These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: Null Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#281 - 2012-05-29 03:08:01 UTC
Just posing this post here as well just incase it has been missed. The idea is great but it would require CCP to get the changes right.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=47868

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#282 - 2012-05-29 03:12:28 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah that was goonswarm in the past...

anti-large alliance

lol wut

http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=GOONSWARM

For a better explanation see the Alliance fanfest panels pre 2010

hahahaha, you're serious
Frying Doom
#283 - 2012-05-29 03:39:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Those oh so lucrative bpc you looted from rats, did you "sell them local" or did you truck them back to empire? Did you stay in null, gather up the minerals, build and sell those ships in a nullsec market?


Strangely I used a recon ship using normal gates. A task that would have been easier with out local to automatically telling every one I had just entered the system.

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
How about all the nullsec minerals and moongoo, how are those supposed to get to highsec?
This sort of highly localalized Eve would be interesting, but it would have to come with a major overhaul of how things are produced. If trade was so difficult that tech never made it to empire, then no one could build hulks there. If all the various materials to assemble and fuel a moon mining POS couldn't be exported to nullsec, you couldn't even mine moons anyway.

What fuels for a POS cannot currently be made in Null? as too moongoo yes they would still need a JF to move and would end up costing more or merely reducing the profit margins on them depending on what the market was prepared to accept. as you would need armed escorts in areas were you would land. Or requiring traders to enter null and extract profitable goods them selves to take to a hi-sec hub. The ability for Null sec to manufacture should be upgraded especially in capital and fort systems(see above)

Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
With cloaking the way it is, it means a sov holder could never track down and evict bandits, or at least avoid them till they leave from boredom.
How would you know they are there unless they attack at which point they are vulnerable to attack?.


Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Your idea would make sovereignty holding empires meaningless. It would be such a huge buff to ambushing that no one would do anything but that in nullsec. And since probing people down is a pain, but gates are static choke points, it means nothing but cloaky gate camps for as far as the eye can see.
I think most people would either move to highsec, where Concord keeps ambushing to a minimum, or move to wormholes, where transient entrances limits camping. Or take the best of both worlds and base in highsec and daytrip into wormholes. It would do nothing to draw people to nullsec and certainly do nothing to make nullsec better overall.

So ships lacking in firepower or durability or just downright expensive as gate campers with the basis of your argument being scanning probes are hard.

It would make an alliances ability to take and hold territory an active task rather than a passive and reactionary task as it currently is. I think if all of the peoples ideas I have mentioned were implemented the risk adverse would leave Null and alot more small alliances and players would move in. Unlike we have at the moment where there are several large stagnant alliances holding most of Sov space and the only population increases related to them. At the moment there is no reason for people to go to Sov space unless you are in one of these alliances and their boredom resulting in blob roaming, does little for other parts of the game as well.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#284 - 2012-05-29 04:58:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Shepard Wong Ogeko
Frying Doom wrote:

So ships lacking in firepower or durability or just downright expensive as gate campers with the basis of your argument being scanning probes are hard.


No, the point is gates make for choke points, and its tactically easier to just camp the gate, and wait for prey to come to you, then to hunt them down. That's what I would do if your ideas were put into effect. I'd burn off my stack of hounds camping gates, and then wave goodbye to nullsec as a home because it would just be to dangerous to live in for what I get out of it.

If my corp decided it still wanted to hold the space, I would just fly in from highsec for ops, because there would be no way to maintain a logistics network that could keep supplies on the market in nullsec.
Frying Doom
#285 - 2012-05-29 06:02:54 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

So ships lacking in firepower or durability or just downright expensive as gate campers with the basis of your argument being scanning probes are hard.


No, the point is gates make for choke points, and its tactically easier to just camp the gate, and wait for prey to come to you, then to hunt them down. That's what I would do if your ideas were put into effect. I'd burn off my stack of hounds camping gates, and then wave goodbye to nullsec as a home because it would just be to dangerous to live in for what I get out of it.


So you mean it would be easier to camp a gate rather than scan down prey, like it is now?

So your primary argument is that without local, Null would be to hard for you to handle because you would have to work to kill people. This being due to your primary intel source, local not being there any more, even though local was never designed for intel use.

Not a really persuasive argument against removing local.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#286 - 2012-05-29 06:37:59 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


So you mean it would be easier to camp a gate rather than scan down prey, like it is now?

So your primary argument is that without local, Null would be to hard for you to handle because you would have to work to kill people. This being due to your primary intel source, local not being there any more, even though local was never designed for intel use.

Not a really persuasive argument against removing local.


No, the point is I would wait on the gate and cloak, because they would never know I was there until they were as good as dead anyway. And after I eventually ran out of covops and ammo, I would leave, because no one could bring in or build more ships and ammo under those conditions. Or it would be so expensive, I might as well fly one in from highsec myself. So I might as well base out of highsec since there would be no viable market in null.

No-local combined with covops cloak means means a ship that always has the advantage of surprise and choice of battlefield, and when used in groups means they will always be able to alpha a choice target and then go back to being completely undetectable.

Over playing the piracy angle is why lowsec is so empty. That is what space looks like when a place is meant to be a pirate haven and no one else wants to hang around that and bother doing the anything else.
Frying Doom
#287 - 2012-05-29 07:38:37 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:


So you mean it would be easier to camp a gate rather than scan down prey, like it is now?

So your primary argument is that without local, Null would be to hard for you to handle because you would have to work to kill people. This being due to your primary intel source, local not being there any more, even though local was never designed for intel use.

Not a really persuasive argument against removing local.


No, the point is I would wait on the gate and cloak, because they would never know I was there until they were as good as dead anyway. And after I eventually ran out of covops and ammo, I would leave, because no one could bring in or build more ships and ammo under those conditions. Or it would be so expensive, I might as well fly one in from highsec myself. So I might as well base out of highsec since there would be no viable market in null.

No-local combined with covops cloak means means a ship that always has the advantage of surprise and choice of battlefield, and when used in groups means they will always be able to alpha a choice target and then go back to being completely undetectable.

Over playing the piracy angle is why lowsec is so empty. That is what space looks like when a place is meant to be a pirate haven and no one else wants to hang around that and bother doing the anything else.



Ok so we have ascertained you either no nothing about lo-sec or are just exaggerating about the fact that some parts of low are pirate havens and others are quite clear, almost the same as npc null if it has hi-sec access it is camped to death. Plus of course the FW areas.

Other than that your complaining about the loss of local would imply you really shouldn't be in an area described as lawless space in the first place.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#288 - 2012-05-29 07:58:12 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Ok so we have ascertained you either no nothing about lo-sec or are just exaggerating about the fact that some parts of low are pirate havens and others are quite clear, almost the same as npc null if it has hi-sec access it is camped to death. Plus of course the FW areas.

Other than that your complaining about the loss of local would imply you really shouldn't be in an area described as lawless space in the first place.

I'm not sure if you should be the first to play the "you don't know how $whatever_isn't_hisec works" card.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#289 - 2012-05-29 07:59:32 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Other than that your complaining about the loss of local would imply you really shouldn't be in an area described as lawless space in the first place.


You are the one who can't hack it, not me, so quit projecting.

And bringing up FW in lowsec proves my point that CCP would have to add more content to make up for how drab a place it would be otherwise.

So when most of the sov holders have pulled up stakes, and none of the little corps get a foothold because the logistics are worse than wormholes, is CCP going to pay people to fight for the NPC pirates out in null, because there is nothing else going on but camps and ganks?
Frying Doom
#290 - 2012-05-29 08:18:11 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Other than that your complaining about the loss of local would imply you really shouldn't be in an area described as lawless space in the first place.


You are the one who can't hack it, not me, so quit projecting.

And bringing up FW in lowsec proves my point that CCP would have to add more content to make up for how drab a place it would be otherwise.

So when most of the sov holders have pulled up stakes, and none of the little corps get a foothold because the logistics are worse than wormholes, is CCP going to pay people to fight for the NPC pirates out in null, because there is nothing else going on but camps and ganks?

Nice dodge NOT. You say something stupid about Lo-sec, I correct you and you go off on a tagent about adding content.

Strange how out of all the ideas I have presented here you are going on about how your life would be so hard without local in Null.

The only argument you seem to have made thus far is you are for ganking and camping and need local so you can terrorize systems in a single stealth ship and gate camp and know before hand if something is sneaking up on you.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#291 - 2012-05-29 08:20:58 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
The only argument you seem to have made thus far is you are for ganking and camping and need local so you can terrorize systems in a single stealth ship and gate camp and know before hand if something is sneaking up on you.

Yes, local is definitely something you need when you're camping gates. It's not like people are going to be in a predetermined area of space so finding them's easy, and having a cloaky alt on the other side takes care of all the intel gathering you need.

Are there more people on the gate than the one which jumped through, y/n? if (y) { leave alone }, if (n) { gank }

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#292 - 2012-05-29 08:29:47 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
The only argument you seem to have made thus far is you are for ganking and camping and need local so you can terrorize systems in a single stealth ship and gate camp and know before hand if something is sneaking up on you.

Yes, local is definitely something you need when you're camping gates. It's not like people are going to be in a predetermined area of space so finding them's easy, and having a cloaky alt on the other side takes care of all the intel gathering you need.

Are there more people on the gate than the one which jumped through, y/n? if (y) { leave alone }, if (n) { gank }

No its not something you need, its a free intel tool that makes life too easy. You could have someone cloaked on the gates actually looking / scanning and yes you would loose more ships gate camping to larger forces as some people would not warp out till it was too late. Strange that, Null would become more dangerous for people stupid enough to sit on top of a gate without a good lookout.

All local is right now is a bot, doing the job that should be done by a human.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2012-05-29 08:34:32 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
The only argument you seem to have made thus far is you are for ganking and camping and need local so you can terrorize systems in a single stealth ship and gate camp and know before hand if something is sneaking up on you.

Yes, local is definitely something you need when you're camping gates. It's not like people are going to be in a predetermined area of space so finding them's easy, and having a cloaky alt on the other side takes care of all the intel gathering you need.

Are there more people on the gate than the one which jumped through, y/n? if (y) { leave alone }, if (n) { gank }

No its not something you need, its a free intel tool that makes life too easy. You could have someone cloaked on the gates actually looking / scanning and yes you would loose more ships gate camping to larger forces as some people would not warp out till it was too late. Strange that, Null would become more dangerous for people stupid enough to sit on top of a gate without a good lookout.

All local is right now is a bot, doing the job that should be done by a human.

So what you're saying is, local is something you need while camping gates so you can know beforehand when something is sneaking up on you, but you don't need it while camping?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#294 - 2012-05-29 08:40:00 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Other than that your complaining about the loss of local would imply you really shouldn't be in an area described as lawless space in the first place.


You are the one who can't hack it, not me, so quit projecting.

And bringing up FW in lowsec proves my point that CCP would have to add more content to make up for how drab a place it would be otherwise.

So when most of the sov holders have pulled up stakes, and none of the little corps get a foothold because the logistics are worse than wormholes, is CCP going to pay people to fight for the NPC pirates out in null, because there is nothing else going on but camps and ganks?

Nice dodge NOT. You say something stupid about Lo-sec, I correct you and you go off on a tagent about adding content.

Strange how out of all the ideas I have presented here you are going on about how your life would be so hard without local in Null.

The only argument you seem to have made thus far is you are for ganking and camping and need local so you can terrorize systems in a single stealth ship and gate camp and know before hand if something is sneaking up on you.



You aren't even good at putting words in my mouth.

I say no-local null would be a camp-fest like lowsec. You then tell me I'm wrong by pointing out that most of lowsec is indeed empty except for gate camps. What the hell.

I'm more complaining that no-local null would leave me too open to being ganked on gates, and you some how turn that around to me needing local so that I can gank on gates. And I flat out said that the only thing I would do in no-local null is came gates.

The only thing you stand on is that null should be utterly lawless, and when people mention how game breaking this would be, you just attack there character, call them wimps, and do a ham-fisted job of twisting their words around.

Go away already. Null already has plenty of gankers and campers, and they already have a substantial buff compared to the rest of Eve (warp bubbles, bombs, no concord/gate guns).
Frying Doom
#295 - 2012-05-29 09:14:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Other than that your complaining about the loss of local would imply you really shouldn't be in an area described as lawless space in the first place.


You are the one who can't hack it, not me, so quit projecting.

And bringing up FW in lowsec proves my point that CCP would have to add more content to make up for how drab a place it would be otherwise.

So when most of the sov holders have pulled up stakes, and none of the little corps get a foothold because the logistics are worse than wormholes, is CCP going to pay people to fight for the NPC pirates out in null, because there is nothing else going on but camps and ganks?

Nice dodge NOT. You say something stupid about Lo-sec, I correct you and you go off on a tagent about adding content.

Strange how out of all the ideas I have presented here you are going on about how your life would be so hard without local in Null.

The only argument you seem to have made thus far is you are for ganking and camping and need local so you can terrorize systems in a single stealth ship and gate camp and know before hand if something is sneaking up on you.



You aren't even good at putting words in my mouth.

I say no-local null would be a camp-fest like lowsec. You then tell me I'm wrong by pointing out that most of lowsec is indeed empty except for gate camps. What the hell.

I'm more complaining that no-local null would leave me too open to being ganked on gates, and you some how turn that around to me needing local so that I can gank on gates. And I flat out said that the only thing I would do in no-local null is came gates.

The only thing you stand on is that null should be utterly lawless, and when people mention how game breaking this would be, you just attack there character, call them wimps, and do a ham-fisted job of twisting their words around.

Go away already. Null already has plenty of gankers and campers, and they already have a substantial buff compared to the rest of Eve (warp bubbles, bombs, no concord/gate guns).

Stupid forum ate the response again so here is the easy version

Low is more populated than Null, a total of Empire Systems: 1,907 both high and lo sec with a population of 7.64% of eve with Sp over 5 mill

Null sec has 3,524 systems with a population of only 20.07% of eve so almost twice the number of systema as the Whole of empire but with under 3 times the population of Lo-sec.

Sounds like Null is the empty place.
Not quite "Over playing the piracy angle is why lowsec is so empty. That is what space looks like when a place is meant to be a pirate haven and no one else wants to hang around that and bother doing the anything else."
is it?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#296 - 2012-05-29 09:29:55 UTC
And even with those numbers, your grand solutions is to make a place that few people bother hanging out in even more dangerous to hang out in.

Awesome.
Frying Doom
#297 - 2012-05-29 09:43:05 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
And even with those numbers, your grand solutions is to make a place that few people bother hanging out in even more dangerous to hang out in.

Awesome.

As opposed to your ideas of? It is very easy to criticize, it is alot harder to get off the fence and defend your choices.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2012-05-29 09:51:49 UTC
I guess you're going to sit here and claim that lowsec and nullsec will increase in population if local was removed, too.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#299 - 2012-05-29 10:11:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I guess you're going to sit here and claim that lowsec and nullsec will increase in population if local was removed, too.

No because I am not all seeing like some folks think they are, all I am doing is stating the facts and proposing changes (and then fighting for them) that may help to increase the population of both the server and null space, the current system clearly doesn't work as easily demonstrated by the populations of Null.

What I am not doing is asking that the current problems with null be made worse by making the area safer for the sov holders, making the whole area more stagnant and giving smaller non pet, non renter alliances less chance to ever hold sov space.

Oh and I never proposed the removal of local in empire space.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2012-05-29 10:13:15 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No because I am not all seeing like some folks think they are, all I am doing is stating the facts and proposing changes (and then fighting for them) that may help to increase the population of both the server and null space, the current system clearly doesn't work as easily demonstrated by the populations of Null.

And how were your changes supposed to "help increase the population of both the server and null space"?

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

RIP Vile Rat