These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave Stark
#381 - 2014-09-29 18:23:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Why should a 100 man alliance be able to turf a 1000 man alliance out of their home easily?


because that's the very reason you're in this shitfest right now.

100 man alliances can't kick out 1000 man alliances, so the 100 man alliance becomes a 1000 man alliance to do that, then the 1000 man alliance becomes a 10000 man alliance and you're where we are now.

occupancy sov doesn't seem to change this. instead of needing 10k people because structures have millions of hitpoints, you will just keep 10k people to keep some "sov index" as high as possible.

you've just moved "there are too many hp to grind" to "the index is too high to bother grinding".

that's why i don't bloody get it; you're just trading 1 grind for another which still ends up with the optimal tactic being "more warm bodies".
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#382 - 2014-09-29 18:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelique Duchemin
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
The Mittani wrote:

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.


Translation:

It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them while we still have time.

Mr Epeen Cool


We have frequently advocated for destructible stations. I would love to be able to not only hellcamp someone but also completely and irreversibly destroy their stuff trapped inside.



Not to mention change what station we have in any particular systems.

Since the Crius bonuses are wholly dependant on what kind of station it is and those stations were already placed years ago.

Would some sort of "station reconstruction kit" be so far fetched?

I mean the real issue with being able to destroy a station is all the equipment inside. What about just replacing it with another station.

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.

Ocih
Space Mermaids
#383 - 2014-09-29 18:25:34 UTC
Turn over some of your rental systems to an NRDS policy. Make them accessible systems through a High Sec entry point. Show a little self discipline and don't shoot neutrals, Establish a reds list based on forward activity in the regions, establish docking fees that are realistic. Consider any number of other options I haven't considered.

The point is simple, EVE is rigid because you play it rigid. We have Overview save options. You can have an NBSI overview for systems that you don't want neutrals in. This is the Sandbox element. I'm not hating on you guys, I get the mechanical restrictions but you turned the sandbox in to a cement box.

- do I have an 'ulterior motive'? An 'Agenda'?

Kind of. If you guys introduce CFC backed NRDS, I expect PL and Co to move out of Provi to torture you and make it difficult for you to implement but isn't that what you are asking for?
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#384 - 2014-09-29 18:30:25 UTC
How about with the next patch CCP breaks the patch and a universal standings reset. That might help break up a lot of these coalitions and larger alliances and bring back the small ones.


But somewhere on an earlier page, i saw a post about player limits. CCP really needs to rethink the corp management skills and max corp sizes and max alliance sizes.

Also bigger alliances do need bigger fees. not linear but exponential increase on fees and fees for each upgraded indice for the system.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#385 - 2014-09-29 18:30:31 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
The Mittani wrote:

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.


Translation:

It's going to suck for us when destructible player stations are introduced. Better get some NPC stations where we need them while we still have time.

Mr Epeen Cool

And on the flipside, groups without their own outposts (most often the small ones), have a safer place to be a nuisance from.
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#386 - 2014-09-29 18:32:35 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?

Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#387 - 2014-09-29 18:33:06 UTC
Ranamar wrote:

You seem to be writing as if having NPC nullsec seeded around within jump range of each other to simplify logistics is a negative thing.


It is. Because it's the same kind of thinking as this was:
Quote:
tl;dr There's now a reason to fight for better space again: sov upgrades will spawn better cosmic anomalies in lower truesec space; cosmic anomalies spawned by methods other than sov upgrades are unaffected.


The whole idea here is to make null sec more active, more chaotic, more 'fun' and 'accessible but small groups'. NPC null in every region does the opposite. It makes traveling safer (no more having to sneak a cyno into hostile space or light a cyno in low sec space that everyone and thier space-mommas are in super cap range of) and it gives allainces someplace to store material and ships that can never be taken away.

It makes the big guys stronger while not doing jack for the little guy. Every new npc null constellation should be named some variation of 'Malcanis' (Malcanium, Malcanistan etc) because Malcanis' law will reign supreme lol.

I'm not jumping on the 'selfish conspiracy' bandwagon. I think Mittani and the rest have good intentions with these ideas, but I think these ideas are fatally flawed.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#388 - 2014-09-29 18:33:13 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
This suggestion serves one purpose: to allow the current power holders to condense their large empires into small, unpenetrable fortresses (cynojam, lot of friendlies in fleet 1-2 jumps away) where they can rat in complete safety, regions away from anyone who could theoretically harm them.

In the meantime both their own PvP-ers and current pirates are pacified by offering them regions full of terrible players who are easy to farm (these are dubbed as "new alliances").

The result: CFC, N3 and PL are ratting in Nyxes in 3 far corners of the universe without any risk of losing them. No more SRP to pay as fleets barely have losses (see PL losses against HERO/Provi), no capital subsidies as there is no need for capital fleet and greatly decreased Sov costs. So alliance leaders could keep the whole alliance income to themselves without the members giving a damn.


So you're saying that the CFC and PL/N3 would become weak and be promptly thrown out of their space as a result. That sounds like a good outcome to me.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
javer
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2014-09-29 18:33:49 UTC
+1
I can only support the current set of changes as proposed
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#390 - 2014-09-29 18:38:37 UTC
Andski wrote:
So you're saying that the CFC and PL/N3 would become weak and be promptly thrown out of their space as a result. That sounds like a good outcome to me.

Sure, throwing out CFC from Deklein would be fun, but they would be just as happy in Fountain or Esoteria or Tenal. They could be thrown out, but they couldn't care less.

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#391 - 2014-09-29 18:40:16 UTC
I am surprised that PL support the idea behind occupancy sov.

I know that in the CFC the members live in and use their systems. N3 have alt corps in Northern Associates for isk making but will PL members take up mining and site running to generate taxes to pay for the Alliance ships?

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
#392 - 2014-09-29 18:41:04 UTC
Enaris Kerle wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?

Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.



Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#393 - 2014-09-29 18:44:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Enaris Kerle
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
How about with the next patch CCP breaks the patch and a universal standings reset. That might help break up a lot of these coalitions and larger alliances and bring back the small ones.

You can't seriously assert that coalitions would break just from a standings reset due to a patch.

Obsidian Hawk wrote:
But somewhere on an earlier page, i saw a post about player limits. CCP really needs to rethink the corp management skills and max corp sizes and max alliance sizes.

Also bigger alliances do need bigger fees. not linear but exponential increase on fees and fees for each upgraded indice for the system.

Hello, Goonswarm Federation 1, Goonswarm Federation 2, Goonswarm Federation 3, ... I'm sure you get the picture.

Behr Oroo wrote:
Enaris Kerle wrote:
Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.

Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.

There was another question in that quote. Why do you expect that your alliance would suddenly change policy and allow you to keep your high-end moon goo?
In addition to your response: Why exactly would prices drop if people have to expend more work?

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#394 - 2014-09-29 18:53:54 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Enaris Kerle wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?

Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.



Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.


Look. With current moongoo prices, either it's a strategic asset (R32s and R64s) because it requires a strategic defense, or it's barely worth fueling the towers to keep the reactions running. R32s and R64s would continue to be strategic assets because they'd be worth at least as much, and they'd still require full-alliance defense efforts, and sub-R32s might rise a bit in price because people would be even less arsed to do the effort to harvest them for a limited period of time (because towering and detowering sucks).

Also, who do you think actually does moon scanning? (Hint: It's not random line members unless some sort of bounty is put out.) I suspect you have no idea how nullsec sov alliances actually work.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#395 - 2014-09-29 18:55:17 UTC
Thomas Hurt wrote:
If Goons came up with it, it can't be good, IMO


Yeah, goons wrote evemon. Obviously, it is bad for the game, stop using it.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#396 - 2014-09-29 18:57:33 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin.

So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?

The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?
Janeos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#397 - 2014-09-29 19:03:21 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin.

So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?

The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?

It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#398 - 2014-09-29 19:03:55 UTC
Behr Oroo wrote:
Enaris Kerle wrote:
Behr Oroo wrote:
Your poor attempt to claim it would increase prices is just that. A poor attempt. Unless of course you are one of the moon miners and the idea upsets you. If more people have access to the materials, how exactly do you figure prices will go up?

Do you expect people (who exactly?) to scan every moon once a week to see if they've won big in the moon lottery? And, since you said your alliance already nationalizes high-end moons: why would you assume that would change? They (probably) have a director-level API key of your alt corp, so they can just do API pulls to check and tell you to hand in the high-end goo that suddenly turned up on your moons.



Yes. I do expect people to actually work for their moon goo.


Do you also expect everyone to pay 50m for an Interceptor?
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#399 - 2014-09-29 19:04:52 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Janeos wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Renter income is greater than moon income for the CFC by a huge margin.

So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?

The overall income in null sec is already very high. Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?

It wouldn't be ours to give. We don't live there; the renters live there.

You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#400 - 2014-09-29 19:04:59 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:

So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?


Same reason we campaigned to nerf tech when we had a monopoly on the stuff.


X Gallentius wrote:

The overall income in null sec is already very high.


You earn more running high sec level 4s.


X Gallentius wrote:

Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?


They support at most 10 people and they earn less than if in low sec or high sec.