These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Opening up 0.0

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Antony E Stark
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-07-29 12:17:46 UTC
Hello CSM,

I was reading this post (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=245605) and found some of the suggestions rather interesting. Whilst I don't support the idea of Sov claims back and forth there were a few decent suggestions that I'd like to adjust, summarise and put forward;

There has always been a desire to get more people into 0.0 and I think that organically is a good way to do this. Encourage them in gently, let them find their feet before joining a massive alliance (or more small corp/alliance friendly). By allowing people to "drift" into this area of space, I think it will allow and encourage them to want to live there more.

The benefit of this is, that eventually, alliances will have more pilots, more space will be used, more PvP will happen, more production, exploration, etc, etc... You already know how the cycle works. By removing the premise of "OMG! All gates to 0.0 are camped" or "I'll never make it because low sec is camped to hell" we open up the fringes of the area to draw in a bigger part of the player base.

Anyway, here are my proposals for the CSM;

1. New Routes

Proposal: Reduce the number of Low Sec systems between High and 0.0 - or add some new High Sec routes that drop right into 0.0 (Like Providence - I think... Where ever CVA used to hang out).

Reason: I personally believe adding some new direct HS > 0.0 routes is the best option as I don't think it'll be good to squeeze low sec even further. By adding these additional routes we are more likely to see more people venture into 0.0 as it makes it easier to get there and they are less likely to run into camped low sec gates.


2. Multiple Routes

Proposal: For the above 0.0 'Entry Systems' add many star gates branching out to other 0.0 systems to avoid/low the amount of choke points.

Reason: Choke points could just "move 1 jump back". In order to combat this, provide multiple additional routes so people are less likely to run into these - or at least have a viable alternative to venture further in by going around them.


3. More NPC Stations and LS/HS Islands

Proposal: Add some more NPC stations on the verges (in combination to the above route proposals) to allow the players somewhere to settle, trade, buy, repair and sell.

Reason: If we want to encourage people in then they need somewhere to base from, store their goods, etc. Most stations are player owned and locked to an alliance or corp - apart from the NPC 0.0 stations I know. I think we could do with a few more of these, possibly dotted in the occasional low or high sec system in order to prevent massive cap storage and staging grounds. Who's to say the station owners haven't managed to enforce their muscle and up the sec status to 0.4 or 0.5 in this particular system?

I don't think my proposals are too unreasonable and I think they may actually provide some benefit to entice people to come out to 0.0 and get involved in alliances more - failing that, they're at least going to encourage people to live on the verges and create new trade routes, filling with more players and PvP.

There may be some considerations and implications that I haven't thought of, although I'd be interested to hear them and/or any additions or modifications.
Frying Doom
#2 - 2013-07-29 14:03:34 UTC
So saith Iron Man

Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-07-29 18:44:19 UTC
While I understand the concept of Choke Points isn't it the case that there ARE alternate routes, they just take a longer way around? The Min-Maxers take the shortest route and then complain that HED is camped.

Choices, long and safe or short and dangerous.

Start trimming low to make more high and null? No. Where would losing null alliances fall back to? Where would the pirates roam? I have friends who fly in low and I will not advocate removing their gameplay.

As to NPC stations I would be curious, can someone tell me if there is a way to show where all of the npc stations currently are . . . so I can see the distribution before commenting on changing it.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#4 - 2013-07-29 19:17:58 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

As to NPC stations I would be curious, can someone tell me if there is a way to show where all of the npc stations currently are . . . so I can see the distribution before commenting on changing it.

m



They're all in the Static Data Extract, in staStations. Though you'd need to join against mapSolarSystems to get the security levels. And if you want the facilities, that's in staOperationServices.


if you can say what you're wanting breakdown wise, I should be able to pull it fairly easily, if you're not comfortable in SQL or Excel.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Antony E Stark
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-07-29 19:26:34 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
While I understand the concept of Choke Points isn't it the case that there ARE alternate routes, they just take a longer way around? The Min-Maxers take the shortest route and then complain that HED is camped.


I guess there are, but not nearly enough. We're talking about making access to 0.0 more temping and getting more people out there whenever and wherever possible.

Mike Azariah wrote:

Start trimming low to make more high and null? No. Where would losing null alliances fall back to? Where would the pirates roam? I have friends who fly in low and I will not advocate removing their gameplay.


I did mention that cutting LS was probably not a good option in my original post. However granting more routes into 0.0 (and forcing the campers to work more by splitting forces/moving about) is what I think could be achieved.


Mike Azariah wrote:

As to NPC stations I would be curious, can someone tell me if there is a way to show where all of the npc stations currently are . . . so I can see the distribution before commenting on changing it.


Again this is about getting more people into 0.0 and giving them somewhere to have a rest stop. Since many player stations are restricted I think it reduces the chances people will venture into 0.0 because they know there's nowhere to pause.

I don't advocate cutting down LS, but I know part of my suggestion could have an impact - which is why it would need additional thought, and why I asked for more input/thoughts. I don't however see a problem with opening up more LS routes and more initial 0.0 routes forcing LS corps and 0.0 alliances to split their camps guarding the HS entrances, thus giving people a better opportunity (with care and scouting) a better chance of making their first ventures into 0.0.

I don't think it's too unreasonable to have more gates and make the campers shift between them and/or fight over them. That said, they can always move a jump back or into 0.0 to try and catch people on the way out. I understand this isn't perfect and there is always a resistance to change, but if we really want to start getting more activity in 0.0 (there's a lot of posts about how empty parts of it are) then we need to get more people in there right off the bat.
DarkCaveman
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#6 - 2013-07-29 22:32:35 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:


As to NPC stations I would be curious, can someone tell me if there is a way to show where all of the npc stations currently are . . . so I can see the distribution before commenting on changing it.

m



http://www.ombeve.co.uk/Eve_Regions.pdf has each region, and station/services per system. Although if a system has multiple stations is not shown. Looks like similar information is available at dotlan. Although a more generic list of stations per region would be easy to compile, I don't have the static dump in front of me.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-07-30 10:13:00 UTC
Antony E Stark wrote:
... Encourage them in gently, let them find their feet before joining a massive alliance (or more small corp/alliance friendly). By allowing people to "drift" into this area of space, I think it will allow and encourage them to want to live there more...
Players drifting into 0.0... are usually dead players. Even in CVA space things can deadly very quickly for a neutral player.

"Gently" and 0.0 are mutually exclusive to an unaligned player.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-07-30 10:18:14 UTC
Antony E Stark wrote:
...More NPC Stations...

Proposal: Add some more NPC stations on the verges (in combination to the above route proposals) to allow the players somewhere to settle, trade, buy, repair and sell.

Reason: If we want to encourage people in then they need somewhere to base from, store their goods, etc...
An NPC station in a system controlled by a major alliances will not give neutral players "somewhere to settle, trade, buy, repair and sell". Not Blue Shoot It (NBSI) means you aren't going to be active. They will kill you.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#9 - 2013-07-30 10:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Caleb Seremshur
I won't speak about nullsec directly as I don't live there but lowsecs main issue is that it's nullsec without bubbles. Prosecution of players with very poor sec status should still occur based on their relative sec status and the sec status of the system they're in.

If not, then why not allow HICtor bubbles and bombs? What quantifiably seperates lowsec EMPIRE space from nullsec? Gate guns? Lowsec isn't popular with the general population because it is horrifically flawed at the design level.

Infact, to make nullsec more inviting why not make NPC nullsec include lowsec systems where their stations are and the immediate areas surrounding these? If you're gonna get screwed by poor mechanics while living in NPC space you might aswell screw the enemy too by limiting their capacity to lock you down a little.

CCP doesn't understand how to step-integrate a players path from high to null. It seems they really believe the current system is sufficient based on their actions even though every CSM summit they admit to wanting more players in null and to do it via incentives. What they fail to address is the kind of incentives highsec players want. It's not necessarily security per se what they want is to not be insufferably dictated to while living in empty or NPC space.
Antony E Stark
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-07-30 11:19:39 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I won't speak about nullsec directly as I don't live there but lowsecs main issue is that it's nullsec without bubbles. Prosecution of players with very poor sec status should still occur based on their relative sec status and the sec status of the system they're in.

If not, then why not allow HICtor bubbles and bombs? What quantifiably seperates lowsec EMPIRE space from nullsec? Gate guns? Lowsec isn't popular with the general population because it is horrifically flawed at the design level.

Infact, to make nullsec more inviting why not make NPC nullsec include lowsec systems where their stations are and the immediate areas surrounding these? If you're gonna get screwed by poor mechanics while living in NPC space you might aswell screw the enemy too by limiting their capacity to lock you down a little.

CCP doesn't understand how to step-integrate a players path from high to null. It seems they really believe the current system is sufficient based on their actions even though every CSM summit they admit to wanting more players in null and to do it via incentives. What they fail to address is the kind of incentives highsec players want. It's not necessarily security per se what they want is to not be insufferably dictated to while living in empty or NPC space.


You Sir, have hit the proverbial nail on the head I believe!

As people have said, there's NBSI - that's a fact of life, you live with it and you take a little care about what you're doing. Yes, even in Providence there is still shooting but CVA do attempt to make it more inviting and open. Hat's off to them - maybe if the other Alliances opened up a few systems here and there as NRDS it might net them some more players, traffic, trade, etc - but I doubt they're very interested in that.

CCP: We want more people in 0.0
Alliances: Get off our lawn! We want to kill anything that isn't blue

As Caleb said "what they want is to not be insufferably dictated to while living in empty or NPC space". I think his suggestion of making the station and immediate surrounding areas low sec islands within 0.0 is a fantastic idea. It gives players a little more confidence that they're not going to warp right into a bubble when trying to do, or get a cap fleet dropped on their head.

Since this is fairly controversial with people from the aspect of "It will ruin low sec" or "Get off our lawn" I further propose that this is "trialled" in 1 or 2 areas - or even new pockets of NPC space created (a new constellation here and there) in order to collect some data and metrics as to how well it works.

1. Creation of a handful of new constellations and systems for the trial (I understand this isn't too horrific since Black Rise was once 'easily' expanded to create more Caldari LS).

2. Access to these new regions from HS with multiple entry points (to make entry easier, and force gate camps to move/split/coordinate and provide better access)

3. From the initial 0.0 system, again more entry points branching through the constellation (again, so make moving around easier for newer players)

4. Stations to be added in 0.1 to 0.5 "station systems" (in order to prevent cap drops and bubbles). There doesn't have to be a great deal in these systems in terms of resources - since we want to encourage people out a bit.

5. Station systems surrounded by LS "rings". The LS rings then provide multiple routes out into 0.0. (Players understand the system station is 'safer' and the surrounding ones are less safe, but they're not going to be instantly bubbled / cap dropped. The LS rings then have multiple routes out to the new NPC 0.0

Yes this will be a bit of a honeycomb/spiders web and therefore gives people the ability to run/move/reposition to stand the best chance to achieve their first steps out into 0.0.

I understand there's still things to be addressed and refinements made - but, this could be trialled in a few newly created areas to see how it actually works out live, as opposed to on paper. If it turns out to be a horrific failure, these systems can be nerfed/deleted/adjusted.

I believe there are a lot of people out there who would be willing to take those steps, and they understand it's not safe and they don't want that safety. What they want is (as Caleb) said to try to live in 0.0 without being under a dictator and to experience it in their own way before going further, or not as the case may be.

At present there is no "easing into 0.0" as someone mentioned. I personally believe if this were the case, the metrics would be a lot different and we'd see a greater amount of people travel there. Tempt them in, let them experience giving them a taste - they'll either then go further or turn back. In my view, this is better than the current experience.

I'm hoping that some of the CSM will at least consider this - what is there to lose with at least a trial?
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-07-30 17:52:23 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
... what they want is to not be insufferably dictated to while living in empty or NPC space.


"...the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must..."

Thucydides