EVE General Discussion

I don't see how it isn't.

I did say I was responding in general. Perhaps you require more explanation?

After browsing through the thread I came across a number of common theme:
Blobs, gatecamps, sovholders suck, more blobs, titan bridging and other such whines.

My post was therefore addressed to respond to those and also to provide an insight from someone who spends most of his time in hostile space fighting and running.

I'm sorry if my message could not reach you, perhaps it was just not meant to be.

Nerfs aimed at the big guys hurt the little guys too. We have been the little guys and went through those toils and travails as well.

If they don't get a bridge the hundreds are still gonna get where they wanna go. I don't think removing titan bridges would have the effect you desire. We got guys deployed in Curse and Syndicate atm just for funsies and they are killing titans, not using them.

In T1 cruisers..hows that for force projection?

... there's fighting in Null Sec ? Noooooooooooooooooo way.

It's time to nerf the "automagic" qualities of Local in Null Sec anyway... let folks start watching over their shoulders again.

Looks like the *objective* in null has been met

Guess the victors are awaiting the next thing to do, but there's nothing on the cards.

No one's coming / forming anything bigger to challenge you.

Grats

So, CCP, now what?

I thought it was because Null Seccers are unable to allow anything of substance to be built.

On the one hand, people are perfectly content to deny use of systems (blobs, afk cloakers, titan bridges, covops ambushes, etc), and then on the other, they complain that no one is there.

News flash: the only things of consequence in Null is what the players allow. If Null Sec is empty, it's because the players want it to be that way, and they'll use the existing game mechancics (whatever they are) to advance that adgenda.

So stop complaining that [insert game mechanic] makes Null empty. Null is empty because the powers that be want Null to be empty. End of story.

If it is fair for you to proclaim null will be less populated without providing providing proof then one can claim null will become more populated without local and not provide evidence.

My point continues to be missed.

I am actually one of those players who uses wormholes to wander in 0.0 space for months at a time. This is why I know it's empty. I go for weeks at a time without seeing anybody else in local.

When someone says "go to null", what's the first idea that hits the listener in the head?

For many, and in particular, those who have been there, it means "join a corp" and from that point, feudalism ensues, in some form. Some people like that. I bet that the expectation of going to null is too high; people thinking they are going to be in epic fleet battles, etc.

Those who take "go to null" too literally will try to put most if not all of their shtuff in a ship and head out there themselves, maybe to the drone lands. They get blapped at a gate camp. Going to null means losing everything.

Some get it in between. They join a corp, then through some misfortune in change of SOV or drawing the ire of the wrong person, they got a load of stuff in a station they can't get to. They lose everything. Going to null for them means politics and drama - and then losing everything.

So, what I propose, is outside of this frame of thinking that too many players (especially the ones who don't understand it) are stuck in. But it's no surprise because every city almost every day has the same people stuck in the same traffic at the same time every day. Few people know or bother to find out how to find a different path. This is why, since wormholes came to be, I have yet to run into anybody in deep null who got there the way I did for similar reasons.

People are not looking to avoid losing anything. Surely such a player exists but hey on Craiglist you can also find an assortment of freaks that you would never had thought existed too. These people are outside of the bell curve and don't matter.

The bottom line is, players get some idea of what null is, and never let themselves find a better way. Null is about politics, intrigue, losing everything, getting blapped, etc.... the usual.


Are they wrong? Partially. I can prove them wrong. But are the nullseccers who assume that everybody not like them is a risk-averse carebear also wrong? Yes. They fail to recognize that what people want is a perception of a chance, not a certainty for loss. So far the options give a perception of a certainty for loss.

The point to point warp proposal is really mean to crush arguments - of both sides - and I don't make it expecting anything to change.

Come on guys, everyone knows my avatar scared them back into high-sec.

On a serious note, maybe there just aren't enough rewards to null? Or maybe because it's filled with whiny children making sandcastles who instantly destroy eachothers creations. Is that bad? Nope.