These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2014-09-29 10:37:05 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Capt Robertson wrote:
+1 We Want Fights


Just reset all your blues and have all the fights you want.


That is treating the symptom, not the cause. Look at your current situation in Catch. CVA and Hero are just being toyed with to provide fun for PL and NCDOT because that's all there is to be had right now. A wargame between two strategic allies. This war is a complete farce.


Agree that the war is indeed a total farce. The outcome of this war will not be decided by anything either HERO or Provibloc does. But by N3/PL. We're well aware that they are farming both us and HERO for lulz. I'm surprised your lot hasn't joined in the "Thunderdome" yet.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.

Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#242 - 2014-09-29 10:51:34 UTC
Ereshgikal wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Who do I talk to about renting NPC nullsec systems in the middle of SOV holding alliances?


You can contact me. Fair offer will be given.

Can you give me a system that'll be used as a indestructible staging system?

......which would be any system!

...

ImYourMom
Retribution Holdings Corp
Retribution.
#243 - 2014-09-29 10:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: ImYourMom
please don't not listen to these people. all they want to do is


Point 1 , lose or use it translate to - we don't want to live there, but we want to charge billions more for rental space, this way by giving rewards it will do.
Point 2 - More NPC space, see point 1, we don't want to live in sov because we want rental, however we still want to live in nullsec, and having more NPC regions means we can stick our assets away from nullsec and be protected but still be close to home, plus we can farm the hell out of them and get better stuff.

NPC sov should be moved COMPLETELY away from Nullsec, to MAKE the SOV alliances actually use the space. Yes create more but put inside where low sec is - something like highsec - lowsec - npc null - lowsec - highsec (think that like a target symbol)

Yes I do agree use or lose it, but I think this is purely for alliances to charge more rental not actually live there.

limit number of corps in alliances
limit number of people in an alliance to 2000
limit number of systems alliances can hold
limit number of stations
limit number of blues
alliances can only take sov in ONE region, and only 50% max of it.
remove reinforcement timers, you snooze you lose, if your not in the system or surrounding areas then tough. If you don't have people in your TZ That's unlucky, go recruit some.
make alliances USE the resources they have and REMOVE any passive income.
remove alliances allowed to rent, sorry go make your own money, you want null, go work for it.
limit number of capitals on a field, bringing 300 slowcats, and 1000 supers is just a joke, they can cyno more in when others drop.
make missions pay more
bring back more 10/10 plexes
Dirk Heizer
RevoltTech Syndicate
Just let it happen
#244 - 2014-09-29 10:59:32 UTC
-1
Heavypredator Singh
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#245 - 2014-09-29 11:24:28 UTC
Ereshgikal wrote:
I'll go against the anti-MOA propaganda and state that NPC stations in nullsec do make a difference. While Mordus Angels (MOA) are too small on their own to threaten CFC SOV they are trying (often successfully unless we actively camp them in) to harass the surrounding area. They are not totally unsuccessful and I think that opening up more places like this would make it possible for other groups to live in the midst of the SOV holders and cause havoc.

I know that I love shooting random dudes basing out of NPC nullsec (though I most often end up as a lossmail). I prefer having reds/neuts going through our systems opposed to it being totally dead (like when my old CFC alliance was living in Branch).


Lies. MoA is irrelevant.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#246 - 2014-09-29 11:32:17 UTC
As I wrote on TMC:

The proposed changes are (as far as I understand):


  • occupancy based sovereignty;
  • increased amount of resources per system;
  • NPC 0.0 in every sov region;


Current power blocks hold the most supers/titans, with decent enough force projection over pretty much all of EVE, and the monopoly over Tech 2 manufacturing (held by corporations, not by players). The proposed changes do not mention these, so I assume that they are not recognized by the alliances as problems. The proposed changes, without resolving force projection and moon goo monopoly will make it easier to rent out systems than before. You'll have all the tools and ISK to control the renting empires and the systems themselves will be more lucrative for any potential renters. With PushX and Black Frog logistics having access to every region in the game though NPC 0.0, it would be easier than ever to rent out even systems that have always been far away from any non-player owned systems, since the logistics of exporting farmed materials from rented systems would be easier than ever. Increased resource amount would mitigate the cost of logistics and I'm sure there will be more services that will offer sov null freight transport bringing the prices down.

The renters, on the other hand, even if they get more ISK from richer systems, would not be able to organize any meaningful action against their landlords, because they lack the tools for it. They can't hold high-end moons because it's against the agreement. If they try to do it by force, they will be stomped with supers. They can only build supers (if they can at all... different alliances have different rules) if they meet certain conditions and they can only sell them either to certain entities or lose ISK if not selling to their landlords (again, the rules are different with each landlord).

While we're at supers and force projection, with the new NPC 0.0 in each region, you won't even need supers to keep your renters under control. Large alliances could just stock up Dreads and Carriers in new NPC 0.0 and just leave them there docked and safe until they are needed for intervention and then use them in large numbers. And you won't even need to travel to your docked fleet since it's NPC 0.0 and you can just instruct your cap pilots to have jump clones installed and ready there. Basically, the force projection of a large number of capitals would not increase - it would be instantaneous (clone jump - done). No renter would think to go against it.

My thoughts around fixing 0.0 and giving smaller entities a chance without improving conditions for large renter empires is to have systems that are hard to reach by the landlords in the reasonable amount of time - aka reduce force projection. The system where deploying a large fleet of capitals and supers to distant systems/regions would leave you vulnerable in other regions, so you'd only deploy when you really need to. Combined with moon mining transition from corporation monopoly to a system similar to Planetary Interaction (similar as a concept of player extracted materials, not implementation and actual mechanics... CCP can be creative about it) with anyone being able to extract the materials regardless of the alliance that holds the system would give smaller entities a chance to compete.
Caerbanog Walace
Perkone
Caldari State
#247 - 2014-09-29 11:37:04 UTC
I agree with about 70% of the statement.

- Ocupancy-based sov
Although severely undetailed I fully agree with the principle. I further support mechanics were conquering a occupied system is very hard but conquering an unoccupied system is trivial.

- NPC 0.0 in every region
Agreed. Personally would like to see an organic NPC were unoccupied space reverts to NPC control so that there is both static unconquerable NPC and dynamic conquerable NPC. Station density and medical station distribution need to be addressed.

- Increased player density
Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec. If a single system economically supports a whole coalition why even go anywhere else. I don't see the benefit. I do not reach the implied conclusion that this would free space for smaller groups, instead it will just free space for even more rental.
I favor the opposite: finite system resources, but with a much smaller index growth inertia, so that a small corp within the alliance can easily get the index to livable standards in 1 or 2 days.
Corp occupancy withing Alliance sov will increase small group identity and reduce the focus on coalition identity.
I favor that alliances grow by taking more systems so that more corps can join and ensure that space is occupied. This will split fleets and staging points and help foster smaller scale skirmishes that only escalate as needed. With a huge staging point the routine is allways "Wait for FC ping, then we blob them". This is holding back the emergence of rookie FC's that like leading small 5-10 man fleets but shy from leading 100-200 man whelps.
Heavypredator Singh
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#248 - 2014-09-29 11:44:49 UTC
CCP: Make the npc stations not accesible for sov holding alliances :D Make them make more alts if they want to keep caps in npc station :D Profit. Remove ships to lowsec if they join sov holding alliance.

Wouldn't really be surprised if they actually did this since CCP is all for making ppl use alts. More subs yay.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#249 - 2014-09-29 11:53:47 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:

Stuff



You worry to much about the use of NPC stations. They're pretty important for staging when invading but they have their own weaknesses. I guess you've never been hellcamped into one.
Jackhera
PICHATRON
Banderlogs Alliance
#250 - 2014-09-29 11:56:32 UTC
-1 Get rid of all positive standings and enjoy.
Antihrist Pripravnik
Cultural Enrichment and Synergy of Diversity
Stain Neurodiverse Democracy
#251 - 2014-09-29 12:04:23 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:

Stuff



You worry to much about the use of NPC stations. They're pretty important for staging when invading but they have their own weaknesses. I guess you've never been hellcamped into one.


NPC stations as means for instant force projection is just a bonus, not my main concern. I agree that they couldn't be used in all situations, but they would help increasing force projection in some of them.
Nienna Itinen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#252 - 2014-09-29 12:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nienna Itinen
Dislike.

You are too lazy to fly in the current NPC-nullsec?
Or you think that anyone would want to live near you with 23.5/7 undock camps? Maybe in first time yes, but I think this will be very-very short life.

In general, your proposal will not do absolutely nothing in the current state of the null-sec, and I find it hard to understand what you want to do with this change? Save your sov from future changes?

P.S. Sorry for bed english =(.
Archetype 66
Perkone
Caldari State
#253 - 2014-09-29 12:11:39 UTC
+1 nice initiative
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#254 - 2014-09-29 12:12:40 UTC
Nienna Itinen wrote:
Dislike.

You are too lazy to fly in the current NPC-nullsec?
Or you think that anyone would want to live near you with 23.5/7 undock camps? Maybe in first time yes, but I think this will be very-very short life.

In general, your proposal will not do absolutely nothing in the current state of the null-sec, and I find it hard to understand what you want to do with this change? Save your sov from future changes?

P.S. Sorry for bed english =(.


Especially if you have NPC 00 areas in deep water Sov 00 like far eastern drone lands or deep Angel and Sansha space. As a neutral, you cannot reach these areas without cynoing in hostile sov space. So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Aareya
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#255 - 2014-09-29 12:16:44 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to.

Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints?

Twitter:   @AareyaEVE

Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#256 - 2014-09-29 12:28:31 UTC
What I dislike is the absolute surety people always have when it comes to a complex problem. Some of the same 'signatories' of this agreement were HAPPY to see Dominion SOV because they were sure that is would fix things.

People never seem to learn that what they think they want is usually different from what they actually want.
Quote:
In his TED Talk on spaghetti sauces, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the food industry made a big mistake asking people about their preferences and conducting focus groups. Gladwell says that “The mind knows not what the tongue wants. […] If I asked all of you, for example, in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what you’d say? Every one of you would say ‘I want a dark, rich, hearty roast.’ It’s what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! What percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to Howard, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. Most of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want — that ‘I want a milky, weak coffee.’”


This agreement seems like the 'Dark, Rich, Hearty Roast' variety. These guys think they want NPC space plopped into the middle of every region without understanding the myriad consequences of such a suggestion.

They don't understand because when people "hate" something, they can see no good in it at all and this leads to "throw the baby out with the bath water" thinking. That kind of thinking led to Dominion SOV in the 1st place because people were so tired of pos bashing that literally "anything has to be better than this".

It wasn't lol.

The better way forward would be to look at the Dominion Sov system, see what works right, and build upon that. CCP following the suggestions in this agreement will only lead to ANOTHER Dominion SOV situation (especially after people start losing SOV in an activity based system because null sec is incredibly easy to disrupt).

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#257 - 2014-09-29 12:30:12 UTC
Aareya wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to.

Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints?


Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already".

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Regatto
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2014-09-29 12:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Regatto
All of that crap is directed by mittani and vince to make it easier for them to maintain their empires while pretending to create some content. They felt that fire of change burning under butts and this looks like their attempt to turn it to their advantage.

Oh just look at it, in 10minutes there were 30+upvotes from their F1 monkeys who were told to upvote this link and probably did so before they even finished reading it -_-
Nienna Itinen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#259 - 2014-09-29 12:59:25 UTC
And another questions:
What you promised HERO's for signature? You will not disturb them in their war against Provi? Or you don't kick them from their space? Or signed without the knowledge of theirs?

They has Stein at hand, why would they more NPC nulls?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#260 - 2014-09-29 13:07:43 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Aareya wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
So, in essence it is just going to be more safe havens for the Sov 00 holders where they can evacuate their assets to.

Because low sec can't be used for this purpose already while providing better range by low sec midpoints?


Low sec is far away from deep water drone land, angel & Sansha space, or even Branch and Tenal or Period Basis. If you have NPC space in every Sov 00 region, this difficulty is gone and you have an easily accessible and reachable safe haven everywhere. I hope you see the difference between that and "because low sec can't be used for this purpose already".



I do not believe the 'conspiracy' nuts when they say that the null sec people are saying this because they want to gain something. I do think they (the signatories) are mistaken and not taking everything into account. One such thing is that npc null in every region VASTLY simplifies logistics, because now their is an npc station in EVERY region to jump through. no need to send in an unsafe cyno alt to a system you don't won if you want to move your cap fleet across the map, no need to use unsafe low sec routes either.

\Just hop scotch across npc null systems from one side of the map to the other.