their conclusion. Romans would march into a lawless provinces, fight, build forts and roads and other infrastructure. When they were done their would be law and law enforcers, and in many ways those provinces would become safer then the streets of Rome.

I can understand making NPC Pirate owned null being completely lawless to the point of having no local.

Telling people who fought to take, and worked and paid to upgrade sov null, that all their work should be for nothing, and should be as violent and unpredictable as enemy territory, is a serious kick in the nuts given the kind of income you can make in null and the difficulty in logistics that already exists.


Yes they did they built forts and garrisons and had an active presence in the areas to make them follow the laws, they did not just conquer an area build roads and aqua ducts ect and move the army on. If the Romans conquered an area and then fell back again like they did in Scotland the area reverted back to lawlessness. Null is the same, your space would be safe where you keep active troops only suffering from terrorist attacks, and safer in your capital system and in fort systems.


Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Also, probes on d-scan are going to have the same effect as people popping up in local. So the same dynamic of non-pvp'ers running at the first sign of a possible hostile will remain. They'll just be safing up as soon as they see probes instead of seeing you in local. And it sure as hell won't increase "solo mining", because you can't really solo mine in nullsec as it is, and it will be next to impossible to get those minerals to market. Unless they use jump drives, but you hate those too.
So you mean you might have to use more local markets within your own sphere of influence or blue neighbors markets rather than being able get easy markets simply on the other side of the universe.


Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Honest question to Frying Doom; Where in nullsec did you find it so safe and lucrative? Maybe its just because goons are so hated, but in Dek I run into hostile solo bombers, roams and camps all the time. A day doesn't go by that we don't get at least have a dozen of these sort of things. And since Dek is a rather narrow and linear region, these guys put a damper on movement with little effort. As it stands _right_now_ It is already plenty "interesting" getting loot to the local market, and a serious effort to get to highsec markets.


I found it safe and lucrative in NPC null and funnily enough inside goon space. The Goon territories you just had to notice the time zone used by the locals and find one that fitted my own TZ. Never had much trouble with gate camps after I was in one for a while. As to Dek sorry never been there.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2012-05-29 00:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Frying Doom wrote:

Snow Axe wrote:
Of course it would happen less, because nobody would be living in null without local. Can't shut down what isn't running.


Actually I believe implementing all of the above changes would make Null more alive not dead.

Yes but see you're unable to qualify these beliefs with facts, which is what separates "I believe in the theory of evolution" and "I believe the world is on the back of a giant turtle"

Anyways, I'll wait and see how long it takes before you realize your "one non-gimped system per constellation" theory will result in vast stretches of unused space on a scale even worse then now.
Frying Doom
#263 - 2012-05-29 00:42:16 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
How many people Unsubbed over the UI, people will always unsub over the smallest thing, think of the future of the game not just tomorrow.

And given this, and given that you know how "awesome" the revenues you can get in nullsec, do you think people'll be very happy if CCP drastically ramped up the risk and/or effort needed to do anything in nullsec?

Actually given the current risk vs. reward I don't know why people bother with Null, As has been said there is better money in Hi-sec for the individual and it is only moon mining that makes it worth the trouble, so we are back to to why would a small non-renter, non pet alliance ever bother.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#264 - 2012-05-29 00:43:25 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Snow Axe wrote:
Of course it would happen less, because nobody would be living in null without local. Can't shut down what isn't running.


Actually I believe implementing all of the above changes would make Null more alive not dead.

Yes but see you're unable to qualify these beliefs with facts, which is what separates "I believe in the theory of evolution" and "I believe the world is on the back of a giant turtle"

Anyways, I'll wait and see how long it takes before you realize your "one non-gimped system per constellation" theory will result in vast stretches of unused space on a scale even worse then now.

Actually not my theory please try reading before commenting.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#265 - 2012-05-29 00:43:49 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually given the current risk vs. reward I don't know why people bother with Null, As has been said there is better money in Hi-sec for the individual and it is only moon mining that makes it worth the trouble, so we are back to to why would a small non-renter, non pet alliance ever bother.


So remind the audience again how removing local is supposed to help that, even a little bit? I mean, as far as I can tell your proposal is "nullsec sucks, let's make it an order of magnitude worse!"

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#266 - 2012-05-29 01:17:05 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually given the current risk vs. reward I don't know why people bother with Null, As has been said there is better money in Hi-sec for the individual and it is only moon mining that makes it worth the trouble, so we are back to to why would a small non-renter, non pet alliance ever bother.


So remind the audience again how removing local is supposed to help that, even a little bit? I mean, as far as I can tell your proposal is "nullsec sucks, let's make it an order of magnitude worse!"

Actually I havent heard compelling arguments against the removal of local, other than some people saying it would make their life harder (Mostly large alliance members)

Local in Null makes no sense, why is it there?

The benifits of removing it or removing non-broadcasting ships would be.

  • Pvp'ers could not just camp a single gate in a system and get easy intel on when to run away.
  • A single cloaked ship couldn't just sit in a system for days terrifying the inhabitants while the play is AFK
  • Black Ops ships could actually enter space undetected, rather than arriving with a Big Sign
  • Sov holders would have to actively patrol there space to prevent gorilla style raids
  • Solo Miners would actually have to be scanned down to detect their presence.
  • Pvp gankers would have to spend more than 30 seconds to pop into a system to see if people were there.
  • Ect...


The list goes on where all I have heard from the opposing argument is that it would make their life harder because you couldn't see what was in a system when your trying to run to a hi-sec market in a T1 industrial or that sov holder should have a safe life because they pay for it. There have been more but these are the ones that seem to come up, oh its hard or we pay to be safe.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2012-05-29 01:22:51 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Actually I havent heard compelling arguments against the removal of local, other than some people saying it would make their life harder (Mostly large alliance members)

I'll just quote myself in here as well:
Lord Zim wrote:
So let's see if I've got this right. Most people who are running plexes in nullsec (at between 50 and 75m/hour) are currently running them in PVE-fitted ships (which according to you isn't necessary). But to do the same job in a PVP-fitted ship, you'd have to bring more people, which splits the reward between two (or more) people, so we're down to less isk/hour than L4s. Which means we'd both be better off having a L4 char in empire for when we need to do some isk-making.

Then we add your local changes (or rather just the removal thereof, since you never come up with anything other than "REMOVE LOCAL EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!"), and we have to add a char or a guy on each gate to watch for roaming gangs, which further degrades the isk/hour figure, making L4s even more attractive.

Which brings me back to my assertation of a few days ago: just removing local will depopulate null and lowsec even further, and make the use of NPC corps or neutral alts even more prevalent in hisec during warsdecs. Which'll mean less people to shoot out in null and lowsec, and even less effective wardecs in hisec.

Unless, of course, you're going to keep harping on about how "I'm wrong" and "the population would increase", in while totally ignoring all the empiric evidence which has been shown just the last year or so alone, f.ex through what happened in null after the anom buff (people moved out to nullsec), after the anom nerf (people moved back to hisec to do L4s), and also given what happened to incursions after the incursion nerf (incursions are apparently somewhat deserted now, compared to when they were choc full, just because the isk/hour went down).

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#268 - 2012-05-29 01:26:03 UTC
Your copy and paste from the other forum didn't come over so well. Please edit for this one.

Thanks

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2012-05-29 01:28:40 UTC
No.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#270 - 2012-05-29 01:32:41 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
The benifits of removing it or removing non-broadcasting ships would be.

  • Pvp'ers could not just camp a single gate in a system and get easy intel on when to run away.
  • A single cloaked ship couldn't just sit in a system for days terrifying the inhabitants while the play is AFK
  • Black Ops ships could actually enter space undetected, rather than arriving with a Big Sign
  • Sov holders would have to actively patrol there space to prevent gorilla style raids
  • Solo Miners would actually have to be scanned down to detect their presence.
  • Pvp gankers would have to spend more than 30 seconds to pop into a system to see if people were there.
  • Ect...



That's not a list of benefits, that's just a list of things that will happen. You'd have to show why any of that would be GOOD to really make any headway on the issue. Of course, after that, you'd have to show why any of these things would outweigh the many, many negatives that have been shown to you over and over again.

Actually, I'll go one further. You'd actually have to live in null to figure out how it should be changed. No surprise you've skipped that step.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#271 - 2012-05-29 01:50:49 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
The benifits of removing it or removing non-broadcasting ships would be.

  • Pvp'ers could not just camp a single gate in a system and get easy intel on when to run away.
  • A single cloaked ship couldn't just sit in a system for days terrifying the inhabitants while the play is AFK
  • Black Ops ships could actually enter space undetected, rather than arriving with a Big Sign
  • Sov holders would have to actively patrol there space to prevent gorilla style raids
  • Solo Miners would actually have to be scanned down to detect their presence.
  • Pvp gankers would have to spend more than 30 seconds to pop into a system to see if people were there.
  • Ect...



That's not a list of benefits, that's just a list of things that will happen. You'd have to show why any of that would be GOOD to really make any headway on the issue. Of course, after that, you'd have to show why any of these things would outweigh the many, many negatives that have been shown to you over and over again.

Actually, I'll go one further. You'd actually have to live in null to figure out how it should be changed. No surprise you've skipped that step.

You mean live in Sov Null sec, Well I have no want to being in a pet or renter alliance so little chance of that happening. As it stands now all sov null will become is Goonspace your membership will grow and as you don't have to actively patrol all parts of your territory to keep it, making it easy enough to knock of a member of the CFC when the time is right. Your space will grow until there is only Goons left. For entertainment you will raid NPC Null and Hi-sec to keep your selves entertained. Null will stagnate further while people agitate for changes to make it safer.

The whole thing will come down to "We need more land".

I understand that you and the other members have worked hard for what you have now but it does not leave any room for smaller alliances to grow without paying or being destroyed. I understand that it would make life harder for the big alliances as you would need to be more active within your own territories and would cause you problems when you over extend your selves. PVE players wanting big money for Plexs(And it should be considerably better than Hi-sec) will have to pay more attention this is the nature of risk vs reward. It would cause people to use ships capable of doing the job but not stupidly expensive.

The above points list would be good for the game but not so good for Alliances that have over extended them selves. It would cause space held to be consolidated.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#272 - 2012-05-29 01:51:20 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
No.

ok

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2012-05-29 01:52:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Frying Doom wrote:
You mean live in Sov Null sec, Well I have no want to being in a pet or renter alliance so little chance of that happening. As it stands now all sov null will become is Goonspace your membership will grow and as you don't have to actively patrol all parts of your territory to keep it, making it easy enough to knock of a member of the CFC when the time is right. Your space will grow until there is only Goons left. For entertainment you will raid NPC Null and Hi-sec to keep your selves entertained. Null will stagnate further while people agitate for changes to make it safer.

The whole thing will come down to "We need more land".

I understand that you and the other members have worked hard for what you have now but it does not leave any room for smaller alliances to grow without paying or being destroyed. I understand that it would make life harder for the big alliances as you would need to be more active within your own territories and would cause you problems when you over extend your selves. PVE players wanting big money for Plexs(And it should be considerably better than Hi-sec) will have to pay more attention this is the nature of risk vs reward. It would cause people to use ships capable of doing the job but not stupidly expensive.

The above points list would be good for the game but not so good for Alliances that have over extended them selves. It would cause space held to be consolidated.


Again, for the cheap seats...

REMOVING
LOCAL
FIXES
LITERALLY
NONE
OF
THIS

You want smaller alliances to be able to get sov without having to be a pet or renter? Make sov easier to get, and make the large swaths of null that are basically worthless worth something, and then you'll see things happen. Removing local does nothing but punish people for living in null.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#274 - 2012-05-29 01:57:31 UTC
It's not like Frying Doom hasn't had all of the disadvantages spelled out for him before, in great detail, only to turn around and go on a completely different tangent which doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#275 - 2012-05-29 02:07:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Snow Axe wrote:


Again, for the cheap seats...

REMOVING
LOCAL
FIXES
LITERALLY
NONE
OF
THIS

You want smaller alliances to be able to get sov without having to be a pet or renter? Make sov easier to get, and make the large swaths of null that are basically worthless worth something, and then you'll see things happen. Removing local does nothing but punish people for living in null.

But the worthless parts of Sov Null are still Held by Large alliances so what would be the point of improving them. Wouldn't it be more useful to force people to consolidate their holdings into space they can actively patrol, allowing smaller alliances a foot hold?

On the removal of local, it is little more than a crutch that makes no sense and removes the basic abilities of some ships while over inflating others. If Null were properly planed in the first place local would have never been there.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2012-05-29 02:12:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Lord Zim wrote:
It's not like Frying Doom hasn't had all of the disadvantages spelled out for him before, in great detail, only to turn around and go on a completely different tangent which doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.


Good point. That plus his last post being so full of axe-to-grind bull**** makes this not even worth talking about anymore.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Frying Doom
#277 - 2012-05-29 02:20:15 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
It's not like Frying Doom hasn't had all of the disadvantages spelled out for him before, in great detail, only to turn around and go on a completely different tangent which doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.


Good point. That plus his last post being so full of axe-to-grind bull**** makes this not even worth talking about anymore.

Sorry no real axe other than the future of eve.

And before you say it my only real problem with Goonswarm is that you used to be a great alliance, I looked forward to the fanfest alliance presentation. You were anti-large alliance, it was fun, it gave the game excitement.

Now you are the big stagnant alliance you used to make so much fun of. All the while the game just waits to see if another Goonswarm will come along to kill the old stagnant one.

And the only disadvantages I have heard from Zim repeatedly was the we payed sov excuse.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2012-05-29 02:26:58 UTC
yeah that was goonswarm in the past...

anti-large alliance

lol wut
Frying Doom
#279 - 2012-05-29 02:53:08 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah that was goonswarm in the past...

anti-large alliance

lol wut

GoonSwarm was founded in summer 2006 as Goonfleet and associated corporations broke off from The OSS in good faith to go their own way. In late June 2006 and almost immediately after forming, GoonSwarm went to war with Dusk And Dawn over the XZH-4X system in Cloud Ring. After a grueling war, Dusk And Dawn eventually bested GoonSwarm in early August 2006 and GoonSwarm retreated back to Syndicate.

Shortly after this, Band of Brothers and the Mercenary Coalition declared war against GoonSwarm and invaded Syndicate for approximately two and a half weeks, effectively immobilizing GoonSwarm in the JQV constellation. GoonSwarm then shifted tactics, creating an entire fleet of characters with the moniker "VCBee XXX" with XXX being a random number. Using these throwaway VCBee characters that cost next to nothing when killed, GoonSwarm engaged in guerrilla warfare against Band of Brothers, both in 0.0 and empire. GoonSwarm also declared war on IRON, RAZOR and a host of other alliances in an act of defiance.

After Band of Brothers moved out of the region, after realizing that continued warfare against freshly created characters was pointless, GoonSwarm waged a short but successful campaign against Black Reign Syndicate in an attempt to remove them from Lower Syndicate. Shortly after, GoonSwarm moved to the South, abandoning Syndicate and moving in as roommates with Red Alliance. Without slowing, GoonSwarm moved to take Wicked Creek, Scalding Pass, Detorid, Tenerifis and Omist away from the Southern Coalition, consisting of Lotka Volterra, Veritas Immortalis and Knights Of The Southerncross.

http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=GOONSWARM

For a better explanation see the Alliance fanfest panels pre 2010

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#280 - 2012-05-29 02:56:08 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So you mean you might have to use more local markets within your own sphere of influence or blue neighbors markets rather than being able get easy markets simply on the other side of the universe.



Those oh so lucrative bpc you looted from rats, did you "sell them local" or did you truck them back to empire? Did you stay in null, gather up the minerals, build and sell those ships in a nullsec market?

How about all the nullsec minerals and moongoo, how are those supposed to get to highsec?


This sort of highly localalized Eve would be interesting, but it would have to come with a major overhaul of how things are produced. If trade was so difficult that tech never made it to empire, then no one could build hulks there. If all the various materials to assemble and fuel a moon mining POS couldn't be exported to nullsec, you couldn't even mine moons anyway.

With cloaking the way it is, it means a sov holder could never track down and evict bandits, or at least avoid them till they leave from boredom. Like lowsec, the bandits would eventually choke out all other content, and then have to go crying to CCP to put more stuff in null to lure in more targets.


Your idea would make sovereignty holding empires meaningless. It would be such a huge buff to ambushing that no one would do anything but that in nullsec. And since probing people down is a pain, but gates are static choke points, it means nothing but cloaky gate camps for as far as the eye can see,

I think most people would either move to highsec, where Concord keeps ambushing to a minimum, or move to wormholes, where transient entrances limits camping. Or take the best of both worlds and base in highsec and daytrip into wormholes. It would do nothing to draw people to nullsec and certainly do nothing to make nullsec better overall.