These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Null Deal: A Statement from Sovereign Nullsec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#461 - 2014-09-30 01:01:25 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
TY ISD for cleaning up the thread.


Dear Community,


Look we all love to shovel dung on each other and S*** up threads. Take a step back from the names or parties endorsing this idea and actually consider the merits of it. I know it is easy to jump to conclusions that X , Y & Z are trying to manipulate things to a advantage . However , I and most of the people who are party to this "Statement" are veteran players. We sincerely enjoy this game. We want to see it live on and thrive. Because it has to for everyone to continue to enjoy it. Throughout the history of this game people have gamed the mechanics of the Eve Sandbox squeezing whatever advantages they can. I have done this and will continue to do this. What we are saying in Unison " Hey changes are needed not so much for our benefit but for everyones benefit". So I try to appeal to you gentle community member , bro of bro who might be a Grrr Space Enemy cast aside differences for the moment and join in unison in pushing forward the unified consensus that we as players want change.

♥Manny


A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.

My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.

99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#462 - 2014-09-30 01:22:19 UTC
Ocih wrote:
A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.

My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.

99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do.


NBSI is not the problem, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for 10 years.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#463 - 2014-09-30 01:23:36 UTC
Andski wrote:
Ocih wrote:
A lot of the vitriol is deserved. Most of us have been pulled through the forum ringer at one time or another. Me more than most. Between Ocih, Skydell, Ioci and Sisohiv I have had my foot in my mouth a few times and I've seen a lot of mud in the pits of EVE-O.

My standing issue here is the idea that CCP need to fix this game for us when we are the problem and in the sandbox mantra, we are the solution.

99% of the game breaking aspect of SOV are player driven, NBSI. We can have our Area 51 systems but not all sov needs to be so unwelcoming and the scam central themes make any 'fee' or 'rent' a suckers game. I say that if we want CCP to 'Fix' EVE we try first. NBSI is paranoia and it does far more to keep Null dead than anything CCP do or don't do.


NBSI is not the problem, otherwise it wouldn't have worked for 10 years.



If it's working, why the petition?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#464 - 2014-09-30 02:37:14 UTC
Ocih wrote:
If it's working, why the petition?


Because NBSI isn't the problem?

This is like blaming the janitor for a company going bankrupt.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#465 - 2014-09-30 02:42:03 UTC
Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2014-09-30 02:49:58 UTC
I support this joint statement.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Wildcard Trek
Corp 54
#467 - 2014-09-30 02:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I think this joke that has been put forth as "occupancy Sov" can best be summed up with a simple statement an Alliance mate of mine came up with.


Quote:
Ahh, occupancy SOV.

Instead of SBU/TCU grind, just place few cloaked cyno ceptors/tech3s in system, and mercilessly hotdrop all ratters, denying the occupancy ratting. Then come with 50+ carriers/titans/tech3s fleet, do few plexes, flip sov, camp undock. Profit?

The Future of SOV Wars...




The problem is not and has not ever been ( "insert some inanimate object here POS, TCU, IHUB, Station" ) the problem has always been how can it get done easier, How many times have we heard the cry I dont want to log in and put forth any effort. I want to drop fifty eleven supers and grind with impunity and be done as fast I can so I can go play another game until something exciting happens, or I can **** in someones cheerios.

The big "excuse" of I need fifty eleven people to flood a system and crash a node or create 1% tidi IS player sandbox made and player sandbox caused. No structure, no POS, no TCU, no IHUB, no Station ever caused the problem, the will of the people caused it with the incessant cry of boredom. And out of the same mouth came cries of too many blues and CCP ruined SOV.

CCP had nothing to do with ruining SOV. The masses upon masses who need to create elaborate coalitions, boatload of bullcrap accords, and rent vast amounts of space to subsidize their members because "effort" to go rat and buy a ship. People want to play but dont want to work at having to play.

*Snip* Please refrain from discussing politics. ISD Ezwal.
The true heart of the matter is not what object to grind, destroy, occupy, it is the gamer mentality we have here in Eve, and it stems from real life, give anyone anything for free and they will show up, make them work for it and they wont. People are expected to get everything for free and not put forth any effort for it.

People who live in 0.0 want their cake and want to eat it as well. You used to have to work to gain sovereignty, it used to take a week, not 4 days at best. Now I can just drop my big phallus machine and let a drone of some type do the work for me. You know the no effort way.

CCP Find a way to stop the renting empire, the passive moon incomes, side deals, boatload of crap initiatives, moving fleets within a blink of an eye across the galaxy in minutes, and the smaller guy might one day have a chance. Until then nothing you do for anyone who cries SOV sucks will ever be enough.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#468 - 2014-09-30 03:10:08 UTC
It'll just fall on deaf ears like most anything in Eve that makes sense does.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#469 - 2014-09-30 03:38:48 UTC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.

There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.

My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation?
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#470 - 2014-09-30 03:56:17 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.

There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.

My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation?

no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#471 - 2014-09-30 04:15:20 UTC
Andski wrote:
Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec



NBSI isn't about the rules of engagement, it's about the rules of peace. NBSI does 'work'. It creates a theater of 0 hostility. It eliminates all option for wide scale threat. It creates blue donuts.

Of course that's a double edged sword. We now have a passive null sec and that seems to be the complaint. Sorry, I won't support change in EVE when the people crying for change won't? Change.

:tldr You got what you wanted. Now rot in it. Or change.
Snot Shot
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#472 - 2014-09-30 04:15:38 UTC
Andski wrote:
Snot Shot wrote:
So the leaders of Null Sec SOV holding Alliances are tired of playing naked diplomacy Twister? Have you decided who's going to pull out of whos bum first?

CCP can change null SOV to this but at the end of the day its the diplomatic meta circle jerk thats the real issue with Null. CCP needs to go bigger and get rid of SOV structures and timers like SBUs, TCUs, Station Timers and docking rights. Then diplomacy can happen on a granular/local level and will be much more fluid.

If you occupy the system etc then with the IHUB upgrades you get more and more benefits from the station like Agents, Services, etc and your docking radius gets bigger as you use the system etc. Tip of the iceberg stuff but you get the point.

Anywhoo.....great idea with the NPC space...Roll...but please make sure the new SOV system you promote can also be gamed into another diplomatic pretzel. It would be a shame if we didn't see The Martini pretending year after year the its not his fault for Null Sec being a stagnant puppet show...Blink
.


Can you expand on your ideas with anecdotes from your storied history of leading coalitions in wars contesting sovereignty?

Well as you know, I've been telling you folks this was going to happen for a while now...Blink. I hate to say I was right but....I was right..Cool

I do get a chuckle out of the fact that the guy whose painted Null Sec into this corner with diplomacy, is now they guy waiving a piece of paper in front of CCP claiming he's got the solution to all our problems...Ugh

Can you expand on how this "Null Deal" was discussed? Did all these peeps who signed this get on comms and hammer this out together? Can we get the meeting minutes or Soundcloud recording? After they came up with this decision was it brought to a vote by each Alliance leader to their pilots? Or was it just 4 or 5 of them coming up with the best mouse trap to use on Null Sec for the next 5 years and trying to pawn it off as being whats best for everyone....Roll
.

Twitter = @Snot_Shot  - “If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"

evesnotshot.blogspot.com
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#473 - 2014-09-30 04:17:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Ocih wrote:
Andski wrote:
Unless you honestly believe that rules of engagement were the deciding factor in the fact that two coalitions own basically all of nullsec



NBSI isn't about the rules of engagement, it's about the rules of peace. NBSI does 'work'. It creates a theater of 0 hostility. It eliminates all option for wide scale threat. It creates blue donuts.

Of course that's a double edged sword. We now have a passive null sec and that seems to be the complaint. Sorry, I won't support change in EVE when the people crying for change won't? Change.

:tldr You got what you wanted. Now rot in it. Or change.


Unlike NRDS which is essentially NBSI with a gigantic red list instead of a short blue list

Again, you're wrong and NBSI has nothing to do with the current situation

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#474 - 2014-09-30 04:21:56 UTC
Rowells wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.

There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.

My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation?

no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that.

So, what you're saying is that with current incentives people will keep joining the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big?

Won't you just be back in 6 months, after the novelty wears off, complaining that nullsec is still stagnant?
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#475 - 2014-09-30 04:32:35 UTC
Let me put it another way: You're bored shitless right now because 90% of nullsec refuses to shoot each other. That same 90% of nullsec (coalitions and renters) will still refuse to shoot each other after the proposed changes. You'll still be bored shitless.
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#476 - 2014-09-30 04:32:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person.
High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.

Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person. That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.

I've also written a post why this suggestion is self-serving and horrible.

The short version: nullsec alliances will condense to constellations and rat there in capitals in complete safety as no pirate gang could break their spider-tank. The nearest competent enemy would be 5 regions away, separated by huge buffer zone of terribads who can be farmed for laughs. There won't be a single war or even major battle in Nullsec.

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#477 - 2014-09-30 04:35:44 UTC
I really didn't know that so many people just love the status quo

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#478 - 2014-09-30 04:36:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Anom income caps out at 90 mil/hr per person.
High sec level 4 mission blitzing nets 110mil/hr+ per person.

Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot


In a carrier, while blitzing missions can be refined to produce well beyond 110m an hour (even in highsec). You know, if we let your MOA pets farm missions they'd be earning 180m an hour without even trying.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#479 - 2014-09-30 04:38:05 UTC
Let's keep everything the same because change is scary and I am comfortable with the thing we have now even though it is objectively bad.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#480 - 2014-09-30 04:38:26 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Rowells wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the logic behind these changes seems to be: Condense existing coalitions into handful of systems---> provide room for new sov entities to exist.

There's nothing wrong with this, it will probably work. However, new entities have entered sov within the last 6 months: just look at Hero. And then Hero, to their dissatisfaction, was put on farm by N3PL. Being put on farm is an integral part of the stagnation that we all oppose.

My question is this: How will the new system be any different in this regard? Will N3PL stop farming hero for whatever reason? And if that situation doesn't change, how will the end result of the new sov system be any different then the current stagnation?

no. the big will always prey on the small. no change in mechanics or anything is going to stop that.

So, what you're saying is that with current incentives people will keep joining the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big?

Won't you just be back in 6 months, after the novelty wears off, complaining that nullsec is still stagnant?

"With current incentives" meaning nothing changed just the map layout, yes. And I'm assuming you play to win as well? will we see you in CFC some time soon? Most likely not. For whatever reason you and your alliance decided to literally do the opposite of 'join the two largest coalitions so that they too can "win" by being big'. Winning for some people isn't just being part of the biggest bloc in the game.