open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New dev blog: Nullsec Development: Rules and Guidelines
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Eugene Spencer
Rodents of Unusual Size
Posted - 2011.08.04 18:23:00 - [361]

I really hope this post doesn't get lost - I have a legitimate concern.

I am NOT part of a 0.0 corp or an alliance. I do however, use Nullsec for two things:

1) For making money. I run plexes and other anomalies in small groups. I love the niche I've found. When playing the game, I really do feel like I'm taking something from the big alliances. I shouldn't be in their space, let alone taking their resources. I play the patience game and the rely on the fact that alliance members will usually ignore me - I'm more hassle than they're worth.

My point is, I'd like to continue doing this - allow me to steal resources in alliance space I shouldn't be in. I don't want that mechanic to change. Of course, you could make it easier for alliances to protect their space and resources.

2) For small gang roams. I'm not in an alliance, and our corp is fairly small-ish (85 players). I would like to harass alliances. I really don't care if what I do has long-term effects - I'd look for alliance vs alliance play style for that. I just wanna be able to go out on a sunday evening, into 0.0 and kick some alliance goofs in the shins - I want small fleet combat. I want to see ships getting blown up without the hassle of joining an alliance and dealing with all the bull**** I can't be bothered with.

Maybe I want everything for nothing. That might be true, but I thought I'd give a view of how I, and some of my corpmates, use 0.0.

Cheers CCP! :D

Rer Eirikr
Clearly Compensating
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.04 18:53:00 - [362]

I'm in a small alliance. We just like 't3h gud fights' and live out of NPC Null Sec.

No interest in Sov, just pure PvP roaming fun. Often enough we find ourselves jumping into HighSec and then roaming places like Fountain because where we live our space is one of two things.

1) Empty as hell, searching endlessly for any signs of live.
2) Blobbed to hell, we probably die instantly or are forced to make a run for it.

Either way, not fun. I believe this is a prime example of the so called 'death of small scale PvP'. It still happens, and some nights we have a great time getting into perfectly matched engagements (or at least ones where the sizes are acceptable to engage). However, I feel something needs to be done to facilitate it happening more, in all sectors of space.

We shouldn't have to jump into HighSec from our home just to find some good (relative to us) sized fleets to battle, small scale PvP should be rampant everywhere. \o/

Posted - 2011.08.04 18:58:00 - [363]

One thing that's great about low sec is the ability to hold the capital ships, but one thing that's difficult for up start corps is their lack of having them. We have to rely on the bigger alliances for assistance thus making us have to submit to their will.

Me personally, nullsec would be an achiveable goal if there were higher fuel constraints on capital ships, or at least a shorter jump distances to make moving them a little more expensive. While doing this, it would also drive up the market on making them. The PI minerals required to build them need some love. They're all so cheap it's not worth having them unless you're building yourself one.

Now along with that fuel contraint does not come some kind of "ha ha! kill all cap ships by making them harder to use" what i'd like to see is a better method other than ice mining to obtain isotopes for the fuel. Maybe add a manufacturable fuel to the required list of jump fueled ships or their cyno fields that can be manufactured from PI or other methods. Ideally PI would be a good place for those fuels since that's a static resource that all players can capitalize on, and on top of that this would also provide new-upstart alliances and corps a place to supply capital fleets with fuels to get their feet wet in the low and nullsec areas of space. Isotopes are great for ship operations but since ice mining is already fairly difficult to be able to do intially, and the sparse-ness of ice fields in high sec space, makes for fuels hard to come by to new up-start nullsec alliances and corps.

Another thing that may be nice is make one NPC station in each region of nullsec space as a central hub that forces players together and can also make for an area of trade between alliances that all members can camp / control but not quite hold completely since all players can get into an NPC station. Players definatly won't be safe in those systems, but it does provide a high risk / high reward opportunity for players who can successfully blockade run systems and get into a place like that and get out successfully.

Another option would be to open up nullsec a little more by getting rid of the entire NPC station regions such as stain in favor of that system, IE make those regions controllable with a single NPC station somewhere and then allowing outposts to be constructed. I'm not sure if it's possible already, but make it so multiple outposts can be constructed in a single system. Or, maybe make those ones controllable with NPC stations available for all players to use instead of making them sov neutral systems. There's a lot of players who control stain but their names never appear on the boards because their sov rights are not there.

Kirkland Langue
Posted - 2011.08.04 19:03:00 - [364]

Originally by: Magnus Veyr
Having said that; I miss something about smaller entities having a chance, being able to carve out their small part rather than having to side with one of the superblobs. This is ofcourse partially a jump/titan bridge problem (large entities can devour large areas because of their area of influence using bridging), seeing those options removed (JBs) and severely restricted (Titan bridging) would help a lot.

Still I do think there should be more emphasis on smaller groups being able to actually achieve something in 0.0, other than the hit&run stuff we've been seeing over the years. Do you guys have any vision or ideas on this?

I see so many people posting this - but so few seem to jump on board with my idea that I've posted for a few years on different EVE forums. Do you guys not realize the impact of my suggestion? Or is it that I don't "get it"?

My idea? Simple - change the SOV mechanics to be From the bottom up, instead of top down. Pilot activity. I'm not talking about mining or ratting - I'm talking about (some structure) that Pilots could place that determine SOV. Not a structure that alliances place, but structures that individual pilots place.. and whichever alliance meets the threshold gains SOV.

For example: PI structure. Some structure that could be placed/built on planets that contribute to SOV.

Each pilot can create a maximum of 6 Colonies, so that means that each pilot could (at most) place 1 SOV Tower in each of 6 systems, or 6 in 1 system. 6 Points to allocate. Those points contribute to the total that an alliance has for the purposes of claiming SOV. Maybe the rule would say that an alliance with more than 50% of the total SOV towers in a system would have SOV 1, 60% would be SOV 2, 70% would be SOV 3, 80% would be SOV 4, 90% would be SOV 5. The specifics are flexible - but at the end, if your alliance's members build enough colonies - you will get SOV. Since you don't want inactive pilots contributing to SOV - so you add a fuel requirement. Maybe a player could load up a planet with enough fuel to keep the SOV tower running for a few weeks before it needs more fuel.

Under this system, if you wanted to capture SOV from another Alliance, you have basically 4 choices:
A) Place more SOV towers in the system than the enemy.
B) Get the enemy to abandon their towers or stop them from fueling them - if you move in to space for a day.. they can just ignore you and come back, but if you actually move into the system to live - you can block the Customs Offices so that they can't refuel and eventually their SOV towers will go offline.
C) Get their Players to leave the alliance. Even if their SOV towers are still online - they won't contribute to the enemy's total.
D) Use Dust to destroy the SOV towers. Soon(tm).

So, how does this system actually benefit a small alliance that wants to claim space without a big entity kicking them out? If you have 20 members and each can place 5 SOV towers in a few systems - that's 100 towers which an enemy alliance would have to place to remove you, towers that they wouldn't be able to use to defend their own space from encroachments. Sure, if the alliance is big enough and devoted enough to kicking you out of the space - they can just perma-camp you until you leave on your own.. but that's a given.

The end results?
- Sov would represent an alliance's active strength and the true space which they actively live in.
- Alliances would have a much harder time kicking others out of space that they did not intend to live in.
- Individual Players can see very directly how their decisions impact their alliances on a Strategic level.
- Competition for PI materials would become much more fierce as there are competing interests when dealing with which planets to drop CC's on.

Far better system than the current "blob em for a day with spaceships to destroy an empire that took years to build".

Marvel X
Posted - 2011.08.04 19:08:00 - [365]

Biggest problem with 0.0 is people don't wanna go there or they are not wanted there.

Because of that awful blob warfare. If you don't join every boring fleet you're kicked from 0.0.

You should realise only ones enjoying those blobs are 1st the people who make profit of the ships blown up 2nd those who lead and organze the fleets and get to feel important, FC:ing is tough and fun and rewarding 3rd alliance leaders who can see their peons working for them.

Individual fighters just get bored to death waiting for an hour before getting the fleet started and then they jump warp jump warp jump lock target*50 and activate guns and then die.

So give 0.0 some guerrilla warfare, hit and run objectives for small gangs, let us harrash enemy ratters, kill miners(destroy their asteroids), disrupt moon mining, offline posses and stations, disable enemy capitals for few days....

Wallstreet Panic
Posted - 2011.08.04 19:16:00 - [366]

Some additional specific suggestions to consider:

=Eliminate rat and mine botters in nullsec.
=Eliminate un-scannable safes
=Make more entrance / exit systems from highsec into nullsec space. The systems are s few that they allow endless camps
=You've mentioned the problems with grinding structures -- that is why I unsubbed -- CTAs requiring people to show up and shoot structures is a total killer as far as nullsec life goes. Make the stations invunerable to attack and instead open control points or arenas that control a system or parts of a system rather than destroying sovereignty structures. =Limit the number of ships from a single faction that can enter a system (200 ships from faction a are in a system, no more ships from that faction (corp, alliance, coalition) can enter but up to 200 from an opposing coalition can enter

Demon Azrakel
Narwhals Ate My Duck
Posted - 2011.08.04 19:16:00 - [367]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Gnulpie
Edited by: Gnulpie on 04/08/2011 17:28:51
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Ilijk Mijself
Ok here are my thoughts. Right now there is very little content for groups in 0.0 even in upgraded systems.

I would like to see anomalies dynamically changing depending on how many ships show up in them. Something like this: If you do it alone: everything stays as it is. If you do it with x people you get y more waves of rats and every wave contains z more rats to shoot at.

This is something we're looking into very hard.

No, no, no!

Please not. This is a horrible, ugly idea. Completely artificial and immersion breaking.

Can you explain your reasoning here further? This isn't a reaction I was expecting.

To be clear, what we're talking about is something along the lines of "the Guristas have noticed that they're outgunned and called for reinforcements", with additional NPCs showing up to balance the field. This allows us to scale content easily and ensure that having your friends come play with you doesn't mean everyone's making less money.

Sounds like high end w-space. But in w-space, anomalies and rats are limited, so you milk each site for all it is worth. What you are suggesting, on the other hand, would not be used if I can hit scan and warp to the next sanctum. Also, and I am (very) guilty of this myself (in w-space), you need a way to encourage more players and not asshats like me with more accounts. And it still needs to be worth it to asshats like me. Maybe making gated (asshats like me will bring multiple caps and necessary support ships) complexes spawn X times a day based on upgrades (or not, and just as normal), but increase the number of rats (and deadspace dropping overseers) based on the number of accounts present (After giving them w-space AI, otherwise /me grabs damnation, onieros, + however many dps ships I can be asked to fly). It would have to increase more than linearly though (ie. 2x ships = 3x rats + 3x overseers, 3x ships = 5x rats + 5x overseers, etc. As the number of ships approaches infinity, the rewards per player approach 2x of what a single player gets).

The problem with incursions (for asshats like myself) is that the game mechanics forces a certain fleet size to keep people from trying to solo them and maximize their own profit. Instead, a positive incentive (and significant challenge) should be given for players to include others.

Basically, ask yourself this question: would including more players hurt the income of a high SP player with multiple accounts? If yes, then expect that player to attempt to keep the involvement of others to a minimum, zero if possible. At the same time, do not attempt to keep that player from doing his thing (seriously, if I could solo vanguards, I should get 10x the amount as I did the work of 10 players. More players should spawn more ships to provide more rewards. In other words: It should be a challenge to solo, it should also be a challenge to run with multiple players, expecially if for whatever reason, multiple players is supposed to result in a higher pay.)

I am not trying to be an asshat (at this moment in time), but I trying to inject a bit of realism to the debate as to why lower skilled players get rejected from PvE.

BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2011.08.04 19:45:00 - [368]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Kaksakamasami
3. Quick fix to 0.0 industry: Kill mineral compression and make all 0.0 ores equal in terms of isk/hour income (which means that strip mining 0.0 veld would literally drown you in tritanium, but logistical challenges on moving it would be to severe to make Jita exports reasonable). In this simple way we solve several problems at once:

If people will haul trit out to nullsec, I'm concerned that they might haul it back as well. One thing we really want to avoid is crashing the empire trit market, because there are a lot of people who like mining in hisec and we'd prefer not to screw them over too much.

It's certainly something worth being wary of, but I think there is much greater motivation to move Trit to nullsec than from it.

People will haul Trit to nullsec because the difference in income between mining Veldspar in nullsec and mining ABC/running sanctums/etc is so large that it overcomes the hassles of transporting huge volumes out to nullsec.

I'm struggling to see the same motivation to haul Trit back to highsec. If we've started off with the premise that all 0.0 ores are equal (at a given mineral price mix), then if nullsec residents wish to mine minerals for export, they can pick whichever one they want at the mining stage, and they are going to favour the high-end minerals as those are the most efficient to transport. Mineral prices would have to be heavily skewed to overcome the hauling efficiency barrier. And if they were skewed to an unusually high Trit price, empire miners are seeing an income bonanza too and it's all good. And if they were skewed such that Trit remains the same but other minerals are lower, then mining is going to be a relatively unattractive profession and it is more likely that players will seek out other income generation methods instead. (while this might seem to go against the "everyone can get involved in everything" rule, it is an unavoidable nature of the Eve economy that there is a limit to the demand for stuff and massive oversupply will always crash a market).

The main danger to the highsec miner I can see is to what extent the nullsec demand for highsec trit is supporting the current highsec mining population. It is also worth considering how much of that highsec population represents nullsec alts deliberately mining low-ends in highsec, and the increased demand for miners in nullsec if it becomes viable to mine all levels of ores there.

Of course, this would also need to be viewed in light of the overall highsec-nullsec trade balance - if the nullsec mineral market became completely internalized, highsec could find itself running short of high-end minerals.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2011.08.04 20:14:00 - [369]

Want to post my support for a few ideas that have come up since, assuming Grayscale is still watching this thread.

The first is the "rigging space" idea which Grayscale replied to here. The spacial effects in WH are one of the coolest things about W space IMO. Applying that principle to sov space with even more diverse effects, industrial and strategic not just ship bonuses, would allow players to really "terraform" their space and make it unique. It would also contribute to allowing organizations to move the sand in the box according to their strengths. Ideally on the economic side, this would interplay with the "naturally good" characteristics of that system/region. Essentially you have the same idea as the system upgrades we have now but more diverse effects, less linear benefits, and with tradeoffs. On the defense side, ship effects/penalties might force attackers to have equal incentives/penalties w defenders but maybe the defenders have more experience w certain tactics favored by their upgrades (one issue here is you'd see same fleet vs same fleet more often instead of fleet and counter fleet as much. Might not be bad but it's something to consider)

The second is the "player incursions" idea here. While not perfect (time zones would need to be addressed and there would probably need to be multiple entrances to each area to prevent bubbling w titans) there is one extremely positive aspect to this: it would give small alliances a chance. Not a good chance mind you, but if there's an escalation of ships allowed in it allows the small alliance at least ONE fight where they can field a fleet that they trained for and can afford and try to hold against the attackers without the attackers being able to do anything but bring more of the same ship classes (not their cap/supercap fleets or potentially their T3 cruiser fleets in a frig fight). Giving small alliances some way to "hold the line" against 0.0 blocs will be the only real opportunity for them to have a foothold, but any such mechanic must not give defenders an overwhelming advantage.

Lastly, DigitalCommunist's post here. I know Soundwave thinks there's nothing wrong with empire and 0.0 can be buffed in a vacuum. But here is a very articulate case for why that really doesn't satisfy. Should people who like empire be able to stay there and still enjoy themselves? Of course; it would be un-EVE-like to be otherwise. However that shouldn't mean that empire can never change and that enjoying yourself an empire lifestyle should mean enjoying a solitary existence with the same buying power as players engaging with more interactive and dangerous content. A look at agents (specifically DC's points 1, 2, and 4) in conjunction with the stated revision of Incursion completion times would do wonders. I also think his point here "3. Nothing that changes in 0.0, politically or militarily, has any real impact on the lives of players in Empire." is worth being included in the thought process (maybe this will change with 0.0 importing to empire more? Is that enough?)

JC Ferguson
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2011.08.04 20:22:00 - [370]

Botting kills sandboxes. If you don't address botting, this happy-talk matters even less than most CCP happy-talk does. But even the happy-talk borders on the nonsensical:

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The functional role of Nullsec

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec is the land of opportunity and adventure

Wrong. EVE is the land of opportunity and adventure. Within EVE, WH Space, low-sec, NPC null and sov null all offer plenty of opportunities and adventures. Of the 4, sov null is the least adventurous (dangerous,) the most rife with botting, and the least appealing to anyone who isn't either a sheeple or a megalomaniac. NAPfests are bad gameplay. Botfarms are bad gameplay. CCP has repeatedly demonstrated they are unable to get 0.0 right, at least stop making changes that make it worse.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec is an area which brings people together in a very strong way

Wrong. EVE brings people together in a strong way. Corps and alliances of all sizes and styles are brought together in a strong way. Choosing to be a peon in a big nullsec alliance is one of the least interesting playstyle choices you can make and doesn't deserve more rewards or developer resources than it already gets, particularly to the detriment of other, richer, playstyle choices.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec acts as a rich source of aspirational goals for players of all levels of experience

Wrong. Wanting to join the biggest blob so that you can bot in safety is not an aspirational goal that should be rewarded by any developer who gives a **** about its game. The best aspirational goals in this game have nothing to do with blobbing and botting in 0.0.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec provides an area in which players can amass and exercise power over other players

Wrong. Power can be amassed and exercised over other players in all systems of EVE (as well as in the market.)

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec provides an area in which players can develop a rich, player-centric shared history

Wrong. A rich, player-centric shared history can be developed in all systems of EVE and even in out of game venues. If CCP cares about developing a rich, player-centric shared history, then stop interfering in the sandbox.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec permits extremely rich PvP experiences at all fleet sizes

Wrong. Rich PvP experiences of all fleet sizes are 'permitted' in every system. Nullsec merely allows the large botting/rmting alliances a place to fight with the supercapitals they acquired with their botting. You should have said: "Nullsec permits the extremely rich botters to hotdrop all fleet sizes"

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec allows players to build a home and make a lasting mark on the world

Wrong. Players can build a home in any system. If I want to make a lasting mark, I can buy an indestructible monocole.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec generates isolated events and on-going stories which energize the playerbase and help drive interest in the game

Wrong. It used to do that. Most on-going EVE stories are about how big a fail CCP is. There is nothing energizing or interesting about Alliance X botting their way to an "I Win" blob.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec conflict destroys large amounts of manufactured goods, which drives the EVE market

Wrong. Nullsec bots generate vastly more resources than nullsec conflict destroys.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec is a place that allows us to distribute high-value resources in a balanced way

Wrong. If you cared about distributing high-value resources in a balanced way, you wouldn't be nerfing ABC in WH, the most dangerous place to mine in the game.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
* Nullsec is one of the things that makes EVE interesting and unique

Senseless fapping. Incompetence, dishonesty and unprofessionalism are things that make CCP interesting and unique. So what?

Steph Wing
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.04 20:38:00 - [371]

So where are those other three Captain's Quarters?

Tommy Blue
Black Lance
Posted - 2011.08.04 21:24:00 - [372]

Originally by: JC Ferguson


You obviously missed the point of the blog, so thank you for wasting 15 minutes of your and our lives.

J Kunjeh
Posted - 2011.08.04 21:25:00 - [373]

Originally by: Nele'B
It is so nice to see this many CCP posts in this thread! Cool

Isn't it though!? It's like the threads of old, where tons of good ideas were written about and good debates were had by all. Hopefully the pendulum will keep swinging this direction.

Navy Dog
Posted - 2011.08.04 21:37:00 - [374]

Edited by: Navy Dog on 04/08/2011 21:38:18
Note that we should still obviously strive to make everything cool/neat/awesome, but when we start off with an awesome idea rather than an actual problem we want to fix or a feature that has a clear, functional and necessary goal, it generally requires painful fixes further down the road

I don't believe it.... CCP actually figured out the golden rule... Lets see if they are blowing smoke or actually plan to learn from the lessons in that dev blog. Ill bet a few billion isk that the next expansion creates more problems then it fixes. Kind of like 18 months development time on vanity items and useless features like walking in stations.

If I was not told I have to keep my mothership out side of high sec, I would never leave it. I can make more running FW missions or incursions then I can ratting in the best of ships in 0.0.

Isabella Thresher
Fat Kitty Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.04 21:53:00 - [375]


ēPeople like to do one-stop shopping, and will "go to Jita" for everything unless doing so is comparatively very inconvenient

personal story: i left nullsec because of that very reason. my attempts at doing "local market" business were very unsatisfying.

most corps simply chose a JF/carrier trip to jita to buy assets for the next two weeks. and for myself (i am a dedicated industrialist) nullsec gives very few positives compared to empire. where do i get my datacores? where do i get the moonmins? where do we get 120mil tritanium (mineral compression spreadsheets, anyone?) all these things are much easier to get in Jita and i blame the ease of moving stuff around for this.

who needs an industry guy trying to invent t2 ships in nullsec when you can just buy and jump 10 ready manufactured ships in < 60mins from jita?

Desert Ice78
Gryphon River Industries
Posted - 2011.08.04 22:12:00 - [376]

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: EnderCapitalG
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: VaL Iscariot
"Nullsec features and content should always remind players why they left safe space, and never make them think about going back"

Was this considered when you applied the Nerf-Bat to half of null sec with the whole system security thing? No Havens or Sanctums in any system with a security above -.25? A few losses in and I was broke with no real income source beyond my market toon. That only goes so far, as one needs gold to breed gold. I made decent isk running the forsaken sites because they have a high chance to spawn a faction rat, but it didn't take long for others to realize this too and my income stream was terminated. Thus I went back to high sec/low sec to grind missions, and run tasty Radar sites. That was 6 months ago, and have I've not even considered going 'back' to null sec: The Land of Boredom. Go team.

Nullsec isn't guaranteed to make everyone happy. If you like empire better, that's life.

Except in the current state of the game there's almost no reason to not live in Empire, especially after the recent Agent buffs compared to all of the nullsec nerfs that were put in before you decided to buff nullsec in six months.

I completely disagree. There's less safety but also higher profits. As mentioned though, it doesn't cater to anyone. If you want to run level 4s in Motsu over anomalies, that's certainly your choice.

Soundwave, did you even bother to read the post before you replied. They specifically pointed out in black-and-white that HIGH SEC IS SAFER AND MAKES MORE MONEY. Its nothing to do with that people prefer.


Learn to ****ing read and then maybe reply.

Aquana Abyss
Posted - 2011.08.04 22:14:00 - [377]

For a kind of 0.0 "Fog of War" intel, why not remove local for everyone except the Sov holder?

At heart I still feel you'd need to tie Sov to some sort of TCU structure, though I agree shooting undefended structures is boring.

My dream 0.0 would have lots of player owned and neutral owned structures like black markets, listening outposts, independent manufacturing installations, research facilities, mining outposts, comet mining, moon mining (minus POS) and other odd structures (Specific capturable/raidable facilities other than the boring all encompassing POS, that provides more interesting and varied targets for attackers AND better opportunities for tailoring/building up a system to me strategic needs).

Baden Luskan
Posted - 2011.08.04 22:31:00 - [378]

One problem I see in 0.0 is the difficulty of being self-sufficient. Even the most basic of things, like ammo, is extremly difficult to manufacture in a system that is controlled by a corporation and/or alliance.

One simple and easy fix would be making all minerial types available in all 0.0 systems, reguardless of which section of space they belong to. This way, alliances would be able to sustain themselves on the basics (T1 ammo, modules, and ships). As it is right now, with some minerials being only available by shipping them in from elsewhere, that makes systems closer to empire space in higher demand. For those alliances that are on the outter edges of the Eve Universe, the logistics to move in simple minerials like Noxium and Mexalon can be a major undertaking (depending on such things as relations with other alliances between empire).

I R' Carebear
Posted - 2011.08.04 23:35:00 - [379]

So, you want to encourage small gang battles in 0.0 and discourage blobs that make the lag monster come out. Stop making everything in game with such massive amounts of hitpoints that it requires blobs to take out ( station services, pos, etc ).

Seeing how this is all theoretical anyways, lets see what kind of fun we can have.

1st change: Make local in 0.0 delayed mode
2nd change: Make mods ( intel radar ) attached to stations/pos/'just floating in space' in every single system an alliance wants turned from delayed mode back into instant mode like it currently is.
3rd change: Make Intel Radars hit points low enough so a small gang of 5 vagabonds actually can destroy it and turn 0.0 back into delayed mode.
4th: Intel Radar is really destroyed, not just knocked offline so people have to repair it. To get that systems intel back you have to make/buy another Intel Radar and redeploy/online it.

What does this accomplish? It gives a reason for small gangs to exist in the first place. Why send a 150man dread fleet with supercarrier/titan support along with the 250man battleship support group to knock something out that 5 vagabonds can?

Think of the tactical advantages to doing this. Is that 5 man gang just a harrassing force? Or is it a precursor to a full invasion? Those 5 vagabonds can be taken on by a small group of the defending alliance as well if it is just simple harrasment.

Add or change other deployable mods that small gangs can destroy creating more targets and opportunity for small gang warefare. This might let us start seeing how to move from blobbing lagfest back into real military tactics.

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2011.08.04 23:49:00 - [380]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Bubanni
As long as you dont make stations destroyable so everyone inside lose all their assets...

That's one of the tricky bits that's been holding it back Smile

Just have everything relocated deus-ex-machina style with concord freighters swooping in and relocting all the stuff to a nearby low sec system (only on pending destruction - not ownership change) ... med clones get relocated on loss of privaleges. .. destruction could entail a move .... as if all those sov payments included a evacuation insurance provision.

(minor exploits in getting things moved for "free" possible, but that would be an infrequent occurence and the advantage gained vs expense to trigger wouldnt' be overwhelming)

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2011.08.05 00:27:00 - [381]

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso

Just have everything relocated deus-ex-machina style with concord freighters swooping in and relocting all the stuff to a nearby low sec system (only on pending destruction - not ownership change) ... med clones get relocated on loss of privaleges. .. destruction could entail a move .... as if all those sov payments included a evacuation insurance provision.

(minor exploits in getting things moved for "free" possible, but that would be an infrequent occurence and the advantage gained vs expense to trigger wouldnt' be overwhelming)

To combat people using it to their own advantage the concord freighters could disperse random amounts of their assets across 10 systems instead of just onePlease visit your user settings to re-enable images.. In a panic concord just grabs everything with no rhyme or reason to it.

Havak Kouvo
Posted - 2011.08.05 00:44:00 - [382]

Make Sov fees progressive. The more systems you own, the more you pay on an exponential or S curve. Allow players to influence the strategic index of their systems and add even more fees for higher indexed systems. Make systems that have ihubs and outposts (regardless of ownership) more expensive than those without. Limit the strategic index of systems based on the systems around them and make those with higher indices easier to defend. Make it so that a level 5 system must be surrounded by level 4 systems and put a hard limit on the number of level 5s that can exist in a given constellation.

Also if any of the level 4s around the level 5 are lost then the level 5 is instantly lost as well. Similarlly require that at least 1 level 3 or more is adjacent to the level 4 and at least one level 2 or more is adjacent to a level 3 and if that requirement is lost at any given time, any systems that requires it also loses it status. Imagine if because of the constellation layout that if an alliance didn't defend the easier to lose level 2 that they would also lose all their fortress level 4s and 5s instantely and all benefits that they allow. And because having these fortress systems are so expensive that most of the money gained from mining and ratting is lost just keeping the system active, these alliances would be forced to allow for smaller alliances to take sov as a buffer or risk losing important systems.

Allow sanctums in properly upgraded systems again regardless of security rating.

Essentially design sov in a way that it becomes prohibitively expensive to have more systems than they can afford. Also design it so that alliances live in more well defined clusters.

Distribute moons so that the high value moon ore is concentrated in only a few systems, usually ones on a pipe and rarely in an easy to defend area. High value moons should almost always be concentrated to only a small group (like 2 or 3) systems and should always be a strategic nightmare to defend. These moons will act as the primary surplus income because setting up systems for ratting and mining are so expensive that they only breakeven.

Make allowing a single alliance to hold a bunch of extra systems so prohibitively expensive that it would be much more profitable to 'rent' them to smaller alliances.

Smoking Blunts
Posted - 2011.08.05 00:59:00 - [383]

ill repeat what ive already said,

mr gm type people.
the way you have talked about other ideas people have come up with in this topic highly suggests you already have a plan and your gonna stick with it, maybe(i highly doubt given your track record of listerning to any feedback) with a few minor tweaks here and there.

so can you just get that plan on the table and allow use to comment directly on that, given the limited time before the winter expansion(aparently that is mainly about 0.0 and not your money grabbing store) i feel that is a better use of the limited design time that is avalible before the actually programming/breaking of stuff takes place.

ty from a bitter vet

Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.05 01:44:00 - [384]

With the thought of Destroyable outposts becoming a stronger idea.

I would like to see a possibility of capturing a structures (not only outposts) by placing a sustained DPS on an object. If the Sustained DPS is too much the chance of destroying the object increases to the point where the destruction of the object is guaranteed

The Sustained DPS approach will reward are willing to spend the time/risk to gain the reward of capturing an item.

This will allow the Scorched Earth approach : You trying to capture my station eh? Supper carriers target the station, if we can't have it no one will!!

The inclusion of Dust may work well Ė the sustained DPS will open up the access for the Mercs:
-->Power normally used to mag lock air locks, auto defence systems, would be diverted to damage control systems to ward off the DPS attack

Posted - 2011.08.05 02:04:00 - [385]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

Originally by: Onnen Mentar
I like the devblog.

What still lacks though is something similar for low sec and high sec. It's hard to get the whole picture of null sec while leaving out the areas of space null sec is interacting with in one way or another. So while you're thinking in general terms also please think properly and hard about what you want low sec and high sec to be like. ;)

Trying to do this for nullsec, hisec, lowsec and w-space all at once would make my brain melt. It's hard enough as it is to hold the whole thing in my head with just nullsec Smile

Although I can understand, how this could melt your brain, I think you have dismissed this valid point too easily.
Let me explain and give an example - low sec with it's different elements (i.e. FW) is suppose to be closely tied into nullsec...after all, it was CCP who said they wanted FW (and therefore low sec) to be a stepping stone for players, into null sec.
This is where I feel that there has been failure in the past - you concentrate on fixing one area and alienate it from the stepping stone you created beforehand. Low sec and FW is so broken it isn't even near to being a giant leap into null how can you expect new players to venture into null?
If you don't consider low sec/FW while planning null, how can you bridge the gap for new players to cross?

That all being said - great blog...this time make sure you don't get sidetracked and leave us with half finished features...pretty please Wink

Bob Niac
freelancers inc
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2011.08.05 02:14:00 - [386]

Ooh.. Incusions for Sov? I need some tissues.

Cant wait to see what happens

Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.05 02:15:00 - [387]

If the blockade units are still to be used it is possible to place them in the adjacent system. Essentially unlocking sovereignty via the sending gate vs the arriving gate.

This should required the movement of Fleets, making blobbing less effective, hopefully encouraging smaller skirmishes, teamwork, and Ambushes.

Posted - 2011.08.05 02:44:00 - [388]

Edited by: Agun on 05/08/2011 02:45:28
Phew, I sure can't read all of this. Props to you CCP guys for doing so, as you seem to be!

Firstly I hate CQ, because you have to get out of your pod. EvE really likes immersion, and this single act strikes a deep wound into for me. It seems like capsuleers are not exactly human anymore, and are more like demigods who don't deign to walk on 2 feet but when it suits them.

I see a certain issue with proliferation of many things in the game (supercap blobs reaching critical mass?). Mainly I have issue with outposts, as I one day see all of 0.0 filling up, and a station in every single system possible. This is not something I look forward to at all, and for more reasons than lame lowsec/highsec dock/undock "fights". Would it be so unreasonable for stations to be destroyed in some mannner? I know such an event should be incredibly difficult and I cant fathom how it should be done, but I think it should be given consideration.

One stop shopping is another thing I'd like to see dealt with. Granted the market in this game is incredibly spread out compared to other games, I don't like as much centralization as there is. How about broker fees scaling with number of orders already active in a station similar to office fees? The sheer numbers of orders in 4-4 would drive the cost of making an order unprofitable for the seller or the new costs unaffordable for the common customer, and the orders would spread out. Another idea is change the stargate paths so the the empires are all divided by lowsec. I know there are shortcuts thru lowsec but that's simply no incentive at all to venture there. A buffer between the empires would also give a lot more life to lowsec as well as decentralizing the markets a bit.

Lastly, we are spoiled with how much volume we can move with JF's. I know they're expensive, but it only encourages this behavior of "to jita with loot" and "back from jita with stuff i need" rather than "lets work together to fulfill our needs out here in nullsec". JF's can move a LOT of stuff with nearly no risk at all. Nerfing carriers from that role was a step in the right direction...but instead of that being the fix that was needed we instead have an even more broken mechanic.

Posted - 2011.08.05 02:46:00 - [389]

And for the love of god, afk cloakers need to be dealt with BIGTIME. Safespots in general are OP

Posted - 2011.08.05 02:53:00 - [390]

First I apologize if this points have been made. A lot of ppl have good ideas in here and I started just reading the dev replies. Iíve made three recommendations arranged from easies to implement to needs a little more programming.

-Could you make moon mining required either your alliance have standing with the local NPC faction or that your alliance holds SOV in the system?

Does it really make sense that an Alliance in 0.0 can mine a moon in lowsec or NPC 0.0 space? I have been on a lot of road trips to space my alliances had nothing to do with just to take a tech or prom moon. Moon goo is the backbone of alliances and many 0.0 alliances start out or reform in NPC 0.0 and lowsec. If they are going to be there grinding the standings with the NPC corps while they build/rebuild they should be getting access to the moons to be able to move to the next level. I think if you think threw this suggestion there is a lot to here to speak to how large alliances are big and stay big.

-Mentioned before but I think it needs saying again. Outpost need to be Destructible.

For a few reasons.
-First they really donít cost that much (about as much as a SC last time I check)
-Second there are a lot of outpost that are now irrelevant or the wrong type because of changes to the game. i.e. JB and Sanctum nuerfs (many of the outpost where built in certain systems to maximize mechanics that donít apply anymore) and since the game will change again there needs to be a mechanic that makes sure they are not permanent.
-Third it would be really cool if a percentage of what was in the Outpost dropped after the final grind. Something to dream about as you grind threw the HP.

-We need more reasons to fight and defend space make moon goo and PI more valuable and able to be stolen.

Sov (I personally think Tradik is right on this) but one of the biggest problems is not sov it is reasons for fighting. Right now it is a big fight for sov or I want to go harass someone in a roam. For sov everyone has to show up or loss their space but for a roam everyone can POS up or station up unless they have the numbers to crush the roam. Maybe there should be an intermediate option? Perhaps if the moon goo and PI output was kept in a container that was accessible and hackable by a small gang. So if you came into a system in a small gang you would go to a structure and have your hacker start hacking the silos and make off with the product. The minute he starts hacking a warning goes out to the alliance. If you boost the isk value on PI products and moon goo. This could make life very interesting.

Industry. There is a lot made out about how there should be more industry in 0.0 but I would like to challenge that thought. If you like making stuff then there is whole rich parts of this game tailor made for you. It is empire. What players really want is income to buy ships and use them to shoot each other. That is why you are in 0.0. I have found that most of the people who like building stuff donít like to shoot or get shot (I did say most) and really unless they have been in the game a long time they donít have the skill point distribution as a indy to be a effective PVPer. Those that do like both are usually fully employed in capital and supper capital production (cautionary note here is you nuerf SC you may be killing a large part of the economy in 0.0) As a matter of fact most production slots in 0.0 are also reserved for Cap production.

Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (22)

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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only