EVE General Discussion

It's a balance of risk vs reward. There's less risk in living out of an NPC station in null because it can't be destroyed, but there's less reward as well since NPC systems tend to be very ISK-poor and can't be upgraded with IHubs. In our home system in Syndicate we might get a DED site or combat anom every couple days, for example. Like lowsec, the draw of NPC null is simply the enjoyment of PvPing. Unlike lowsec though, PvP in NPC null doesn't have to concern itself with sec status, sentry guns, reds and the like - everything is a potential target. Plus with bubbles, billion+ ISK pods are a lot less common making for a tiny bit more level playing field.

Yeah I can see that been an issue specially since you dont live in NPC regions. While your enemies do.

Very easy to find out. Since this does not belong on this thread as its a completelly different topic, why dont you create a thread with your idea and post it there and lets see who like it and who dont... I still think this is outside the scope of this thread. Lets not polute this topic with this.

Checking the doorbell when people keep trolling it is annoying, and sometimes you think well, why do I even have the doorbell. But I assure you, nobody is frightened of the children that are doing this doorbell ringing and it is not interesting, give it a while, and the "aggressors" will get bored of this too.

Make them bring something big to the door and this will be a workable if still flawed system.

Noone minds when people bring a gang or fleet into our space, that's fun, but a single interceptor that runs away...come on.

I think you have me confused with somebody else. I am not associated with MOA, who I think you're addressing your points at. I'm simply explaining the costs and benefits of NPC null, specifically Syndicate, since that's where I and my fleetmates the CAS Combat Guild live. To reiterate, yes, as you say there's hardly any risk in terms of losing our station, and commensurate with that there's little reward in terms of ISK.

For the record, in case you're curious, I couldn't troll sov even if I wanted to - I'm still in my starter corp after all. Except for a few alts some of us have placed in an alliance, that's true of most of us in fact.

Given the size of the map and the reduced jump ranges as well as the reduced wormhole connections to null, null becomes the absolute antithesis of what you describe. Hisec is literally more dangerous than most player controlled null, and a large part of this is due to the absence of accessible NPC stations. If you actually want to see this 'brutal space mmo', you'd do best to encourage the addition of an un-claimable NPC station every few LY, so there's actually a place for antagonists to stage from.

Compare Fountain and Delve to any given other region of Sov-Null.

People would just cry that it was a nerf to everyone but The Imperium, PL, and NC.
Oh, and the fact that it's a pretty terrible idea.

Speaking as a newcomer to null-sec, this change makes sense to me.

While it's clear to see that my alliance and CFC are currently in a bit of a flame war, there are no issues with the intended goal of the new system. There are only slight tweaks to be made that make the gameplay slightly more fun while achieving the same result.

What I've notice is that the only systems that are regularly populated are border systems with gate camps, systems with stations, and systems with good ratting possibilities. For the most part null-sec feels incredibly empty.

What I believe CPP is going for here is to give some power to the smaller organizations on the border of large alliance space. And why shouldn't that be the case? If it is very taxing and boring for an alliance to re-take their border systems, and they don't really use them anyway, why should we feel bad for them that they are having no fun defending them? The mechanics of this game should not defend the status quo.

Concerning the trollceptor:

I think this provides a valid roll for a ship type that is usually relegated to scouting and pointing a target. I'm not so sure an uncatchable/unkillable ship is best for gameplay but I don't fully agree with a PG increase on entosis module to prevent this ship from being used this way.

Perhaps aa auto targeting gun on the entosis-able structures that only does enough damage to slowly break a small ships tank that would force new tactics. Such as, bring multiple ceptors to switch out of aggro. Or bringing a bigger ship capable of tanking it.

However, I do not think complaining that the ceptor just gets away unscathed is a valid concern. If you do not have a big enough presence in a system to prevent the entosis of your structures, then you simply do not have any control over this space. It's not yours except in name.

I think it's important to separate the cries of the large alliances who want to keep what they see as theirs from the people who actually understand a tactic like an uncatchable ship is no fun. There's no shortage of propaganda from all sides.

This is a polarizing change but I think it takes adequate FIRST steps to shake up a stale system.

That's all entirely irrelevant. CCPs stated goal for this development is to ensure both sides of the mechanic are entertained by it. Whether or not there are other mechanics in the game which bore one side doesn't change the fact that their new mechanics failed in it's primary goal.

What that about thinking before we talk?

We can defend our systems. As we've said time after time (after time) after time, the mechanics to contest sov are boring. We know it, you know it, even CCP knows it (go read reddit, they are responding more there). It has nothing to do with undefended sov, mining structures just simply isn't good gameplay.

And no, not working as intended. Failing the #1 goal of the mechanic is not "working as intended".