These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Why does EVE-online need more people in 0.0 or any part of EVE for that matter.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2011-10-20 19:52:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Vertisce Soritenshi
Elise DarkStar wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
My post was to the OP...not any of your tripe that comes after it.

Oh...and uh...yes.


Except the discussion that flows from the OP shows that you are absolutely incorrect, thereby making your post absolutely worthless.


The OP clearly stated a question asking why we need more people in High, Low, Null and WH Space as well as a couple of other questions. My response was that I have never seen anybody say we need more people in High or Low sec. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Seems to me your lack of comprehension of even the most basic things makes you being here rather worthless.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
TC wabbajack
SnM pain distribution network
#42 - 2011-10-20 20:20:28 UTC
Eve needs more players,where and how they choose to play in the sandbox is irrelevent.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#43 - 2011-10-20 20:27:22 UTC
Alaekessa wrote:
Joan Avon wrote:
I've never understood why so much of Null sec is empty and unused. Why take sov in systems you/your members arn't bothering to use/harvest/build up.


Denial of resources for your enemies/rivals?


Greed is Good
Even CCP knows this

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#44 - 2011-10-20 20:28:46 UTC
Astrid Stjerna wrote:
Simetraz wrote:
1. High-sec overpopulated ?, are there people waiting in line ?
2. lowsec empty, why is this a problem.
3. 0.0 Every last bit of 0.0 has SOV on it, how can it be empty, and again why is that a problem.

The number of people in each section is the result.
But what is the inherent reason, why do the players and CCP want to redistribute everyone ?


High-sec isn't overpopulated to the 'waiting in line' point, it's overpopulated in terms of player levels. Jita, for example, is barely playable on low-end computers because there are so many people in-system at any given time. To spread people out a bit will diminish the pull on players' systems.


If they truely cared about this Incarna would never have happened. Or at least not the massive resource hog it was implimented as anyways

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Caulk H0lster
Kazakh Ministry of Wealth Redistribution
#45 - 2011-10-20 21:20:14 UTC
The problem, I think, isn't that CCP needs to "get" people to go to 0.0. The problem lies in the mechanics they have created which dictate how 0.0 works, and invests nearly all the advantage in superpower alliances.

Want to take sov from someone? Go drop some SBUs, wait some hours, then reinforce the ihub or kill the TCU. Know how long this takes with 30 bombers? Or (lol) how many missiles? Neither do I, because I would probably kill myself irl if I was in an alliance that had to do things that way. My alliance? We drop a dozen supers on said ihub or TCU and leave 5 minutes later.

Want to roam with a small gang based out of NPC 0.0? Cool. Enjoy getting hotrdopped by supers/titans. Your small gang is absolutely NO THREAT to them, except maybe your one HIC or dictor which will be immediately doomsday'd.

Most things in 0.0 simply cannot be practically accomplished without supercaps, or huge numbers of people in fleets doing things they really don't enjoy. Nobody likes shooting structures for 5 minutes, let alone getting people to sit there for HOURS grinding structures.

Besides that, what does your average "grunt" pilot get in return for fighting for their 0.0 alliance? Access to 0.0 for ratting/anoms, maybe replacement ships when they are lost in legitimate fleets? Doesn't sound like a lot to me, not to mention getting to enjoy being bored to death shooting a structure for 3 hours with bombers, because maybe you're in a scrubby alliance that doesn't have enough supercaps to reinforce an ihub in under 10 minutes. Doesn't sound very appealing to me.

Even if you're in a "good" alliance that spends more time fighting than shooting structures, you're still gonna have to put up with being blueballed, and you will still have to shoot structures, just hopefully less.

And who reaps the reward when the fight is (hopefully) won? YOUR ALLIANCE DOES! Maybe they're generous and let players manage or own high-end moons (which are the real cash-cow of 0.0), but there are only so many moons, so only a chosen few are going to reap those rewards anyway, and a lot of times the CORPs step in and want their cut too.

So my suggestions would be:

Re-evaluate 0.0 sov mechanics (again), and scale them both to attacker and defender. It's a lot easier to say than to do, but it can be done. Finding a mechanic to somehow scale the hitpoints of structures related to sov would be a good start. Make bringing less people in smaller ships an actual tactical advantage, and take away the advantage of simply throwing supercaps at problems in 0.0.

Re-evaluate 0.0 resources. If you want more people in 0.0, there has to be a reasonable reward to draw them out there. More importantly, it has to be something for the little guy, not some new resource that alliances or corps can just gobble up as their own.

And lastly, BRING BACK SMALL GANG WARFARE! Maybe rolling back the great nano nerf isn't the answer, but without a way for small gangs to make their ships survivable, there won't be much small gang warfare. There are currently a handful of ships (most of which are set to be nerfed), that allow small groups of players to harass or attack a much larger fleet, and have a CHANCE of survival. There NEEDS to be avenues for small gangs to do things like this, without being boxed into tactics that really don't work all that well (recons and bomber fleets). Personally, I saw very little wrong with nano ships that the warp scrambler deactivation of MWD change wouldn't have fixed. Nano ships were challenging and required skill to fly when engaging a larger fleet, and were pretty unforgiving if you made a mistake and got webbed. What nano ships needed were more counters, which the warp scrambler change would have provided in the form of any ship fitting one, but especially Arazus and Lachs.
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#46 - 2011-10-20 21:45:45 UTC
Like nullsec players don't have alts in highsec anyway. And the Goons themselves admit their industry is done in empire.

So why does CCP want 0.0 to grow? Marketing. Sov warfare is what sets EVE apart from other MMOs.

To date I can only think of a single EVE ad or trailer that wasn't OMG HUGE FLEET BATTLES IN NULL and that was the fifteen second teaser where the Nyx plows into the station (suicide gank?). Hey, if there were huge massive fleet battles going on at all hours like they advertised (NOT CAMPS, NOT ROAMS, EFFING FLEET BATTLES) I'd be all up in that.
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#47 - 2011-10-20 21:56:04 UTC
Alistair Cononach wrote:
There is no reason to push anyone anywhere. If you like the safety and PvE of High-Sec, great.

What there IS cause for is a proper balance of Risk vs. Reward.

I would never see a high-sec player should be forced to move to low or null sec.

I WOULD say that the rewards for choosing to live in High-Sec should be lower than those of low and null sec.

Mission all day if you prefer that, don;t interact with anyone if thats your game. I respect that.

Just don't expect your Missions to reward you the same as a player living in 0.0

That would be like a solo player in WoW grinding Boars expecting teh same loot drops as the raiding guilds beating teh enwest content.


I have yet to make the stupid amounts of money in hisec that I hear about people earning all the time in nullsec. That's a happy little farce that is perpetuated ad infinitum. How many faction or officer mods have you had drop in hisec? Yeah, that's what I thought. I had a buddy who would afk mission in nullsec and make 120 million in the same time it would take me to make about 20 million. He'd sit there and giggle about how easy it was. So please gtfo of here with the idea that hisec players make as much as nullsec players.
"If."
A Lunchbox
Elysian Technologies Enclave
Fraternity.
#48 - 2011-10-20 23:43:29 UTC
Simetraz wrote:
1. High-sec overpopulated ?, are there people waiting in line ?
2. lowsec empty, why is this a problem.
3. 0.0 Every last bit of 0.0 has SOV on it, how can it be empty, and again why is that a problem.

The number of people in each section is the result.
But what is the inherent reason, why do the players and CCP want to redistribute everyone ?


1) I actually disagree, I think highsec is fine and has a pretty stable population. Secure space is big enough for everyone (except for in Jita, but that's the nature of trade hubs in any game)

2 and 3) Although many of us would appreciate a population boom to these areas for reasons of pewpew and tears, honestly, the real problem is there's NO REASON TO GO TO EITHER that can justify the risk involved for anyone that enjoys other styles of play. There is no/very little reward for the majority of people that don't want to tickle the balls of some superpower for access to null, and there's not really much value to lowsec real estate.

Why is this a problem for people that aren't interested in pvp is what I believe your real question is, and I think just asking this shows what the problem is - the game is split into three separate games (at least) that don't give a flying **** about eachother while still relying upon eachother for the economy to actually work. If highsec didn't supply vast amounts of low end production and minerals, low and null would be even more screwed and the population (and thus game play styles) would die. If low and null suddenly stopped all pvp activity (it's getting there), there would be noone to sell vast amounts of ships and modules to, and the highsec population would suddenly find it has nothing worthwhile to do and it would die.

I don't know about you, but I rather enjoy playing EVE with other people.
Maxpie
MUSE LLP
#49 - 2011-10-20 23:50:24 UTC
I've lived in null a few times. Each time i came back to highsec out of boredom. Maybe I just fail at Eve, but it seemed I spent most of my time either flying in formation for hours, camping a gate for hours or killing rats for hours. Sometimes there would be some pvp mixed in, but it was rarely anything I would consider a fun, exciting battle (blobs just don't do it for me).

Why more people are 'needed' in 0.0, or anywhere else for that matter, I can't imagine. Some people seem to love camping gates until their eyes fall out, others love .01 isking market orders until they break the right-click button on their mouse. Why try to force one to do the other?

No good deed goes unpunished
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#50 - 2011-10-21 00:10:39 UTC
I don't know why CCP wants more people in 0.0. I know why several people I know want more people to joining their corps/alliances. To make them stronger, and have more people to pew-pew! (More people = potentially more fun) - Sov mechanics are *not* their fault.

I personally like WH's. There is no set route, no "blue lists", no local and you keep what you can reasonably hold. People do band together occasionally into larger groups, but those really are few and far between. No cyno's (system > system), so you fight with what you have. Podding someone out, means they are *OUT* of the fight, until they can find a way back into the WH's...

Hella good fun!

also: my sig! :)

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#51 - 2011-10-21 00:42:43 UTC
Russell Casey wrote:
Like nullsec players don't have alts in highsec anyway. And the Goons themselves admit their industry is done in empire.

So why does CCP want 0.0 to grow? Marketing. Sov warfare is what sets EVE apart from other MMOs.

To date I can only think of a single EVE ad or trailer that wasn't OMG HUGE FLEET BATTLES IN NULL and that was the fifteen second teaser where the Nyx plows into the station (suicide gank?). Hey, if there were huge massive fleet battles going on at all hours like they advertised (NOT CAMPS, NOT ROAMS, EFFING FLEET BATTLES) I'd be all up in that.



lol "I was there" incarna vid

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#52 - 2011-10-21 00:45:06 UTC
Nephilius wrote:
Alistair Cononach wrote:
There is no reason to push anyone anywhere. If you like the safety and PvE of High-Sec, great.

What there IS cause for is a proper balance of Risk vs. Reward.

I would never see a high-sec player should be forced to move to low or null sec.

I WOULD say that the rewards for choosing to live in High-Sec should be lower than those of low and null sec.

Mission all day if you prefer that, don;t interact with anyone if thats your game. I respect that.

Just don't expect your Missions to reward you the same as a player living in 0.0

That would be like a solo player in WoW grinding Boars expecting teh same loot drops as the raiding guilds beating teh enwest content.


I have yet to make the stupid amounts of money in hisec that I hear about people earning all the time in nullsec. That's a happy little farce that is perpetuated ad infinitum. How many faction or officer mods have you had drop in hisec? Yeah, that's what I thought. I had a buddy who would afk mission in nullsec and make 120 million in the same time it would take me to make about 20 million. He'd sit there and giggle about how easy it was. So please gtfo of here with the idea that hisec players make as much as nullsec players.


I said the same thing and was told "ur doin it wrong"
:p

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Rhaegor Stormborn
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2011-10-21 01:08:04 UTC
What we need is for Eve to be hard again, like it was in 2004. Flying a battleship was like flying gold. Eve today is a joke in comparision to the harshness that was Eve when Eve was great. More risk, less reward. Make things matter again CCP. Make losing a Battleship count for something. Please.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#54 - 2011-10-21 01:30:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
Elise DarkStar wrote:
Because Hisec online is not a viable game. Hisec exists because the rest of the game exists. If people aren't transitioning out of hisec, then those other areas will die. When those other areas die, the entire game will follow.

People who are trying to frame this as pushing fodder out for massive nullsec alliances are engaged in a farcically childish narrative. The problem is that CCP as designers and we as a community are failing to provide the proper transitioning environment to get people out of level 4 hubs and hisec belts and into the game the vast majority originally signed on to play.

The incredibly advanced gameplay that is singular to Eve comes with huge barriers to transitioning new people into it. As I've said before, nobody gives a **** about the people who will never under any circumstances venture beyond level 4 missions; the issue is the huge number of players who are finding the transitioning too intimidating or difficult.

The proper way to conceive of this issue is transitions, transitions, and transitions. If this isn't how you're framing the discourse, then you're pissing in the wind.


I dont think the transition is intimidating, it's a game FFS. The problem is the transition isn't fun.

Why isn't transitioning to, and eventually living in, null fun? Well, If I decide to go to null (OHGOD never again) I have a few options.

Option 1- Suck off to a giant alliance, basically become their slave for their **** empire that you couldn't care less about.

Option 2- Become a renter, which is basically option 1 with slighty more freedom.

Option 3- Push the ultra-rich power blocs out of their space. Just kidding that's virtually impossible.

IMO I think this can be fixed by making it EXTREMELY hard to hold vast amounts of space. How the hell can a 2000 man alliance hold 50 some systems (not actually numbers, just using them as an example). They should be able to hold 10 or 20 systems. Hell, I'd argue less than that would be nice.

Also, can we please significantly reduce the ability to project power (spool up times)? Jump Clones **** this up too.


Speaking as someone who has lived in 0.0 for most of his EVE career, I can tell you that you're missing a few options from the 0.0 menu.


Please elaborate. After living in 0.0 I can safely say I would be shocked to find out there are more options.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#55 - 2011-10-21 01:34:43 UTC
Rhaegor Stormborn wrote:
What we need is for Eve to be hard again, like it was in 2004. Flying a battleship was like flying gold. Eve today is a joke in comparision to the harshness that was Eve when Eve was great. More risk, less reward. Make things matter again CCP. Make losing a Battleship count for something. Please.


Or a Titan for that matter

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Raid'En
#56 - 2011-10-21 01:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Raid'En
Joan Avon wrote:
I've never understood why so much of Null sec is empty and unused. Why take sov in systems you/your members arn't bothering to use/harvest/build up.

because they want the system before and the one after, so they also take sov on the one on the middle. not that they care much, but they have not reason NOT to do it.
given a use on every system may help for this, and the ano nerf may have been an issue here.

and why empty space on low/null is an issue ? 'cause it's boring to travel on empty systems. we lose time travelling to do nothing.
some empty space is needed to have security buffer, but when almost all is empty, there's an issue somewhere.
Oswald Patsee
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#57 - 2011-10-21 02:18:14 UTC
Top reasons why 0.0 population has become a big fooking deal:

1. Too many supercaps have made fleet battles out there a stalemate. Goons (and others) are bored and want something to shoot at.

2. Too many people are actually making a decent profit in hisec without having to slave their asses off to Goons (and others).


Top reasons why I (and others) want nothing to do with 0.0:

1. NBSI. I don't want to join your corp, alliance, or rent space.

2. NBSI. I and my exhumer will not be your fooking entertainment.

3. I'm doing just fine on my own. I don't speak Russian, and I don't want to work for you. The game is just fine for me, and it's been fine before Goons part II, BoB, the Red tide, and all of the other alliances and flavors of the month that have tried to change the game to suit them and then went away.

EVE doesn't need to change hisec, EVE needs to break nullsec alliances into a million pieces so guys out there will have something new to fight over.
BIGTEX123
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2011-10-21 03:16:54 UTC
Rhaegor Stormborn wrote:
What we need is for Eve to be hard again, like it was in 2004. Flying a battleship was like flying gold. Eve today is a joke in comparision to the harshness that was Eve when Eve was great. More risk, less reward. Make things matter again CCP. Make losing a Battleship count for something. Please.


^^^
This is exactly what CCP needs to do to increase traffic to low and null sec. The fact an alliance can field 15 titans, dozens of super caps and caps is ridiculous. It all goes back to risk vs reward, make getting sov, caps, and resources in null and lower harder to get hold of and keep but at the same time make the rewards of these viable to get.

Low sec and null sec = High risk, high reward
High sec = low risk low reward
Previous page123