These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Regatto
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#421 - 2014-09-29 19:56:34 UTC
Enaris Kerle wrote:
Petre en Thielles wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We want those nerfed too.

No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

Are you aware of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction?

Yeah thats gonna happen with that carebear deal pl and cfc signed...you two cant even drop super in a same region :P
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#422 - 2014-09-29 19:59:29 UTC
Toriessian wrote:
The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.
They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#423 - 2014-09-29 19:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We are literally asking for CCP to make it impossible to hold 80% of our current empire.

No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away.

Fun fact: you can already kill 500k rats in one system in a month, check RQNF-9 in the Dotlan August toplist. Since 97M rats were killed, 180 systems could support all the ratters under the current mechanics. Hint: there are 3200 nullsec systems. And this isn't easy enough for you and want more nerfs?


Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person.

High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.


Thats with the best null systems, most of null sec has ****** anoms to run thanks to true sec. Also, if we swap to Sheroo in high sec we see 1,286,804 NPCs were killed in a system with just a level 3 agent. (incidently SOE level 3 when blitzed in a mach will net 80 mil/hr, better than what you find in most of null systems)
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#424 - 2014-09-29 19:59:55 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
We want those nerfed too.

This letter is simply to do with dealing with our need for massive empires.


No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.

let me quote myself from earlier because I'm lazy:
Rowells wrote:
Do you ever blame the guy who decided to take the train this morning instead of driving through the heavy traffic? When you take the stairs and he takes the elevator to the top floor, do you believe he is at fault for not making needless sacrifices?How can you even begin to blame someone for using tools at their disposal when the whole point of the game is to gain an advantage over your opponents? Do you ever see any of the top football players tying weights to themselves whenever they play a team that isnt as good or prepared? Or when someone shows up early to a movie premier and is one of the first to get in, but you have to wait hours in the back of the line? How can you even begin to blame someone for using tools at their disposal when the whole point of the game is to gain an advantage over your opponents?

Why should anyone willingly give anyone else an advantage in a contest? Honor? Pity? Shame? Do you really want the game to be a charade of people living in space only because the biggest powers are holding back and allowing them too?
It is a terrible argument to say someone playing by the rules doesn't want them changed.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#425 - 2014-09-29 20:03:04 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:


No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.


Why would we deliberately shoot ourselves in both kneecaps to fix an issue with the mechanics that everyone else would utilise?
Heavypredator Singh
TEMPLAR.
The Initiative.
#426 - 2014-09-29 20:04:55 UTC
Null may not be fixable. We have 2 sides so powerful and established that it is not realy possible for 3rd party to do something. 3rd party limited by lack of new players and eaven if there are new players they will probably join big coalition because it is easier.

Why it was possible for faction warfare to be succesful? 2 sides fighting all the time - no cold war - actual fighting over teritory.
Null is just producing supers - no war, no content.

If there would be constant war between 2 sides I think 3rd party would be reduced or at least would participate in fight if wouldn't join any side. Content for everyone. Sov wouldn't matter that much eaven for 3rd party - there would be other objectives like fun, isk, etc.

So force the war on sov would be my answer. Change mechanics to less grind but penalize side that is not fighting. Reward side that is taking sov. Like lp payouts in factional warfare.

If it is not possible to get rid of big alliances/coalitions make them fight - not rat, mission, actually fight for sov and for rewards.

1. Backend systems used for production/other activities designated by side not available for taking - still you can kill poses etc to hurt side. We don't want one side totally destroyed - we want fighting to go on.
2. Frontend systems available for taking and the main theater of war.
3. Rewards for taking/defending systems.
4. Rewards for multiple fronts of war in different places to discourage massive fleets.
5. Faction warfare had missions in systems - available to system holding side - do something like that - not missions only but premium moons, belts etc.


Whole do what you want with sov is flawed. We need rules for the game - if not ppl can refuse to play and that is what we have here - 2 biggest sides in null eve refused to play. Make them play. Create content for everyone. We need war.
Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#427 - 2014-09-29 20:08:19 UTC
Regatto wrote:
Yeah thats gonna happen with that carebear deal pl and cfc signed...you two cant even drop super in a same region :P

yeah and that treaty would totally have been signed if either party didn't have enough supers to deal a massive blow to the other party

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.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#428 - 2014-09-29 20:09:51 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.


we have a lot of them because our enemies have a lot of them and we'd rather not have them use theirs with impunity around us, tyvm

as for the rest we are under no obligation to give up a single system just to allow random neutrals to occupy them, keeping up a farce of a "patchwork of alliances" owning various regions when in reality they only own them because we don't care to go in and burn it all to ash

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#429 - 2014-09-29 20:11:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Thats with the best null systems, most of null sec has ****** anoms to run thanks to true sec. Also, if we swap to Sheroo in high sec we see 1,286,804 NPCs were killed in a system with just a level 3 agent. (incidently SOE level 3 when blitzed in a mach will net 80 mil/hr, better than what you find in most of null systems)

Sheroo is adjacent to a level 4 SoE agent in Apanake, its stats have nothing to do with level 3s.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#430 - 2014-09-29 20:11:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person.

High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.


Thats with the best null systems, most of null sec has ****** anoms to run thanks to true sec. Also, if we swap to Sheroo in high sec we see 1,286,804 NPCs were killed in a system with just a level 3 agent. (incidently SOE level 3 when blitzed in a mach will net 80 mil/hr, better than what you find in most of null systems)



110 + is a joke, try 90 mil/hour and miserable boredom getting it....the best evidence that this is bunk is that people in nullsec aren't flocking to highsec to run missions. They are perfectly happy to rat, run missions, anoms, etc... and to make more isk/hour than highsec. The SOE L4 highsec mission hubs are pretty darn empty. Nullsec doesn't need more isk, it needs for the big alliances to cast off their risk aversion and look for some big fights instead of one sided massacres.
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#431 - 2014-09-29 20:12:32 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:

As I said, I am very OK with the proposed changes, but we need a nerf to caps/supers to go along with it.

one was already announced
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Independent Operators Consortium
#432 - 2014-09-29 20:13:22 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?


First breaking the ability to run rentals with one large alliance (Northern Associates, Greater Western Co Properperity Sphere, BOT) makes it much harder to run the logistics of the rental empire. Jump bridges, Cyno Beacons, Blue Standings, the logistics start adding up the more pieces that get added to the puzzle.

Second they DO have to mind protecting their sov. If the CFC were to lose sov in rental systems, I guarantee renters nearby will start bailing.

Third we DO know capitals are getting nerfed. Not knowing HOW is one of the elephants in the room making this conversation difficult. If jump drives get nerfed, the N3/CFC ability to run rentals on an occupancy based sov system gets iffy. No slowcat/boot blobs. Extortion threats become smaller if you're not next door.

http://themittani.com/news/ccp-announces-force-projection-changes-more - to reference changes in force projection.

Every day I'm wafflin!
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#433 - 2014-09-29 20:14:19 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Toriessian wrote:
The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.
They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?


Geuss what happens if CFC stops holding all of its space under current mechanics. You think suddenly it will be the garden of eden for everyone who wants to be null? No. The remaining big guns in null will stomp through and take everything they want. You would just trade one overlord for another. CFC and other large groups need to have this space in order to maintain an edge against players their size. Since anoms are terrible for normal player income, you have rely on alliance SRP, fuel programs, etc. Income is a top down system that requires extreme dependence on the alliance or coalition in order to be competitive. And since it is the most effective method currently, you can damn sure expect someone to use it, and if someone else uses it to their advantage, you can also be sure even more will as well since this is a competitive game.

Go ahead and try to tell everyone in eve to refrain from trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. Lets see how well that works. In fact I hear James315 is running a similar operation in highsec. Maybe get some tips on success from him.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#434 - 2014-09-29 20:16:47 UTC
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Toriessian wrote:
The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.
They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?


Geuss what happens if CFC stops holding all of its space under current mechanics. You think suddenly it will be the garden of eden for everyone who wants to be null? No. The remaining big guns in null will stomp through and take everything they want. You would just trade one overlord for another. CFC and other large groups need to have this space in order to maintain an edge against players their size. Since anoms are terrible for normal player income, you have rely on alliance SRP, fuel programs, etc. Income is a top down system that requires extreme dependence on the alliance or coalition in order to be competitive. And since it is the most effective method currently, you can damn sure expect someone to use it, and if someone else uses it to their advantage, you can also be sure even more will as well since this is a competitive game.

Go ahead and try to tell everyone in eve to refrain from trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. Lets see how well that works. In fact I hear James315 is running a similar operation in highsec. Maybe get some tips on success from him.

What I impled was "They'll likely STILL maintain their rental empire for all the same reasons you just listed above."
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#435 - 2014-09-29 20:17:12 UTC
ITT: Established sov alliances want dense, fortified space cities where they and their renters can rat in safety, away from the scary fozzie-ceptor gangs. Also, sprinkling about npc stations literally everywhere to counter any power projection nerf would be greeaaaat. Roll

Oh, and much faux-concern over the hypothetical small, independent sov entity, with little actual change to the existing coalition meta.
Ereshgikal
Wharf Crusaders
#436 - 2014-09-29 20:19:32 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Ereshgikal wrote:
I think you should read up on who owns Northern Associates, Brothers of Tangra, and Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere (PBLRD). Then you will understand who owns the SOV.
You're saying Pandemic Legion and Goonswarm are not renting that space? They didn't take that space to gain passive income? That they wouldn't find a way to continue maintaining their cash cow? That they couldn't charge more rent because that space would be more valuable?




Let me add one thing from the quote chain that you removed that showed your earlier misconceptions.

X Gallentius wrote:

You extract rent from them already even though it's their sov. What would change?


It is not the renters SOV...it is PL's, CFC's, and NCDOT's SOV.

Our SOV, but the renters live there.

Maintaining it as it is would be easy even if the proposal was implemented. Just continue to own and control the alliances holding the SOV. Anyone not willing to be part of the SOV holding alliance will get dunked by the mother alliance/coalition if they try to gain a foothold. So on that part we probably agree (even though we most likely disagree on the details).
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#437 - 2014-09-29 20:19:54 UTC
Andski wrote:
Nullsec leaders holding conquerable space have come together to put forth an open letter to CCP expressing their dissatisfaction with the Dominion sovereignty system and stating their support for occupancy-based sovereignty mechanics. The letter further states a need for more NPC 0.0 space within conquerable regions for the sake of increasing activity in 0.0, especially much-needed small-scale combat, as a lot of conquerable systems are over 25 jumps from NPC space. Lastly, to support the concept of occupancy-based sovereignty, the need for an expansion of systems to support more player density is also expressed.

This statement has been signed by the leaders of the constituent alliances of the CFC, N3 and HERO coalitions, those of non-coalition actors such as PL and Pizza, various current and former CSM delegates and community opinion leaders.

The open letter can be read here.

Ok I was all for this concept. If it is being supported by goonies, then I have to admit I am a little nervous. Goonies never support anything they cannot exploit. Shocked
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#438 - 2014-09-29 20:22:16 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Rowells wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Toriessian wrote:
The whole idea is to make it so an entity like the CFC DOESN'T have to protect a dozen regions and others can start moving in again.
They don't HAVE to protect a dozen regions now. What would change with the proposal?


Geuss what happens if CFC stops holding all of its space under current mechanics. You think suddenly it will be the garden of eden for everyone who wants to be null? No. The remaining big guns in null will stomp through and take everything they want. You would just trade one overlord for another. CFC and other large groups need to have this space in order to maintain an edge against players their size. Since anoms are terrible for normal player income, you have rely on alliance SRP, fuel programs, etc. Income is a top down system that requires extreme dependence on the alliance or coalition in order to be competitive. And since it is the most effective method currently, you can damn sure expect someone to use it, and if someone else uses it to their advantage, you can also be sure even more will as well since this is a competitive game.

Go ahead and try to tell everyone in eve to refrain from trying to gain an advantage over their opponents. Lets see how well that works. In fact I hear James315 is running a similar operation in highsec. Maybe get some tips on success from him.

What I impled was "They'll likely STILL maintain their rental empire for all the same reasons you just listed above."

of course their will be people paying rent. Unless you stop player donations and make every group equal in power then their will always be rent. Will the goons be able to keep order over the influx of players that come down to null as the income becomes more lucrative and systems support more people?
l3aal
HyTech Global Corporation
#439 - 2014-09-29 20:24:18 UTC
Andski wrote:
Nullsec leaders holding conquerable space have come together to put forth an open letter to CCP expressing their dissatisfaction with the Dominion sovereignty system and stating their support for occupancy-based sovereignty mechanics. The letter further states a need for more NPC 0.0 space within conquerable regions for the sake of increasing activity in 0.0, especially much-needed small-scale combat, as a lot of conquerable systems are over 25 jumps from NPC space. Lastly, to support the concept of occupancy-based sovereignty, the need for an expansion of systems to support more player density is also expressed.

This statement has been signed by the leaders of the constituent alliances of the CFC, N3 and HERO coalitions, those of non-coalition actors such as PL and Pizza, various current and former CSM delegates and community opinion leaders.

The open letter can be read here.





This is bullshit..

Null was supposed to be a vast conquerable place, and it is great.. Just fix the broken sov system making it harder to have these super massive empires. And so that you actually have to fight the enemie fleet to keep/win the space..

OCCUPANCY-BASED SOVEREIGNTY is also bullshit since aslong i fight for having this system, for whatever reason.. Might be off some kind of other value than me living in it.. I should be able to do so without being inside the system constantly.

If you want npc stations .. go to low sec omg?! .. If you want small gang pvp go to low sec omg?!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#440 - 2014-09-29 20:24:23 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:



110 + is a joke
110 is proven to be not only realistic but rather easy to get. Hence why the bulk of null player earn their isk in high sec.

Veers Belvar wrote:

the best evidence that this is bunk is that people in nullsec aren't flocking to highsec to run missions.


The fact that null is empty and high is full of alts tells us that they are indeed, going to highsec for their isk.


Veers Belvar wrote:

They are perfectly happy to rat, run missions, anoms, etc... and to make more isk/hour than highsec. The SOE L4 highsec mission hubs are pretty darn empty. Nullsec doesn't need more isk, it needs for the big alliances to cast off their risk aversion and look for some big fights instead of one sided massacres.


SOE systems are empty? Seriously, you expect anyone to believe that one for a second? Facts are there, high sec mission blitzing earns you more than Null anoms.