These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Pre-CSM Summit Nullsec and Sov Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#441 - 2014-09-18 19:33:07 UTC
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ninteen Seventy-Nine wrote:


And just ignore that part of fixing this mess means the only way to hurt someone shouldn't revolve around a static object with 2 day timers.

Your circular logic gains you zero points. You just run around the same track of self-reinforcing talking points. What are you, an evangalist?


You still have not explained how anyone would be able to do anything to our fleets other than die horribly. Also POS timers are not up for being changed.


See what I mean? What are you even talking about?

"Logi nerf will fix everything because of morale killmais" and mix in some "and no one do anything but die around us"

We literally were JUST DISCUSSING the idea of ways and impact of smaller groups being able to hit larger ones and you come up with "POS timers aren't being changed"

The sum total of your posting here is either pasting "the plan" you and your friends came up with or trying to deflect and change the topic when anyone suggests something that isn't in YOUR post.

This is a thread for discussion. I can at least consider (and enjoy) entertaining others ideas.

You aren't interested in any of that. Your here to sell a line.

And bluntly and poorly at that I might add. Hell, last page you literally posted the exact same post you have already in this thread,
and you've done that nearly SEVERAL TIMES between these two discussion threads.

Do you honestly think anyone isn't smelling what you're cutting?


When we have highsec NPC alts posting terrible ideas and simply not understanding the mechanics of null and what the problems are we tend to have to repeat ourselves.
Ninteen Seventy-Nine
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#442 - 2014-09-18 19:57:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

I am only here to troll people and post "my plan" over and over


Lol Is that supposed to be a burn?

I don't know what's funnier. Your weak comebacks? Or that you think someone in an organization that embodies everything wrong with null should be the ones listened to about how to fix it?

There are hundreds upon hundreds of us that played the null game. Most of us for years upon years. Through many wars, alliances and metas. And WE LEFT because it is failed and broken.

You stay because identity with the group is where you draw your endgame. Accomplishment only pertaining the propagation of a stale status quo.

You embrace a failed endgame. The winner of all the losers.
We moved on, and if CCP ever wants people like us to return to space, we're the ones they'll be listening to. Not you.

If all they want to do is cling to the remaining subs in null, you're their guy I'm sure.
But if they want people to be interested in it again? To join the game to become a part of it, you are aboslutely the last person they should ask for an opinion from.

"The unending paradox is that we do learn through pain."
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#443 - 2014-09-18 20:02:45 UTC
Baltec, I seem to have missed where the proposals you put forth would substantially change anything in nullsec except in making things substantially better for those who currently own it.
Yes, nullsec income is really terrible. I remember running through null the first time 6 years ago and seeing asteroids I'd never seen before and telling my mining friends. I saw rats worth more that L3 missions. You could get rich out there!! I think that, instead of mission running in player-owned nulsec stations, perhaps anoms that drop non-isk rewards. Minerals, moon goo, salvage, maybe tags to turn in for LP. Make those anoms dynamic across the region so trusec effectively shifts around, but have each system normally able to hold 10-15 people. But if we do that, we will just end up with what we have, but the same powers much wealthier.

Caps are an issue, but they can be killed when not supported by another 100 of them quite easily. An easy fix there would be to have damage applied to them scale with signature radius, and reps applied to them scale inversely to their sig radius. Jump spool up times, ewar vulnerability, these can be exchanged for a super station that one can dock them in. Can you imagine a super holding super station in VFK that is a loot pinata?

N+1 This is not really an issue. The larger problem is that an alliance can take 100 guys and be winning fights against 200, think BL versus TEST. But when push comes to shove, if those 100 wanted to fight for the space, they would find themselves fighting 100 versus 750 and quickly lose. Getting kills because logistics suck isn't going to take way the sting of losing because you picked a fight against one much larger alliance and ended up fighting 10 alliances. This is because the problem is not one of mechanics, but rather a problem of the players and the current political landscape.

Sov yes, structures have way too many hit points, and the ability to time the reinforce just to be annoying, is really, well, annoying. Remember TEST in the Fountain war? AU TZ fights for all!. But you and I know that the last few major wars were not won or lost because of structure hit points, they were lost because of unrelenting pressure by a force that had 30k pilots to pull from with unlimited SRP and would never burn out, culminating in a (the only) major fight and the end of the war.

In order to break the current depressing order, CCP would have to break sov, hard. That would upset many if not most of the pilots currently benefiting from it. The only reasonable alternative is to create an functional alternative in which to try new mechanics and dynamics and if they work, impose them upon nulsec.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#444 - 2014-09-18 20:13:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

Some ideas are good, some are horrible. But Lost presented a slightly better argument then "No one likes to scan."


You also should go do it. The only people who think scanning moons isn't a soul sapping, mind numbing activity are people who have never done it.



If you're trying to maintain inventory of 50 systems and 100s of moons or perhaps maintian control of all the r64 moons in eve, then I can see your point.

On the other hand, if you are only maintaining inventory in 5 or so systems, well the possible rewards may suddenly balance out the work involved in scanning moons.

This is about breaking up big blue donuts, not preserving them. I can taste your fear on this issue. It's delicious.

Do you have any other cons for maintaining control of vast quantities of free isk beyond it's difficult? Please don't go with "It's not passive enough" cuz I'm thinking the majority of eve would be delighted if the current choke hold on free passive isk were to go away. They won't unsub because YOU can't get free isk. They'll go play eve like always...

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#445 - 2014-09-18 20:53:14 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

Some ideas are good, some are horrible. But Lost presented a slightly better argument then "No one likes to scan."


You also should go do it. The only people who think scanning moons isn't a soul sapping, mind numbing activity are people who have never done it.



If you're trying to maintain inventory of 50 systems and 100s of moons or perhaps maintian control of all the r64 moons in eve, then I can see your point.

On the other hand, if you are only maintaining inventory in 5 or so systems, well the possible rewards may suddenly balance out the work involved in scanning moons.

This is about breaking up big blue donuts, not preserving them. I can taste your fear on this issue. It's delicious.

Do you have any other cons for maintaining control of vast quantities of free isk beyond it's difficult? Please don't go with "It's not passive enough" cuz I'm thinking the majority of eve would be delighted if the current choke hold on free passive isk were to go away. They won't unsub because YOU can't get free isk. They'll go play eve like always...



The idea I posted would result in us losing at least 80% of our space overnight and would remove the invincibility our fleets currently enjoy. As for Moon goo, it is not the isk fountain you think it is. The best towers produce a little less than what a single ice miner earns a month. The vast bulk of our isk comes from other sources, the age of tech is over and has been for a long time now.
MASSADEATH
MASS A DEATH
Scumlords
#446 - 2014-09-18 21:06:28 UTC
Really if they had any sense they would just contact the groups that are in the position of fighting the large power blocs on a daily basis. And in a blob type/power projection/ overwelming logistics type scenarios. And just ask them their take on the largest barriers to entry in SOV null. Most of us are confined to NPC null , due to the issues that do not allow us to hold or take SOV.

groups like TRI, BL, PASTA, MOA ,,,ect ect .

we all face the same challenges against the power blocs, and have a very good eye level view of what changes are needed to allow smaller groups to flourish.

most have been mentioned in this thread.

All of those groups listed have easily reachable active players in leadership positions who would be more than willing to discuss the whole issue.

allowing the fox to dictate to the chickens whats best for them, is not the best Idea. Especially since the CSM is mostly foxes.

Mass
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#447 - 2014-09-18 21:07:37 UTC
Triget wrote:
Baltec, I seem to have missed where the proposals you put forth would substantially change anything in nullsec except in making things substantially better for those who currently own it.


Losing the bulk of our empire, shutting down the bulk of our bridge network, removing our fleets invincibility and having supers be vulnerable to E-war are all massive nerfs to us.

Triget wrote:

I saw rats worth more that L3 missions. You could get rich out there!!


Belt ratting is among the worst isk/hr activities in the game. Level 3s in empire space can generate up to 84 mil/hr, belt ratting isn't even a quarter of that.

Triget wrote:

N+1 This is not really an issue.
It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.



Triget wrote:

In order to break the current depressing order, CCP would have to break sov, hard. That would upset many if not most of the pilots currently benefiting from it.


Notice that not a single null power is in favor of keeping the status quo. Our leadership is actively campaigning for change and has been for years.
Felix Judge
Regnum Ludorum
#448 - 2014-09-18 21:45:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Felix Judge
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
[...]
N+1 This is not really an issue.
It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.

As much as I dislike agreeing with a Goon ;-) , I think this is correct: as long as sov changes happen one system at a time, with a timer (or timers) known two days ahead of time, the n+1 group will always gain sov or keep it if they want simply by piling their entire armada into said system. Therefore, the n+1 groups were the more successful ones and emerged as the dominant species in nul until basically two large blocs were left (and two or three smaller ones, who exist only because the two large ones decided not to bother for whatever reason...).

A change would have to be something that removed the "be there with all you have at a certain point of time".
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#449 - 2014-09-18 21:48:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Triget
baltec1 wrote:
Losing the bulk of our empire, shutting down the bulk of our bridge network, removing our fleets invincibility and having supers be vulnerable to E-war are all massive nerfs to us.


Losing the bulk of your empire and your JB netowrk is only contingent on making sov usage based, which is the poorest formed of your ideas. How many members would be happy to see assets stuck in stations that see little ratting? VFK is currently showing zero npc kills, and I imagine mining isn't a major activity there. Your fleets invincibility arises from the fact that you use the plural to describe it. Nerfing supers nerfs your foes more than it does yours, and we all know that the strength of the CFC is in its subcaps. So yes, relatively speaking, it benefits the CFC over PL/N3.

baltec1 wrote:
Belt ratting is among the worst isk/hr activities in the game. Level 3s in empire space can generate up to 84 mil/hr, belt ratting isn't even a quarter of that.


This just misses the point. I was agreeing with you that nulsec income needs love, but I disagree with mission running as the solution. We agree on ends, just not means here.

baltec1 wrote:
It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.


N+1 isn't the problem, N+250, + maybe another 1000 if sov is threatened is the problem. That's the point I was trying to make. If the changes you propose increases kills in 100 man versus 255 (plus 1000 more if needed) fights, it still would not succeed in increasing the morale enough to keep them contesting sov.

baltec1 wrote:
Notice that not a single null power is in favor of keeping the status quo. Our leadership is actively campaigning for change and has been for years.


Your leadership has been campaigning for change, but its always in the same format. Change that might hurt you, but hurts your most immediate adversaries most. Tech nerf, tracking dread nerf etc., those are what you pushed that might have hurt your bottom line, but hurt your foes more.

If your leadership really wished to change the status quo, you have it in your power to do so, and have had that power for years. I don't find the crocodile tears convincing. Disband GSF, move to Curse and I'll be thoroughly impressed.
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#450 - 2014-09-18 21:57:33 UTC
Felix Judge wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
[...]
N+1 This is not really an issue.
It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.

As much as I dislike agreeing with a Goon ;-) , I think this is correct: as long as sov changes happen one system at a time, with a timer (or timers) known two days ahead of time, the n+1 group will always gain sov or keep it if they want simply by piling their entire armada into said system. Therefore, the n+1 groups were the more successful ones and emerged as the dominant species in nul until basically two large blocs were left (and two or three smaller ones, who exist only because the two large ones decided not to bother for whatever reason...).

A change would have to be something that removed the "be there with all you have at a certain point of time".


Here's the original quote. It makes more sense in context.
Triget wrote:
N+1 This is not really an issue. The larger problem is that an alliance can take 100 guys and be winning fights against 200, think BL versus TEST. But when push comes to shove, if those 100 wanted to fight for the space, they would find themselves fighting 100 versus 750 and quickly lose. Getting kills because logistics suck isn't going to take way the sting of losing because you picked a fight against one much larger alliance and ended up fighting 10 alliances. This is because the problem is not one of mechanics, but rather a problem of the players and the current political landscape.


I was trying to point out that the solution will not work. Felix, you were there when BL started hitting Neo towers and their Loki fleet was killing TEST Drakes and Tribe Geddons left and right. 100 can easily beat the 200-300 we brought, but they would be stupid to have actually contested the sov because the whole HBC would come. This is a red herring argument that I hopefully addressed above.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#451 - 2014-09-18 22:18:58 UTC
Triget wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Losing the bulk of our empire, shutting down the bulk of our bridge network, removing our fleets invincibility and having supers be vulnerable to E-war are all massive nerfs to us.


Losing the bulk of your empire and your JB netowrk is only contingent on making sov usage based, which is the poorest formed of your ideas. How many members would be happy to see assets stuck in stations that see little ratting? VFK is currently showing zero npc kills, and I imagine mining isn't a major activity there. Your fleets invincibility arises from the fact that you use the plural to describe it. Nerfing supers nerfs your foes more than it does yours, and we all know that the strength of the CFC is in its subcaps. So yes, relatively speaking, it benefits the CFC over PL/N3.

baltec1 wrote:
Belt ratting is among the worst isk/hr activities in the game. Level 3s in empire space can generate up to 84 mil/hr, belt ratting isn't even a quarter of that.


This just misses the point. I was agreeing with you that nulsec income needs love, but I disagree with mission running as the solution. We agree on ends, just not means here.

baltec1 wrote:
It is at the heart of why it is impossible for smaller powers to compete with the likes of the CFC and N3/PL.


N+1 isn't the problem, N+250, + maybe another 1000 if sov is threatened is the problem. That's the point I was trying to make. If the changes you propose increases kills in 100 man versus 255 (plus 1000 more if needed) fights, it still would not succeed in increasing the morale enough to keep them contesting sov.

baltec1 wrote:
Notice that not a single null power is in favor of keeping the status quo. Our leadership is actively campaigning for change and has been for years.


Your leadership has been campaigning for change, but its always in the same format. Change that might hurt you, but hurts your most immediate adversaries most. Tech nerf, tracking dread nerf etc., those are what you pushed that might have hurt your bottom line, but hurt your foes more.

If your leadership really wished to change the status quo, you have it in your power to do so, and have had that power for years. I don't find the crocodile tears convincing. Disband GSF, move to Curse and I'll be thoroughly impressed.


This just demonstrated your lack of experience and understanding of null and its mechanics. First off, we owned almost every tech moon when we were pushing for that nerf. Next up you dont seem to know what N+1 means or why missions are being called for. This is exactly what we talk about when we say people with no experience should not be getting involved in matters they do not understand. Im not being deliberatly hostile to you but there are far too many people in this thread with no null sec experience who simply do not understand what the issues even are.
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#452 - 2014-09-18 22:30:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
TEXT


This just demonstrated your lack of experience and understanding of null and its mechanics. First off, we owned almost every tech moon when we were pushing for that nerf. Next up you dont seem to know what N+1 means or why missions are being called for. This is exactly what we talk about when we say people with no experience should not be getting involved in matters they do not understand. Im not being deliberatly hostile to you but there are far too many people in this thread with no null sec experience who simply do not understand what the issues even are.


You began pushing for the tech nerf when you owned < half of nulsec tech, lowsec/NPC nulsec tech was owned by others. I understand N+1, I've been arguing for more hyperbole on it. You want missions in nullsec so each system can have infinite playerbase, and I think that missions in sov run contrary to the promise of nullsec and the sandbox. I will not cite nulsec sov experience because I find arguments from authority off-putting, but I do have it. You seem to be, either intentionially or otherwise, misconstruing my statements and responding to them out of context. Perhaps this misreading leads you to think I am inexperienced?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#453 - 2014-09-18 22:36:52 UTC
Triget wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
TEXT


This just demonstrated your lack of experience and understanding of null and its mechanics. First off, we owned almost every tech moon when we were pushing for that nerf. Next up you dont seem to know what N+1 means or why missions are being called for. This is exactly what we talk about when we say people with no experience should not be getting involved in matters they do not understand. Im not being deliberatly hostile to you but there are far too many people in this thread with no null sec experience who simply do not understand what the issues even are.


You began pushing for the tech nerf when you owned < half of nulsec tech, lowsec/NPC nulsec tech was owned by others. I understand N+1, I've been arguing for more hyperbole on it. You want missions in nullsec so each system can have infinite playerbase, and I think that missions in sov run contrary to the promise of nullsec and the sandbox. I will not cite nulsec sov experience because I find arguments from authority off-putting, but I do have it. You seem to be, either intentionially or otherwise, misconstruing my statements and responding to them out of context. Perhaps this misreading leads you to think I am inexperienced?


You do come across as such in your arguing.

Getting into missions, why do you think this?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#454 - 2014-09-18 23:01:02 UTC
Had the initial meeting with CCP about this today.

Cautiously optimistic about what we talked about. obviously I can't talk about what was discussed, because :NDA:, but the approach being taken is a good one. Obviously, it's not set in stone yet (Good chance of never being entirely set, just a target to be constantly worked towards), so any wonderful ideas people might have still have a chance to be integrated.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2014-09-18 23:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Triget
Fail double post
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#456 - 2014-09-18 23:14:01 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:
TEXT


This just demonstrated your lack of experience and understanding of null and its mechanics. First off, we owned almost every tech moon when we were pushing for that nerf. Next up you dont seem to know what N+1 means or why missions are being called for. This is exactly what we talk about when we say people with no experience should not be getting involved in matters they do not understand. Im not being deliberatly hostile to you but there are far too many people in this thread with no null sec experience who simply do not understand what the issues even are.


You began pushing for the tech nerf when you owned < half of nulsec tech, lowsec/NPC nulsec tech was owned by others. I understand N+1, I've been arguing for more hyperbole on it. You want missions in nullsec so each system can have infinite playerbase, and I think that missions in sov run contrary to the promise of nullsec and the sandbox. I will not cite nulsec sov experience because I find arguments from authority off-putting, but I do have it. You seem to be, either intentionially or otherwise, misconstruing my statements and responding to them out of context. Perhaps this misreading leads you to think I am inexperienced?


You do come across as such in your arguing.

Getting into missions, why do you think this?


I apologize if my arguing style is off-putting.

Can you imagine, 2-3 mo old char comes out to null to get away from the grind and boringness of highsec. So many things, open sandbox, build an empire, and then realizing he's going from one mission hub to another, this time with bubbled gates. There is a place for that, its called NPC Nulsec. We have that in the game already.

Placing agents in stations might generate isk and concentrate players in station systems with no support ceiling, but you are just mission running. If that's what people wanted NPC null is right over there. Rather, I think that there should be a targeted number of supported players for a variety or rewards. You want most all space to function like a -1.0 system, your target will be about 10 pilots in system active. I think that the available activities in a system should be found in space and have a payout somewhere in the 100-250mil/hr range. The rewards should be in drops rather than bounties.

At the end of the day, we both think that the reason 90% of nulsec systems are useless is that they can't support players economically. That needs to be addressed, among other things. Yet, for those who hold more space, they will stand the most to gain.

I am of the opinion that new regions should be created to start all of these changes in. Some place for a fresh start and to break the stranglehold of the duopoly.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#457 - 2014-09-18 23:37:27 UTC
Triget wrote:


I apologize if my arguing style is off-putting.

Can you imagine, 2-3 mo old char comes out to null to get away from the grind and boringness of highsec. So many things, open sandbox, build an empire, and then realizing he's going from one mission hub to another, this time with bubbled gates. There is a place for that, its called NPC Nulsec. We have that in the game already.

Placing agents in stations might generate isk and concentrate players in station systems with no support ceiling, but you are just mission running. If that's what people wanted NPC null is right over there. Rather, I think that there should be a targeted number of supported players for a variety or rewards. You want most all space to function like a -1.0 system, your target will be about 10 pilots in system active. I think that the available activities in a system should be found in space and have a payout somewhere in the 100-250mil/hr range. The rewards should be in drops rather than bounties.

At the end of the day, we both think that the reason 90% of nulsec systems are useless is that they can't support players economically. That needs to be addressed, among other things. Yet, for those who hold more space, they will stand the most to gain.

I am of the opinion that new regions should be created to start all of these changes in. Some place for a fresh start and to break the stranglehold of the duopoly.


But we need to get away from the 10 per system limit as that is what leads to empire sprawl. In the end, there is no difference between anoms and missions aside from the payout from a pve standpoint as we just farm both of them a quickly as we can. Missions are also by far the easiest change CCP can make in this area as all of the code is in place. NPC null won't lose out as that will still be the only place you can run missions for the pirate factions.
Triget
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#458 - 2014-09-19 00:20:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:


I apologize if my arguing style is off-putting.

Can you imagine, 2-3 mo old char comes out to null to get away from the grind and boringness of highsec. So many things, open sandbox, build an empire, and then realizing he's going from one mission hub to another, this time with bubbled gates. There is a place for that, its called NPC Nulsec. We have that in the game already.

Placing agents in stations might generate isk and concentrate players in station systems with no support ceiling, but you are just mission running. If that's what people wanted NPC null is right over there. Rather, I think that there should be a targeted number of supported players for a variety or rewards. You want most all space to function like a -1.0 system, your target will be about 10 pilots in system active. I think that the available activities in a system should be found in space and have a payout somewhere in the 100-250mil/hr range. The rewards should be in drops rather than bounties.

At the end of the day, we both think that the reason 90% of nulsec systems are useless is that they can't support players economically. That needs to be addressed, among other things. Yet, for those who hold more space, they will stand the most to gain.

I am of the opinion that new regions should be created to start all of these changes in. Some place for a fresh start and to break the stranglehold of the duopoly.


But we need to get away from the 10 per system limit as that is what leads to empire sprawl. In the end, there is no difference between anoms and missions aside from the payout from a pve standpoint as we just farm both of them a quickly as we can. Missions are also by far the easiest change CCP can make in this area as all of the code is in place. NPC null won't lose out as that will still be the only place you can run missions for the pirate factions.


10 per system wouldn't be a limit, rather a target. Even at 10 active per system, that would reduce sprawl by 60-70% When my alliance at 4k chars was most active at peace, we had about 250-300 on, and a good number of those were pvping or afk. Say 200 were active, they would only need 20 systems, or half of Period Basis. Extrapolating, GSF would only need 60 systems, or 25% of what it currently controls. The other alliances, even less.

Have you considered the effect of 100k nulsec guys running missions on the LP market? It would collapse income for all sectors of EVE. Additionally, ships in missions have to be probed down, and then you usually have an acceleration gate. How many people want to end hunting ratters?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#459 - 2014-09-19 00:49:11 UTC
Triget wrote:


10 per system wouldn't be a limit, rather a target. Even at 10 active per system, that would reduce sprawl by 60-70% When my alliance at 4k chars was most active at peace, we had about 250-300 on, and a good number of those were pvping or afk. Say 200 were active, they would only need 20 systems, or half of Period Basis. Extrapolating, GSF would only need 60 systems, or 25% of what it currently controls. The other alliances, even less.

Have you considered the effect of 100k nulsec guys running missions on the LP market? It would collapse income for all sectors of EVE. Additionally, ships in missions have to be probed down, and then you usually have an acceleration gate. How many people want to end hunting ratters?


Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.
Dread Scar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#460 - 2014-09-19 01:26:25 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Triget wrote:


10 per system wouldn't be a limit, rather a target. Even at 10 active per system, that would reduce sprawl by 60-70% When my alliance at 4k chars was most active at peace, we had about 250-300 on, and a good number of those were pvping or afk. Say 200 were active, they would only need 20 systems, or half of Period Basis. Extrapolating, GSF would only need 60 systems, or 25% of what it currently controls. The other alliances, even less.

Have you considered the effect of 100k nulsec guys running missions on the LP market? It would collapse income for all sectors of EVE. Additionally, ships in missions have to be probed down, and then you usually have an acceleration gate. How many people want to end hunting ratters?


Most null players already run missions in high sec so the impact on LP will be minimal. Also your numbers are way off.

Our goal is to get our members out of high sec and into null to earn their isk so we would infact need to be able to support everyone in our organisation which means a minimum of 300 systems would be required. Your system also does not take into account population growth. If we continue to grow like we have done then in 4-5 years we will need 600 systems to support our memebers and we wind up with the exact same situation as now.

Missions solve these problems and allows us to contract our entire empire into just one region and will allow for population growth in the future.


LP is used rather than sold in Null and if Moon goo was widely available hubs would migrate outwards which would be a god send and by proxy increase PvP. Cant argue.