These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated] How to repopulate nullsec - a question for highsec/WH players (and CCP)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#641 - 2011-12-12 23:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Camios
This thread is full of miths about 0.0

There are some areas out there in nullsec that are pretty safe and completely suitable for casual play. Cloaking devices, interdiction nullifiers and Dotlan can make 0.0 safer than lowsec even for a lone wolf / casual player.

Take a blockade runner, go to NPC nullsec (by the right routes), watch out for hostiles and you can make a decent amount of money with minimal risk. But you can make earn more running missions in an NPC corp in a decent hub.

The problem is this, in my opinion: small groups of unorganized people don't see any incentive to go into nullsec (or lowsec) other than, possibly, fun. Well structured entities can have a lot of benefits from living in nullsec.

I've been confident in CCP since I saw this, especially the part on smallholding. Moreover, the idea of "public" infrastructure should be explored more deeply, and its limits should be understood (why there are a lot of public access POCOs and almost no public access stations?)
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#642 - 2011-12-12 23:54:16 UTC
Camios wrote:
This thread is full of miths about 0.0

There are some areas out there in nullsec that are pretty safe and completely suitable for casual play. Cloaking devices, interdiction nullifiers and Dotlan can make 0.0 safer than lowsec even for a lone wolf / casual player.

Take a blockade runner, go to NPC nullsec (by the right routes), watch out for hostiles and you can make a decent amount of money with minimal risk. But you can make earn more running missions in an NPC corp in a decent hub.

The problem is this, in my opinion: small groups of unorganized people don't see any incentive to go into nullsec (or lowsec) other than, possibly, fun. Well structured entities can have a lot of benefits from living in nullsec.

I've been confident in CCP since I saw this, especially the part on smallholding. Moreover, the idea of "public" infrastructure should be explored more deeply, and its limits should be understood (why there are a lot of public access POCOs and almost no public access stations?)



From the link you provided:

Quote:
Exploration
•Mystery ◦Exploration needs to give a strong sense of mystery, exploring unknown areas and so on, without completely negating its other key role as a steady source of income for many players.
◦For further discussion. "Deep space" exploration (ie, more than 10AU from celestials) should be geared towards mystery, problem-solving and the unknown, while "near space" exploration (less than 5AU from celestials) focuses more on delivering reliable content.

•Not just combat ◦There should be the option to be engaged in exploration in smaller, more agile (or even non-combat) ships and achieve something. You should not need a battleship or similar on hand to get something out of exploration.

•Nomadic option ◦Exploration should cater towards (among others) those wishing to live in nullsec on a more nomadic basis. Players should be able to feel like they're getting value out of exploration without committing to a fixed base of operation.

•Chance-based income ◦Particularly for more mystery-oriented exploration, but to a lesser extent for the other sort as well, income should be more hit-and-miss - large periods of relatively low income can be balanced out with the occasional jackpot. This provides more possible variations in gameplay motivation without ruining exploration's financial competitiveness, and works thematically and in terms of the sort of players we want to attract with "exploration."

•Dynamic and challenging ◦Even more so than other PvE, exploration content should provide a new experience every time, and should offer up all kinds of challenge (thinking as well as shooting). "Exploration" is meant to evoke ideas of freshness, unexpected events and the danger of the unknown.



THIS, or what they have already in exploration content, is what already brings me, a lone wolf, into nullsec. After reading that, I know see that it has certainly been worth my time to use my special powers to possess the CCP devs and make exploration exactly what I want it to be.
(and this would also explain the sporadic flatulance)


(Ok just kidding but at one time I would have said that possessing them would be the ONLY way to get such content but I was wrong).

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#643 - 2011-12-13 00:15:05 UTC
I've been a part of 5 of the null sec alliances in EVE and every one of them was a pyramid scheme. You never graduate above lowly minion and the excuse is spy or thief and there is enough history in EVE to make it founded but the bottom line is the corp and alliance structure system of EVE insures that most of us will fail at it. Any attempt to make corps and Alliances that are membership equal get crushed by exploits in the system.

Null changes hands, it's going to happen but when an Alliance or NAP group lose all thier space and are are in effect banned from huge portions of game content by way of invisible walls, they disband and the top tiers take the money and run, even well intentioned CEO's who see thier corps collapse will do this. You only need to experience that a few times to see a pattern and you just stop bothering.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#644 - 2011-12-13 00:46:50 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Qarth wrote:
Blob warfare is why 0.0 is so stagnant, whats the point in fighting for space when you'll just be outnumbered at every turn if you aren't a mega alliance.

Wrong. It isn't the cause of 0.0 stagnation, it's the effect or symptom of 0.0 stagnation.


Maybe it is a vicious cycle that we have fallen into?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Crystal Liche
ACME Mineral and Gas
#645 - 2011-12-13 00:47:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Crystal Liche
"So my question to non-null sec players - What keeps you out of null, and what features would you like to see which might entice you to venture out here?"

was once

"So my question to Trammies - What keeps you out of Felucca, and what features would you like to see which might entice you to venture out here?"

Some things never change Lol

The answer is still the same:

You can't bribe PvE players into a PvP zone, all you can do is make the PvP great so PvPers will want to go there.

So asking what high sec players want is basically pointless assuming you want actual PvPers to come to null, not just fodder.
Qarth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#646 - 2011-12-13 03:27:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Qarth
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Qarth wrote:
You have the system already in place to make this happen. The limit on pilots in a fleet. Just work out a way to use that system to limit the amount of pilots allowed from one group into a system. Then they have to spread out to surrounding systems and cyno's to jump fleets in, etc. Blob warfare is why 0.0 is so stagnant, whats the point in fighting for space when you'll just be outnumbered at every turn if you aren't a mega alliance.
If you think blob warfare hurts small alliances, just wait until we see this idea of fighting supercap blobs while having a cap on how many players you can bring on the field.



Then limit the amount of supercaps allowed in a fleet. That fact remains that CCP needs to put some artificial limits in place. Huge fleet battles are slide shows, the basis of 0.0 warfare is "who can bring more" , tactics are fairly pointless when numbers count for all. 0.0 is all about 'more, more, more". Who can bring more pilots, who can bring more supercaps, who can bring more caps, who has more systems, who has more resources, etc etc etc...

Until CCP sees the error of the current system and starts to address it in a meaningful way, nothing is going to change. 0.0 will stay stagnant, you will have one mega-alliance changed out for another mega-alliance and the the same crap will play out over and over again between the same players.
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
#647 - 2011-12-13 05:28:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Riley Moore
Qarth wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Qarth wrote:
You have the system already in place to make this happen. The limit on pilots in a fleet. Just work out a way to use that system to limit the amount of pilots allowed from one group into a system. Then they have to spread out to surrounding systems and cyno's to jump fleets in, etc. Blob warfare is why 0.0 is so stagnant, whats the point in fighting for space when you'll just be outnumbered at every turn if you aren't a mega alliance.
If you think blob warfare hurts small alliances, just wait until we see this idea of fighting supercap blobs while having a cap on how many players you can bring on the field.



Then limit the amount of supercaps allowed in a fleet. That fact remains that CCP needs to put some artificial limits in place. Huge fleet battles are slide shows, the basis of 0.0 warfare is "who can bring more" , tactics are fairly pointless when numbers count for all. 0.0 is all about 'more, more, more". Who can bring more pilots, who can bring more supercaps, who can bring more caps, who has more systems, who has more resources, etc etc etc...

Until CCP sees the error of the current system and starts to address it in a meaningful way, nothing is going to change. 0.0 will stay stagnant, you will have one mega-alliance changed out for another mega-alliance and the the same crap will play out over and over again between the same players.




AOE torpedoes. Medium range (50-100km), 1000 damage to any ships in a 50km radius. Drop a 25man torpedo fleet ontop of a hostile support blob and watch them melt. If ccp is up to it they could add a cascade mechanic: the more ships getting hit the more damage it does. Torpedoes lose 90% damage on groups smaller then 10 for example.

I know the servers will hate it, at first, but large AOE damage is the only thing that'll solve blobs.

Large volumes of highly researched Ammo, drones, charges and ship bpo's. Biggest BPO store in EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=445524#post445524
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#648 - 2011-12-13 05:54:39 UTC
Qarth wrote:
Then limit the amount of supercaps allowed in a fleet. That fact remains that CCP needs to put some artificial limits in place.
Then there will be 2 supercaps with blue standings with one another receiving instructions from a single FC over teamspeak. Maybe they'll need two cynos to enter a system, but that's about it. Fact is that artificially limiting fleet size in an open-ended game like EVE is impossible and there's no mechanic in place that can stop human beings from cooperating towards a shared goal.

Riley Moore wrote:

AOE torpedoes. Medium range (50-100km), 1000 damage to any ships in a 50km radius.

You think gatecamps now are bad? Just plunk 10 of these bad boys in front of a null entrance and wait for gatefire.
Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
#649 - 2011-12-13 06:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Riley Moore
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Riley Moore wrote:

AOE torpedoes. Medium range (50-100km), 1000 damage to any ships in a 50km radius.

You think gatecamps now are bad? Just plunk 10 of these bad boys in front of a null entrance and wait for gatefire.



Get rid of gatecamps than, as shown in the OP, random ship drop-out 150km from gate instead of 15.
PVP should be pray-hunter style, not Cat v mouse-hole.

Large volumes of highly researched Ammo, drones, charges and ship bpo's. Biggest BPO store in EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=445524#post445524
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#650 - 2011-12-13 06:43:07 UTC
Riley Moore wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Riley Moore wrote:

AOE torpedoes. Medium range (50-100km), 1000 damage to any ships in a 50km radius.

You think gatecamps now are bad? Just plunk 10 of these bad boys in front of a null entrance and wait for gatefire.



Get rid of gatecamps than, as shown in the OP, random ship drop-out 150km from gate instead of 15.
PVP should be pray-hunter style, not Cat v mouse-hole.

In my experience, small alliances/nullsec rely on bubbled up gates to buy them time to safe up their PVE ships when roaming fleets of large alliances barged in. Of course, this is less necessary when you have lots of systems to rat in and an extensive intel network alerting you about nearby hostiles. I'm not sure exactly how making territory impossible to defend against roamers helps small alliances. Controlling 2-3 systems is a matter of life and death to them. Less so to larger groups. Additionally, (relatively) small wormhole corporations seem to get by just fine with a tiny 5K dropout from gate.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2011-12-13 09:31:56 UTC
Qarth wrote:
Then limit the amount of supercaps allowed in a fleet. That fact remains that CCP needs to put some artificial limits in place.

No.
Qarth wrote:
Huge fleet battles are slide shows, the basis of 0.0 warfare is "who can bring more" , tactics are fairly pointless when numbers count for all. 0.0 is all about 'more, more, more". Who can bring more pilots, who can bring more supercaps, who can bring more caps, who has more systems, who has more resources, etc etc etc...

It's not purely numbers, FC skill, fleet composition and to a certain extent people not being fucktards also matters.

Having said that, someone having been able to amass lots of people willing to PVP should, and does, count in their favour. What needs to happen isn't gayass **** like "oh just put limits on how many can be in a fleet", but things like "if we split our fleet and hit two systems instead of just one, we'll have the possibility of getting more progress done, provided that the opposing force doesn't anticipate and counter our move".

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#652 - 2011-12-13 09:34:13 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
I'm not sure exactly how making territory impossible to defend against roamers helps small alliances. Controlling 2-3 systems is a matter of life and death to them. Less so to larger groups. Additionally, (relatively) small wormhole corporations seem to get by just fine with a tiny 5K dropout from gate.

It doesn't. From what I'm seeing, this is more or less the same kind of "but but but small gang warfare" retoric that was used to remove/change JBs.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2011-12-13 11:57:28 UTC
There is no real reason to go to null sec IMO. There needs to be unique gameplay there...

Add a tournament based pvp arena where people can spectate and bet, and allow sov holders the change the security status to make it safer to travel to null and you might see more players checking out null.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Qarth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#654 - 2011-12-13 12:41:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Qarth
Lord Zim wrote:
Qarth wrote:
Then limit the amount of supercaps allowed in a fleet. That fact remains that CCP needs to put some artificial limits in place.

No.


Worried that you won't win if you can't bring everything and the kitchen sink to the fight?


Lord Zim wrote:
Qarth wrote:
Huge fleet battles are slide shows, the basis of 0.0 warfare is "who can bring more" , tactics are fairly pointless when numbers count for all. 0.0 is all about 'more, more, more". Who can bring more pilots, who can bring more supercaps, who can bring more caps, who has more systems, who has more resources, etc etc etc...


It's not purely numbers, FC skill, fleet composition and to a certain extent people not being fucktards also matters.


"Tactics are fairly pointless" I've been in fleets that had great composition to them being run by a brilliant FC's. But when 5 times your number are on the grid and you have your entire alliance there, no amount of tactics, composition or FCing is going to make a difference. Numbers count for all. If you can swamp them with numbers, you win.

Lord Zim wrote:
Having said that, someone having been able to amass lots of people willing to PVP should, and does, count in their favour. What needs to happen isn't gayass **** like "oh just put limits on how many can be in a fleet", but things like "if we split our fleet and hit two systems instead of just one, we'll have the possibility of getting more progress done, provided that the opposing force doesn't anticipate and counter our move".


You have the biggest alliance in EVE. Good for you, you now have reserve forces to call onto the field. Not this blob fest that's current 0.0 warfare. Put those tactics to the test, put your idea of composition to the test. Really test those FC's and see if they are as good as you think they are. When numbers are limited in an engagement then tactics, fleet composition the ability to lead and the ability to follow orders become an issue. The current state of 0.0 make that all unnecessary as long as you have "more" then the other guy.
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#655 - 2011-12-13 12:47:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
to really solve the lack of people in 0.0 you got to literally force people to go there.
BUT removing incursion or nerfing them to death will NOT do this by itself.
You have got to give a buff to small and medium alliances that hold sov in 0.0
Since today is all about the blob warfare, the buff will have to take shape of isk, so that they can support a war vs large entities.
This is why it worked well and there was a huge amount of people in 0.0 when the sanctums was not nerfed. Back then it was not hard to enter a neutral area and find a quick target and you will had more renters actually joining the pvp. You had more renters joining the pvp cos they had more isk at their disposal.

Right now, noone is gonna bother cos they can make safe isk in high sec and they are not troubled. As a result, the game becomes more boring and less people are forced to join ops cos of lack of pos reinforced/station under attack/no sov in danger etc etc which promotes been active...
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#656 - 2011-12-13 12:55:56 UTC
Adelphie wrote:
I take it you've been on the tail end of my missiles/smack Blink. I only do it because I am lonely - I need 0.0 friends.



To be honost, you don't live in null-sec, you live in low-sec and roam through null-sec.

So what do you want to live in null-sec.
Can't be the PvP as you are only after ganks on lone ships, every time you see a decent fleet with your noob-scouts you go back to your low-sec base.

BTW, nice that you war-decced Solar, should see some good fights from that.

*This is in no way an attempt to smack-talk you Adelphie, I like our non-friendly relations, keeps us alert*

Kind regards and good luck in your future PvP,

J'Poll

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#657 - 2011-12-13 13:16:09 UTC
Qarth wrote:
Worried that you won't win if you can't bring everything and the kitchen sink to the fight?

No.

Qarth wrote:
"Tactics are fairly pointless" I've been in fleets that had great composition to them being run by a brilliant FC's. But when 5 times your number are on the grid and you have your entire alliance there, no amount of tactics, composition or FCing is going to make a difference. Numbers count for all. If you can swamp them with numbers, you win.

Yes, let's overexaggerate the numbers to prove a point, that'll work.

Tactics aren't pointless. Well-planned bombing runs can devastate an enemy fleet, going point blank on a longrange fleet, or long range on a point blank fleet also means that the fleet maneuvering into the best position wins.

I'm not saying that numbers don't matter, they do, but they are far from the only determining factor. And if you're going up against "5 times your number", guess what? You just bit off more than you can chew. And that would be the case even if you didn't have a numbers limit, because the guys who could bring "5 times your number" would be able to hit 4 other systems or places which you weren't hitting, so for each 1 system or place you were defending, 4 would potentially be lost.

Qarth wrote:
You have the biggest alliance in EVE. Good for you, you now have reserve forces to call onto the field. Not this blob fest that's current 0.0 warfare. Put those tactics to the test, put your idea of composition to the test. Really test those FC's and see if they are as good as you think they are. When numbers are limited in an engagement then tactics, fleet composition the ability to lead and the ability to follow orders become an issue. The current state of 0.0 make that all unnecessary as long as you have "more" then the other guy.

Or we could just say "ok, we have 250 guys, this guy has 50. The limit is 50. We'll hit 5 systems with 50 guys each, he'll possibly defend one of them and lose at least 4. Oh well so sad."

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Adelphie
The Lone Wolves.
#658 - 2011-12-13 13:51:25 UTC
J'Poll wrote:
Adelphie wrote:
I take it you've been on the tail end of my missiles/smack Blink. I only do it because I am lonely - I need 0.0 friends.



To be honost, you don't live in null-sec, you live in low-sec and roam through null-sec.

So what do you want to live in null-sec.
Can't be the PvP as you are only after ganks on lone ships, every time you see a decent fleet with your noob-scouts you go back to your low-sec base.

BTW, nice that you war-decced Solar, should see some good fights from that.

*This is in no way an attempt to smack-talk you Adelphie, I like our non-friendly relations, keeps us alert*

Kind regards and good luck in your future PvP,

J'Poll


I'd prefer if you kept in game grievances out of this thread... however Whilst having a little dig you've pretty much reinforced most of the points that people have been making in here. Nullsec is not as scary as one would be led to believe.

Currently my corp is:
- 28 man (which includes a fair few alts).
- A further 38 blues.
- We live, and have lived, one jump from null for a number of years, and pass freely without fear of gatecamps or getting bbqwtfpwnd.
- We are free to plex in the area, as the owners don't use or protect it, as with the majority of null.
- I spend the majority of my time flying solo, in a drake, with no scouts - and die rather less than you might imagine.
- I look for, and enjoy gfs, but ganking people is what puts the drakes in the hanger.
- We regularly engage much larger gangs for "lulz", but rarely lose because tactics usually outdo numbers - Our Killboard does the talking on this.


If our corp can do this - then so can you.
B DeLeon
DeLeon Industries
#659 - 2011-12-13 14:00:56 UTC
My ideas: Cool
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40713&find=unread

(Noone posted in the original thread so at least I achieved something with my wall of text: no trolls in a general discussion thread Big smile)
Sharise Dragonstar
Big Strong
Hisec Miners
#660 - 2011-12-13 15:23:05 UTC
So my question to non-null sec players - What keeps you out of null, and what features would you like to see which might entice you to venture out here?


For me to bother with null sec

1) Remove bubbles, they make travel almost impossible.
2)Warp scramblers should only be able to target capital ships in null sec (for high/low sec keep as is). This would allow solo players to participate in null sec with a chance to be able to escape from unwanted attention.