These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Null Deal: A Statement from Sovereign Nullsec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2014-09-29 02:43:12 UTC
I endorse, support and recommend this product and/or service.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#202 - 2014-09-29 02:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.

What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?
Miner Hottie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2014-09-29 02:55:33 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.

What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?


I don't know what game you play but less than a year ago the CFC and Rus super cap fleets laid waste to the flagship fleets of PL and N3. We did exactly what you ask of us. You might of heard it, it was the Bloodbath at BR5. Did this change anything apart from the price of Tritanium in Jita? No, the largest sov holding alliances in game are the PL and N3 renter allicances. Sonething else needs to change.

It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#204 - 2014-09-29 02:55:35 UTC
Hell yes.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#205 - 2014-09-29 03:00:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Veers Belvar
Miner Hottie wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
I don't have a problem with the suggestions, but they are not really needed to solve the issue of nullsec stagnation.

What is needed for that is less bloviating and more courage. There are multiple coalitions with significant capital fleets - and yet instead of engaging each other to create some actual content they prefer to sit in dry dock and complain about the blue donut. To the Goons, et al., instead of complaining and demanding unneeded CCP changes, why not just go deploy your fleets and see what you can accomplish in the current setup instead?


I don't know what game you play but less than a year ago the CFC and Rus super cap fleets laid waste to the flagship fleets of PL and N3. We did exactly what you ask of us. You might of heard it, it was the Bloodbath at BR5. Did this change anything apart from the price of Tritanium in Jita? No, the largest sov holding alliances in game are the PL and N3 renter allicances. Sonething else needs to change.


As I recall the battle would have let to decisive changes in the composition of nullsec but for the utter collapse of various CFC allies due to internal issues. To me that seems to show that the system works. What you need is to create a few more BR5's, and to follow up on them properly this time.

And the point is that the suggestions do nothing to create the conditions to make that large supercapital engagement more likely. They are geared towards getting smaller blocs to engage with larger ones - not towards getting the large blocs to directly engage with each other. And that fails to fix the fundamental malady of nullsec - a system of entrenched alliances who refuse to engage in the kind of total war that would really shake things up and allow new powerblocs to emerge.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#206 - 2014-09-29 03:37:11 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
And the point is that the suggestions do nothing to create the conditions to make that large supercapital engagement more likely. They are geared towards getting smaller blocs to engage with larger ones - not towards getting the large blocs to directly engage with each other. And that fails to fix the fundamental malady of nullsec - a system of entrenched alliances who refuse to engage in the kind of total war that would really shake things up and allow new powerblocs to emerge.


Occupancy based sovereignty is intended to force alliances to focus on holding smaller amounts of space, not planting flags in a hundred systems and calling it a day. I don't expect CCP to implement something like this as suggested, and that isn't the point. The point of this letter is to give the CSM a mandate to push for sov changes, and to give the developers a damn good reason to listen to them.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Celly S
Neutin Local LLC
#207 - 2014-09-29 03:38:31 UTC
I support this idea

o/
Celly Smunt

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#208 - 2014-09-29 03:48:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Daide Vondrichnov
It's a misconceptiont, add npc systems will just keep busy coalitions'pvper with some small entites which will try to live in those places in order to teach people how to pvp/FC or to keep bittervet playing until the next "great war", this is not a solution, it won't change the "blue donnut" rule.

Anyways those systems where people have starbase and are free to roam in 0.0 sov already exist sirs, it's called wormholes.
Captain Jack Geary
State War Academy
Caldari State
#209 - 2014-09-29 03:56:02 UTC
I fully support the OP message,

To the honor of our ancestors and the future of 0.0 space,

Cpt. Jack Geary
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#210 - 2014-09-29 04:53:47 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
So, more NPC 0.0 space WITHIN conquerable regions, basically provide a safe haven for whatever fleet wants to **** on or harass anyone they want within a couple jumps of anywhere, so how does system defense, or the entire point of SOV, even come into play here? cause "untouchable safe haven for the guys who are just waiting to **** on us with their fleet 4-5 jumps from our space" does not "conquerable regions" mesh

also, occupancy SOV always bothered me, basically you want a system that will advertise for you what systems have the highest density PvE (because lets face it, there will NEVER be enough PvP in a system someone wants SOV in to outdo PvE in ANY index), just so it can get perma-harassed/camped/roamed by every shitlord in a massive blob alliance already?

neither one of these will change anything with nullsec, every fight will still be "form fleet with blues" followed by "camp/**** on smaller guys trying to make their way in nullsec until they quit or agree to throw away their identity and join a big blob empire" or "OH **** OH **** those arent little guys they have roughly the same number of people as us, stand down, go home, we wasted 5 hours"

none of that will change, in fact, these 2 changes in particular will make it even EASIER for the big guy to take a warm smelly dump on whatever little guy they want.


NPC squatters have proved to be excellent content providers

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Rhoaden
Australia Federal Police
#211 - 2014-09-29 04:56:25 UTC
I feel like more NPC space well just allow the blue dount to get bigger. But other then that looks pretty good.
yogizh
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2014-09-29 05:53:38 UTC
Snot Shot wrote:
So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first?

CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid.

If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point.

Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...Roll...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...Blink
.


Yes, let's make structures vulnerable, so people can pay for your obsession with structure shoots. Do you even nullsec sir ?
Oylmpia
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#213 - 2014-09-29 06:21:34 UTC
I wholeheartedly recommend this statement and/or declaration, as instructed by our Great Leader.
KaRa DaVuT
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2014-09-29 06:22:07 UTC
Its a good way to unite people btw.

Good approach. Hopefully I think CCP will listen.

Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is in your heart and on your mind... And what you decide to do every day, makes you - not your race - a good man - or not.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#215 - 2014-09-29 06:31:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dictateur Imperator
don't support the idea, and i explain why :

Quote:
THE NULL DEAL: A STATEMENT FROM SOVEREIGN 0.0

We, the undersigned alliance leaders of conquerable nullsec, are deeply concerned by the risk of another Dominion-style expansion making the existing mechanics of sovereignty even worse than they are today. We have put aside our many differences and brutal rivalries to advocate for the following three touchstones of a prospective sovereignty revamp. We hope that announcing the following united proclamation gives game developers at CCP the freedom they need to make the following drastic yet necessary changes.


I hope CCP developer don't wait player to think about change And don't make change because a kind of player ask. But yes if you want change 0.0 rules. People who live in 0.0 can ask for they and CCP want to change this. So for the moment: nothing new.


Quote:
OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY

We believe that ownership of territory should be reflected by alliance occupancy. Players should live in and utilize their space, and player infrastructure and activity should be reflected in an occupancy index. We believe this will significantly shrink the footprints of the current absentee empires, free up large sections of sov 0.0 for smaller entities, and remove the current need for vast coalitions.


In fact it already exist, if you want upgrade number of anomy/signature of a system. Extend to sov conquest system is just ... a joke.
Now just some problem:
A) Perma clocker camp your system, you can't pve/dig cause he can kill your ship, if you bait he has 50 friends who arrive. So 2 choices : fight (and loss a lot of ships and they to, so you like this only if you are pvp player), and if they win fight : they win your system, great choice. Don't do nothing wait... loose sov. Actually people who ant take dove must have some logistic. wight his you don't need.
B) You said to free up to small entities... But in fact you just make a copy of low sec with this. Smaller entity can't play H24 because maybe no people in one time zone, so ninja people come, juste make more activity... SURPRISE you loose system.
C) Vast coalition can continue to exist with this system, in fact they are just the alone who can survive with this, because can defend some system, and perm bank all the other. Smelt like people who search easy target who try to save they 're sov every 2 day.

Quote:
NPC 0.0 IN EVERY SOV REGION

We believe that regions which contain several unconquerable NPC systems and stations generate platforms for small-scale PVP content and launching points for smaller alliances. We believe that Fountain provides superior gameplay for both sovholders and guerillas than Omist. We wish to see small footprints of NPC 0.0 seeded in every conquerable region which lacks them, from Tenal to Omist.


A) Foutain for exemple have a lot of very powerful moon but in exchange it's an area who you can disrupt farming easier as other area. You already have "guerrilla" in other area of 0.0. They just deploy some POS to have "temporary safe". Sovholder must broke this tower for they safety and the guerrilla must send new.So yea they spend iso to tower and it's not only pew pew.
B) Permit to all player to have safe staging in each 0.0... and if i reminder CCP want nerf projection force and make outpost destructible. So you try to broke the idea of hell camp in 0.0 by full staging in NPC area. Counter the update before update come. Nice try...
C)Eve is NOT a PVP game it IS a SANDBOX game, some player want live in deep 0.0 to have less problem with pirates for exemple. So you want they play unsafe everywhere for your fun of pvp and forget people who prefer to play for other thing.

Quote:
INCREASED PLAYER DENSITY

We believe that vast swathes of conquerable nullsec are essentially worthless to our line members and can only support the activity of a handful of players in each system. We would like to see the value of individual systems increased to support a dense ecosystem of players undocked and interacting within single system.


A) Make 0.0 more unsafe means pvp people come to have content yes.But industrial can just leave. So you just make an exchange of population.
B) In fact low density player means easy to conquer for small entities with more density when power projection be fixed.
C) if you really want increase density : allow to deploy gate defense who can uncloack ship and gun like POS to counter small gang. And you see more people in 0.0 because safer as now for all pacifist people.



Conclusion : Change sov system: why not.
- All other thing on the post : just no. I thin better thing can be doing to " change" 0.0 if you want. And maybe people must start to understand on thing:

Empire : war dec and suicide gank pvp/ PVE and miner car fly with some protection.
LS: smale gangandFactionnal warfare./ PVE and miner can have a lot of difficulty to be here.
W.H: between LS and 0.0
0.0: Large scale pvp./ You need strand industry to survive and finance your pvp fleet.

This change are here to forget the industrial part of 0.0 to increase pressure and power of the PVP part i think.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#216 - 2014-09-29 06:38:03 UTC
I like how it is hyped as some kind of meaningful thing with actual impact on anything.

+1.

Invalid signature format
Bobbyd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2014-09-29 06:55:08 UTC
+1
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#218 - 2014-09-29 07:04:17 UTC
It has to be better than what we have now.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Knerf
Original Sinners
Pandemic Legion
#219 - 2014-09-29 07:05:10 UTC
Please make this a thing ccp, no more coalitions in a staging system with 200 in local and every system within 20 jumps is dead. This game was much better when 10 - 20 man gangs ruled the skies
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#220 - 2014-09-29 07:26:28 UTC
+1