EVE General Discussion

I am not sure if this thread merits staying open or if it has run its course. Despite needing some cleaning in the last few pages, the majority of the discussion seems to be relatively civil and on-point.

I will say this; keep the discussion away from attacking/insulting individuals or their corps/alliances and we'll be fine.

well. sov needs some meaning for people. put your name on map and forget about whole region - it's not good anyway.

and hauling is not so "super fun" when you do it already for POSes you use. Settle every system you own with citizens and send them supply TCU by fuel. Then SOV will live and no craploads of hauling is needed.

However if you own huge region and there is no one to live there (and supply TCUs) - then you don't need this region anyway.

1. You are missing my point. (and you forget to add mandatory "WOOHAAATEEEAAARRRRSSS" btw).
It's great what you offer to new players (don't use word "you" please because i'm not new). But....
The whole point of Eve Adverts is: person can do something, he can become someone. And what can do your "new players" in 0.0 now? Sit in belts/anomalies? Zerg in CTAs removing all non-blue colors from map? This is a "message" which current 0.0 sends to new players - "sit in a belt, obey to your master, you are noone here".

2. And now we have second part of a question: where did you get number "70%"? Why not 65? Why not 75?
It's not trolling (i really try to evade it). However you ask for changes so you HAVE TO KNOW what are you asking for. And request: "make it less, like 70% or about, i don't care" is not good start for any changes.

3. Well. I can agree about rewards part. However having better minerals in 0.0, jump bridges and player controllable taxes is a good start for industry.
On the other hand why you ignore "risk" part of equation risk/reward? Risk part is completely controlled by players (NPC doesn't attack POSes, SOV and outposts. It's barely can destroy player ships). So you are not right in "we are not game designers, it's their job to balance risk/reward". It's up to players to make is safer than even in high-sec.

I think he is saying that if you put up a TCU in a system you should not have to fuel the towers.

1. Those adverts can still be made true with a couple of gameplay mechanical changes. The very same changes that I still want to see in EVE: elimination of instant information - the one change that would solve so many issues in one fell swoop. And this would force the 0.0 dwellers to put a lot more effort in telling new players what they can and cannot do. I'd so love to see the biggest alliances attempt at constantly surveying every system that they hold without instant information local and instant information d-scan.

2. Frankly industry should be put on the back-seat as it is still tied to the instant information paradox. Yes, whilst industry in high-sec is more beneficial, the first step should be looking at resource distribution before production. Assuming that you end up getting more traffic to low/null it would automatically mean that you would end up having more action going on. More action equals more fireworks. More fireworks equal more business for industry. More business equals first come first served.

But again, eliminate instant information and you will hopefully end up with more miners at least probing out low/null systems - whether they are invited there or not.

3. Risk/reward ratio is completely out of whack and it is the risk side, not the reward side that is completely flawed so I cannot really agree with you fully here. Once again, instant information is the culprit. Any industrialist that is not under the protection of a major alliance would be quite stupid if he tried to go and mine in null today regardless of the reward that could be reaped there. Everyone sees and knows that there are players that are locked out of 0.0 unless they join some master yet everyone refuses to see HOW they are locked out.

Jump bridges/cyno and so on also hampers EVE. Yes, whilst it is a comfortable tool for everyone including industrialists, it is also a part of the reason as to why there is less action than it should be as it eliminates a vital risk factor that should be growing together with corp/alliance sizes. It is also a reason for why these groups can hold that much more space than they actually should.

So the problem is that the government is turning badly run companies into pseudo government organization and then naturally enough these companies are getting worse.

you almost got it. You already fuel POSes. Fueling one additional structure (TCU) should no be so difficult.

Warning: Long post and no TLDR.

I had been in null sec for a long while, and I have witnessed massive amounts of iskies made in null sec. The position that null sec needs more buff is ridiculous, yes, it is dangerous and easily disrupted but you still make crapload of iskies than you can ever make in low or empire sec. Even if you're just a low rank pleb, you can make crazy isk not to mention those in the upper echelons. If you can't there are two reasons: you don't care for isk, and all you want is to kill ****. and/or you have no clue to make iskies.

Nerfing hi-sec as proposed by some is quite literally a game killer. The stand you make is that these people are making sick money in empire, you also claim that risk/reward is much too high. But where is the evidence? L4? nerfed! Incursion? nerfed! Mining.. crap.

Let's say these might be true as you claim it to be. What you don't realize is the fact that MOTIVATION is the real reason behind so many empire dwellers remain where they are. If they don't wish to go to null-sec, you can't decrease their already rather rubbish rewards and hope that this will somehow make them interested in joining your alliance. This will cause a major upset as their values and motivations are not aligned to null sec living. Hell, you can even open a conduit like some alliances back in the day tried (and FAILED) they still didn't go. Their is no motivation, their is no will to head there. The 71% argument does make sense, hi sec empires dwellers are the lifeblood of eve, if the stats are reversed then there is indeed something wrong. Even if you take an RP view, shouldn't long established empires be MORE POPULATED than fledgling empires?

Null sec alliances are run like Mexican druglords area, rather than establishing links to empire, each has their own agenda to push. some are motivated to pvp consistently, others driven by moon goo and so on. These territories are guarded with extreme prejudice to anyone who is not blue. Entry is not as simple as it seems and there are probably lots of stories when empire dwellers have tried and got scammed shot killed. So again, where is the precedent undertaken by null sec empires apart from filling up the coffers of some guy at the top. The distribution of wealth is definitely like an MLM scheme though you can still make iskies. There has to be more offered by Null sec to make them to move.

What you propose will also cause different effects on empire dwelling. One, less iskies for them means less iskies for you. They don't have the moneh to buy your 4 billion implants or your perfectly priced pirate ships etc. Two, the economy is already inflated not just plexes, but everything in EVE is much more expensive than they were circa 2006-2011, nerfing income will make players who are dependent on PLEXes quit as they are unable to match the needed isk. Three, risk adverse players (believe me there are plenty) will most likely quit if the null sec agenda, calling unfairness.

Coming from ex-null sec dweller, I care not what your arguments are about risk/reward in null because it's rubbish. I do however care when null sec people are of the mind that people should indeed flock to get higher reward THROUGH nerfing income in empire. What I see in null sec dwelling is the same old same old, it gets boring and extremely time consuming (36 hrs CTA or get kicked out, FC screaming etc). The ball actually lies in the null sec alliance leaders and CCP on how to upgrade the dynamics of interaction between null and empire. It cannot survive on just pvp-ing alone and establishment of territory without interaction of the majority. The game mechanics should therefore allow this to happen. The question is HOW.

Sorry to just pick out one point rather than dealing with all of them but there were a few things here i wanted to comment on.

First it can't be true that "Risk/reward ratio is completely out of whack and it is the risk side, not the reward side that is completely flawed", they are paired.

Anything, however risky, can be made an attractive proposition, take the lottery, the odds of winning in the UK are 1 in 14 million, so unbelievably improbable, but a prize of 7 million pounds and an entry fee of a pound is enough to make people play the game.

This leads into your idea that "Any industrialist that is not under the protection of a major alliance would be quite stupid if he tried to go and mine in null today regardless of the reward that could be reaped there";

this is not true, if in a 20 mill retriever you could make 5 billion an hour then it's worth ninjering in, even if you only get a load out once every 20 trips it's still worth the risk.

I know this is an absurd example and I hope it get's my point across.


Secondly this idea that everyone is "locked out of 0.0 unless they join some master" is, I think, quite a pernicious form of slander against the null empires (which is fine, slander is one of the best things about the internet).

I see my null corp as my buddies, they help me much more than hindering me and ask for basically nothing. They give me free ships to fly in PVP, much better than I would fly for myself. They're kind and thoughtful, if I have a problem they leap to help me out.

We're in an alliance and I had a chat with the leader the other day, he seems like a nice bloke, I could ask directly for whatever I want and he's willing to help. he even offered personally to come out and help me develop some FC skills.

So I know this is only my experience, maybe the rest of null is full of people crying after getting shouted at and bullied, but then why would they play that game?

To me it's fun and social and meaningful. I wouldn't play if it wasn't. It's not like you're saying it is, and maybe try it out, there are a lot of good people out in Null.

IMO the people in Null are kinder and more loyal than those in HighSec because in Null you need friends, in HighSec you can scam everyone you see for life.

The "All 0.0 alliance members are mindless slaves groaning under the yoke of their masters" meme is more to do with sour-grapes self-justifcation from people who never made it in 0.0*. You see, they regard being asked to contribute any effort towards the success of the group as an unjust obligation, because they're used to the hi-sec philosophy where you don't have to do a damb thing to get the candy. So they join an alliance where the exisiting members have put in the effort to get things working and make their space at least somewhat productive, and they assume that the benefits like anoms, moons, jump bridges, outposts, etc just happen - just like they do in hi-sec.

Then they're surprised and offended when the seasons turn and they're expected to put in some effort in their turn. What the hell? What's this? I'm not your servant! Go to hell, you tyrant. And so, like a sulky teenager, they storm off back tot he safety of hisec, never realising how little they've actually been asked to do for the benefits they're receiving. They simply have no conception of the team play mindset that's required to survive and thrive in 0.0.

(*And ex-IRC members for whom it was quite true.)