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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Decus Daga
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.04 00:45:00 - [241]

I love the direction CCP is taking with this. eg, asking the players, informing us of whats going on.

Im actually a little excited to see what the plans for null sec are going to be, as are a lot of people in this thread :D

Keep it up guys!

p.s - also good to see the staff responding to player posts for a while.

Evira Alivar
Posted - 2011.08.04 00:59:00 - [242]

Two ideas i have for nullsec:

Empire faction incursions:
Systems with high sov rating are very "safe" if you have a good connection to the owners. They are well protected (or should be) so those are the places where scientists and archeologists will carry out the work they can not do in empire space. This can either be npcs or players, both is fine at this stage of the tought. this may create the following situaton:

They find an artifact that is important to the amarr empire (you can replace that by techno-babble for caldari or anything else that you find in the eve lore). So a strong amarrian force wants to come to collect the item (wich takes some time). Minmatar spies will of course find out and they want to get a fleet there to get it first.

The sov holding alliance can now either bond with one side and fight the other or fight both. At least one side is left to fight this alliance, and they will try to gather allies (like other player alliances that). So players can join the fight on both sides, and use the benefit of the fighting npc fleets and their logistics for their own advantage.

This mechanic would do some things for the game:
The empire factions would have some goals and show up with force, rather than just beeing there. this would give more life to the empire factions and show their strength. A good thing from the storyline part.
It would make very safe sectors of space ocasinally very unstable and open it for contest.
Of course this contradicts the policy of having only player based storyline in nullsec. but if players are the driving factor behind bringing those npc there (like "finding" or "placing" the artifact. I can imagine cloacked ships with player archeologists flying into enemy space to find ruins with something valuable to bring an npc faction on the table), this would be ok. This would also mean, that sites that potentially can create such a danger must be watched and maybe the artifact removed before the empires react.
This could also mean, that a very small force can cause a lot of trouble for a big alliance by causing such incidents.

The second idea:
We always hear that BPOs are not destroyed and are unlimited once they are researched. On the other hand, supercaps dont require mainenance as they should. We also see no real technological progress. I could imagine the following:
Every ship has a tech level (i have no better word at the moment). 0 means the systems are up to date. negative values mean that some firmware versions are outdated, some components not the best thing on the market. levels above zero mean that you have someone who gave some gimmicks to you before they hit the open market. Those levels give either small boni (if positive) or mali (if negative). Bringing them up to 0 again should be relatively cheap, maintaining a level above zero could be very costly. To raise the level, you need a up-to-date bpc. To have those bpc needs constant research of the tech level of the bpo. This would also mean that the number of researchers limit the number of maintainable supercaps. It will take long research times to hold the bpo on a usable level, leaving little time for copying. If an alliance cant maintain an 0 or above tech level, they will go into fights with interesting mali. (Maybe if your sensor banks dont have the latest update, there will be a little chance that ecm works on your supercap. Or modules have a chance to just "fail" when your firewall is not up to date and a virus comes via neocom.)

Posted - 2011.08.04 01:09:00 - [243]

ccp needs to create merchant trade routs into 0.0. that are protected by factions or concord. that way the little guys can sell equipment to the big guys. everyone wins, nul sec corps wouldent have nearly as hard a time planning logistics to get much needed supplies into the fight. 0.0 is unatractive to new players due to the inability to leave 0.0 and return at will. if you have system sov u should have protected routs as a reward.

Cryptonym Sleepers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.08.04 01:51:00 - [244]

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

Jamie Banks
Quantum Horizons
Posted - 2011.08.04 01:59:00 - [245]

My Idea for a 0.0 rework:

tl:dr Shooting more NPC's and mining while online TCUs and SBUs reduces the time spent waiting/station bashing.

Claiming Sovereignty:
First of all, I would implement a mechanic similar to incursions in that after a TCU is dropped, you anchor the TCU and you then online the TCU. This TCU takes 24 hours to online. While the TCU is onlining a sovereignty marker is shown in the UI to demonstrate the effectiveness of the owner of the system. Initially the system has 100% ownership of the home faction (ie. Blood Raiders) during the course of the 24hrs the slider bar slowly shifts towards the Alliance who is trying to claim sovereignty.
What I would change however is that during this phase of onlining is that any NPC kills during the onlining phase will increase the rate at which the sovereignty is claimed. Simple really the more NPC's you shoot while trying to claim sovereignty means less time sitting around on your hands doing nothing and can help PvPers fund their efforts. In saying this mining should also help to reduce the sovereignty in an equal fashion, more ore mined during the onlining phase should significantly decrease the amount of onlining time. For example:

Shooting 1,000 NPC ships would result in a 10 hour reduction in onlining time. And scaled according, so if only 500 NPC ships were destroyed, a 5 hour reduction in onlining time. However the total amount of reduction time should be capped at 10 hours.

Similarly mining 2,000,000? m3 (not sure on this, as I'm not much of a miner) of ore would result in a 10 hour reduction in onlining time, also scaled and also capped at a max reduction of 10 hours.

This would obviously aid in their PvP activities by reducing the time spent doing nothing and making some isk on the side.

Contesting Sovereignty:
You drop your SBU's. And a lot of the mechanics is the same as claiming sovereignty. The difficulty of the NPC's scales with the Strategic index (not military) and a similar (but with a twist) story to claiming, each NPC killed (while the SBU's are onlining) reduces the effective resists of the stations/infrastructure in system. Offering a max of 42% reduction in effective hitpoints.

Also, mining while the SBU's are onlining offers a max of 42% reduction in effective hitpoints.

This can combine for a max effective reduction in hitpoints of 83%. (Saving a lot of time station bashing)

This keeps everyone occupied while waiting the counters, makes some isk and might provide for some good fights in anoms / defending miners.

Also note: This does not have to take place in deadspace pockets like in Sansha incursions, just normal belt ratting, anomaly bashing and mining.

This option is of course completely optional too. Because you can wait out the timers.

Kirkland Langue
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:14:00 - [246]

Oh yea, one more idea for Outposts that I strongly support: Docking should be open to everyone, with a fixed docking fee paid to the controlling corp.

That's the #1 thing you can do to bring more neutrals into 0.0 - give them docking rights.
CVA proved that for years.. and Alliances with NBSI policies will learn to adapt (or die, which is probably just as well).

Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:33:00 - [247]
definitly some ideas to get there for :
-less boring sovereignity system
-give small fleet objectives for sovereignity
-less systematical blobing

Knights of the Silver Dawn
The Fourth District
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:41:00 - [248]

A major suggestion, and a few smaller ones. Apologies in advance for not having read all the posts. If something has already been suggested, please excuse me.

I'd like to add one more guiding principle to the future design of 0.0: Not be immersion breaking with respect to the Sci-Fi genre. This means that whatever game mechanics are chosen to determine ownership/conquest, should not be artificial in nature. I always had issues imagining how a physical structure like an Outpost would undergo the two reinforcement cycles before switching allegiance, or how a number of anchored SBUs can "magically" affect the owner of the system on my HUD, or the vulnerabilities of the TCU/Outpost many AUs away. I've been a sci-fi fan for many years and there's no logic around this "artificiality". So IMHO, present sov mechanics (and any mechanics that switches ownership or structural behavior) are immersion breaking.

So my proposals are:

Remove the sov mechanics system. Instead just let sov indication be a hidden "flag". By this I mean that , depending on which alliance owns the majority of planets on that system will be passively flagged as owning that system. The only utility of this "hidden flag" is to feed into Eve's sov map or an external app like Dotlan/Veritas' sov map, as an indication of bragging rights. Whats the implication of this?

(1) Every system can potentially become a place where multiple alliances and corporations can own planets, moons, multiple Outposts and other orbitals. There is no restriction on whether any object (orbital, celestal etc) can be owned by an individual, corporation or alliance), as long as an "ownership" trigger like a command center is owned by that entity. As a consequence, TCUs and SBUs become redundant.

(2) Conquests become much more multi-level in nature, from orbitals, to moons, to planets, and beyond (think massive stations like Ringworlds or Dyson Spheres). Being free of artificial sov mechanics at the system level, this encourages scalable levels of ownership and also corresponding levels of conflicts for various conquerable objects. This allows smaller entities to participate in 0.0 space, and in turn reduce the size of fleets (and hence lag) as the cost-benefits of mass scale deployment to conquer individual moons/objects are weighed against the smaller returns.

(3) "Sov" becomes much more fluid and dynamic, and the geographical boundaries between alliances/corps much more blurred. As multiple parties fight for celestials wihin a system, there is much more room for intra-system emergent behavior (read: drama) and interest. Entire alliance wars can take part within 1 system. True victory or defeat thus depends on how well each object within the system can be conquered. Again, there is no clear marker of "victory", and is more akin to real geopolitical situations.

(4) Provides more avenue for DUST 514 events to take place. Again, it is immersion breaking to keep firing on an Outpost to conquer it. In the future, the final step to conquering a station is to reduce its shields and armor to zero, which then allows DUST mercs to enter it and conquer a central "control room". Similarly for command center on planets, moons and even POSes. Imagine the final holdout battles! Imagine the aggressor fleet having to hold position against defending fleets while DUSTies duke it out on the Outposts/surfaces.

Thanks for reading, and any comments plase.

Corp 42
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:44:00 - [249]

Originally by: Zothike

-less boring sovereignity system
-give small fleet objectives for sovereignity
-less systematical blobing

In keeping with the concept that there's always someone out there with a bigger stick...

Give those owning large blobworthy assets something in the way of a bigger stick to contest with them on a regular basis. That might ease pressures all over null, as the big dogs have something more challenging to deal with than slapping down the uppity renters. Smile

Free Space Tech
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.04 02:45:00 - [250]

Edited by: LTcyberT1000 on 04/08/2011 03:07:30
Some additional ideas on my previous post:

1) 0.0 markets - create environment where mining and building in local outposts would be more favourable than just ratting or logistics from single EVE shop (Jita)

2) PvP - create objectives for players so they could be rewarded in ISK when objectives are achieved. So no more AFK ratting/mining alts for money flow.

3) Resources - because all big alliance wars are generally for rare moon minerals, there is a need for bigger space per per small group of pilots instead with dynamic resources to collect. Add commets(or other dynamic moon minerals concentrations in exploration sites) or upgradable moons until they're harvested out(like ore in belts) so the focus for resources would go down back to players, not to the focus of entire alliance. Also remove any static resources as it create static space with AFK resources harvesting - would be a lot better with making each exhaustible moon in system more valuable as more upgrades you put into system. Also, why only moons can produce minerals, why not planets themselves? ;)

4) The Tech 2 production chain. Frankly speaking, there are not much players even able to make profitable tech 2 reactions as it is so complicated and requires large Excel file + babysitting on multiple POS reactions. The POS mainly could be as it saying in name - a starbase to hang over and JB/Cyno/CynoJammer/Factories/labs while all reactions/moon mining could go down to Moon Interaction level for individual players(with balance in mind).

5) Ratting - Add agents from various factions into Outposts and move bounty to co-op mission rewards. With each Pirate Detection Array upgrade those agents could give better missions. The loot could be kept as it is... Smile So no more AFK farmersExclamation Also the Anomalies could be kept just for escalation to other exploration sites.


Kieron VonDeux
Posted - 2011.08.04 03:45:00 - [251]

Edited by: Kieron VonDeux on 04/08/2011 03:58:17
Edited by: Kieron VonDeux on 04/08/2011 03:53:15
•Nullsec should feel big and uneven

This will never be the case when significant forces can span the expanse of null sec in a single night or even weekend, regardless of the logistic feat involved.

Edit: Painful fix, remove all jumpdrives and allow cap/supercaps to use stargates. Jumpbridges can only be activated on a stargate within the same sys(for destination) or maybe same constellation.

Edit2: Yes, that means no more cynos.

Nehmen Geld
Posted - 2011.08.04 04:09:00 - [252]

Originally by: Kenpachi Viktor
Edited by: Kenpachi Viktor on 03/08/2011 14:51:26
When I read "EVE turned up to 11", my understanding is that it's not just "lots more of the same", but also better stats (when you hold sov).

Why not just make 10 better?

Black Dranzer
Posted - 2011.08.04 04:17:00 - [253]

Doing something just "because it would be cool/neat/awesome" is always a bad idea and will come back to bite you later

Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.04 04:24:00 - [254]

I replied earlier, and after reading a bunch of awesome ideas, mainly those involving King of the Hill-style Sov flipping, Incursion-style Influence, and stealing structures vs destroying them, I put together a rough picture that I think would be an interesting combination of the ideas, with a special place for Black Ops fleets.

Features and Ideas Thread-ion

Lone Star Exploration
Lone Star Partners
Posted - 2011.08.04 04:31:00 - [255]

I would like to see a bonus given to a small alliance holding only a couple of system, this bonus becomes less advantages the more territory an alliance holds,
Allowing a Capital system and Capital Constellation. that will give a bonus.
solar systems claiming sov beyond the Constellation won't have any special benefit

This will encourage the major power blocks to keep smaller alliances around them as they will be stronger forces. Diplomacy becomes an important part" More factions will develop smaller skirmish will happen .

Bonuses like:
Effective stronger Null Sec Rating resulting in Stronger rats for bigger bounties
More Random Ladar, Grav, Radar, Mag sites will become available

Structures in these systems may have longer timers, Or may require more of X to take down than non Capital systems.

Allow a Situational Blue lists. Alliance A make Alliance B blue only in these 10 systems other wise they will be marked Neutral.
Sorta a modified Treaty system, just there is nothing signed, nor Treaties to be enforced, but it is a tool that an eve player can allow them to easily Identify “No fly zones” for their allies.
Larger Power block can enforce these so called treaties, if they wish, all depending on the diplomacy of the players.

Davril Greenstride
Posted - 2011.08.04 04:44:00 - [256]

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

The NPC-faction-bounty thing is interesting. I may think further about this.

This could lead to PvP becoming a valid revenue stream. Right now, even rabid PvP fans need other sources of income. If the NPC pirates paid for ship kills on a sliding scale tied to pilot faction standings, then hunting belt ratters wouldn't just be about the lulz; it would be serious business.

There should be a way to set up the NPC faction bounty system to encourage small group combat, too. Warping a squad onto a belt in search of a ratter should generate a bigger reward from the NPCs than the incidental death of a character with low NPC faction standing during a 500 on 500 blob battle.

Posted - 2011.08.04 05:07:00 - [257]

The problem with moon minerals and nullsec is the lack of a requirement for players to commit to space and work as a group to develop it. Large alliances take hundreds of valuable moons across a large area of space with no investment other than a POS, cability to drop 100 supers on anyone trying to take it and a jump freighter to move everything to Jita to sell for a small fortune to buy more supers. Having moons "deplete" won't solve this problem it will just move it around.

A possible solution to this is a fundamental change of what moon minerals are. When an alliance sets of a POS to mine minerals instead of the end product they get the raw ore. This ore would have massive volume that would make it unprofitable to remove from system even in jump freighters. Once sov is claimed in a system players have the option of installing a "Refinery" which would be similar to a TCU. All ore mined in the system could be processed in this refinery, by the alliance holding sov, into the final product. Alliances would have the ability to tax a percentage of the output in order to compensate them for developing and defending the space. Monthly maintenance costs of "Refineries" would increase proportionally to the number deployed so alliances would be limited on how many systems they could lock down for moon ownership.

This would change the fundamental behavior of Nullsec as players would need to consider the combined value of all the moons in a system as a whole as opposed to independently targeting high value moons with no sov commitment.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:13:00 - [258]

Personal Industrial Array - a Station Upgrade

Short description:
  • Introduce personal station "upgrade" modules, called Industrial Arrays, which will allow individual players to have their personal manufacturing slots in player owned stations. You need to pay the installation/maintenance fee to the owner, have sufficient standings with the station owner and have appropriate skill to use it.

About Industrial Arrays - bullet version:
  • - built from simple materials (minerals/PI stuff) - Why: t2 materials are too "touchy" and prone to be monopolized. This eliminates t2 material whines and can buff the PI market by increasing demand;

  • - Industrial Array gets a bit of damage every time it's used. Set it up that it would be completely useless and destroyed after some time of using it actively. An Array must then be replaced. - Why: boosts the economy, requires effort from users and regulates production cost.

  • - each Array creates 1 manufacturing slot for the owner. You can have maximum 11 Arrays active (limited by skill), to cover all manufacturing slots that a character can have;

  • - different Arrays for different types of manufacturing slots - much like current POS Assembly Arrays. Types of arrays that one can use are limited by the level of a new Industrial Arrays skill. You can even implement these Arrays so that they can not produce capital components and ships and leave that side of the production to POS-es only, to avoid buff to the capital/supercap spam;

  • - Industrial Arrays can have material modifiers that would make a balance when it comes to high to low end ore ratio.

  • - if station gets conquered by a hostile entity, the new owner can destroy your Arrays and you will lose materials and blueprints that were used in active manufacturing jobs;

  • - an anchor of Personal Industrial Arrays would be a new station service similar to fitting, cloning or other services. It could be made visible and vulnerable like any other station service. When it gets incapacitated, all active jobs will be paused until the service gets repaired.

Reasons behind the changes and detailed explanation:

Stuff in empire is cheap because of two main reasons: abundance of basic minerals (Trit, Pyerite, Mexallon,...) and availability of almost unlimited numbers of manufacturing slots in NPC stations. Until mining gets some kind of revolutionary fix, there will always be a shortage of basic minerals in nullsec, because, as we all know, no one moved to nullsec to mine Veldspar. Additionally, a limited amount of public manufacturing slots will become queued up if the production is forced to be done locally and even the most basic t1 stuff and ammo will be monopolized by the corporations that own the stations and have private manufacturing slots in them. It will also hurt the simple member of a corporation without sufficient roles to use those private slots and will make only a few people in the corporation very rich while everyone else suffers (that is not a good and healthy environment).

With Industral Arrays as upgrade modules in player owned stations, individual players will get the initiative to start their own manufacturing businesses. Combined with mineral modifiers, even the not-so rich/skilled players that can't fly/afford Rorquals/Jump Freighters can start contributing to the local production. This will result in more localised production, more stuff on the market and lower prices (slightly above empire) which will lead to more PvP, because when you always have cheap local stuff, there's no need to be afraid to go in small gang instead of waiting for a blob that makes you, as an individual, relatively safer.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:13:00 - [259]

Why should Industrial Arrays be damaged over time? The minimum cost per hour in an NPC station for a single manufacturing slot is 333 ISK. On a monthly level that's roughly 240,000 ISK + job installation cost of 1,000 ISK per job. (in Jita, for example, this is 807 ISK per hour or roughly 581k ISK). Industrial Arrays that last for a month could have a price tag between 250 and 600k ISK - enough space to make a difference between different types of Arrays without adding up to the cost of the final product. Additionally, when you install an Array of a certain type and you decide to "unplug" it from the station to fit another one, the unplugged Array will be destroyed. Manufacturing effectiveness will then depend only on player's capability to handle production and plan ahead.

Why material modifiers and not something else, like denser low-end ore versions? Because denser low-end ore versions will bring the biggest mining profitability nerf possible. Denser ore versions in deep 0.0 space will solve the low-end materials problem, but it will also make low-end minerals worthless and the highsec economy would collapse along with the mining profession.

By introducing carefully balanced material modifiers to Personal Industrial Arrays, we'll only have balanced modifications of high/low end mineral requirements without messing with the material supply. Players that have means of exporting high-end minerals from 0.0 space while still making profit would still export it. Players that have means of importing low end minerals from highsec while still making profit would still import it. But the most important part is that players that want to gather materials in 0.0 space and use it for local production, without depending on imported materials, would also have means to do it and profit from it, while not having to focus on mining Veldspar. Of course, since a system and whole economy of 0.0 space would change if these changes go live, I can only guess, and not predict for certain, that 0.0 population will be much more diverse than it is now and that there will be players that will focus on extraction of low end ore for profit even in 0.0 space.

Conclusion and effects:

If we want to boost local production in nullsec, drive the prices down and seed the market, because we want to have more small gang PvP in relatively cheap ships that you as an individual can afford to lose, give the ability to simple members of an alliance to contribute to the production and market seeding and see what happens. The only way to seed nullsec market with locally produced stuff is to give the initiative to simple members to contribute while avoiding corporate bureaucracy, adding personal effort and personal investment.

A healthy, well seeded market full with items that are produced locally with locally extracted ore will be beneficial to everyone. Small alliances that don't hold whole regions of space and multiple stations can again survive in 0.0 space if they have enough capable individuals that are willing to deal with the industrial side of the game. Players in large alliances will again (after leaving highsec to join the alliance) get the possibility to build stuff independent from the corporate bureaucracy that is present in the big alliances, mostly because of the valid security reasons. Additionally, small industrial oriented alliances will benefit from selling the goods to large PvP oriented alliances. Alliances will be much more careful who they blue, because bad blues would not be a threat only on the battlefield, but on the market too. Even alliances that are not internally strong enough will have a decent amount of failscade space, if free economy where every individual can compete on the market would make clashes in their member base. In one word, the political landscape of 0.0 space will become much more colorful and interesting, instead of current black-and-white landlord-pet picture with the dominant shoot-or-grind mentality.

Jazz Styles
Sileo In Pacis
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:15:00 - [260]

The OP has very good points in it, and I'll just throw in my five cents.

Fixing POS towers to be set up and function more like stationary ships (as outlined in the recent CSM crowdsourcing) would be very useful to mitigate boredom of essential services in 0.0. The improved mechanics could apply to other sov structures too.

One thing I never quite understood is having the defensive structures outside of the POS shield. You disable them, then it's a boring siege to wear the helpless tower down. Fixing towers so that weapons (modules) are part of the main superstructure inside the shield would mean that it can keep fighting, making the battle more interesting for all.

A mechanic I'd like to see for towers, and indeed for ships, is that when structure damage is taken, there's a chance that systems of the ship/tower can be damaged to the point of becoming inoperable. This would of course require a new mechanic of having crew (or nanobots) repair such systems (paste only works if it's damaged, not broken).

Finally, Nullsec should offer opportunities not available in low or highsec, with appropriate risks. The possibility to set up aa 0.0 player-run empire in space should be the main appeal, so that people don't have to 'go to Jita', because they've got their own trading hub set up.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:21:00 - [261]

And yeah... while you're at it:

Enough with corporate monopoly over industry in nullsec already!


The New Knighthood
Apocalypse Now.
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:34:00 - [262]

One thing is that 'bad' space doesn't have to mean it's literally bad like it's now.
What you need to is to have every region in null to have at least one of each stuff (gas clouds, good moons, ABC ores, sanctums etc.) needed for a full industrial 'chain' this would mean that like in RL 'bad space' isn't completely worthless but just has less resources to compete with 'better regions'.
Current system is where some regions have several moons that produce ridiculous sums of ISK/month and other regions can barely hold their SOV bills with the moon goo they produce, let alone fund any sort of capital building (supers or otherwise).
Over the years this disparity has became to be known as 'super caps-online' which means that only way to beat a block X is to get a) bigger force b) block X gets bored and leaves the game.

So what ever changes you make to resources 'good ones' will be taken by the president power blocks that have more SC's then smaller alliances have members in battleships/regular caps combined.
One solution to arrange the resources and sov that you hold them by 'presence' ie. ratting/mining/what ever but just be in that space flying there instead of "ho ho ho I have 30 SC's & titans + what ever else I can bring I'll come and curb stomp my neighbors for **** and giggles and leave it for my renters that couldn't handle even a mission in high sec without holding hands"- 'sov warfare' that we have currently going.

Miner Tech
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:37:00 - [263]

Look at the CVA vs UK in the past. And how that sort of rich space got completely destroyed by your recent changes. Think about why such a rich, diverse and player driven 0.0 was dead after you changed.

I think 0.0 needs more TOOLS to rule and govern the space available.

Give players the tools to do stuff. Create imbalances in space (e.g. some are good for ratting, some are good for mining etc.). Allow players to upgrade their space, but not by some fixed mechanism like a themepark, instead again, give tools to the players.

More freedom of choice, less themepark fancy stuff where you 'entertain' people. FOCUS ON THE SANDBOX PRINCIPLE. Which is difficult to balance, but I think that is the true spirit of EVE, the sandbox.

Winksos Transbithan
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:50:00 - [264]

>neither of which achieved much in the way of the nullsec-to-nullsec trade that they hoped to encourage

I was kind of shocked and encouraged to hear that was an idea. I hope a lot of thought goes into how to make that possible. Removing all transaction fees in 0.0 markets would be a start. Fully utilizing (a less painful version of) planetary interaction to unleash a full range of diverse products unique to 0.0 would be good. And then there's Dust— what new sorts of structures will the sov game created by Dust bring about, and what kinds of interactions might happen there?

Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.04 05:51:00 - [265]

Originally by: Gnulpie
Look at the CVA vs UK in the past. And how that sort of rich space got completely destroyed by your recent changes. Think about why such a rich, diverse and player driven 0.0 was dead after you changed.

That isn't what happened at all...not even close. Like, not even in the same county close.

Anyway, interesting stuff so far. Now I just need to finish building my safety bunker for the inevitable day that Team BFF become sentient and tries to conquer the world.

Lolion Reglo
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.08.04 06:03:00 - [266]

Edited by: Lolion Reglo on 04/08/2011 06:13:16
Originally by: Tork Norand
Edited by: Tork Norand on 03/08/2011 16:23:10

We're not in null sec. The ideas below would make us want to move there.

Let corporations claim sovereignty on systems. If they do, the following policies are in place for that system.

1) No capital ship can enter the system:
-- No capital ships can jump into the system. Not even the sovereignty corp's cap ships. This includes Orcas, freighters, jump freighters, rorquals, and all other capital ships. This applies to ANY method of getting in (gates, bridges, portals, etc).
-- All ships can be built in the system. If capital ships that are built in-system ever leave, they can't come back in as long as sovereignty is held.
-- If the corporation becomes a member of an alliance, the alliance becomes owner of the sovereignty.

2) Enable changes to the system.
-- Enhancing the system makes it of more interest to competition, resulting in more "visitors".
-- Moon goods change over time and stuff can be harvested out (and need time to recover). Notification should not be given on these changes automatically.

3) Safety is in no way guaranteed.
-- The gates are known.
-- The gates could be camped by outsiders.
-- The gates don't have a mass limit.
These points make the system even more dangerous than a Wormhole system to hold.

4) Holding the space for a long period has advantages.
-- You can build up your defenses (building ships in system).
-- Safe spots.

Just a model of what would make a mid-sized corp interested in getting into null sec.

I actually kind of like the idea of corporations being able to claim space. I can understand that it would almost completely negate the idea of an alliance, but then the alliances could be used more along the lines of treaties and defensive pacts. that way you don't have huge blob alliances controlling the space, you have corporations who adhere to a group for self protections and group advancement.

The shear scope and scale of a single corp trying to own a lot of space would almost be nigh impossible then unless they had hundreds of players, which would make for a more closer tight nit community imho.

i don't know, I wont pretend that i know null sec or what would be best for it. feel free to shoot this idea full of holes but i thought i just might throw out the idea that maybe if we are looking for smaller scale pvp and more diverse space ownership then perhaps give the sov control to corps and have alliances be more along the lines of a theoretical group than an actual tangible group of people today.

Edit: just came to mind that if you also let corps control systems and build improvements into it then you could also let the corp issue a taxation method on the space for rat kills, market transactions, or other means.

In fact an even greater thought just came to mind, we all view null sec as an evil, kill or be killed area where you may earn alot but also can get your ass kicked if you arent looking over your shoulder. perhaps if we view this as a parallel to the american west we can get a few ideas for how things can be improved.

I have had the idea of wanting to somehow "colonize" the space we were in and turn the system into a mimic of high sec and low sec. the difference would be the player is in charge of the policies and protection of the system. therefore if you build up your system to where you are attracting people there to trade, mine, rat, you can build a mini economy in that area. turn a null sec system into a jita if you have the resources and means of protecting people once they get into your system.

Sverre Haakonson
Posted - 2011.08.04 06:43:00 - [267]

Edited by: Sverre Haakonson on 04/08/2011 06:43:28
CCP failed here:

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

Poeple like to have transparent information and easy access.

1) Everyone know the prices in Jita are at a optimum. If CCP had a better system for trading there should be one less reason for Jita.

2) Everone hates it, to travel to different locations to gather his wares.

Fallout Project
Posted - 2011.08.04 07:21:00 - [268]

That is good.

Having a plan is all I have been asking of late. Bcos several of the last kneejerks in EVE development have impacted me in the delicate areas and ****ed me off ;) If this plan of having a proper roadmap hold true I might even be there 5 years down the road as well. Although there is still a bit to go before CCP regains better portion of the trust the jerking around since Dominion has eroded from me.

For now I'm still bitter vet, but there is some light at the end of tunnel. Will see if it's train or happyhappyjoyjoy land.

Blueprint Haus
Posted - 2011.08.04 07:27:00 - [269]

What I missed from the blog was the previous emphasis on risk v. reward. Nullsec is supposed to be, and is, riskier than high sec, yet rewards in the low truesec systems are less. Mining is somewhat more profitable in a properly upgraded system, but made less good through the issues of nullsec industry. Ratting quite a bit less compared to level 4s (especially when LP is taken into consideration).

I’m not going to add another whine to the anomnerf – but would one possible approach to rebalance and favour the group efforts mentioned in the blog be to introduce level 5 (or 6) agents to player deployed stations? This would add another benefit to deploying stations, its group related and easy to scale against high sec. The missions also exist so not a lot of extra work I’d think. If one wants to make if float in a chain from high, though low to null rewards could scale with truesec, and agents not be present in stations in systems that have low enough trusec to have sanctums. (The latter should obviously pay better.)

Pegasus Battle Group
Posted - 2011.08.04 07:43:00 - [270]

I recognice and welcome the direction that CCP is taking.

Thanks for your good work so far and looking forward to the implementation of the null sec improvements.

Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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