These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Increased opportunities for PvP - Jump drives work only in nulsec

First post
Author
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
Roadhouse Regulars
#21 - 2013-03-31 13:19:15 UTC
Teckos Pech - You have been insulting people in this thread right from the start. Changing their names to things like "confused" and "fail". You have been insulting people's intelligence. And implying they are on medication for pointing to other problems (e.g. capitals that spend almost all their time in low sec). So spare us the faux indignation.

Can see nowhere any sign of indignation, French-word or otherwise. "lol" is hardly a rational statement, merely an attempt to ridicule something due to the poster's inability to form a rational argument against it. Capitals will not be in losec. Hardly a problem.

No, because if big alliances with lots of pilots can't get their stuff in and out of null, smaller alliances will have even more trouble. And, they would have the same logistical nightmares of the bigger alliances with even less resources (read pilots) to deal with them. And are going to be even less reluctant to feed easy kills to those in low sec. They wont have the resources to handle losses of a couple of jump freighters.

Yes, because if big alliances with lots of pilots can't be bothered to gear up their industry or provide a caravan out of empire, smaller alliances will have even more opportunity to claim their piece of sov as the current occupiers wither due to lack of armaments. And, they would have less of the logistical nightmares of the bigger alliances as they will be geared-up to produce their own stuff, reducing their dependence on empire. And are going to be less likely to feed easy kills to those in low sec. They will have already the resources, avoiding losses of jump freighters.

Yes NPC-corp alts would function just fine. They can be in an NPC corp and still join the fleet and get all the benefits of being in fleet...what few there are. And even if they were in the same corp they would be just as susceptible to alpha strikes as when they are in and NPC corp.

NPC-corp alts could not receive protection from a fleet, whereas a corp fleet can ewar the attackers and protect the freighter for concord to act. If you think freighters are often brought down with alpha-strikes you are mistaken. Only an exorbitantly high value cargo will bring out enough DPS to do that.

When you wrote:

Quote:
As I stated: being in a fleet would give no protection to the freighter.


That is actually about the only thing you have written that is correct...but it also means you wont see the freighter convoys you are talking about.

No, it means you won't see convoys of NPC-alts. Those in a player corp would be more than viable, but that's a wardec target. More chance for PvP, which Is after all the title of this topic.

And here is an alternate scenario to your "smaller alliances might move to null" you'll get even fewer super coalitions. As I already noted Goons and the CFC have the EC-/Torrinos entry to null, Torrinos is high sec, EC- null. And goons already camp EC- fairly regularly...so the JF warps to the EC- gate jumps in, then jumps to VFK. Samething for moving null sec supplied goods (PI and tech 2 components). So the CFC would not be bothered too much. And TEST/HBC would probably be okay too using Efah/3-F. Granted Efah is low sec, but it is one system so very doable for a coalition the size of the HBC. And they have Keberz/HED entry point as well.

The JF needs to get through hisec, so there's the risk. Also your scenario brings inter-alliance warfare into empire space, which fulfils the thinking behind this idea: Increased opportunities for PvP.

The South East and Eastern portions of null might have issues and could end up falling to TEST/HBC/CFC or some other super-coalition eventually since there isn't a high sec/null sec entry point (that I can see, haven't spent much time down there). And NPC null like Stain and Venal? Nobody will live there anymore other than the surrounding null sec coalition members. Currently 401k is basing out of Venal and hitting goons, but with no way of doing logistics from empire to Venal, they would be...well screwed. Can't evac their supers, titans, carriers and dreads to low sec and they can't jump to any surrounding sov space. NPC Delve...it would be held entirely by TEST/HBC since nobody could do logistics there anymore either.

If they all in the same boat, how do some fail and not others?Your comment regarding Stain and Venal is another assertion lacking any reason. Logistics can still be done, the gates work fine. You appear to be under the impression that freighters can now not use gates, nor capitals use JD in nul. This has not been said.

So much of NPC null will no longer be home to alliances like 401k, Black Legion nor could they be used effectively as staging systems for invasions (e.g. IT used Fountain core for its invasion, NPC Delve is often the staging point for wars/invasions of Delve, similarly the the NPC space in Pure Blind). This could very well make null sec even more stagnant and dominated by just a handful of giant coalitions...much like the Chinese server.

Again, many assertion lacking reason to back them.

Correct me if I misunderstand the basis for all this stuff, but I get the impression that this will make maintaining hold of sov space harder for the incumbent, provide more hope for new alliances to grab a slice, increase the chances for PvP and for some personal reason you TRULY want this NOT to happen.

Fair enough, but your assertions don't in any way show me that it's a bad idea for the game.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.

DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-03-31 15:05:37 UTC  |  Edited by: DataRunner Attor
Mikhael Taron wrote:
snip to save room



1: You have been insulting people this entire thread, you should feel ashamed of yourself. I honestly don't care if you insult me, just makes you look like a child and makes me laugh.

2: I honestly don't think you understand basic logistics. If a big alliance has the inability to gear up for your...'convoys' that you so envision, who in the hell right mind will make you think that smaller alliances will have this ability?

3: And you are mistaken if you believe that people will kill your freighter just cause you have high value cargo, if they find out that your JF for a corp, and seeing the cost of JFs are through the roof. Destroying their supply chain is a great way to cripple a smaller alliance, The lost of one JF will not only set them back a few billion for a new frieghter, but it will also set them back in time, and people's willing to do said job.

4:I thought this was a change to low sec, not empire corps

5: You won't see any Frieghter convoys at all because when the hostile spots the freighter their first target will be that, they can worry about everything else later. You my friend need to actually get into a JF so you know how it works before making a suggestion like this.

6:If you wish to increase opportunities for pvp, then you should, as people been stating, create incentives. You might want to look this word up, but I will give you a run down. When you create a incentive on something, that means more people are willing to throw their lives to the grinder if that means that they have a good chance of make hell-ova lot of money...Your idea in it current form is what we call a disincentive which is the opposite of a incentive.

7: You asking how some fail and others do not, but you are making a question based on a the current system to back your new system. That's called generating proof from a non-existing situation. I see people do it all the time in my English 101 class, I do it sometimes to but...When you use that system you have very little support to back your claim.

8: I will quote myself right now for this one: If it makes it that much harder for bigger alliances to hold sov, who have manpower and the isk to support it, who in their right mind will think a smaller alliance, with less manpower and isk would be able to hold a sov point?

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”

Whisperen
Kenshin.
The Initiative.
#23 - 2013-03-31 16:43:45 UTC
Sounds good +1
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-03-31 17:16:36 UTC
Posting in a "Capitals and super capitals shouldn't be allowed in lowsec anymore, and all the capital builders in lowsec shouldnt be able to build capitals anymore" thread.

This is without a doubt, the STUPIDEST idea I've read since James 315 proposed to get everyone out of highsec by deleting (almost) all highsec content.
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
Roadhouse Regulars
#25 - 2013-03-31 18:18:18 UTC
DataRunner Attor wrote:
--) not worth quoting (--

You also fail to read what has been written. The alliances wishing to move to nul wouldn't convoy because they would set up their industry in nulsec, self-sufficiency would be the norm for them. It would be viable because the current alliances deem it beneath them to do this, else there would not be such a reliance on empire space for their armaments. This could lead to a resurgence of industry in nulsec. However, what would be more likely is a withering of these mega-coalitions as they become progressively starved of resources.

You and others have fixated on your need to freight out to nulsec before jumping. This is necessary only if you insist on using empire resources to maintain your nulsec presence. That's your choice. Choose that path and be subject to increased logistics problems and attacks. Choose to wither and others will smell blood and move out to sov. The game won't suffer, only those unwilling to adapt.

I understand you wish to maintain the status quo and my proposal would weaken the stranglehold the incumbents have on sov space. However, your wishes are no more viable than anyone else's and calling my idea stupid, as some have done, is hardly conducive to reasoning.

At least you avoided The Lol.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.

Destructor1792
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2013-03-31 21:15:02 UTC
Okay, I'm bored so I'll throw in my 2 cents worth:


Jump Drives can only be activated in 0.4 space and under.

Ship must be at least 100km from any structure to activate the jump drive. If cap level is under 75%, additional power is taken from Shield / Armour / Hull

20 second timer from activation til jump drive initiates

Cynos must be deployed at least 100km from any structure


So here come the tears:

If you jump & you're taking damage / have zero cap, Expect a high chance of arriving and watching your ship explode Twisted

Yeah but there's a higher chance of getting jumped being that far from the station / POS - Boo Hoo, this ain't Carebears online. Welcome to Low sec / Null sec. Enjoy your stay Bear


Workable? Probably not but the tears it would bring... PRICELESS TwistedPirate


Not fired a shot in anger since 2011.... Trigger finger is starting to get somewhat itchy.......

Ryuu Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#27 - 2013-04-01 00:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryuu Shi
This is a very bad idea and OP should feel bad about himself/herself. Also biomass your char and go back to WoW but before thattell us on the pod where the bad jump frieghter touched you.Roll

_**Noob **_isn't really a status, it's the online equivalent of a 5-year old calling you a poopy fart head.

  • Sun Tzu
Merolis
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2013-04-01 09:38:00 UTC
Mikhael Taron wrote:


Yes NPC-corp alts would function just fine. They can be in an NPC corp and still join the fleet and get all the benefits of being in fleet...what few there are. And even if they were in the same corp they would be just as susceptible to alpha strikes as when they are in and NPC corp.

NPC-corp alts could not receive protection from a fleet, whereas a corp fleet can ewar the attackers and protect the freighter for concord to act. If you think freighters are often brought down with alpha-strikes you are mistaken. Only an exorbitantly high value cargo will bring out enough DPS to do that.



NPC Alts for freighters would still be used, aside from losing the ability to freely web a freighter for instawarps, anyone who tries to gank the freighter is free fire to EVERYONE and i dont remember CCP ninja fixing NEUTRAL logi in the last couple of days. Also over this weekend 14 (reported on Eve kill) freighters were ganked in high sec, alot of them were swarmed with destroyers so i think your cost estimate for a gank is off too. Also it would only around 40 tornados to alpha a JF.

Also the points others have made about small alliances suffering is incredibly STRONG, if a large alliance would have trouble with this change a small one would have no chance. Other than HED and EC- all other JFs would have to trouble low-sec in a fleet and then jump into null, be bumped out of the almost guaranteed entrance system bubbles, and then jump to the cyno in their system most likely through a midpoint because all the empire hugging systems will be taken. All in all that JF is dead it will very likely die somewhere and the loss would be game-ending to a small alliance a 7-8bill jf + its 2-3bill cargo.

So yes a lot more ships will die but you’ll most likely end all small scale 0.0 alliances.
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
#29 - 2013-04-01 12:32:20 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:

Making null more profitable for industry than highsec would achieve your goal much better. Screwing the supply lines would not.


Yeah, then ppl unsubs their industrial alts and everybody gets to use meta 4 mods.Lol

Last I checked, this game is about risk vs reward. As far as I am concerned, that measn the areas of most risk should reap the highest rewards.

Low sec is more dangerous than Null right now. Fix that and make null less safe and you get a reasonably scaled gradient, the lower the sec status, the more riskier it is. The riskier it is, the higher the rewards.

If people signed up to EVE to become space rich without leaving highsec, they should unsub.
DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-04-01 14:13:59 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Mikhael Taron wrote:
~Snip, and seeing we are going into name calling~



I actually have been following this thread quite closely, and fully understand that you are the only one that is supporting this horrible idea. I also find it funny that this character of your's is 5 months old and still stuck in the NPC corps, so that flags to me that you don't have any low sec or null sec experience, or this is your Alt, and you still don't have any low sec or null sec experience, nor have you ever done corp logistics.

You also have this very annoying habit of using insults to dodge the argument people provide. I think 3 or 4 of the post, you actually responded to SOME of the argument but you dodge the stuff you couldn't respond to by insulting us. This my friend is not a great way to get your idea reviewed by CCP, seeing you need to have large player base supporting your idea, and if you insult the player base...*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

If you actually gave use a reasonable argument instead of insulting us...And actually done some research... Like talking to a large/small alliance logistics person to learn about how hard their job is you might actually gain some insight on why people are hating on your idea so much, and thus changing it to match or letting this one die and coming up with an entirely new idea.


I don't insult people to often, I just give them insight on how other people view them.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”

0racle
Galactic Rangers
Already Replaced.
#31 - 2013-04-01 16:27:56 UTC
tl;dr "I WANT EASIER KILLS"

If it's that important to you find out their jump routes and hit them.
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2013-04-01 17:13:45 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Last I checked, this game is about risk vs reward. As far as I am concerned, that measn the areas of most risk should reap the highest rewards.

Low sec is more dangerous than Null right now. Fix that and make null less safe and you get a reasonably scaled gradient, the lower the sec status, the more riskier it is. The riskier it is, the higher the rewards.

If people signed up to EVE to become space rich without leaving highsec, they should unsub.


You talk about risk vs reward, but then you suggest slow, 6 billion isk ships with no fittings should have to traverse low and null sec. When making 'risk vs reward' arguments you can't just pile on ridiculous amounts of risk without any meaningful reward.

Before cutting the supply lines from high to null sec you have to provide the tools for industry to thrive in null sec. CCP has done a poor job of addressing this issue, and their band-aid fix is the jump freighter.
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
Roadhouse Regulars
#33 - 2013-04-02 07:11:37 UTC
Merolis wrote:

NPC Alts for freighters would still be used, aside from losing the ability to freely web a freighter for instawarps, anyone who tries to gank the freighter is free fire to EVERYONE and i dont remember CCP ninja fixing NEUTRAL logi in the last couple of days. Also over this weekend 14 (reported on Eve kill) freighters were ganked in high sec, alot of them were swarmed with destroyers so i think your cost estimate for a gank is off too. Also it would only around 40 tornados to alpha a JF.

Also the points others have made about small alliances suffering is incredibly STRONG, if a large alliance would have trouble with this change a small one would have no chance. Other than HED and EC- all other JFs would have to trouble low-sec in a fleet and then jump into null, be bumped out of the almost guaranteed entrance system bubbles, and then jump to the cyno in their system most likely through a midpoint because all the empire hugging systems will be taken. All in all that JF is dead it will very likely die somewhere and the loss would be game-ending to a small alliance a 7-8bill jf + its 2-3bill cargo.

So yes a lot more ships will die but you’ll most likely end all small scale 0.0 alliances.

It wasnt my cost estimate for a gank; I merely did the sums for someone else's estimate. Please re-read the thread.

So many of these arguments are based on "empire is essential to our existence". This change would force a lot more self-sufficiency on nulsec, which would even things out. The more sov you want, the more infrastructure you'd need to support the fleets. If you can't be bothered the game will swing in favour of those who can.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.

DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-04-02 07:31:43 UTC
Question for you. Despite knowing what this thread is actually about, AKA nerf everything with a jump drive.... Did you get hotdrop while you were rattting in low sec?

Did you also think about the cost of lowsec and null minerals will also increase with this change?

Did you also think about the smaller alliance? (based on the arguments going on, I have already established that as a no.)

Do you fly a jump freighter? If not, what makes you think you have greater knowledge on how logistics work then everyone else here?

Finally and not least, why do you keep ignore my post? Are my arguments that strong? And have you noticed you are the only one fighting for this idea?

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2013-04-02 15:39:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Mikhael Taron wrote:


So many of these arguments are based on "empire is essential to our existence". This change would force a lot more self-sufficiency on nulsec, which would even things out. The more sov you want, the more infrastructure you'd need to support the fleets. If you can't be bothered the game will swing in favour of those who can.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
First it was: "This isn't an idea to promote industry in null". Now it is when faced with arguments that this would be bad for the game.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
Roadhouse Regulars
#36 - 2013-04-02 16:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mikhael Taron wrote:


So many of these arguments are based on "empire is essential to our existence". This change would force a lot more self-sufficiency on nulsec, which would even things out. The more sov you want, the more infrastructure you'd need to support the fleets. If you can't be bothered the game will swing in favour of those who can.


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
First it was: "This isn't an idea to promote industry in null". Now it is when faced with arguments that this would be bad for the game.


It still isn't. These changes would force indy on the current incumbents of sov, who have by their actions shown they are not up for it, nor to it. There will be blood in the water as they are now faced with managing their logistics in the face of heightened threats.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2013-04-02 17:40:17 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Mikhael Taron wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mikhael Taron wrote:


So many of these arguments are based on "empire is essential to our existence". This change would force a lot more self-sufficiency on nulsec, which would even things out. The more sov you want, the more infrastructure you'd need to support the fleets. If you can't be bothered the game will swing in favour of those who can.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
. First it was: "This isn't an idea to promote industry in null". Now it is when faced with arguments that this would be bad for the game.


It still isn't. These changes would force indy on the current incumbents of sov, who have by their actions shown they are not up for it, nor to it. There will be blood in the water as they are now faced with managing their logistics in the face of heightened threats.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal


You can't force anybody to do anything in this game. *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2013-04-02 18:12:00 UTC
Quote:
It would be no longer possible to use alts in NPC corps to do this job, as they would be defenceless against attacks from griefers and losec pirates. Sov could opt to use Frog or other services to move their stuff out of empire, but that will hurt drastically the profitability of such a move.


This is nonsense. There is no reason why in high sec an NPC corp hauler alt would not work thus side-stepping war decs. Further, said NPC alt can join any fleet he is invited too, so again no reason not to use an alt in an NPC corp.

I don't see why any of the above paragraph has to obtain based on the changes you are suggesting.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

DataRunner Attor
Doomheim
#39 - 2013-04-02 20:59:48 UTC
I'm still surprised he can't see that he the only one that supports this horrible idea...

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.”

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#40 - 2013-04-02 21:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Mikhael Taron wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
All these arguments have not in any way diminished the validity of my suggestion.
That's the first thing you've gotten right (If we don't count direct quotations) in this entire topic.
Your suggestion had no validity to begin with, and as such no argument can diminish that.

For my part, the offer made here still stand: When you give an argument for your idea, with either evidence or sound reasoning to support it, and that idea is in line with your stated goal, I'll be interested in giving it feedback. I'm certain that's a sentiment shared by others.
Until then ...

Cool