Jita Park Speakers Corner

Very nice

Oh and also will point out super afk moon mining needs to die in a horrible accident. Top down financing is stupid as is income like that. Make it active and make it cover all 0.0 and below areas so there is no bottle neck besides player activity levels.

I would like to ask you read text carefully. (And try to understand irony too if possible)
You have missed the point that I was answering about dr. E. statistic representativeness, not about problem itself.

P.s. to state issue: Tech problem is terrible and still occur. Static income and moonmining as part of it is bad. Best simple solution I've seen for it is moon migration. Best l9ng term solution - ring mining.

One big advantage of WH space is our income and "sov" comes from doing stuff. To get money / resources, we actively blow stuff up or mine. To keep our space, we have to turn up and fight off invaders. Admittedly, we have some advantages re Sov, as it's very difficult to move assets into a hostile wormhole without some serious effort.

FW has a different take on it. You add an abstract "score", but upping (or lowering) the "score" still requires activity. It's not as emergent a mechanism as WHs, but at least it rewards activity.

While null is a bit different, similar principles should apply. Acquiring resources needs to involve getting out there and harvesting, with the associated vulnerabilities. My impression (which might be mistaken) is that this is true for personal income (ratting, mining) but not for corp level income (moon goo, etc).


However, I think care needs to be taken on "destructible living assets". Timer shoots are horrible, but at least they ensure that taking down a major base is a major operation, and you can't go to be one night all safe and sound and wake up the following morning to discover that someone has destroyed your entire world. Someone who can only play 2 hours a night should still be able to live out of their own "home" in low or null sec.

As such, I think player-owned living space needs to be vulnerable to casual interdiction, but not casual destruction. I'd rather see structures removed by preventing them from being maintained, rather than simple bringing in enough cap-ships to blow them up twice. I don't simply mean smuggling in a shipment of fuel once every couple of weeks, but actively undocking your ship and doing stuff (the nature of this stuff is obviously critical). Similarly, the attackers should be able to hurry the process along by not just preventing you doing stuff, but actively doing stuff against you, albeit at a less economical rate (eg if you and the attackers are undisturbed, it might require three of them to undo the effect of one of you). I suspect the "stuff" will end up looking fairly similar to PvE missions or FW 'plexes, but others may have better ideas.

ctrl-f indicated that issler dainze is mostly useless, again

Issler

POS's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Your wrong if you think changing POS's will only effect a small group. POS owners are a small group because of the POS's themselves, change the POS and more people will use them!
ATM a POS is restrictive, irritating, and a hassle. Give people a modular POS that they can fit to their own needs and more people will use them.

I loved the idea of making my own secret hideaway, maybe with a few guns, a small shield and a maintenance style hanger. Cheep and simple that i could work on and improve.

If an alliance wants a huge POS that mines a moon, has a JB, can hold a few titans, and has some mega deathray, so be it. Thats what it feels like now. But make something for the little guy, the small corp or the individual, and you will have a huge asset to the game.

Wondering since you have different groups working on ships and game add......
Talks of adding new stuff to supers and maybe changing roles, why are we not looking at adding more they can do because you risking lot of iskes... because of this do you think by adding more they can do your risking loseing because of it's cool roles...

only thing titans are this point are used for quick doomsday's which gives you 30 sec grab to kill...
supers are very hard at this point to grab unless pilot error.....

at this point of the topic, dose anyone think by adding more role could cause more use vs risk of dead super...

Could not agree more. Modular scalable POS was something I was so looking forward to. I'm a solo player (call me "lurker" if you want) due to rl situation; but I roam w-space (and sometimes lowsec, and null) with my orca alt. I use an orca because it's the closest to a "secret hideaway" we have; current POSes are a PITA and instantly visible to anyone. Give me a decent scalable modular POS and I'll be toting a diddy one round with me all the time. Just iterate on what we already have and I'll sigh and wait for the next expansion with slowly increasing boredom and frustration.

As to all the discussion around null sov, everyone already knows what we need: bottom-up income and an activity-based sov system. These two changes would totally change the power structures in null, making alliances reliant on their members and opening up space for smaller corps with ambition. Can CCP just stfu and get on with delivering it already?

Z3

about boring sov warfare in nullsec and empty space:

iam sure other people have posted suggestions like this, but i want to post my stuff here too. all numbers are more or less "random"

if i could recreate sov, i would remove all structures and all timers from the game except the TCU.

that TCU would have maybe 10 mio hitpoints, an active shield boost of around 10000 per second and an active armor repair and hull repair big enough to recharge armor and hull within a day or so.

if you find an empty system you place that tcu somewhere and after a very short time that system belongs to you.
hostile fleets can warp to that tcu and kill it without any timers and without sbu or other bullshit. just jump in the system and kill the tcu. maybe with 20 talos or jump a few dreads in and one cycle that tcu. place your own tcu and the system is yours.


and now the interesting part.
after that system belongs to someone, all activity in this system will be recorded as activity from this owner. with raising activity that tcu gets new defense abilitys and resists.
if a system is very activly used by pilots doing stuff in space and the defense is absolutly maxed out, that system should be save.
if you want to take this system you actually have to siege it. make sure people stop ratting mining or what ever.
if the defender stay docked or move to another system the defense of the tcu will go down every day and depending on how strong your force is after a day or a week you can just go to the tcu and kill it.

if the defenders decide to fight over their system, all destroyed ships count towards the owner activity index. (you can use that faction warfare/bounty code to determine the activity by isk destroyed). so as long as the defenders undock and fight and enough isk gets destroyed, that system stays save.
you still want to take that system? you have to make sure that your coalition wins all the fights or at least has the ability to replace lost ship longer then the enemy can. at some point the side who lost most battles cant afford their main fleet doctrin anymore and will come with cheaper ships. cheaper ships will not kill enough and if they get destroyed they dont count so much towards the activity. the tcu defence will go down and at one point you can just go there and kill it.

you want to prepare an assault to a system and move afk cloakies in the system? no problem, carebears have to organize and set up traps. if shiny ships die or a trap springs and the atackers die that will all count towards activity in the system. and defense will go up.

at the other hand no alliance can have empty systems anymore. if a system is empty, every random gang can move to this system, kill the tcu, place your own and set up gate camps and quickly raise activity in this system. if you cant react within a day, you will face a tcu that would require a full cta to kill it. and the defenders would have a advantage if they choose to defend that tcu. if your first atack fail the defense will probably be much higher next time you try it because of all that destroyed ships

to determine when a system has maximum possible defense due to pve or pvp activity, i would use indexes for every possible thing.

iam not good at finding the best mathematically system for this, but something that takes a look at all the other 0.0 systems and compares towards the top systems to determine how many % towards maximum activity is reached.
in a perfect world i would take in account ratting, mining, pos which actualy do something, like moonmining, reactins, labors or producing, you could include dust514 ownership, pvp(destroyed isk) to a small etend PI and all that stuff.


_______________________________________________________________________

i think no matter what kind of structures or timers you create, if one side is much stronger then the other side, there will be no fights.
but as a smaller entity you can just open your map and take a system that is not used right now. no matter how large a coalition is and how many supers they have, if they cant use all their systems and fill them with people who fly in space they cant defend their borders.
and if they can fill 3 regions of space with people, wouldnt that be a roaming pvp paradise?

Yeah. A rare-ish complex with EHP and DPS figures high enough to warrant using supercaps (and not a solo SC, mind you) with a chance of dropping faction/deadspace capital-sized mods (capital RR, XL guns, etc.) would provide some activity to expose supercaps with sufficient risk/reward and not a huge isk faucet. Balancing faction/deadspace capital mods would probably be one hell of a task, but they should be designed to drop rarely enough that they won't become the defacto standard on all supercarriers and titans.

While I agree with the CSM and CCP that null-sec needs to allow smaller corps to live there I don’t think many of their ideas are going work.

I think small corps can’t live in null-sec because they don’t have the ability to hide. Many of their activities will show up on the world map and it is too easy to patrol when you can use local. Therefore, small corporations are always going to attract the attention of a nearby alliance just by being there.

One possible solution is to increase the difficulty of finding these small corps in the first place

By bringing the fog of war to null-sec and supplying a few tricks (eg. fake bases and moving decoy ships), finding smaller corps could become a cat and mouse game. Alliances would have spread out and use scan probes in multiple systems to find them efficiently. Smaller corps can keep setting up fake trails to keep them away from their main base while picking off the smaller alliance groups.