EVE General Discussion

So instead of fixing your post into a readable format and participating in a coherent discussion you decide to have a mini-meltdown on the forums. Thank you for that this was very enjoyable.

E: I should note all of us who live in nullsec already know you aren't in a sov nullsec corp and have no idea what you are talking about.

Bored and fed up Nullsec players derping Highsec may just be the kick up the bum CCP needs to sort out Null, and Low for that matter.

A Nullsec themed expansion has the potential to bring a lot of stuff to the table, and some of it will impact everybody, hopefully in terms of things like modular POS and decent industry potential that's not in Highsec.

I don't know.

Maybe if they made Null more fun, they'd spend more time playing the game rather than spending time of the forums whining and complaing about how Hi-Sec touched them in the no-no's.

"Waaah, I haven't taken advantage of any of the many changes to highsec in the past several expansions, how DARE those nullseccers demand any sort of focus for their part of the game at all!"

Highsec works fine, plenty of industrial slots (perhaps too many tbh), minimal risk and a decent income from PvE.

Nullsec doesn't work, they have godawful clunky ownership mechanics, next to no industrial slots when compared to highsec, they can't upgrade systems in the ways that they wish to, they import most of their materials from highsec because it's just easier than trying to produce them via industry. That's probably the reasons that most nullsec players spend time on highsec alts when there's no pewpew.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2508056#post2508056

This quote was attributed to CCP Greyscale, although I can't find the primary source. Regardless, it's rather applicable.

In my opinion, the large alliances are in their current situation because they have chosen the most effective options to the best of their ability. However, the most effective options are tedious, requiring conquering and holding large tracts of Sov space. Then, to protect their holdings and keep their players entertained they are forced into continual conflict, and when they win they end up holding even more space. Possibly more than they really wish they had, but can't just hand it away or look weak. RL History contains a lot of RL empires falling into the same situation.

The current dissatisfaction is partly because the "best" options are tedious, but also partly because large alliances have chosen, fully aware of the mechanics, to spread out as much as they have.

Also, winning any game often involves doing a lot of boring tedious stuff. It's easy to get folks to sign up for the fun stuff. Those with the drive to do the boring micro-management and socialisation that others don't get an edge, and end up winning. Changing Sov grind might make it a bit better, but won't change the trend that winning means doing tedious stuff.

I agree that Sov should be made more enjoyable, and more worth holding. I disagree that conquest should take less effort.

Large alliances enjoy economies of scale. Countering this is the difficulty of organising ever-more complex efforts to defend and develop your holdings if you expand. Making this easier will make major alliances, like BoB before the current set, even more dominant. I do not think raising the bar for aspiring independent null-sec corporations is a good thing.

My suggestion for CCP is to encourage out-numbered opponents to get out and fight by giving them something worthwhile to do. Currently it's either destroy ships or grind structures, neither of which are going to actually effect the outcome of Sov warfare for the out-numbered side, unless they have the will to fight and constantly lose ships for a long time.

Give them some means to hurt their enemy in another system and slow them down. Being able to interdict Jumpgates (with timer and numbers required) is one option. It may not stop a fleet jumping around, but will make their logistics more complex.

Tech Moon interdiction is another option. Or modify null-sec local like others have suggested and have the defender's intel dependent on structures that can be damaged/interfered with. Give the outnumbered defender something to do that will have some effect, however small, on the large attacker.

Another option is making ratting/mining ops more valuable to maintaining profitable holdings. My understanding is that currently ratting/mining income is important to a player, but that having mining ships blown up doesn't slow a major alliance much. You could change things so that losing mining/industrial ships in a system hurts productivity, and buff null-sec industry to compensate.

I agree making sov grinding easier won't solve the problem. They should make it fun and beneficial to hold/take sov. It would create an incentive for fighting over space and holding space.

Ratting space would be worth something if it was as effortless as highsec mission running while being more profitable. I don't see that happening but I also don't see why CCP can't give us a little run down of their plans and time line to fix long known nullsec problems.

People seem to hold space just fine as things are.

Definitely should be more fighting and taking of space, though.

We were told null anoms were buff, they did ! -they added more ships but less value. In the end, grinding lvl4's still better.
Now I will not fall in to the conclusion lvl4's are far too good but will certainly say null anoms revamp was badly done and a pure waste of dev time, then changed rats AI and again, null little grunts got the but hole raped with fake hopes. Since then most returned grind lvl4's in high sec.
This is how bad things work when players base feedback is worth of nothing.