These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why small corps can't access null sec ?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#61 - 2013-09-14 04:17:34 UTC
Yngwiedis wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:


I would assign the job of diplomat to someone who does well with making friends. All that needs to happen is for you to get set to blue with a null sec alliance and work out the terms of having blue status with them. Making friends with other corps/alliances is always good. You don't necessarily need to actually join an alliance to be set to blue with them.



So where is that social interaction skill ?
(Try to be funny here and not leave you with the perspective that i am not polite :) )


:) skilling it to level 5 is always a good idea

good luck to you

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?
Yngwiedis
Yngwie J. Malmsteen's Rising Force
#62 - 2013-09-14 04:20:08 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:


After reading this thread I'm under the impression that he wants the goods without the effort involved to get any benefits from null.

FW is null sov light. War targets and lots of pirates that want a piece of you as well. No drag bubbles hurray.


Sorry but you are wrong. I already write it in a previous posts that i don't have a problem to contribute to the alliance who will accept me as a member.
I also know how much things i have to "give" in null sec because i live in null sec in the past for several months.
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-09-14 04:20:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Caviar Liberta wrote:
Twylla wrote:
Yngwiedis wrote:
Caviar Liberta wrote:


NPC Null Security space. Stations and all the benefits of Null Security space without the sov politics.


But then you need to do PvP all the time you are logged in because all the people want to kill you !


Or you're told to PVP. That's usually more the case.

Last run in nullsec I had, I went broke replacing ships 'cause I could never get time to make some isks to pay for them.

If you aren't being b*tched at to fleet up, you're being shot at by the FC when you undock.


After reading this thread I'm under the impression that he wants the goods without the effort involved to get any benefits from null.

FW is null sov light. War targets and lots of pirates that want a piece of you as well. No drag bubbles hurray.



Unless you're big into PVP, there are no rewards in nulsec. You do as your told, no more, no less. You're about 99% likely to simply be conscripted as fleet fodder on a daily basis.

If you are a combat/industrial mix corporation, your corp will likely get picked clean for your combat personnel and your corp will then get the boot.

It became a job. So unless you LOVE padding your pvp history with one-hit-mentions, there isn't much out there for you.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Yngwiedis
Yngwie J. Malmsteen's Rising Force
#64 - 2013-09-14 04:21:14 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:


:) skilling it to level 5 is always a good idea

good luck to you


Right click > Train Now to Level 1

Thank you Big smile
TharOkha
0asis Group
#65 - 2013-09-14 04:21:15 UTC
I can see your problem now OP. You are not well informed.


CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Yngwiedis
Yngwie J. Malmsteen's Rising Force
#66 - 2013-09-14 04:28:30 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
I can see your problem now OP. You are not well informed.



After all those posts i think the same for myself Big smile
Misinformed to be more specific...
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2013-09-14 04:29:33 UTC
Basically CCP have got it set up in a way that lets a large alliance project its power anywhere across the map.

The fees that alliances pay for sov are so minuscule that a large alliance can drop TCUs across vast areas of null sec virtually for free.

If you tried to take a little peice of it you could, well except that alliance that "claims" it by dropping TCUs, despite not living in or using that space will get a little automated email from the server, and using bridges will stomp you out of existence and then abandon it again.

Fact is you can't claim a little peice, you're required to pay the bigger alliances for space they don't use or need, curiously the same alliances who dominate the CSM because it was set up so they could rig it to have all their members on it.

Explains a lot really.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Yngwiedis
Yngwie J. Malmsteen's Rising Force
#68 - 2013-09-14 04:36:06 UTC
I don't want to claim anything.
I just believe that big alliances will have to accept small corps also because some times small corps have experienced members but these members don't want to join bigger corps.
Thats all...
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-09-14 04:40:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Basically CCP have got it set up in a way that lets a large alliance project its power anywhere across the map.

The fees that alliances pay for sov are so minuscule that a large alliance can drop TCUs across vast areas of null sec virtually for free.

If you tried to take a little peice of it you could, well except that alliance that "claims" it by dropping TCUs, despite not living in or using that space will get a little automated email from the server, and using bridges will stomp you out of existence and then abandon it again.

Fact is you can't claim a little peice, you're required to pay the bigger alliances for space they don't use or need, curiously the same alliances who dominate the CSM because it was set up so they could rig it to have all their members on it.

Explains a lot really.




The solution would be to incorporate a cap to deployable TCU's. TBH, capping TCU deployment to 1 per corp means that space expansion for an alliance would have to incorporate more corporations, rather than more centralization. Every corp that is brought into the fold expands the alliances' influence, even if it's an industrial corp.

I'm a big advocate for industrial development in nulsec. It's a great place to build from scratch. Alliances do not prioritize industrial development AT ALL as an aspect of holding space. There's a lot of isk, there's a lot of resources, but nulsec alliances are allowed too much access to highsec to provide everything that the people they're booting from nulsec would do for them. Jump freighters were a big mistake on this issue.

CSM packing is an issue. That's up to CCP to figure out. Of course, they'd just toss that to the CSM anyway >.>

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Yngwiedis
Yngwie J. Malmsteen's Rising Force
#70 - 2013-09-14 04:46:19 UTC
Twylla wrote:


I'm a big advocate for industrial development in nulsec. It's a great place to build from scratch. Alliances do not prioritize industrial development AT ALL as an aspect of holding space. There's a lot of isk, there's a lot of resources, but nulsec alliances are allowed too much access to highsec to provide everything that the people they're booting from nulsec would do for them. Jump freighters were a big mistake on this issue.


+1 Blink
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2013-09-14 05:06:05 UTC
Twylla wrote:
Unless you're big into PVP, there are no rewards in nulsec. You do as your told, no more, no less. You're about 99% likely to simply be conscripted as fleet fodder on a daily basis.

If you are a combat/industrial mix corporation, your corp will likely get picked clean for your combat personnel and your corp will then get the boot.

It became a job. So unless you LOVE padding your pvp history with one-hit-mentions, there isn't much out there for you.


Anybody who belongs to an alliance like that should leave their alliance. What a horrible way to play the game.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-09-14 05:09:28 UTC

What would need to be fixed:
1 corporation managing ALL the alliance infrastructure. This is a bad, bad, bad thing. Both for alliances and for corps wanting to hold space. Rather than worry whether 1 guy can topple your entire empire, get rid of the fulcrum entirely. Alliance infrastructure should be =decentralized= so that there isn't one point of failure, where one issue of betrayal has limited impact, and where member corporations aren't just renters, but contributors to the 'holding' of space.


All you need to do:
Cap TCU deployment to 1-5 per member corp. A correlation between physical territory and membership.
Cap Station ownership to 1 per member corp. (ownership, not deployment) Damper on station monopolization.
Cap on POS deployment per corp (CEO skill-based limit 1-5). Damper on one-man-moon-empires.
Allow corps to deploy up to 2-10 POS guns around gates (gate-gun-lite). TCU function based on time without pvp kills in-system.


Radical suggestions, and expensive to redeploy infrastructure, and not without odd holes like having dozens and dozens of holder corps, but the idea is to make the process of having 1 guy manage the whole infrastructure itself more painful than having your testicles pounded on with a spiked bat for 8 hours a day.

More corps means more people, a wider spread of population, everyone gets their stake, and wants their stations supplied with things they use often, and while there are more points of failure, the cost of sabotage is limited to a system.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2013-09-14 05:10:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Twylla wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Basically CCP have got it set up in a way that lets a large alliance project its power anywhere across the map.

The fees that alliances pay for sov are so minuscule that a large alliance can drop TCUs across vast areas of null sec virtually for free.

If you tried to take a little peice of it you could, well except that alliance that "claims" it by dropping TCUs, despite not living in or using that space will get a little automated email from the server, and using bridges will stomp you out of existence and then abandon it again.

Fact is you can't claim a little peice, you're required to pay the bigger alliances for space they don't use or need, curiously the same alliances who dominate the CSM because it was set up so they could rig it to have all their members on it.

Explains a lot really.




The solution would be to incorporate a cap to deployable TCU's. TBH, capping TCU deployment to 1 per corp means that space expansion for an alliance would have to incorporate more corporations, rather than more centralization. Every corp that is brought into the fold expands the alliances' influence, even if it's an industrial corp.

I'm a big advocate for industrial development in nulsec. It's a great place to build from scratch. Alliances do not prioritize industrial development AT ALL as an aspect of holding space. There's a lot of isk, there's a lot of resources, but nulsec alliances are allowed too much access to highsec to provide everything that the people they're booting from nulsec would do for them. Jump freighters were a big mistake on this issue.

CSM packing is an issue. That's up to CCP to figure out. Of course, they'd just toss that to the CSM anyway >.>

All they would do would make one man dummy corps to drop a TCU. If you required a certain member count they'd dump alts in, drop the TCU and so on.

If you made it scale by number of tcu's, like how war decs work, multiplying the cost they'd break the alliances up. Whatever fix you put in they would find a hole and exploit it because that's what they do because CCP allows it. Same as they allow them to drive war dec prices up by deccing themselves or avoiding wars by disbanding enemy alliances because one person forgot to kick a lasped account a few years ago.

Edit: lol you addressed the disbanding idiocy while I was typing my post :)

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2013-09-14 05:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Rhes wrote:


Anybody who belongs to an alliance like that should leave their alliance. What a horrible way to play the game.



Sadly, I've flown under 'holders' for BoB, Goons, and Red over the years. I've yet to find an alliance that isn't like that.


Infinity Ziona wrote:


If you made it scale by number of tcu's, like how war decs work, multiplying the cost they'd break the alliances up. Whatever fix you put in they would find a hole and exploit it because that's what they do because CCP allows it. Same as they allow them to drive war dec prices up by deccing themselves or avoiding wars by disbanding enemy alliances because one person forgot to kick a lasped account a few years ago.


That's the metagame for you.

The only way to deal with metagaming like that is to simply make the metagame solution to the problem a severe nuisance, and establish that it's a nuisance for a reason. People are discouraged from actions not by disallowing the action, but making that action painful.

Intentional features should be smooth, streamlined, and easy. Unintended loopholes should be as an unpleasant sacrifice weighed against the benefit (suicide ganking mentality!)

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Ciaphas Cyne
Moira.
#75 - 2013-09-14 05:34:09 UTC
oh no! another perfect pull from eves resident stealth troll!

hi!

"buff only the stuff I fly and nerf everything else"

  • you
Jim Era
#76 - 2013-09-14 05:44:04 UTC
I agree, I need a home in cloud ring immediately

Wat™
l0rd carlos
the king asked me to guard the mountain
#77 - 2013-09-14 06:09:19 UTC
Do you want to own SOV?

For PvP it's enough to day trip into 0.0
For PvE you can just log out in space after your time is gone.
There is also NPC 0.0.
There is NRDS systems like Providence.
Even in a small'ish corp you can rent a System. (If you got the money)

Youtube Channel about Micro and Small scale PvP with commentary: Fleet Commentary by l0rd carlos
Julius Priscus
#78 - 2013-09-14 06:50:06 UTC
Yngwiedis wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?


Who is the cow and what is the milk ?



go rent a system. or three
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2013-09-14 07:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Accepting 20 corps with 10 members each means you have 20 CEOs who feel entitled to have some say in leadership discussions, you have at least 20 corp-level diplomats to deal with and you probably have another 40 corp-level directors who also want to be treated as if they are important.

You also have 20 corps that you have to consider when evaluating fleet participation and distributing the spoils (i.e. moons) and small corps can really mess up your usual performance metrics: a ten person corp can easily have either really high or really low fleet participation. If you go by fleet members/corp size they might end up with higher rewards than bigger corps could ever hope to achieve. On the other hand you might have to kick half of them after every second campaign because two of their players went on holidays and now their contribution to the campaign effort was 0.

And you have 20 different recruitment policies each of which might be a an open gate to awoxers and spies.

One 200 man corp is much easier to handle for the alliance and there isn't a shortage of medium-sized corporations that would force alliances to put up with the antics of ultra-small corps.

Hope that answers your question.

.
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2013-09-14 07:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Vera Algaert wrote:
Accepting 20 corps with 10 members each means you have 20 CEOs who feel entitled to have some say in leadership discussions, you have at least 20 corp-level diplomats to deal with and you probably have another 40 corp-level directors who also want to be treated as if they are important.

You also have 20 corps that you have to consider when evaluating fleet participation and distributing the spoils (i.e. moons) and small corps can really mess up your usual performance metrics: a ten person corp can easily have either really high or really low fleet participation. If you go by fleet members/corp size they might end up with higher rewards than bigger corps could ever hope to achieve. On the other hand you might have to kick half of them after every second campaign.

And you have 20 different recruitment policies each of which might be a an open gate to awoxers and spies.

One 200 man corp is much easier to handle for the alliance and there isn't a shortage of medium-sized corporations that would force alliances to put up with the antics of ultra-small corps.

Hope that answers your question.



Pretty good point, although I'd say every corp has the same 'antics' as any other corp, some just get their way. Every corp's leadership exists as an ego, and just 'cause one's in an alliance doesn't mean they aren't unqualified egotists.

In fact, politics exists as a forum for unqualified egotists. If you want a forum for qualified egotists, you go to a pvp forum. That's not to say they're effective leaders.

Corps in EVE online generally stay small because of the sh*tty internal controls for dealing with thieves and the like. Establishing sufficient trust doesn't come with recruiting 200 people into the fold. I've seen everything from corporate theft to capital ship construction sabotage. What makes you think I'd be so willing to have a 200 man corp? 20 is easier to manage and track if something goes wrong.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!