open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals: How to fix nullsec in every way - Permanently.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:01:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 24/08/2011 07:35:16
The best way to fix all these problems is really pretty simple. One system should be able to support an alliance, not a whole region.


System Upgrades:

* Make systems much more upgradeable. Number of updates only limited by the system security level (a -1.0 system should for example allow 100 upgrades, a -0.1 should allow 10 upgrades, etc); so that one system can be upgraded enough to support a whole alliance (of varying sizes) from. More alliances is better (more fun) then bigger alliances. All systems should start at the same (low) quality if not upgraded.

* Re-do all 0.0 sec status. The further from high sec a system, the greater the average sec status. No 0.0 should be "junk space" like a lot of it is now though. Give new alliances somewhere to start.

* Re-do moon distributions with the upgrade system (unlock moon mins with system upgrades). Moons should be part of the system upgrade process (but better upgrades are available further from empire).

* With alliances able to live in a single system, taking a single system from them should be much harder then it is now.

* Change jump briges to be system upgrade unlocked alliance stargates (that are no longer linked to a POS, and can be used even by enemies when they are constructed - and can also be destroyed). They are a normal stargate, but created by alliances and can have alliance gate guns unlocked on them as upgrades. ADD THESE NEW GATES TO OVERVIEW AND AUTOPILOT!

* More then 1 outpost per system. Let alliances create a whole empire in a single system. Add the ability to unlock sentry guns for outposts.

* Change NPC rats so that they spawn at moons and planets and any other objects in systems, not just belts. The more upgrades an alliance buys/builds, the more objects NPCs have to spawn at. The numbers grow as the alliance expands the system.

* Make belt rats more like anomalies (linked to above system). One belt should keep a player or gang busy, no more warping belt to belt. Each belt now functions as an isk source for a player/gang, not the whole system for a single player. These should remain solo-able in most cases, except when an officer spawns.

* Add some bounty for rogue drones and reduce loot drops. There are too many minerals coming out of the drone regions, this has a bad effect on the market.

* Let alliances hire agents for their starbases.

* Make holding more then 1 system cost an exponential ammount to hold. To the point that owning more then 2 or 3 is impossible. (enough for logistical routes in/out of outskirt regions, no more)


Fleet Changes:

* Make squads and wings mean something. Primary target mentality needs to be removed and replaced by squads and wings with different orders. Limit how many people can target an object by it's sig radius. Blobs are boring, this is the fix.

* Spread squads and wings over multiple grids and targets by having each system upgrade a seperate in-space object with low HP instead of a (the current) single object with lots of HP.


Misc Changes:

* For god sake. Stop with the 1 carrot in front of our noses with each patch. 1 or 2 carrots *per race* would be much better. Fleet doctorine is stupid and boring. Fleet variation is good.

* Change local chat to display number of blue/red/neuts, not a list of names.

* When a patch change is found to be majorly overpowered, HOTFIX!!! DO NOT wait for the next major patch. *facepalm*

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:05:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 24/08/2011 07:05:20
.. continuation ..


In addition to above:

* Reduce max upgrades limit for each additional system an alliance holds. No upgrades after 3rd system. (eg: 3 -1.0 systems allow 100, then 50, then 25, then if they conquer a 4th, 0 upgrades and unmanageable cost)

* Add a bonus for an alliance's 1st system sov. Reduced cost (or free upgrades) for new alliances forming and taking space.

* Add a small alliance bonus to upgrades. Proportional to alliance size. Encorgage small alliances to form and discorage stupidly-large alliances.

* New upgrades available for *everything* in a system, not just anoms and sites. Each upgrade has unlimited (well 100 really) levels of upgrade (with small incruments between each). Each level gets harder to achieve but gives a bonus on the same scale. How much a system can be upgraded then comes down to alliance size and effort, and has equal rewards.

* Conquering enemy space requires reducing their system level to 0. This means shooting many structures with less HP, rather then a few with stupid HP. Fleets can use squads and wings instead of blobs. Each upgrade level has it's own controller in space to be destroyed (not all in 1 place. eg: sentry controller is near the gun, gate controller is near the gate - or a targetable module attatched to the object in space like current station services).

* Add CCP store alliance-logo monocle upgrade as a system upgrade available at level 100 (lol).


The Effects:

* Conquering systems becomes less about taking space/moons and more about fun for the players.

* More (and newer) alliances.

* Less distance to travel for fights.

* No need to add new 0.0 space. Current space becomes open to new alliances.

* Encorages people to leave high-sec and form alliances as larger alliances have little interest in systems with only 10 upgrades.

* More small/medium scale PVP. Less blob scale PVP. Need for node reinforcements becomes predictible with alliances owning less systems. (and with the longer+harder fighting period for each system, systems being attacked will be known after the 1st day of fighting for reinforcement).

* Alliances feel like they have a home system, not 50.

* Botting becomes harder/impossible with many players able to catch/report them in the same system.

* Faster/Easier fleet form-ups with everyone in one place. Both casual and serious players find it easier to join ops (less travel and formup time means people can join fleet when they only have 30 mins to play).

* Incursions in your home system can actually mean somthing. It is your ONLY home. Even let them hit upgrade structures and force alliances to defend.

* Lower quality systems become free for industrual alliances to form and move out of highsec. Powerful alliances don't need/want them (other then maybe 1 for logistics). Industrial upgrades could be things like 1 belt with better roids per level, or 1 extra trade hub gate link per level, 1 extra drone anom/belt per level, etc.

* Lower quality systems become free for mission-runner alliances to form and move out of highsec. Mission upgrades could be things like 1 new agent per level, or 1 agent level upgrade per level.

* Lower quality systems become free for trade alliances to form and move out of highsec and create trade hubs in 0.0. These hubs are good also for the surrounding low-sec players. Trade upgrades could include things like stargate hub upgrades allowing multiple alliances to create gates to the hub. eg: 1 new gate link per level of upgrade.

* Nullsec becomes much more diverse. Everything in highsec now has a better option in nullsec. Many people flock to 0.0 for industry, missions-running, trade, PVP and PVE. EVE nullsec becomes much more active in general.



There it is. 0.0 fixed. 0.0 fun.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:10:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 24/08/2011 07:28:24
.. continuation ...

Other Possibilities:

* System-wide skill bonus upgrade? Bonus +1 level to all alliance member's skill in something within the system? This would be great for new players and have no effect on older players who already have the skills. Probably only for low tier (basic) skills.

* Atrribute bonus upgrade. Industrial upgrades for +1 to memory or int. Trade upgrades for +1 to charisma and int. Security upgrade for +1 to perc and will while in system training? .. Or similar. There should be a cutoff skillpoint limit so this only helps newer players (and gives them a great reason to be in nullsec from the beginning). This is a major problem with EVE and new players, they feel they can not compete. This system would help.

* Low SP char upgrade for a bonus to insurance and clone costs. Let it cost them almost nothing to die while they learn EVE.

* Other upgrades specifically for new players to be more effective in 0.0.

* As well as sentry gun upgrades, add merc NPC upgrades as well. Hire merc NPCs to defend gates and other structure upgrades (incursion/sleeper AI). These would help slow attacks down a little outside alliance timezones.


New Ships Possibilities:

* A new small (destroyer hull?) ship designed specifically for capital ship killing. Don't nerf SC's, add a counter instead. Something like a +100% bonus to small gun damage vs cap ships per level? No bonus vs anything else though. Something like a stealth bomber version of a dictor with bonuses only to hitting cap ships? These should probably only require destroyers 4 so that new players have a 0.0 role.

* With the new ship above, buff dreads (a lot) and carriers (a little).

* A new recon class (destroyer) dictor for black ops use. Requires Dictor Skills and Recon I.



Sorry for such a wall of text, but EVE needs some major fixes; most of which I think these ideas address.


Please leave ideas/criticism/etc. These are just basic ideas and could be heavilly expanded in all areas.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:15:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 26/08/2011 00:25:44
Added from topic Page 2. For some clarification.


The Upgrade System:
The upgrade system I have in mind allows for up to 100 upgrades to a -1.0 system. This does not mean you must fully upgrade the system, many of the upgrades are things like gate guns or new stargates or extra outposts, or improved rat bounties, or better minerals in belts, or better or new agents in your outposts. They are all optional (and all give different advantages), how your alliance spends their upgrades is up to them. You can take any combination of upgrades you choose (maybe with a couple of exceptons - like the being treated as highsec idea for trade hubs - only available to pure trade hubs).

The system does not throw out large alliances at all. They are the only ones who will ever be able to fully upgrade a -1.0 system. Upgrades require activity, more activity as they get closer to max.

A -1.0 sys with 10 upgrades is pretty much the same as a -0.1 sys with 10. The only real difference is the -1.0 can still be improved 90 more times. A -1.0 system maxed with upgrades is paradise. This is what large alliances have to gain from this system (plus the advantage of having all their players ready to fleet up at a moment's notice).

Note also that some lines will have upgrades that can only be taken if the system is purely that upgrade line. Eg: Pure trade hub systems only will get the gate hub upgrades. Most upgrades however can be taken and mixed up with other lines.

A system maxed (to it's sec status level) with upgrades could possibly also get some special "capstone" upgrade.

* Trade Hub gets empire gate link option.
* Security upgraded system gets roaming NPC defence fleet (in addition to the merc fleets taken as upgrades before on specific structures) which will warp to where defence is needed at any time (even if there is already a merc fleet there).
* Mission Hub gets special storyline agents? Or an empire wide LP store?
<insert other options here>


Implementation - Alliances With A Lot Of Space Now:
For alliances that currently hold a lot of space, they would be required to nominate which systems they want to keep before this system came online. The sov they have in all the other systems (before being removed - and optionally POS's and outposts removed and moved) would go to their chosen kept systems (free upgrades; which they can choose when they log in after the patch). Alliances will now own only 3 systems, but those systems will be highly upgraded from the start. All player items from other outposts previously owned would probably also be moved to the home system outpost(s) during the update.

I would also suggest that CCP give a free upgrade swap about 1 month after the release (or at 2 weeks and then again at 1 month) so that the alliances can change their upgrades after things settle down. CCP would also need to release the new sec status map prior to the patch and alliances nominating their kept systems.


Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.24 18:06:00 - [5]
 

Lots of interesting ideas here.

Perhaps some of the best will make it into the game (one can only hope).

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.24 19:09:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Lots of interesting ideas here.

Perhaps some of the best will make it into the game (one can only hope).


If you would be so kind as to poiint out where the "good" ones are, that would be nice. Cause I really don't see any.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.24 19:12:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Lots of interesting ideas here.

Perhaps some of the best will make it into the game (one can only hope).


If you would be so kind as to poiint out where the "good" ones are, that would be nice. Cause I really don't see any.

That's just because they all involve changes, and we all know how much Goons love change Rolling Eyes

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.24 19:50:00 - [8]
 

Ah, yes, the "your opinion means nothing because of your alliance ticker trolololo :hi5dog:" defense.

You realize by allowing a single system to support an infinite number of players in an alliance (which could never happen btw), you're essentially killing large-scale nullsec warfare, right? Why fight over systems when you don't need any, and it would actually COST you to hold more than one? Small gangs would never get past the monstrous gatecamps leading into the ONE system an alliance has, that would be bubbled to 100km on every gate. So, if someone DOES decide to invade, instead of fighting through some outlying systems and seeing if anyone logs in, now you have to slog through the ENTIRE alliance population defending against you IN ONE SYSTEM. So, this idea does nothing but ENCOURAGE blobbing.

And just wait til the AFK cloakers get ahold of this idea :) It's bad, through and through.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.24 20:26:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Feligast
Ah, yes, the "your opinion means nothing because of your alliance ticker trolololo :hi5dog:" defense.

You realize by allowing a single system to support an infinite number of players in an alliance (which could never happen btw), you're essentially killing large-scale nullsec warfare, right? Why fight over systems when you don't need any, and it would actually COST you to hold more than one? Small gangs would never get past the monstrous gatecamps leading into the ONE system an alliance has, that would be bubbled to 100km on every gate. So, if someone DOES decide to invade, instead of fighting through some outlying systems and seeing if anyone logs in, now you have to slog through the ENTIRE alliance population defending against you IN ONE SYSTEM. So, this idea does nothing but ENCOURAGE blobbing.

And just wait til the AFK cloakers get ahold of this idea :) It's bad, through and through.

Like you can do better.

I just picked on your ticker because you were busy being a knee-jerk reactionary.

Don't like his ideas?
Come up with something better instead of just throwing poo.

Nyarlothotep
The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency
Posted - 2011.08.24 20:34:00 - [10]
 

I think more corp management skills could be created to handle the limitations you want. New skills to limit number of POS a corp can have. Skills for upgrades. Skills for how many systems a corp can control. SKILLS, Skills, and skills...

/me falls into a skill induced coma

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.24 20:41:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Come up with something better instead of just throwing poo.


Why? Even if I thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the current system (Which has MANY flaws, but I believe fundamentally is right), why bother writing three posts worth of :words: no one with the power to implement will ever read?

One serious request I have of you. Tell me why "blobbing" is so wrong. If I have more friends willing to fight than you, shouldn't I have the upper hand?

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.25 00:29:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 25/08/2011 01:53:05
Yes AFK cloaking would also probably need to be addressed in the same patch. Good point. Although from the other point of view you should have lots of pilots in system to come to your aid.

Gate camps? If it's their home system, where is the problem? They should be defending it.

But keep in mind with the trade hub upgrades in some systems as well there would be more new gates added to them by alliances. More (and faster) entrence points. This means the defender needs to split forces as well to cover all gates.

There is also black ops (asside from trade hub systems, cyno jammers would probably be one of the final upgrades available - and possibly even area based so that multiple are needed to cover a system completely). New recon class dictor was one of the ideas mentioned for this reason.

If you have a larger force, you loose nothing. All this idea does is get you to attack multiple targets in a system at a time instead of blobing one.

There will be a few exceptions where large scale fighting can/will remain - gate jump-ins, and attacking the few high HP structures (outposts and sov claiming unit) at the end. This idea simply minimizes those occasions.

Also, nothing is stopping you from forming and blueing an alt trade alliance (more gates) and an alt industry alliance (miners/manufacturers), an alt mission-runner alliance (ratting/etc upgrades) as well as having your main alliance home (security/ratting/mixed upgrades). You simply need to have them active to keep your upgrade levels (maybe recruit some highsec noobs to fill the ranks and improve eve at the same time?). You can gate link to them all easy via the trade alliance gate hubs.

I do not know if it is possible, but in the end I would like to see trade hubs able to form 1 gate to low or high-sec. Trade hubs should be very secure; to the point of possibly being patrolled by concord and require a wardec to attack. .. but those are just my thoughts - stable/safe trade hubs are important ..


Danika Princip
Minmatar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.25 05:28:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: PewPewYou
Edited by: PewPewYou on 25/08/2011 01:53:05
Yes AFK cloaking would also probably need to be addressed in the same patch. Good point. Although from the other point of view you should have lots of pilots in system to come to your aid.

Gate camps? If it's their home system, where is the problem? They should be defending it.

But keep in mind with the trade hub upgrades in some systems as well there would be more new gates added to them by alliances. More (and faster) entrence points. This means the defender needs to split forces as well to cover all gates.

There is also black ops (asside from trade hub systems, cyno jammers would probably be one of the final upgrades available - and possibly even area based so that multiple are needed to cover a system completely). New recon class dictor was one of the ideas mentioned for this reason.

If you have a larger force, you loose nothing. All this idea does is get you to attack multiple targets in a system at a time instead of blobing one.

There will be a few exceptions where large scale fighting can/will remain - gate jump-ins, and attacking the few high HP structures (outposts and sov claiming unit) at the end. This idea simply minimizes those occasions.

Also, nothing is stopping you from forming and blueing an alt trade alliance (more gates) and an alt industry alliance (miners/manufacturers), an alt mission-runner alliance (ratting/etc upgrades) as well as having your main alliance home (security/ratting/mixed upgrades). You simply need to have them active to keep your upgrade levels (maybe recruit some highsec noobs to fill the ranks and improve eve at the same time?). You can gate link to them all easy via the trade alliance gate hubs.

I do not know if it is possible, but in the end I would like to see trade hubs able to form 1 gate to low or high-sec. Trade hubs should be very secure; to the point of possibly being patrolled by concord and require a wardec to attack. .. but those are just my thoughts - stable/safe trade hubs are important ..




Have you ever actually BEEN to 0.0?

bubble the hell out of every gate, put a scout/soem frigates on each one and have the rest of the fleet chill at a safe or a pos. Someone jumps in, you drop 50 guys on them. Now repeat this in every inhabited nullsec system (Though if you really want one system able to support several thousand people, there won't be many of these.)

Even if 'large scale fighting can remain', who's going to bother? You've made taking territory a BAD thing.

Crellion
Parental Control
Merciless.
Posted - 2011.08.25 06:11:00 - [14]
 

These are very good ideas. They would create more 'room' and make encounters even more unpredictable and random...

Definately worth looking into IMO and especially limiting amount of people who can target a ship by sig size but you must figure out a way of stoping abuse by 'defence locking' a friendly / neutral ship...

At the very least the core idea of creating anti blobbing incentives is very important. All changes to the game from the 'add hp for longer fights' (even before nano nerf) to this day have been blob friendly and some steps to the opposite direction would eb welcomed by most...


Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 08:44:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: PewPewYou
Edited by: PewPewYou on 25/08/2011 01:53:05
Yes AFK cloaking would also probably need to be addressed in the same patch. Good point. Although from the other point of view you should have lots of pilots in system to come to your aid.

Gate camps? If it's their home system, where is the problem? They should be defending it.

But keep in mind with the trade hub upgrades in some systems as well there would be more new gates added to them by alliances. More (and faster) entrence points. This means the defender needs to split forces as well to cover all gates.

There is also black ops (asside from trade hub systems, cyno jammers would probably be one of the final upgrades available - and possibly even area based so that multiple are needed to cover a system completely). New recon class dictor was one of the ideas mentioned for this reason.

If you have a larger force, you loose nothing. All this idea does is get you to attack multiple targets in a system at a time instead of blobing one.

There will be a few exceptions where large scale fighting can/will remain - gate jump-ins, and attacking the few high HP structures (outposts and sov claiming unit) at the end. This idea simply minimizes those occasions.

Also, nothing is stopping you from forming and blueing an alt trade alliance (more gates) and an alt industry alliance (miners/manufacturers), an alt mission-runner alliance (ratting/etc upgrades) as well as having your main alliance home (security/ratting/mixed upgrades). You simply need to have them active to keep your upgrade levels (maybe recruit some highsec noobs to fill the ranks and improve eve at the same time?). You can gate link to them all easy via the trade alliance gate hubs.

I do not know if it is possible, but in the end I would like to see trade hubs able to form 1 gate to low or high-sec. Trade hubs should be very secure; to the point of possibly being patrolled by concord and require a wardec to attack. .. but those are just my thoughts - stable/safe trade hubs are important ..




You really and truly have no idea how nullsec works, or why major alliances do what they do, do you?

I will say this.. I do applaud you for trying to find a way to rework sov warfare into something other than shoot stationary high-HP structures. But this idea just isn't going to work, because nullsec players would never want it to work. Again, what would be the point of trying to invade someone's system, when it's a BAD thing to hold more than one?

And I also never got my question answered.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.25 09:27:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 25/08/2011 09:34:25
Originally by: Feligast
You really and truly have no idea how nullsec works, or why major alliances do what they do, do you?

I will say this.. I do applaud you for trying to find a way to rework sov warfare into something other than shoot stationary high-HP structures. But this idea just isn't going to work, because nullsec players would never want it to work. Again, what would be the point of trying to invade someone's system, when it's a BAD thing to hold more than one?

And I also never got my question answered.


Will keep this simple and in point form. Can't be botherred typing a novel right now. Fortunately it's pretty simple...

Firstly, it's 3 systems (1 home) under my proposal, not 1 system.

There still plenty of reasons to remove someone else's sov.
* For fun.
* There will still be a limited number of -1.0 systems where you can get max upgrades.
* To deny them the system.
* To replace the old owner with your industry/mining/mission/training/whatever alt alliance.
* To replace the old owner with someone you prefer.
* To replace the old owner with a pet.
* To replace the old owner with a trade hub alliance.
* To replace the old owner with <insert whoever you wish here>.
* Because they have a gate link to the same trade hub as you and can get to your home system too fast (2 jumps).

Just less reasons to take sov yourself once you have removed an enemy. But with the updated systems, you don't need to anyway.

Want more systems? EVE has these things called standings. Use them. Very Happy

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 09:29:00 - [17]
 

sigh. You're never going to answer the question on how this is supposed to stop "blobbing", and how that is supposedly bad, are you? Because you just told me use standings, so I presume you';re telling me to blue as many other alliances as possible, right? which means.. bigger defense fleets. Mutual defense pacts.

More blobs.

PewPewYou
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.25 09:40:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: PewPewYou on 25/08/2011 10:21:14
Originally by: Feligast
sigh. You're never going to answer the question on how this is supposed to stop "blobbing", and how that is supposedly bad, are you? Because you just told me use standings, so I presume you';re telling me to blue as many other alliances as possible, right? which means.. bigger defense fleets. Mutual defense pacts.

More blobs.


This is not meant to stop blobbing, simply reduce how often the full blob is on one grid.

There is still a place for blobs, but on fewer occasions. This was mentioned above, you must have missed it.

Basicly blobs only for each outpost, and one sov claiming unit (these would be the structures hit in the last days of a fight for a system, and the node will be auto-reinforced for it). The rest of the time your fleet is seperated, hitting seperate structures with less HP on different grids (grinding enemy sov level down by killing those structures - destroying their sentries, their merc NPC control units, their pve upgrades, etc). The enemy also has to defend by splitting forces.

Blob sizes won't really change. Nothing is stopping unlimited NAPs now. Nothing will stop it under this scheme either. That is not the point of this idea.

You will, however, (in most cases - other then large objects) have to get your squads to shoot different targets. How dare we not use 1000 people shooting 1 ship, and play EVE the way it was originally designed... How dare we add skill and some thought to squad contents to the equasion.. How dare we turn up to a fight in more then 1 ship type and setup (because variation in squad scale PVP is better)... How dare we make PVP fun again...

This idea is about making nullsec better. This idea is about creating stable trade hubs in nullsec. This idea is about creating more opportunity for PVP, PVE, Industry and Trade by moving people from highsec to nullsec. A larger 0.0 population is good for everyone.

Marivauder
Reloaded.
Usurper.
Posted - 2011.08.25 12:33:00 - [19]
 

this is very interesting, i like the post and you present some clever ideas,

although when you say about upgrades and higher truesec require more upgrades, and then saying more truesec systems upgraded make it lower to an extent, since big alliances hold alot of space, you still have to cater for them and not just throw them out the picture for small alliances, make it so it stops at the default amount of upgrades now.

Again, intersting read

+1 internets

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 17:12:00 - [20]
 

I really hate seeing ideas on this forum about how to change null sec for the better by players who obviously have spent very little time in null sec.


Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:54:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Magnus Orin
I really hate seeing ideas on this forum about how to change null sec for the better by players who obviously have spent very little time in null sec.



It's really sad to see players who obviously have little to no game design experience commenting about game design based solely upon their preference for a particular game configuration.

See? Poo flinging works both ways.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 19:08:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Originally by: Magnus Orin
I really hate seeing ideas on this forum about how to change null sec for the better by players who obviously have spent very little time in null sec.



It's really sad to see players who obviously have little to no game design experience commenting about game design based solely upon their preference for a particular game configuration.

See? Poo flinging works both ways.


Game design experience? Really? What's your CCP name? Or are you pot and him kettle?

I guess this would be the appropriate time for "post on your main if you want any credibility here.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.25 19:29:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Newt Rondanse on 25/08/2011 19:30:48
Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Originally by: Magnus Orin
I really hate seeing ideas on this forum about how to change null sec for the better by players who obviously have spent very little time in null sec.



It's really sad to see players who obviously have little to no game design experience commenting about game design based solely upon their preference for a particular game configuration.

See? Poo flinging works both ways.


Game design experience? Really? What's your CCP name? Or are you pot and him kettle?

I guess this would be the appropriate time for "post on your main if you want any credibility here.

Heh. It would, and I have no intention of ever posting on these boards on my main.

Posting on my main also wouldn't show my gaming and game design experience. The gaming world is much bigger than EVE, and a parochial attachment not just to one game but to a particular configuration of a particular part of that one game hardly qualifies one in evaluating how it might reasonably be changed.

So go ahead, show off your main as if it gives your opinions added weight, when all they are is opinions.

The simple fact is: CVA proved that NRDS nullspace can be a fun place to play for a lot of people. The fall of CVA also showed that EVE sovereignty makes NRDS space too vulnerable to hold.

If CCP wants to get more people out to nullsec (their stated goal) they need to make changes that make NRDS not just possible but superior to NBSI.

Not all of the ideas in the parent posts are good, but they generally point in that direction.

If you have any ideas that might get more people out to nullsec (people who play the game differently than you do and have different goals and acceptable risk profiles), then by all means, post them.

If all you want is for the part of this one game that you are playing to not change because you are happy with it just the way it is, then by all means keep flinging poo.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 19:38:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Magnus Orin on 25/08/2011 19:42:55
Originally by: Newt Rondanse


The simple fact is: CVA proved that NRDS nullspace can be a fun place to play for a lot of people. The fall of CVA also showed that EVE sovereignty makes NRDS space too vulnerable to hold.

If CCP wants to get more people out to nullsec (their stated goal) they need to make changes that make NRDS not just possible but superior to NBSI.




God damn it! More people spouting **** they know nothing of. CVA did not lose Providence because of their NRDS policy. CVA lost Provi because they tried to take HED-GP and other systems in Catch while -AAA- was occupied trying to take 49-U6U and Querious from Goonswarm.

Previous to this, most large 0.0 entities left CVA to their own for three reasons:

1. They were fairly non-aggressive, sticking mainly to their own space, with no real ambitions of expanding it.

2. Their space (Providence) at the time, was one of the most worthless regions in 0.0, thus no one really wanted it.

3. It provided an excellent roaming grounds for small gangs of Southern Coalition pilots.

When they broke the first principle of the reason they continued to exist for such a long period of time, -AAA- got ****ed, and soon steamrolled CVA out of Provi.

Their loss literally has nothing to do with their pvp policy, and everything to do with their horrible pvp tactics (lag was also at its Dominion highest back then, and I think they welped a cap fleet to a blackscreen or two as well).

But what I'm saying is ****posters like you and the OP know little to nothing of what happens in 0.0, so it gives you absolutely ZERO credibility when discussing improvements or changes to it.

Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
Tragedy.
Posted - 2011.08.25 19:55:00 - [25]
 

Confirming that arguing with a Goon is exactly like arguing with a moron on the internet.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:01:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Magnus Orin
Edited by: Magnus Orin on 25/08/2011 19:42:55
Originally by: Newt Rondanse


The simple fact is: CVA proved that NRDS nullspace can be a fun place to play for a lot of people. The fall of CVA also showed that EVE sovereignty makes NRDS space too vulnerable to hold.

If CCP wants to get more people out to nullsec (their stated goal) they need to make changes that make NRDS not just possible but superior to NBSI.




God damn it! More people spouting **** they know nothing of. CVA did not lose Providence because of their NRDS policy. CVA lost Provi because they tried to take HED-GP and other systems in Catch while -AAA- was occupied trying to take 49-U6U and Querious from Goonswarm.

Previous to this, most large 0.0 entities left CVA to their own for three reasons:

1. They were fairly non-aggressive, sticking mainly to their own space, with no real ambitions of expanding it.

2. Their space (Providence) at the time, was one of the most worthless regions in 0.0, thus no one really wanted it.

3. It provided an excellent roaming grounds for small gangs of Southern Coalition pilots.

When they broke the first principle of the reason they continued to exist for such a long period of time, -AAA- got ****ed, and soon steamrolled CVA out of Provi.

Their loss literally has nothing to do with their pvp policy, and everything to do with their horrible pvp tactics (lag was also at its Dominion highest back then, and I think they welped a cap fleet to a blackscreen or two as well).

But what I'm saying is ****posters like you and the OP know little to nothing of what happens in 0.0, so it gives you absolutely ZERO credibility when discussing improvements or changes to it.

Is that so?

So then it is merely coincidence that there is no major NRDS coalition currently?

Perhaps it is only because they "sucked at PvP" that they ever considered NRDS a reasonable option to begin with, and per your very statement here they only got away with it for as long as they did by flying under the radar of the people who knew better how to take and hold space in EVE.

Mr. Orin, I might introduce you to this concept called a forest. It's made up of all these trees you keep pointing to.

MNagy
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:10:00 - [27]
 

Being someone who stays a log in high sec - and ventures periodically to a wh or to low sec, let me give you the reasons as to why I never bother to go to null sec.

I can't tell you how to 'fix null sec' but perhaps my view of null sec can be viewed as the reason others are not venturing to it either.

1. When I go to low sec, there are 'gate guns' that apperently protect me - but don't. Lets face it - they do garbage. Low sec is 'like' null sec. There is a sec status hit that is easily repairable if someone pops me.

2. When I go into a wh - nobody knows im there unless I get scanned - that is a big plus for a single player or a player who is a 'younger player' than everyone else. Going into low/and null - I can't even mine with a bit of security because the second I enter the system - everone knows I did (through local chat)... so whats the point. If concord cannot protect me in LS or Null Sec, dont tell everyone I am there in the first place.
People say this is a chat program and it needs to stay - ...I only chat to people after they have tried to pop me, or I have shot at someone else. If I wanted to 'chat' to random strangers for no reason I can go play 2ndLife.

3. I see null sec as being a complete waste of time for me currently. Why? Because, for anyone to live in null sec- they must pay tax to a larger corp. Why the hell would I want to give a % of my earnings to a bigger crew. My profit is my profit. I need to pay for my pos/my fuel - I have no desire to help pay for someone elses. Security sucks for pos's and I will not bring my ships to null sec -only to be locked out of a POS of a corporation and lose all my crap.

I have worked hard for the items/inventory I have now, and I don't need to get them blown up because 'Local' told everyone I was there, or that I joined a big corp only to be locked out.

If null sec worked like wh space - i would venture in there more - as I have a greater chance of staying alive currently in WH space than in Null sec.

i chat with my corp mates and alliance members - i have no desire to chat with someone who is trying to kill me - until after the killing has started or ended/.

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:12:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Edited by: Magnus Orin on 25/08/2011 19:42:55
Originally by: Newt Rondanse


The simple fact is: CVA proved that NRDS nullspace can be a fun place to play for a lot of people. The fall of CVA also showed that EVE sovereignty makes NRDS space too vulnerable to hold.

If CCP wants to get more people out to nullsec (their stated goal) they need to make changes that make NRDS not just possible but superior to NBSI.




God damn it! More people spouting **** they know nothing of. CVA did not lose Providence because of their NRDS policy. CVA lost Provi because they tried to take HED-GP and other systems in Catch while -AAA- was occupied trying to take 49-U6U and Querious from Goonswarm.

Previous to this, most large 0.0 entities left CVA to their own for three reasons:

1. They were fairly non-aggressive, sticking mainly to their own space, with no real ambitions of expanding it.

2. Their space (Providence) at the time, was one of the most worthless regions in 0.0, thus no one really wanted it.

3. It provided an excellent roaming grounds for small gangs of Southern Coalition pilots.

When they broke the first principle of the reason they continued to exist for such a long period of time, -AAA- got ****ed, and soon steamrolled CVA out of Provi.

Their loss literally has nothing to do with their pvp policy, and everything to do with their horrible pvp tactics (lag was also at its Dominion highest back then, and I think they welped a cap fleet to a blackscreen or two as well).

But what I'm saying is ****posters like you and the OP know little to nothing of what happens in 0.0, so it gives you absolutely ZERO credibility when discussing improvements or changes to it.

Is that so?

So then it is merely coincidence that there is no major NRDS coalition currently?

Perhaps it is only because they "sucked at PvP" that they ever considered NRDS a reasonable option to begin with, and per your very statement here they only got away with it for as long as they did by flying under the radar of the people who knew better how to take and hold space in EVE.

Mr. Orin, I might introduce you to this concept called a forest. It's made up of all these trees you keep pointing to.


I'm not saying that NRDS is not a difficult policy to maintain, and fly under. It is. NBSI is a far easier, and far safer way of maintaining your space. It's the reason all major 0.0 holders use this policy.

All I am saying is that there is zero link between CVA losing their space, and the fact that they were NRDS. You clearly thought there was, demonstrating the fact that you know nothing of the history or politics of 0.0, and thus likely have little experience living there.

People lose space all the time in 0.0. It's a part of the game.

SpawnSupreme
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:43:00 - [29]
 

i like some ideas here but i agree they better skill based goons blob and blob combat should stay but as far as goons are concernened if u are goon or blue to goon all fitted moduals should initiate self destruct because since the dawn of time of eve goons are proud to be the bane and make life dificult for all others.
if u saw my idea it may enhance your ideas or better assist the smaller and newer guys without ruining it to much for the big guys.
Linkage

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.25 20:50:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Newt Rondanse on 25/08/2011 20:50:38
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Originally by: Newt Rondanse


So then it is merely coincidence that there is no major NRDS coalition currently?

Perhaps it is only because they "sucked at PvP" that they ever considered NRDS a reasonable option to begin with, and per your very statement here they only got away with it for as long as they did by flying under the radar of the people who knew better how to take and hold space in EVE.

Mr. Orin, I might introduce you to this concept called a forest. It's made up of all these trees you keep pointing to.


I'm not saying that NRDS is not a difficult policy to maintain, and fly under. It is. NBSI is a far easier, and far safer way of maintaining your space. It's the reason all major 0.0 holders use this policy.

All I am saying is that there is zero link between CVA losing their space, and the fact that they were NRDS. You clearly thought there was, demonstrating the fact that you know nothing of the history or politics of 0.0, and thus likely have little experience living there.

People lose space all the time in 0.0. It's a part of the game.

OK, so you are saying there was no connection there, and it is purely a coincidence that no other major alliance has been interested enough in the benefits of NRDS to take the risks.

I think they could only support their NRDS policy as long as they flew under the radar of their NBSI neighbors for the most part. The difficulty of maintaining the NRDS policy put them in a weaker position strategically and they lacked the tactical competence to overcome that disadvantage.

In short, as soon as they ticked off somebody better at playing by the optimal nullsec rules they got squashed.

The fact that there is an optimal way to play the nullsec game, and that everybody is currently playing towards that optimal approach, is one of the things that needs to change.


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