EVE General Discussion

Black Ops, Hot Drops, Roaming gangs, gate camps, drag bubbles ...

I'm not complaining about them, but you asked.

Consider what CCP put Nulsec into the game for

"an area of space where capsuleers (the players) can build thier own empires"


At any point have CCP said that doing the above should be easy, cheap or low-risk ??
where CCP have failed in delivering that objective, is by restricting the players ability to achieve it.




If CCP allowed multiple outposts per system, most nulsec areas would then have the potential to easily equal hisec for industry and research, but you would have to work for it.

But if all you want is for it be handed to you, gift-wrapped, on a silver platter CCP need do nothing, as you can easily and quickly just move to hisec where you need make no effort to engage in mostly unresricted industrial activities.

There is one thing I can't understand in null sec sov. Alliances can have their space, but this space is actually FFA... everybody can travel trough like a boss. So what's the point to have a very expensive pole with you alliance name on it if anybody can travel through your space anytime they want with little to no risk?!

I think it should be implemented a castle system in null sec where the alliance holding the sov can control the gates and let in only their allies. So if you wanna enter in that space, you may have to hack/assault the gate, like the walls nor gate of a real castle. This way those inside the sov space can feel home and somehow secure, including the indy guys. As it is now, null sec sucks and no wonder that the majority prefer to stay in high or low sec. Just sayin...

It's up to the people holding Sov to protect and control their systems. If they can't/choose not to, I don't think CCP should hold their hands.

CONCORD won't save me. That's our risk and its quite a big risk. It's such a big risk it keeps people in highsec. It also isn't a risk that is properly rewarded. The "blue doughnut" myth you are trying to perpetuate here is blatantly false, it's hilarious that so many people use it as an excuse to cover up their own inadequacies.

I, for one, am pretty excited to see this discussion being undertaken. If this thread survives derailment, something positive may actually come from it. (But I've got to say, the flabbergasted responses over the question being asked at all have certainly put a smile on my face this morning. lol) Seriously though, after reading so many topics devoted to the best way to nerf highsec so null can be balanced and EVE saved from certain doom, asking the question of "should" null industry be balanced with highsec is, from my perspective, pretty encouraging.

Regardless of what it does for my "forum reputation" (if there is such a thing I need a forum alt) my general feelings toward the OP's question, is that I'd fall on the side of a "No" response. I think each sec should have unique offerings and that the profit (and more importantly, adventure) potential should scale greater moving toward null obviously. (Which it does.) But do I think null should have an equal number of industry slots as high? Do I think the game should be adjusted so that a fraction of the total characters can be "competitive" with the economic might of the majority? Or should null be able to "provide everything it needs?" Absolutely not. Trade with high sec is (and should be) required as all secs and thus, all players are co-dependent on one another. The most important element affecting the quality of pgc is player interaction. I accept that things need adjustment over time but I'll never be sold on the idea that leaving highsec behind and any chance of interaction with the vast majority of characters ever again - in a sandbox mmo - is a good thing for pgc.

But I also thought Hulkageddon was a good thing for pgc.

Part of the new player experience (trying to prov Mal correct here - think of the NOOOOBS) is finding themselves in this vibrant universe that is alive and well-populated. (I generate new reasons why I disagree with null independence before breakfast on any given day.) Today's reason will be: Were so many players allowed, or encouraged even, to leave highsec and never come back, the vibrancy of that first impression is going to take a hit. High-sec pgc then also takes a hit and with it the new player experience takes a hit. Is any of that also good for the game? Is it worth it? I suspect those are questions only CCP's internal metrics can answer and which they must continually debate.

Imo, success should not be defined as emancipation from the rest of the game when the game's quality is determined by player interaction.

But. That's just me.

Yonis Kador

Oh, and P.S.



No.

In what worldly language is he in any way suggesting that? You asked Really? What RISK do you have in Nullsec that Highseccers don't have?[/quote]

He answered. They don't make it impossible at all, just more risky.

The reward for SOV goes to the alliance. In w-space, the reward of holding a system goes to the corp and individuals that make it up.

…and no-one is asking for it to be easy, cheap, or low-risk — just that the difficulty, expense and risk should be accompanied by commensurate rewards.

Actually, it wouldn't. Outposts are still so hideously unable to even begin to come close to the capabilities of even a single station that you'd run out of planets long before you got something that even remotely resembled a highsec system.

I suppose I'll have to post my standard improvement requirement list in this thread too…

1. One outpost per system probably has to remain for sov reasons (sov needs a revamp, but let's break one thing at a time).
2. Every outpost type gets 50 each of every industry slot type. Industry-specific outposts get twice that (up from a best-case scenario of 10 of one type).
3. Every outpost type gets 20 offices; Gallente outposts get twice that (up from 4–8 / 24).
4. Every outpost type gets a 30% refinery; a 50% refinery is a single basic upgrade.
5. Basic industry upgrades add 50 each of every slot type (up from 5 of a specific type); Intermediate upgrades add 100 (up from 7); Advanced upgrades add 150 (up from 9). Time bonuses could probably remain the same.

…and that's just to make a null system provide the same capacity as a highsec system — note how most of those buffs can be measured in orders of magnitude(!) We haven't even begin to touch the things that need to happen to compensate for the difficulty, expense and risk.

"what is the reward in being in SOV 0.0?" That part is subjective, I would personally say control. Yet there isn't enough of a competitive advantage so that control isn't really useful. It's also one of the reasons people don't fight as often as the forum howls for. If there is no advantage to be taken from someone else why fight them?


"What makes you to be in SOV 0.0 instead of low-sec/NPC 0.0/WH?" I think you are trying to say "What makes you want to be in SOV 0.0 instead of being in lowsec/NPC 0.0/WH" if that's not the case correct me.

I am not in SOV 0.0 unless there is a fleet op, most of my time is spent awoxing people in highsec. We might have control of our area of space but, control of nothing is still nothing. Nullsec needs some substance to attract people like myself back to full-time living there. There needs to be an industrial backbone and the "farms and fields" concept needs to be fleshed out so there will be more things to do as well as fights to be had.