open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Why not just make 0.0 much bigger?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Mr Stark
Posted - 2011.05.19 17:54:00 - [1]
 

Would this help many of the issues with 0.0?
Dont plant many 'ISK' moons, spread the wealth a little instead with a decent spread of usable moons that dont make super massive bankrolls. This may discourage the massive allainces and coalitions from moving in.

It may encourage smaller entities to move in if they can hide out in a far flung reach of space.

There are other ways fo making 0.0 more interesting, but many have been thrown out, but just making the galaxy bigger in general may help surely?

This has no doubt been suggested before but i dont feel like trawlign through swathes of forum...

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.05.19 18:05:00 - [2]
 

Honestly, they should plant more high end moons to drag the prices down. Otherwise, this seems like a logical way to change the current null sec dynamic.

Mr Stark
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:42:00 - [3]
 

That does make sense yeah, I hadnt thought about just making tech etc more abundant, I was thinking along the lines of making lots of new space that isnt attractive to fat wallet coalitions, but will be attractive to smaller entities.

Possibly even making some areas of 0.0 that arn't connected to the rest of 0.0, and arnt in easy (or possibly at all) capital jumping reach? Or cut off areas that are only reachable via a few well placed static wormholes? just thoughts to add new areas for people...

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2011.05.19 21:50:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Mr Stark
*snip*
There are other ways fo making 0.0 more interesting, but many have been thrown out, but just making the galaxy bigger in general may help surely?

Or you could just make the ships travel slower, so the galaxy 'effectively' becomes bigger again?!

Originally by: Mr Stark
This has no doubt been suggested before but i dont feel like trawlign through swathes of forum...

Blame CCP Wink
PS: http://www.eve-search.com/

Wolodymyr
Posted - 2011.05.19 22:13:00 - [5]
 

I'd like to see more stars added to the edge of the eve map with increasing value the further you got out.

1. It would give more space for smaller alliances to move into and not be bothered by massive empires already suffering from over crowding.

2. combined with the truesec anom changes that just came out it would turn nullsec into an "islands in space" model with people clustering around the stars that had great truesec, which would make fighting over territory more important.

3. It would make blobs slightly less likely because people would be less inclined to get batphoned in to curb stom a tiny alliance that is very far away.

6. People would have to fully live out in nullsec making their own assets out there because making jita runs would be a little tougher. Right now people just grind isk and fight over their isk grinding space out there.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.05.20 06:06:00 - [6]
 

They tried just making 0.0 bigger. It didn't work.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.05.20 06:41:00 - [7]
 

It would indeed solve most issues - in the short term.

Wouldn't last more than a year though before the cancer that is the vast blue sea would consume all the new areas and we'd be back where we started only more obese.

Adding **** to a pile of **** does not make **** any more palpable. Burn it and start afresh.

Vaju Katru
Posted - 2011.05.20 15:28:00 - [8]
 

Why not just make 0.0 much smaller?

Why not just make lowsec much bigger?

Why not make highsec just 4 systems?

That One Guy
Posted - 2011.05.20 19:37:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Vaju Katru
Why not just make 0.0 much smaller?

Not supported. Fountain is already goon suburbs. It doesn't need to turn into goon Detroit.

Originally by: Vaju Katru
Why not just make lowsec much bigger?

Supported. More thunderdome!

Originally by: Vaju Katru
Why not make highsec just 4 systems?

Supported. Jita, Dodixie, and maybe 2 noob raining systems. That's all we need.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.05.21 00:11:00 - [10]
 

Except the hi sec population won't actually decrease. It will just chain crash the server and cause an Exodus from the game.

EnthusiGASM
Posted - 2011.05.29 20:18:00 - [11]
 


VCBee 2fast2furious
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.05.29 21:21:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Mr Stark
Would this help many of the issues with 0.0?

Probably not.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2011.05.29 21:28:00 - [13]
 

0.0 needs more dynamic security, you know varying depending on the security status of the people that inhabit the area.


But ccp already has stuff in place to add more 0.0 if needed, but as it stands more people are going to empire now.

Pirokobo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.29 23:14:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
0.0 needs more dynamic security, you know varying depending on the security status of the people that inhabit the area.


Violates EVE Rule #1...

Under no circumstances shall a game mechanic be introduced through which CVA could claim to be the legitimate government of Amarr.

Cavern Johnson
Posted - 2011.05.30 16:34:00 - [15]
 

0.0 is big enough as is. Many alliances "control" vast swaths of space that they don't even use on a regular basis.

The problems currently are distribution of moon-goo, truesec distribution, relative profitability compared to highsec L4 missions, supercapital proliferation, and blob warfare in general. Throwing out more space isn't going to really "fix" any of these problems.

Beowulf scot
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.06.03 14:42:00 - [16]
 

There has to be an increase in 0.0 space as only the drone region has been opened up since the Great Nothern War and yet the player base has went from 10k to 40k in that same period.

I second Mr Starks idea.

Driden Fas
Posted - 2011.06.03 14:58:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Driden Fas on 03/06/2011 14:58:46
I'm not sure thats the case, CCP has opened up a lot of new space with the wormhole mechanic, and I think that has yet to be fully exploited by larger alliances, so theres amazing oppotunities for smaller alliances to build up inside wormholes and then come out when the time is right and put a real dent in the more established alliances. I accept they can't build supercaps there, but they can make a huge ammount of ISK and for reletively little risk. Newer alliances should try to explore more and be more creative rather than whinging about percieved lack of space. Possibly CCP should increase resources available in wormholes, that would even things out a bit

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.06.03 17:21:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: That One Guy
Originally by: Vaju Katru
Why not just make 0.0 much smaller?

Not supported. Fountain is already goon suburbs. It doesn't need to turn into goon Detroit.



At least it's not Cleavland.

Scorpionidae
Posted - 2011.06.03 18:00:00 - [19]
 

I support this. Space isn't ment to end it goes on and on and on.

Scorpionidae Very Happy

Leeroy McJenkins
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.03 18:48:00 - [20]
 

I would add that they should make Deklein the connecting region to this vast amount of new space. Wink

Dopesick
Minmatar
The Ankou
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.06.03 23:19:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Dopesick on 03/06/2011 23:42:15

Why not the ability in null sec for the territorial claimant to be able to install gate/station guns? With the ability of opposing forces to destroy said guns.

Why not the ability in null sec for the territorial claimant to be able to hire a "Concord" type npc entity (not as powerful) and pay a monthly price to secure the space without losing the quality of the system? With the ability of opposing forces to overcome system security and claim the system.

or whatever, I don't know... just rambling thoughts

edit: It just seems to me that the ability of an alliance or coalition to actually "build their own empire space" would add to the game.

Mr Stark
Posted - 2011.06.04 17:41:00 - [22]
 

Why not for a reasonably large fee build a stargate taht opens up a new system?

Dopesick
Minmatar
The Ankou
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.06.05 13:56:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Dopesick on 05/06/2011 13:57:21

Originally by: Mr Stark
Why not for a reasonably large fee build a stargate taht opens up a new system?


Would be interesting. Perhaps a WH leads to an unknown system that a corp can build a stargate in to connect to a stargate they built in the system the WH was in.

edit: clarification

asmodian thorkrah
Posted - 2011.06.06 09:34:00 - [24]
 

Maybe add some Low sec and Null sec pockets to highsec to entice the high sec people out.

Also adding more wormhole space would be nice.

Caldari Citizen20110707
The Official Hyperdallas Fanclub
Posted - 2011.06.06 10:23:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Driden Fas
Edited by: Driden Fas on 03/06/2011 14:58:46
I'm not sure thats the case, CCP has opened up a lot of new space with the wormhole mechanic, and I think that has yet to be fully exploited by larger alliances, so theres amazing oppotunities for smaller alliances to build up inside wormholes and then come out when the time is right and put a real dent in the more established alliances. I accept they can't build supercaps there, but they can make a huge ammount of ISK and for reletively little risk. Newer alliances should try to explore more and be more creative rather than whinging about percieved lack of space. Possibly CCP should increase resources available in wormholes, that would even things out a bit


This is execly where ccp **** up for soo many years, its really hard to explain to people that dont know what they are talking about that there are different kind of players. Different mentalities. High sec is for bears who just want to log in and make isk. 0.0 if for players who like to shoot other players. Wormholes = bear space + a littlebit of pvp. The lack of pvp in wormhole space makes pvp'rs leave. Most wormhole space are occupied by corps that exist mostly out of players that like to log in bear a bit do a quick gank if oppertunity arises and thats it. The kind of corporations are A renters in 0.0 alliances or high sec corps. Those corps would never operate alone in 0.0 or be able to join a large alliance that isnt Test or some other bear allaince cause they lack player skills (pvp'rs; people that makes u be able to be in 0.0). So by saying eve got bigger due wormhole introduction u actuly say: EVE got more high sec. 0.0 is crouded for the resources that can be found, ccp fianly did something to buff it but tok it away 8 months later.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.06 14:38:00 - [26]
 

The problem has more to do with moons and less to do with systems.

Juliette DuBois
Posted - 2011.06.06 16:35:00 - [27]
 

Saying there are no good wormhole pvpers is astounting... For starters people deal with no local channel there, meaning that risk factor is higher and intel gathering skills are actually needed. 0.0 alliances have tons of "carebears", even pvpers have carebear alts either in highsec or running anomalies.

Zhakaraih
Posted - 2011.06.16 18:24:00 - [28]
 

The only real issue with 0.0 is that it's not accessable to individuals that aren't arleady established, and hasn't been since the gates opened up to that area in '03-'04. Since then stability, alliances, the ability to set other alliances friendly to form Massive Coalitions, NC, FC, DRF, SC...They've gained stability and would be hard pressed to be pushed out.

Pushing these alliances to the tipping point and causing massive failscades across New Eden would be the only way to open up more 0.0 and get players willing to venture back out into nullsec. However, there is really no way to do this within the current scope of the game.

-Spawns for anoms/plexes in 0.0 should more evenly reflect the spawn time in <0.5

-Site spawns should be region specific, not sec specific, i.e. all sites have the same change to spawn regardless of sec status.

-Site rewards should be spawn specific, not spec specific. I.e. a frigate that is worth 3,500 in high sec/low sec should be 3,500 in nullsec.

-All moons regardless of sec status should have a depletion/recharge time of 24/72. Moon mining should only be allowed in lowsec, nullsec.

-Tech II ship insurance should be balanced with the cost of the ship, not with the T1 counter part.

-There should be an equal number of W space as there is K space.

-Based off of the 7 year average of modual drops/bounties, drone drops should be increased/decreased as needed to be more inline with current faction anoms.

-reverse the jump bridge changes implimented at 0.0. Currently they pose no real logistical challenge, threat, or otherwise change the face of 0.0 that CCP wanted.

-Either increase passive and active armor mods to more accurately reflect their shield counterparts in bonuses, CPU and PG requirements, and draw backs or decrease shield mods to reflect their armor equivilent.

-Either increase repair mods to reflect the use of a shield booster+boost amplifier, or decrease the effectiveness of shield booster+boost amplifier to be more inline with armor repair mods.

-autocannon, blaster, pulse, artillery, beam, and railguns should be balanced to be more inline with each other. Leaving missiles how they are may drive players to use missile boats over turret boats, however, that is still the current state of optimal play. This would only balance the different types of turrets to be more competative against other turret types.

-increase the minimum corprate tax rate to 15% in order to eleviate the tax havens that highsec players create.

-Do not allow corps to be created with less than 20 people that must include a minimum of 1 player from each race that is not the CEO's.

-Alliances should not have the ability to alter standings with other alliances, removing the ability to form 10,000man allainces. Corporations in an alliance should not be able to alter corprate standings.


Dutarro
Matari Munitions
The Fendahlian Collective
Posted - 2011.06.16 19:24:00 - [29]
 

Quote:
The only real issue with 0.0 is that it's not accessable to individuals that aren't arleady established, and hasn't been since the gates opened up to that area in '03-'04.


I agree with this. Vast areas of 0.0 are empty, and a big reason is that it's just so hard to get there. Some things that might help:

- More wormhole connections from high sec to 0.0. I haven't opened a huge number of wormholes, but it seems they almost never open into null sec.

- More 'crap' regions in 0.0, along the lines of Providence. Places that are accessible from high sec and resource poor compared to the rest of 0.0, so that the superpower alliances are likely to just ignore it.

- How about 'Sleeper Incursions' in 0.0 that annihilate all the POSs? Randomly seed the incursions so that every region gets one at least every few months. If players want to recolonize the region, they have to fight their way in and clean out the sleeper nests.


Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2011.06.16 21:00:00 - [30]
 

More 0.0 that nobody wants to fight over... oh grand.

How about an ore supercap whose job is to mine moons. Something that doesnt even need to be on the same grid as the pos and mines the moon. That can perhaps pull 100+ per type per hour and if you mine >100 units the pos mines nothing.

Have the thing siege and it would "lock" the moon so it'd have to be outside a pos shields a long distance.

No more afk income for alliance leader pockets unless you defend your moons. Now those rich moons are for everyone not just 5 big alliances.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only