Jita Park Speakers Corner

@Kharmha:

A.) I don't believe your story.... and think you are purposely lying. Please tell me what systems have bots in them that don't run away when you land on grid with them! Please explain why you didn't DESTROY a mining vessel sitting in a belt mining while you were able to land on grid with it and observe it's behavior. Perhaps these botters are corp/alliance mates or allies (blues) of yours.... in which case you should be reporting them.

B.) Introducing Concord or similar Police forces to Nullsec and/or lowsec won't solve any of the problems with these regions. You come across as exceedingly ignorant of Nullsec and Lowsec life... you don't seem to realize that people already make it their home, you have no KB history in these regions, and really, your whole diatribe about your nullsec / lowsec experiences is so atypical I don't believe you have foundation of experience to contemplate the real issues. What's worse, your suggestion shows such an incredible lack of foresight regarding nullsec/lowsec life that I don't believe you've ever actually read about, let alone discussed, the life in nullsec with anyone that has ever lived there. As such, I'm calling out your recommendations for what it really is: A self-serving game-altering change to allow a risk-adverse noob to safely enter risky areas of space.

C.) From your post: "most of the time your lucky to see 2 players in most of these systems. So right there you have the first reason for low sec mining, its quite simply even more safer then high sec mining"..... If it is safer to mine there than in highsec, WTF do you need a police force in nullsec/lowsec???

Gizznitt you like to criticize yet you offer little suggestions of your own with the exception of the mining deflector.
Typical of the many problems within society or this game.

Perhaps you should take another look at the suggestions and think it through before you reply.

Yes they might set up "dummy" alliances, but how long do you think those would last?
Not so long, not to mention how many dummy alliances would some groups have to create?
Some of which will be controlled by different players and also have different mixed groups of alts and actual players
As said "NAP Fest" to start with but will become a diplomatic nightmare eventually.
How long do you think they would last before the infighting started?

Large groups controlling large swaths?
More like large swaths that are mainly empty being controlled by a group that rarely go there.

Again your argument is they can set up dummy corporations for low-sec to moon mine (seems to be a commons thread with you), how would this be different than what many already do?
There are many dummy corps / alliances in the game.
However you still have to go about explaining to your mates why you are suddenly jumping 20 or 30 jumps to defend a pos in low-sec that is not known to be part of the alliance.
Additionally some pos are know to be part of large alliances so they are not attacked, wouldn't you enjoy the additional chance for PvP or would hat just be a distraction?
Be interesting to see how much support you get from people that are not getting a cut from someones private venture.
They might show for the PvP but don't count on the same numbers on a regular basis.

While your moon mining deflector has merit, it would be a nice addition to the game with the addition of a skill to increase disruption to the total output, it still does not support your position to deny the viability of other opinions.

( POS spamming ring a bell? Remember the initial disruption when they changed the sov mechanics? POS fuel disruption caused by changes to carrier cargo bays before jump freighters? etc etc)

I like the idea of a monthly free for all in Jita

Thank you for the complement on the mining deflector....

I regularly give criticism of peoples ideas on these forums. And I don't just point out the negatives, I also point out what I like, often giving suggestions, and ideas for improvements.

Examples of threads I've recently contributed to:
Issues with the new Crimewatch System
Tracking Device

Recent contributions to discussions on Nullsec:
Farms and Fields, issues with Sov
Farms and Fields, Issues with Industry
Thoughts on Nullsec

Threads I've started, putting my ideas/suggestions out there for other people to criticize:
Discussion Thread on Fleet Boosting
Mining deflector
Declare Convo Bombing an Exploit
Potential Changes to WH Mechanics
Fleet Bonus Info Tab
Replace Local With an Intel Tool
Decoy Ships
New POS Construction Module
EWAR Battleships
Cyno Spoolup Timer
T1 Logistics Cruisers
Player Created Incursions (not exactly my idea)
Guidelines for AntiCloaking Devices/Mechanics
Prevent Cynoing within dock range
Make MLUs a midslot item
Limit ASBs to 1 per ship

Some of these are well received... some are not...
Don't pigeon hole me as someone that doesn't contribute...



I took a pretty good look at it last time, and replied pointing out the holes in his suggestions (or were they your suggestions and TragicCool is your alt?).

How long would a dummy alliance last? As long as needed....

How many dummy alliances are needed? Eve has 3500 nullsec systems, which is roughly 700 constellations, so 700 alts are needed to fill ALL of nullsec with dummy alliances.... that's easily achievable by large Coalitions, not to mention the number is much less do to NPC space, and the fact they don't own ALL of nullsec.

Why will the NAP fest be any worse than it is now? These are dummy alliances... Goonswarm isn't going to split up it's members evenly into each dummy alliance! They will keep everyone in the Goonswarm Federation, as they are in now. And when they want to conquer something, they bring everyone (and friends) and conquer it. Then setup the TCU with the alt alliance created to control that constellation. These changes alter two things:
A.) They increase the headache for large alliances to officially claim large areas of space.
B.) They reduce JB's to only work within constellations (since an alliance can't control space beyond the constellation).

This does NOT prevent a large coalition from controlling large areas of space, as they can still form up huge groups and go bust up anyone that tries to claim it for themselves. So tell me, what "problems" do Steelzen's Ideas Fix.... because I don't see anything getting "fixed"... I just see arbitrary limits being implemented that make life harder on larger alliances without actually inhibiting them in any meaningful manner whatsoever!

As for lowsec and NPC nullsec: You can't declare Sov there, so how are you supposed to moon mine there?

Ignoring the above line, I'd like to discuss why a large coalition will form up to defend a POS which is owned by some dummy corp/alliance: The members of the parent alliance know it's their own alliances asset not by the ticker on the POS, but because the alliance leaders said, "hey, this is our POS, which helps fund your ship replacement program, defend it." And then they come... Nothing changes here...

As for: They will get weary of defending it: Guess what, they already will get weary of defending it if you're persistent. Case and Point: Agony, a SMALL alliance by EvE standards, has taken lowsec Tech Moons from much, much larger coalitions/alliances by just continually RF'ing the POS and declining all engagements if they come to defend it. After 5 or 6 RF attempts, they stopped coming... and we got the moon... for a week... at which point they destroyed our POS and took it back.

Answer me this: What "Problems" do Steelzen's Ideas Fix??

Restricting area an alliance can claim: a terrible idea.
Restricting moon mining to only corps/alliances with sov in a system: a terrible idea.
Prohibiting sov-holding corps/alliances from mining moons in lowsec: a terrible idea.
Removing linking in local: a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Jettison everyone in jita station: a terrible idea.

Foreword: I rarely leave High / low sec into null.


- Steelzen

Why is this not part of the game already? If my research is right then a corporation can have a max of 6301 members ( max skills )Simply assign a number to every system based on the number of stations / outposts / moons / belts and use that to determine how many members a corporation needs to hold sovereignty.

If the system is barren then the number is low but if there is lots of raw materials there then it would take more members to hold it.

i.e. ( rough idea only )
Planets = .5
Moons = 1
Belts = 2
Stations = 2 - 5 ( based on services? )

So a system with 3 stations, 6 planets, 3 moons and 10 belts would be a minimum of a ~35 member corporation to be able to hold sovereignty in that system.

The Branch region has 41 stations, based on that alone a single corp would need more than 200 members to hold it all.


Don't ask me what the numbers should be, I don't know. In my head a single corporation should not be able to hold more than 50% more than they can control.

This would give smaller corporations a chance while making sure that the larger ones can't take over a large area without the members to back it up.

- details -
If you lose members then you lose sovereignty on the smallest system first.
Yes, you can have 3 members on one account in one corporation, but you can't field all 3 at the same time.
Alliances should not hold sovereignty themselves, leave that to the corps.

I put forward my "half-baked" ideas hoping that someone with work with them, not discard them.

It's a question of optics, I can only see null sec for my point of view, its not wrong just different.