These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

If you keep buffing empire how will you get people into null?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hero Tackler
Doomheim
#101 - 2011-11-13 08:49:26 UTC
Morganta wrote:
I thought the idea was to make empire less profitable to make people move to more dangerous areas and give some life back to null.

I can fully understand making some stuff better to help pubbies not ragequit so much, but ffs guys, why not hand out free isk for staying docked up and be done with it, much easier to program into the client....

Aren't you going a bit overboard and borking your own future plans? or are the null buff plans and the min redistribution plans out the window with concarne?

and yes, I'm aware ships are getting buffs also like the DD (destroyer, not doomsday... learn naval abbreviations n00b), but I'm not talking about safety, I'm talking about pros and cons of leaving empire for the casual or even dedicated player?


Life back to null? Null is dead because of giant "federations" full of blues. Null needs to be reset and all sov reset. Then there'd be some action as everyone scrambles to grab them moons. Here's a little snippet from over in C&P that the blue bears in null sec should consider:

Conflict.

Conflict is the life blood of New Eden.

Conflict is in the heart and soul of the Capsuleer.

More meta than you
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2011-11-13 08:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
The easy answer is to restrict the power blocks, the devil is in the details though, and most solutions are ...shall we call it non-sandbox.

That is fine.

Null is billed as a vast open territory where you build and defend your empire.

The FACT of null is that its a vast empty territory that is all claimed and a reponse fleet is never more than a few minutes away and that no matter what you do if you don't whore yourself to a sov owner SOME sov owner is going to boot you the hell out.

So why are people in hissec? Low is near impossible to defend so anything except roaming around, PI , exploration, piracy and moon mining is a false economy.

That is fine as well I actually like low, I wish there was more of it actually.

Null, simply doesn't appeal, I've no reason a one year old to involve myself with SOV warfare, its a loosing proposition for the established.

You can't defend SOV without Supers, and you cant build supers without SOV.....oh and by the way you need hundreds of billions of isk as an allianceto maintain either.


Hmm why would people FLOCK to null to be cannon fodder to people they don't like? Well, they won't (don't) and they aren't going to.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#103 - 2011-11-13 10:35:01 UTC
Make it so that allainces have to be forced to get a carebare backbone to support the war efforts.

Unfourtuatnely every solider doubles as a miner in null.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Elrich Kouvo
Doomheim
#104 - 2011-11-13 12:17:54 UTC
Mahakaharashi RedEagle wrote:
If CCP wants more people in 0.0 they should sit and rewrite whole damn game setup and mechanics. Because for as long as one guy (or few teamed up buddies at most) with very limited time reserved for playing games has no realistic chance to have fun there... nothing will ever change. Nullsec is just too demanding, in every possible way, for casual player... but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

This is the truth. CCP has walled nullsec off from a majority(casual) of players.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#105 - 2011-11-13 13:15:07 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Imagine a sandbox where you could only go from one point in the box to another on a given line of travel - if something is in the way - like a camp or blob - you can't pass.

But the people waiting at the camp or blob will always be the ones hiding their sociopath ways behind the notion that the game is a sandbox.


Ironic.


Remove dependency on gates and implement system to system warp capabilities and most of these problems go away. NULL becomes a chaotic smorgasbord of PVP (but would those who already live there be able to hand that?)

Bypassing gate camps and establishing a ship presence inside null is relatively easy. Plenty of ships with jump drives and covert cloaks allow you to do this already. Also, you can get a prober into the target system or area and then wait a bit for a decent wormhole to spawn.

The real problem is, like others have said, the inaccessibility of null to smaller entities. So, here's my question for you guys:

Why is it that we high-sec war folk have to pay escalating prices for our wars (going from a war with one alliance to a war with three means going from 50m/week to 450m/week), but sovereignty holders aren't exposed to a similar pricing scheme for the systems they own?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
MaxxOmega
30plus LLC
Brave Collective
#106 - 2011-11-13 13:33:07 UTC
Phor Um Panala wrote:
I don't understand why threads like this keep popping up...

I am a carebear, I run missions to pay for PLEX, with a little exploration on the side. I have been playing on-and-off since 2005, and I have never once been to Null space. I doubt I ever will, either. Why? It's simple, really...Lowsec and Null are full of arseholes. Now I'm not saying everyone out there is an *******, but this is generally the main reason. Even now, when I go into dead-end Lowsec systems to do some exploring I usually am interrupted by some **** and his 3 accounts trying to scan me down for a gank for "lolz & tearz". And it's *always* some ass with multiple accounts, and I refuse to pay for multiple accounts to play the game. This happens so often even in ******, dead-end, Lowsec systems that I don't even care to go any deeper. It really is that simple for probably 90% of the people you wish would leave Empire space.

I know people will respond with stuff like "but that's part of the game", and "QQ more, carebear" and "Go play WoW" but what I speak is the truth. If you have the urge to make one of those responses, you are probably one of the assholes I am talking about.

I mostly agree with you. Except for the multiple account stuff. I have 5 accounts and I'm not an *******. I avoid them like you do...

Straight
MaxxOmega
30plus LLC
Brave Collective
#107 - 2011-11-13 13:36:00 UTC
Morganta wrote:
Phor Um Panala wrote:
I don't understand why threads like this keep popping up...

I am a carebear, I run missions to pay for PLEX, with a little exploration on the side. I have been playing on-and-off since 2005, and I have never once been to Null space. I doubt I ever will, either. Why? It's simple, really...Lowsec and Null are full of arseholes. Now I'm not saying everyone out there is an *******, but this is generally the main reason. Even now, when I go into dead-end Lowsec systems to do some exploring I usually am interrupted by some **** and his 3 accounts trying to scan me down for a gank for "lolz & tearz". And it's *always* some ass with multiple accounts, and I refuse to pay for multiple accounts to play the game. This happens so often even in ******, dead-end, Lowsec systems that I don't even care to go any deeper. It really is that simple for probably 90% of the people you wish would leave Empire space.

I know people will respond with stuff like "but that's part of the game", and "QQ more, carebear" and "Go play WoW" but what I speak is the truth. If you have the urge to make one of those responses, you are probably one of the assholes I am talking about.


so then CCP should give you your own server where there is no pvp

but wait, then there would be no demand for your industry since pvp consumes the most resources ingame.

but no, you want pvp to make you rich but not spoil your fun

sound about right?

If that is what you think he is saying you clearly aren't reading or just prefer to be a jerk....
MaxxOmega
30plus LLC
Brave Collective
#108 - 2011-11-13 13:47:18 UTC
Jita Alt666 wrote:
Chopper Rollins wrote:


TL:DR; Who cares about null? It's owned by RMT parasites and jobless folks.





Paraphrased: Those people are different. They are not as good as us. Who cares what happens to them. Actually they worthless.

That is a terrible argument. I mean really terrible, the logic behind that is the logic behind:
The international community failing to intervene for the aid of the Jews in the 1940s
The failure of the general US populace to intervene in the aid of African Americans in the south in the 1950s-60s

Actually just any major atrocity/injustice that has occurred in the last century.

LOL...

Melodramatic drivel....
Halcyon Ingenium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2011-11-13 13:54:20 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
But the people waiting at the camp or blob will always be the ones hiding their sociopath ways behind the notion that the game is a sandbox.


Your just going to keep bleating that sociopath garbage until someone kisses your boo-boo aren't you?

Anyway...

The one thing a sandbox doesn't need is player channeling. Games like that aren't sandboxes, they are theme parks. WoW is a theme-park game. It does not have the complexity of emergent behavior that EVE does because players do not make choices about game play. Much like a ride, you buy your ticket and go, "Oooh-Ahhh" and then either ride again or get off the ride. If CCP started trying to chennel people into null, they would trash the game. It would destroy the emergent behavior, because emergent behavior, by definition, can not exist in a game that points you in a direction and sends you on your way, whether you want to go or not.

There are many problems with EVE, many of which are being addressed. Population differential is not one of them.

For all those in null who want a fight, and languish under the lack of said fights to be had, your homework is this:

Your going to go out and start a fight, your going to start a fight with a PvE'er, and your going to lose.

By the way, since we're already talking, do you want to buy a rifter? I've got the cheapest rifters in Metropolis. If you can find a cheaper rifter, buy it!
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2011-11-13 13:59:14 UTC
Morganta wrote:
If you keep buffing empire how will you get people into null?

Well, before shifting the blame on CCP what I would first ask myself

What am I doing to bring and entice players to my side of the sandbox?

How am I greeting and welcoming new players into lo/null sec?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2011-11-13 14:05:03 UTC
It seems that people like to bill nullsec as this great big frontier ripe for colonisation, but the fact is it's been colonised to death years ago. The last big place to expand into was W-space, but that seems to be more of a niche market.
Here's some of the nullsec changes they were talking about in an old devblog.
Quote:
Smallholding

(Small-scale infrastructure)

Accessible
Pretty much anyone with a little seed capital (~10m ISK) should be able to establish some small, semi-permanent presence in nullsec. Not everyone wants to get involved in nullsec, but every player that feels even a slight interest but never quite takes the plunge represents a failure of design that we should fix.
Predictable security
People with small-scale investments in nullsec should know from week to week what the security situation of their investments is. Everything in nullsec should be vulnerable, but for smaller-scale stuff it should be easy to see the end coming, and either deal with it or plan for it. It should be possible for the bigger players to evict the smaller ones without too much investment, but it should take time to do so. This makes evicting or otherwise clearing out people more of a chore and thus a less trivial decision; it makes smaller investments less risky by ensuring an attentive owner has time to pull down their stuff and move it elsewhere; and it gives a needed sense of safety and stability to people who are concerned about the risks. The larger the investment becomes and the more functionality or power it affords, the less this should be the case, moving towards less time but more investment to remove it.
Mostly self-sufficient
For non-trivial investments, the day-to-day running of operations in smallholdings should be more-or-less self-sufficient. Something akin to a bi-weekly supply run (bi-weekly because then the investment gives you a "weekend off" every other weekend, which is rewarding) is desirable for a number of reasons - adds interaction, creates weaknesses, removes the need for high-value manufacturing in smallholdings, and prevents players from feeling totally isolated - but it should not be a massive amount of work, nor should it be that often. Smallholdings should make players feel like intrepid pioneers, living off the land of the frontier and hoping the bi-weekly mail coach gets through safely.
Scales badly
The various protections and benefits and so on afforded to smallholders should not scale well. People looking to run more extensive operations should find that, as their ambitions get bigger, so do their problems. Anything that's designed to help out the small guy needs to make sure that it's not also helping the big guy screw the small guy (or other big guys) over.
Reward investment, commitment
Smallholders should always be thinking "in another few weeks, we'll be able to do X", and "if we had a bit more money, we could buy Y". This gives them goals to work towards, and provides a seamless path from smallholder to major player, for those that find themselves interested; staying small should always be a viable decision, but it should be a real decision with both pros and cons. This should be achieved in as organic a manner as possible (ie, with minimal "mechanics").
Similar but distinct
Smallholding should be similar enough to serious territorial control that the majority of the skills and tools learned are transferrable, but distinct enough that different scales of investment in nullsec (smallholding vs sov) can be balanced in different ways, with different weaknesses. The experiences delivered by these two different playstyles need to be unique both because as long-term decisions they're intended to be aimed at different playstyles, and because our ability to deliver on this distinctiveness of experience relies on us not having to worry about tools intended for one group being used by the other.


If they could get that to work, nullsec might be a bit more tempting.
Florestan Bronstein
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2011-11-13 14:10:02 UTC
Onictus wrote:
The FACT of null is that its a vast empty territory that is all claimed and a reponse fleet is never more than a few minutes away and that no matter what you do if you don't ***** yourself to a sov owner SOME sov owner is going to boot you the hell out.

So why are people in hissec? Low is near impossible to defend so anything except roaming around, PI , exploration, piracy and moon mining is a false economy.

your post argues that

null is empty because it is too easy to defend

low is empty because it is too hard to defend

high-sec is populated because no defense is necessary.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2011-11-13 14:16:11 UTC
Florestan Bronstein wrote:


null is empty because it is too easy to defend

low is empty because it is too hard to defend

high-sec is populated because no defense is necessary.



More or less.


I flew 65 jumps through null from a wormhole and I saw exactly 5 system that had more than ten pilots.........that is without the benefit of book marks, just wandering around.

Low yeah, how many ships do you need to stuff up all of the gates in a three gate system and defend a serious mining fleet that is toast if two or three disco BS's make it through your blockade?

That is the definition of false economy.

High is boring, but it makes the money, hence the null bears crying about nerfing it...because they are there on alts making the damn money.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#114 - 2011-11-13 14:16:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Florestan Bronstein wrote:
Onictus wrote:
The FACT of null is that its a vast empty territory that is all claimed and a reponse fleet is never more than a few minutes away and that no matter what you do if you don't ***** yourself to a sov owner SOME sov owner is going to boot you the hell out.

So why are people in hissec? Low is near impossible to defend so anything except roaming around, PI , exploration, piracy and moon mining is a false economy.

your post argues that

null is empty because it is too easy to defend

low is empty because it is too hard to defend

high-sec is populated because no defense is necessary.


which is actually not the reason/reasons.

null is empty because regular steady income has been nerfed, carebears moved out to high sec.

If you whining about not enough income in null its not an problem of high sec, its your own damn fault. You can make up to 2bil per hour if you chose to.

low is empty, because apart the lvl V there is nothing for anyone. Except people with enough time to camp one gate for eternity. And moving out once "cynoalt" come to system.

High is filled, because it support masses/ there is enough things to do for everyone. Every mission creates an new area unlike the null where you fly to find something somewhere once its finished you move, if there are 100 people at one place chances are that 99 people dont have to waste their time being there.

/signed former sanctum whore, which provided about three time the income of lvl IV/solo , twice the income of lvl IVs coupled with noctis alt.

PS. i find it somewhat funny. Null and low sec people crying out laud to nerf high sec, because "Its to hard to make money where they chose to live","its not fair" /cry
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#115 - 2011-11-13 14:34:29 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:


Why is it that we high-sec war folk have to pay escalating prices for our wars (going from a war with one alliance to a war with three means going from 50m/week to 450m/week), but sovereignty holders aren't exposed to a similar pricing scheme for the systems they own?


That's the upkeep system CCP introduced. The powerbloc's response to that was the renter system, another example of why CCP can't "fix" nullsec.

Honestly, you can't stop powerblocs from forming no matter what mechanics are introduced because EVE runs on people, not mechanics. Nullsec was meant to be large-scale pvp and it will forever be so. There are alternatives in the form of low, WH and highsec to those who want to play the small-scale.

TL;DR: CCP isn't going to change nullsec so your five-man frig pilot corp can have sov, and they're not going to change empire to force said five-man frig corp to be absorbed into the blue blob.
Justin Credulent
Luv You Long Time
#116 - 2011-11-13 15:58:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Credulent
Hero Tackler wrote:
Conflict.

Conflict is the life blood of New Eden.

Conflict is in the heart and soul of the Capsuleer.


yeah, the nullbabies keep saying that trying to force me into null-sec but all I can think about is how they have eachother set blue...

Null-Sec needs to HTFU and stop crying to CCP. If null-sec wants PvP, they need to stop being carebears and start fighting eachother - after years of bot-mining, they have the ships!
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#117 - 2011-11-13 16:08:40 UTC
Get your heads out of your collective arses and get through to your thick skulls that everyone plays in the sandbox as they want to play.

This whole bullshit about getting people to null sec crap is so ********. EVE claims people can be whatever they want to be and some choose to be high sec dwellers.
So now you want to punish people for not playing the sandbox game the way you play it in null sec. Utterly ******** bullcrap.

I play the game as I want to play it just like you play it the way you want to play it.

Crying out loud that high sec needs nerfs and null sec needs buffs so more people will go null sec only proves that the whole sandbox / be who you want to be idea is bullocks in your eyes.

If CCP would honour your requests it would prove that what they always claimed about EVE is bullocks.
flakeys
Doomheim
#118 - 2011-11-13 16:11:55 UTC
Morganta wrote:
I thought the idea was to make empire less profitable to make people move to more dangerous areas and give some life back to null.




You guys never give up with the same old stupid lines do you.


Small hint , most empire people would sooner quit because they earn lesss in empire then see it as a motivation to go to nulll.



I have lived in null many times in my eve time and i have to ask , what is so speciall about null that there is a NEED to move people other then it being one boring blobtastic political backstabbing nest of carebears ?

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Vachir Khan
Rugged Ruff and Ready
#119 - 2011-11-13 16:14:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Vachir Khan
0.0 is for people who like to be lemmings, love the blob mentality and/or take the game way too serious. I stopped playing EVE serious ages ago so I can't do well in an active PVP alliance as that requires people to play in serious mode. At the same time I also dislike being a lemming who hides behind numbers and just follows orders while laughing at others and call them insignificant (do explain me your personal significance to a war effort where you leeched onto a killmail with <1% total damage).

- I can't be bothered enough (anymore) to play EVE on serious mode
- I'm not a fan of big groups as the chance of morons and idiots rises while it just like being in the military; lemmings who love being told what to do (YES SIR!)

So while I'm not a carebear at all I stay away from living in 0.0
Mrs Sooperdudespaceman
Doomheim
#120 - 2011-11-13 16:20:47 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:
Morganta wrote:
I thought the idea was to make empire less profitable to make people move to more dangerous areas and give some life back to null.


You thought wrong.


sandbox game = you do what YOU want *gasp*

being forced to go places you dont want to go =/= sandbox *gasp*

People have different playstyles than you *gasp*

*thud*




Imagine a sandbox where you could only go from one point in the box to another on a given line of travel - if something is in the way - like a camp or blob - you can't pass.

But the people waiting at the camp or blob will always be the ones hiding their sociopath ways behind the notion that the game is a sandbox.

People defending their own space are now sociopaths?
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:

Remove dependency on gates and implement system to system warp capabilities and most of these problems go away. NULL becomes a chaotic smorgasbord of PVP (but would those who already live there be able to hand that?)

This is the same idea you posted in F and I and people have already told you why it's not a good idea so I don't have to go into detail.

Your idea is to allow you to explore without having to travel and has nothing to do with PvP. In fact it's about allowing you to avoid it.