These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#341 - 2014-09-29 16:23:10 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?


Jump bridges. Cyno Beacons. To keep others out. Just because. To rent to scrubs who don't know any better.

Pick one lol.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#342 - 2014-09-29 16:24:13 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


couldn't care less.

but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that.
also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.

Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.


Thats where other changes come in such as nerfs to invincible capital and subcap fleets. The changes listed here are simply to fix empire sprawl.
Dave Stark
#343 - 2014-09-29 16:26:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
baltec1 wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


couldn't care less.

but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that.
also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.

Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.


Thats where other changes come in such as nerfs to invincible capital and subcap fleets. The changes listed here are simply to fix empire sprawl.


which literally makes the whole "attackers being outnumbered and always losing thus causing stagnation" thing worse. if you can't move your capitals away from your "home" then only defenders have them, skewing the power balance to them leading to impregnable "fortresses" for lack of a better term.

again, more stagnation. just a different variety.

edit: by nerfs to capitals i assume you're meaning the tired old "power projection" crap.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#344 - 2014-09-29 16:26:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


couldn't care less.

but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that.
also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.

Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.


Thats where other changes come in such as nerfs to invincible capital and subcap fleets. The changes listed here are simply to fix empire sprawl.


Yep, still gotta nerf logi into the ground eventually, too.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#345 - 2014-09-29 16:26:58 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?

Because the sov bill for ****** systems is **** all, and the fuel block consumption reduction that comes with holding sov alone makes it worthwhile. And because under the current system, taking the system just to prevent someone else from taking it is incredibly easy to do with minimal effort.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#346 - 2014-09-29 16:27:35 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.

Big smile
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#347 - 2014-09-29 16:30:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?
Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots.
So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying?
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#348 - 2014-09-29 16:31:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?


Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots.


Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun?

Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system.

Every day I'm wafflin!
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#349 - 2014-09-29 16:31:35 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.

throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it.
unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.

i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me.


The index would be linked to activity in a system like mining, ratting, kills or some other industry metric. It could be grown over a period of time. This in turn would affect how easy it is for them to defend and how hard it would be for opponents to take. You could directly link it to structure EHP or timers for instance.

This method would mean a dead system, with no activity would be very easy to conquer and a used system, with plenty of activity across the spectrum would be difficult to take.




until you throw x+1 warm bodies at the system, and it becomes impossible to take, thus keeping us in the situation of having large coalitions except now you have to put them all under 1 alliance banner. instead of informal coalition banners.


If you build a system which requires certain activity to take place in said system, it won't be a problem. That and if your 1000 guys are in system X, they are not in system Y. System Y is now vulnerable. Even a coalition of 40,000 will contract and can't be everywhere at once but CCP isn't going to give people a free ticket to just take any space they want without some kind of fight.
Ms Forum Alt
Doomheim
#350 - 2014-09-29 16:32:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

There is plenty of room out here, most of null is all but abandoned. We also would not be taking rent off these new alliances as we wouldn't own their space.


Oh come on, do you think we're all fools? You don't need a "sov mechanic" to shake players down in a protection racket. CODE do it all the time in high sec. You say "pay us and we won't farm you". You have an apex force. You can do whatever you like.

Eve is fundamentally broken. What broke it wasn't sov mechanics, it's players like Mittani re-creating the kind of society and systems in game you play video games to get away from in the real world. It's Lord of the Flies all over again. I don't know why people go along with it but they do. There's a psychology thesis somewhere here I'm sure.

When I look at CCP marketing with their "100,000 v 100,000 people isn't this amazing!" BS, it's clear to me that Eve is kind-of finished as development potential. It's matured and we're at the end game.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#351 - 2014-09-29 16:32:34 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying?


Noticed that did you? Cool
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#352 - 2014-09-29 16:37:44 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying?
Noticed that did you? Cool
Kind of the big elephant in the room isn't it?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#353 - 2014-09-29 17:07:13 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
So when they become more valuable you'll just let them go? Is that what you're saying?
Noticed that did you? Cool
Kind of the big elephant in the room isn't it?


How do you think they would keep them if it takes hundred of man hours to keep them?
Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#354 - 2014-09-29 17:09:50 UTC
Well this is a nice little band aid on the idea of fixing sov. How bout we actually talk about the real issue here.

Moons.

Why are alliances in the space they are? It's not cause of the pretty lights. It's cause of the money. The moons or access to materials in those areas. I started playing this game only a few years ago but my goal was to be able to make Tech 2 items. Well i cant do that. I am forbidden to moon mine high end materials. Either its controlled by my alliance and thus I have to buy it or it's in the hands of people, that on my own, I cant overthrow.

So though the letter of occupancy based sov is nice and I support that, minus the addition of the free jump bridge network, AKA more NPC stations. The real truth is that you have to look where the money is to fix the real issue.

My idea. Pretty simple. That high end moon.... well after a week it runs dry. Goes barren for a week and then comes back as some other resource, but not what it was. So no one resource can be harvested twice in a row. So all those precious moons that alliances covet so much are suddenly limited and not static to one area of space. Now EVERYONE can get a crack at the T2 market.

The walls of sov would quickly break. Groups would be forced to scan moons, hunt moons, defend moons or attack moons.

Corps could keep their space. In all honesty no one cares about the actual space. It's strictly the resources it provides.

What would this do?

Lots of gang fights. People fighting over moons and resources. You wouldnt need HUGE capital fleets to flip a station. The station is no where near as important, if the resource in that area isn't fixed.

PVP would increase on a huge scale. Fights would no longer be over certain space, but owning more space.

This benefits people like myself as an industrial person but forces me to get into PVP if I wish to defend my materials. It also means that the area I call home wont be a risk of lose so much, but will more far more active while people hunt resources.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#355 - 2014-09-29 17:13:54 UTC
Toriessian wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?


Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots.


Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun?

Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system.


1. You're going to willingly give up moons in 0.0 systems?
2. You're not going to continue to rent out your unused space?
3. You're not going to increase rent and make even more isk out of these proposed changes?
4. 0.0 entities are making massive amounts of isk already. Why do you need to make more isk? You guys are building Super Caps and storing them on unused accounts as a sort of savings plan.

What is likely to happen is that both sides of the 0.0 sov conflict will increase rents on these now valuable systems, and then build even more super caps due to the fact that both sides "need to stay competitive with each other."

5. wrt risk/reward argument: Shouldn't the reward be having your name on the map? If isk is the bottom line goal in this game, then we'd all form a non-aggression pact over every area where isk is involved and then we'd farm 23/7.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#356 - 2014-09-29 17:16:26 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Well this is a nice little band aid on the idea of fixing sov. How bout we actually talk about the real issue here.

Moons.

Why are alliances in the space they are? It's not cause of the pretty lights. It's cause of the money. The moons or access to materials in those areas. I started playing this game only a few years ago but my goal was to be able to make Tech 2 items. Well i cant do that. I am forbidden to moon mine high end materials. Either its controlled by my alliance and thus I have to buy it or it's in the hands of people, that on my own, I cant overthrow.

So though the letter of occupancy based sov is nice and I support that, minus the addition of the free jump bridge network, AKA more NPC stations. The real truth is that you have to look where the money is to fix the real issue.

My idea. Pretty simple. That high end moon.... well after a week it runs dry. Goes barren for a week and then comes back as some other resource, but not what it was. So no one resource can be harvested twice in a row. So all those precious moons that alliances covet so much are suddenly limited and not static to one area of space. Now EVERYONE can get a crack at the T2 market.

The walls of sov would quickly break. Groups would be forced to scan moons, hunt moons, defend moons or attack moons.

Corps could keep their space. In all honesty no one cares about the actual space. It's strictly the resources it provides.

What would this do?

Lots of gang fights. People fighting over moons and resources. You wouldnt need HUGE capital fleets to flip a station. The station is no where near as important, if the resource in that area isn't fixed.

PVP would increase on a huge scale. Fights would no longer be over certain space, but owning more space.

This benefits people like myself as an industrial person but forces me to get into PVP if I wish to defend my materials. It also means that the area I call home wont be a risk of lose so much, but will more far more active while people hunt resources.



Causing T2 ships to skyrocket in price would not create more PvP until they hit a mark where it's feasible to drop caps to every moon to clear the POS, erect your own and suck it for less than a week. This price point? Billions per hull.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#357 - 2014-09-29 17:19:02 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
I'll be honest, i don't see how occupancy sov really changes anything with respect to the size of things.

throw lots of warm bodies at an area of sov = impossible to take it.
unless you cap the amount an index can change per time period.... in which case, just stack enough people to cap it daily and you end up with a boring stalemate (which is the whole issue at the moment) or an inevitable slide of the index in one direction that you can't challenge.

i'll be honest; i don't get it. some one explain it to me.


But then those bodies would have to remain there to keep it and they won't because eventually they will want to go home.

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.

Behr Oroo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#358 - 2014-09-29 17:19:23 UTC
No. The price of T2 would fall. EVERYONE in null would be able to get the mats to make T2. But those materials would random and not fixed like they are now. They would also deplete and then respawn as something different.

You break the monopoly on T2 production and you will see major changes in the game cause prices will fall.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#359 - 2014-09-29 17:22:16 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Toriessian wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Except that currently 80% of systems are worthless crap that no one uses.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?


Because if/when they become worth using they can only support 10 at a time. We have tens of thousands of pilots.


Baltec gives us the simplest explanation of why this works. Doing logistics positively sucks. If the null blocs can realistically shrink their footprints they will. Does anyone really think playing "ship fuel blocks online" is any fun?

Shrinking is hard when a system can't support a large # of people in a realistic faction. By realistic I mean, as good as running Incursions in hi sec because we're in null and we're supposed to get reward for the risk. The risk will be increased if the local list is so long you can't easily tell if neuts come in system.


1. You're going to willingly give up moons in 0.0 systems?
2. You're not going to continue to rent out your unused space?
3. You're not going to increase rent and make even more isk out of these proposed changes?
4. 0.0 entities are making massive amounts of isk already. Why do you need to make more isk? You guys are building Super Caps and storing them on unused accounts as a sort of savings plan.

What is likely to happen is that both sides of the 0.0 sov conflict will increase rents on these now valuable systems, and then build even more super caps due to the fact that both sides "need to stay competitive with each other."

5. wrt risk/reward argument: Shouldn't the reward be having your name on the map? If isk is the bottom line goal in this game, then we'd all form a non-aggression pact over every area where isk is involved and then we'd farm 23/7.






One thing I think you might be missing here, and that is that "grunt income" and "Alliance income" are 2 different things. When they talk about making systems have better rewards, they are talking about Grunt income (which is seriously capped in null sec compared to most other space because there are only so many anomalies and belts to go around per system where as mission agents are an infinite resource).

I've heard the same null leaders talk about shifting income from top down (moons )to bottom up (taxes on activity and such), but that's impossible with current sov null.

The signers of the agreement aren't asking for more money for null, they think making null systems viable to live in is a good thing and generally I agree even though i disagree with the overall ideas.
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#360 - 2014-09-29 17:30:02 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
umnikar wrote:


All good then. I trust goons to not take my new established sov...

Seriously. You must have some information I don't have, else all this makes no sense.


Occupancy sov changes several things.

First it makes it impossible for one power to own half of null.

Second it makes needing large fleets of several thousand redundant. The reason we use the massive fleets of today is because of the need to grind through huge amounts of EHP and defend against said huge fleets. This need goes away the second you get rid of the EHP grinds.

Lastly, Coalitions themselves would no longer be required to survive. It wont mean that they disband instantly but over time the rifts would get large enough that they will simply fall apart.



Eh, large fleets are needed because the enemy has huge numbers. The enemy has huge numbers because we have large fleets. Arms race. Nothing in the proposal stops an arms/numbers race.

And why would CFC suddenly break up if this proposal should happen in one form or another. When was "friends" bad to have? I am starting to feel that GSF is merely viewing the rest of CFC as a necessary evil. Several posts indicate this. Reset CFC and let the fire commence...?