Jita Park Speakers Corner

The supercap core idea is a good example of Malcanis' Law in action. I'm a bit disappointed in Trebor for not seeing the obvious flaw.

As a director of a corporation, I can assure that I am being approached on regular basis by people who want to do something using POSes, be it production, research, or simply a place to store their ships and ammo. We try to satisfy most of their needs, but I must confess that too often initial plans were seriously restrained or canceled either for security reasons, or because of a poor features implementation (for example, I want to be able to grant access to the labs for anyone for a fee, or I want to grant access to corp hangars to the third parties for cargo delievery).

It means there is a good demand for this feature. If CCP wants some unbiassed statistics how much starbases impact EVE universe, they could analyse chat logs and compare the frequency of using the word "POS" to the word "frigate" for example.

From the point of view of CCP business, they have already spent a lot of money implementing starbases. If there is demand, but POSes are still underused - there are two ways. Either consider those money wasted. Or invest some more to get the feature working and pay for itself, attracting customers.

P.S.: I know starbases are not only nullsec-related issue, but as long as there is no separate thread for them, I suppose this is an appropreate place for such discussion.

How about if we leave lo-sec incursions for lo-sec folk. 0.0 is dependent enough on other space without making one of the very few 0.0 specific industries even more shackled to empire.

First off, I’d like to say that I began writing this about two weeks ago, before reading the CSM summit minutes, but was sidetracked with various stuff. I was happy to see some of my own ideas being brought up in the meetings as if they were coming out of my own mouth, particularly Elise’s comments on p36-37

I think most agree that null really can’t be “fixed” without some implementation of bottom up income and farms and fields concepts. An alliance's top priorities should be it's own space and it's own members; what goes on 5 regions away should be somewhere down the list. I think two ways to help would be cramming more pve into each upgraded system, and increasing the sov cost of unused systems.



Putting the numbers of bears that I'm thinking about into a single system would require sov upgrades to allow more, not necessarily better, anomalies and grav sites to spawn; give these upgraded systems many more ports, hubs, havens and sanctums for ratters, and more of each grav site that it’s index and system security supports. I also think the required time/effort for maintaining a military index should be brought more in line with what goes into an industry index.

I imagine everyone who reads this could come up with a different number for how many bears per system would be best. I'll just say I think it should be enough people to increase the chances of a roaming gang catching an idiot, but small enough that the gang can actually kill him before being smothered by locals trying to help save the idiot. Having more residents in system also increases chances of an actual fight, since everyone is already in system, and the bears have nothing better to do. Many small scale conflict drivers have been discussed elsewhere that could help with this, I don’t feel the need to rehash them. Before you reply "but bears are already hard enough to catch and kill, this will only make it harder", I only have one question: are you looking for ganks or are you looking for fights? Ganks are fine and fun, but eve needs more fights not more ganks.



Why do those large alliances own all that space that they're not using? Partly for buffer and intel purposes, but mostly because nobody has given them a real reason to not own it. I am suggesting that systems with high military and/or industry indexes keep their current sov costs, but those costs go up exponentially as the indexes drop, to the point that paying the bill for a system with level one or zero index makes you actually cry. Of course, this would be crushing on smaller, newer alliances entering null; so it would have to scale up with the total number of systems owned, or some other metric that can’t be tricked. As an added benefit for using systems, perhaps make systems with military and/or industry indexes to five SBU immune, and systems with both indexes at zero not require SBUs to attack sov structures?

This would shake up every coalition in the game, as every alliance shrinks in terms of space and has other groups move in to fill the gaps. Certainly larger alliances and coalitions would try to bring these newcomers into blue standings, or crush them into space dust; isn’t that the whole point? Larger numbers of smaller groups are much harder to control or keep happy; we would all wind up with more hostiles living close by, camping and roaming each other more often since we're not 40 jumps apart. If the upstarts don’t try to take sov, ninja ratters are fun to shoot at too. This would make the game feel larger again, because why would you fly 40+ jumps, when there is plenty of content right there at your front door with the neighbors?

I will say that while I believe this will allow newer, smaller groups to try getting a foothold in null, they will still have much to overcome. Large groups will still drop a hundred dreads and supers on you, if you are not wanted in their neighborhood.



Alliances would also have to make decisions on what systems to take, keep or drop; everyone wants more space, but don’t bite off more than you can chew. This is a major contrast to the current alliance norm of just taking entire regions because they are there.

This would also allow structure-grind-free sov warfare. If you roam and camp your enemy to the point that the members and in turn corps/alliance are not making income, and the indexes drop, sov costs go up, your target alliance will eventually get to the point that they can’t pay the sov bills.

These changes would create a clearer alliance identity, with stronger bonds. To me null sec is supposed to be where you plant your flag, tell everyone “this is who we are, where we are, and what we do. you don’t like that? come show us how much you don’t like it”


--edit--
In case it hasn't been said enough, in every subforum, roll out the new POS system. Even if it takes 2 years, it effects a large majority of players in low, null and WH space. I really can't comment on what percentage of hi sec players it effects.

MAKE MODULAR POSes HAPPEN

Here's an idea to address the null sec industry question.

Right now, null sec has an abundance of high end minerals and a relative lack of low end ones. This is true in every system of null sec. The question becomes, "Why is null sec so uniform?"

What if ores/minerals were set up more like settlers of Catan (wood, sheep, bricks, and coal)? With vast stores of only (or perhaps mostly) low end minerals in one Region/Constellation and precious caches of only high end (or only mid level) minerals in neighboring ones, certain border-systems with access to more than one resource would become highly desirable nuclei (read: points of contention) for null industry.

This would leave swaths of "less desirable" veld-fields for the "smaller/newer alliances" while also adding to the diversity of the local "terrain": simultaneously providing bastions for those just look looking for a home (the less diverse areas) as well as centers of trade, and reasons for conflict, for those looking to build an empire (the hubs with nearby-access to all ore types).

My thoughts on the Null Sec problem.

I just got done reading the CSM minutes in regards to 0.0 and all of the solutions mentioned in that meeting wouldn’t do much to address the current problem as I see it.
The problem is there is no incentive to be a small alliance. The rewards are to great for coalitions to exist. More pilots/Alliances in a group the better it is. More people = larger fleets, Larger Fleets = I win button. I Started playing eve in 2006, I quickly joined a small alliance and we successfully held a region of space for almost 3 years with a Capital fleet of maybe 30 pilots. Our alliance had maybe 400 Pilots in it. Of that maybe 100 would show up to a CTA. Out of that maybe 30 where regular pvpers. For the most part we Did small gang engagements and gate camps.
The problem is an alliance like that just couldn’t exist now a days. A prime example is, For awhile I was a member of a small alliance that held 4 systems in geminate A few years ago. And by small I mean small. We did OK for a few months until Red Alliance, Or was it Solar fleet... I cant recall... caught wind of us. They came in with 200 man capital ship fleets and no less then 5 titans to take us out. We had maybe 25 active pilots. Needless to say we where crushed.
There needs to be some sort of force multiplier/Equalizer employed to make an alliance like this have a hope. Maybe penalties imposed on the larger fleet in system. Or bonuses for the smaller alliance. I’m not sure how this would work but its an idea.

I Think maybe instituting penalties on the Sov space of alliance based on the number of people they have with positive standings would be an interesting mechanic to implement, And along with that bonuses to the sov space of people with less positive standings. I know this might be hard to enforce but it could be something to look into. The number one thing we need to do is get rid of passive income all together. Its kinda hard to Battle the CFC when they have enough isk built up from Technetium mining that we could destroy a 200 man cap fleet of theirs each day for months and not even make them blink. I Think Ring mining is a step in the right direction. The one problem with that being is CFC and the other major alliances are so entrenched and have enough isk reserves that even if you where to implement the changes today it would be months before there could be a change. But as I said its a start.
I liked that there was talk of rewarding small gang warfare but a lot of the talk along those lines really just looked like ways to grief ratters, and hurt the rank and file members of alliances isk generation.
This is a major problem for smaller alliances. Most of the smaller alliances don’t have Ship replacement programs and when there are constant harassment tactics employed by the major alliances and coalitions on a regular basis those alliances don’t stand a chance. They cant afford to stay in ships. A prime example of this is the tactics being employed by RZR and CFC against IRC. Most IRC pilots can barely afford drakes let alone Maelstroms. And goons are coming in with 70-100 man Tengu and Munin gangs.
Sure this is a sandbox but there needs to be some kind of Balancing mechanic implemented.

The other huge problem is SuperCaps. Small alliances cant really compete because unless you have multiple super caps you are boned. Plain and simple. SuperCaps are so overpowered its ridiculous. And the barrier to entry is to large for small alliances to surmount unless they become someones Pet, And this just perpetuates the large coalition problem. The genie is out of the bottle on SuperCaps so I don’t know how to fix it short of just removing all of them from the game and I don’t see that happening.
Maybe make T2 Carriers or something that have special abilities to combat and or stand up against Supers but have them not cost as much? Make the barrier of entry lower so a small alliance with 2 year old or younger pilots can even stand a chance...
The other problem as I see it is 0.0 is to small. One of the joys of eve when I first started was it was so big. There where regions of 0.0 where no one lived. I remember when most of the drone regions laid unclaimed. Maybe doubling or even quadrupling 0.0 space would help with this. It would add new frontiers for colonization and open up more space for people to occupy.
I have more idea's but this is what I am going to put down for now as its 4am and I've been awake for over 24 hours at this point and I'm not even sure I'm making any sense in this post already.

-Wes-

A big part of the problem with null industry is that sov holding alliances have zero reason to have YOU, their own member, doing anything related to industry. Your carebearing in their space only makes them look bad, provides targets for hostiles, and brings no real benefit to the alliance. As far as most alliance leaders are concerned, if an activity doesn't directly support taking or defending moons, forget about it, "you should find another way to make income, try incursions" <-- a direct quote

This results in zero alliance level decisions, of what space to take or hold, being related to what it's members want. The tinfoil hat wearer in me wonders if its all just a social experiment on CCPs part, to see how long people will put up with living under their alliance tyrant.

TL/DR alliance leaders have zero interest in the "quality" of space that they hold, they only want more and better moons which they can more easily skim from

STILL ranting about modular POS's erraahhgggbbblllaaahhhhggggeeer!!!!

On a separate note, i think one of the reasons null isnt so... tingly (mystery) is that the vastness/loneliness has gone. I know that most of the time theres a blue no more than 4-5 jumps away, normally less and i can get from one side of a region to the other in just a few jumps.
One idea i had was to add barren systems, constellations where you cant hold sov, maybe even large tracks of it. Places where you dont have to worry about JB and the big grind... something in between null space and WH space. Where the little guy can put up a new modular pos (AAHHAGR) and work from without getting bothered too much...

corrected part of that for you

hey can you guys leave your 'nullsec doesn't have enough disincentives" ideas with the CSM 5 team kthx?