open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Incentivizing 0.0 (Safe Havens)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Jove X
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:09:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Jove X on 06/02/2009 05:14:34
In the CSM minutes there is discussion about Incentiving 0.0, to entice more settlers vs hunter/gathers to populate 0.0.

One thing that would help act as an incentive for the carebear types is more npc stations/outposts in none npc regions. I know this suggestion will be hotly debated, but consider this:


  • The suggestion is a simple fix, seed more neutral spots for 'neutrals to go' such as NPC outposts

  • The reward of having sovereignty needs not be offset by this by not putting the outposts at moons, rather make them like cosmic anomaly sites, and keep their numbers down. They need to be found and don't interfere with current struggles over moons

  • With the exception of Stain, most NPC outposts are already saturated, which also acts a a deterrant because even the existing NPC stations are dangerous. This suggestion helps alleviate this

  • Conceptually, the evolution of a carebear would be Empire->Low Sec->NPC 0.0 Outposts->0.0 Alliance; Some might dispute this, but I know many who personally made the leap to 0.0 by first living in Outer Rings for example (NPC 0.0)

  • With respect to CCP's pendulum idea, this could also be the ideal spot to hide pendulum influential agents


I'm sure there will be cons (and flames) posted in response (such as the loss of the ability to completely monopolize regions), but I think its obvious why the settlers aren't actually in 0.0.

The risk still greatly exceeds the reward (for those not immediately inclined to participate in alliances fighting for sovereignty). So the primary deterrent is still the lack of safe havens (the use of which could be controlled by faction standings for example). I'm not saying 0.0 should be safe - IT SHOULDN'T .

But 0.0 should give people a fighting chance to survive (if they're not directly involved in the control of Sovereign space) - and one way to do that is to give them safe havens.

Discuss.

Dirk Magnum
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:15:00 - [2]
 

The only reason I'm not jumping directly to a flame over this idea is that the Eve population is increasing, but the system count isn't. As the population of Eve, and therefore nullsec increases, the danger levels increase to a point that CCP may not have originally planned on when the max concurrent user count was 10-15 thousand.

z0de
The Bastards
The Bastards.
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:24:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Dirk Magnum
The only reason I'm not jumping directly to a flame over this idea is that the Eve population is increasing, but the system count isn't. As the population of Eve, and therefore nullsec increases, the danger levels increase to a point that CCP may not have originally planned on when the max concurrent user count was 10-15 thousand.


go look at the map, set to player count, look at all those empty systems.

Jove X
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:26:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Dirk Magnum
The only reason I'm not jumping directly to a flame over this idea is that the Eve population is increasing, but the system count isn't. As the population of Eve, and therefore nullsec increases, the danger levels increase to a point that CCP may not have originally planned on when the max concurrent user count was 10-15 thousand.


I agree that the system/player ratio is playing a role in these trends, but the problem they're seem to be struggling with, is a disproportionate of those increased numbers are sticking to empire.

No doubt some are heading for NCP owned 0.0 - hence the over crowding there - but (and I'm guessing here) the impact on 0.0 alliances is disproportionate.

Without nerfing 0.0 - there must be a way to entice them there. The wormhole idea is already shifting greater focus on Astrometric skills (great!) - why not seed safe havens? They aren't guaranteed safety .. unless they spend time finding these NCP outposts.

Those that hold sovereignty will have more 'targets' at the expense of not being able to keep 'neutrals' completely out.

But hey .. even in Empire the Empire factions are not able to keep NCP pirate factions out? Ever ratted in Caldari space?

bff Jill
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:31:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: bff Jill on 06/02/2009 05:32:27
0.0 doesn't need to be safer, it needs to be less safe for established people.

remove sovereignty

Jove X
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:34:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: bff Jill
0.0 doesn't need to be safer, it needs to be less safe for established people.


And seeding hidden safe havens neutrals can take refuge doesn't achieve that?

Seeding hidden safe havens neutrals can dock at doesn't make 0.0 more safe. Look at NCP space!

But it does make it less safe for established people because it takes the establishment of places of refuge completely out of their control.

bff Jill
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:39:00 - [7]
 

I actually wrote a longer post, and that dawned on me half way through so i deleted it. I was still worked up in a fervor however so i had to communicate my general message regardless Razz

Soporo
Caldari
Posted - 2009.02.06 06:39:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Soporo on 06/02/2009 06:40:26
Quote:
Conceptually, the evolution of a carebear would be Empire->Low Sec->NPC 0.0 Outposts->0.0 Alliance; Some might dispute this, but I know many who personally made the leap to 0.0 by first living in Outer Rings for example (NPC 0.0)


Conceptually maybe. But reality is probly:

Empire
Empire
Empire
-> 0.0 Alliance Corp
-> boredom
-> FW
-> LowSec
-> lapsed account

Regardless, I would like to see more NPC regions and certainly more NPC stations.

bff Jill
Posted - 2009.02.06 07:01:00 - [9]
 

as i see it low sec should be the 'badlands' between npc empires and player empires.

The problem is that player empires are horribly hostile whereas NPC empires sensibly welcome trade within their borders=P

Sheriff Jones
Amarr
Clinical Experiment
Posted - 2009.02.06 08:24:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 06/02/2009 08:24:48
Really weird, i was thinking about posting this last night Shocked

The point i was about to make is;

0.0 is like someone pointing a gun at you and going "I'll shoot you and if you survive, you'll get a 1000 bucks. Or you can sit by that rock doing nothing and i'll give you the same 1000 bucks."

No reason to go there.

Funnily enough, as the "PVP crowd" usually is the first to say "risk vs reward man!", when there's about 90% risk in 0.0

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Amarr
Divine Power.
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.02.06 08:39:00 - [11]
 

We already have 2500+ W-Space systems coming out in April. The current interaction between empire/low-sec/nullsec will be unrecognizable soon after.

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2009.02.06 09:36:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Andrue on 06/02/2009 09:36:08
Originally by: Jove X
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
The only reason I'm not jumping directly to a flame over this idea is that the Eve population is increasing, but the system count isn't. As the population of Eve, and therefore nullsec increases, the danger levels increase to a point that CCP may not have originally planned on when the max concurrent user count was 10-15 thousand.


I agree that the system/player ratio is playing a role in these trends, but the problem they're seem to be struggling with, is a disproportionate of those increased numbers are sticking to empire.
That's because it doesn't smell as bad.

Laughing

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.02.06 09:41:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
We already have 2500+ W-Space systems coming out in April. The current interaction between empire/low-sec/nullsec will be unrecognizable soon after.

In march Wink

LongHong Dong
Posted - 2009.02.06 10:39:00 - [14]
 

This post has been cleared of inappropriate content.

Regards,
The EVE Online Moderation team

Jove X
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
Posted - 2009.02.06 16:52:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Jove X on 06/02/2009 16:54:42
Originally by: LongHong Dong
How many neuts are not spies? How many neuts fly around without a cloak?

Your idea is stupid.


... and your criticism simplistic (and I'd likely say childish too).

I currently live in 0.0. I'm not a member of a large alliance, fighting for sovereign space, but I have in the past. I'm interested in 0.0 politics but not an active participant. And no, I'm not a spy, nor involved with the large alliances.

Even with experience living in 0.0 space, currently as a neutral, NPC space is far more a realistic places for me to survive - because the balance of danger vs safety/reward is exactly that - balanced.

When I spend time in non-neutral territory, I have no access to markets, no place to dock and log ... .. it is, all risk (every time you fly its a risk), as someone else has already pointed out.

Giving people access to safe havens doesn't remove the risk, as you still have to leave station to move about, you still have to manage the risk - but it does balance it, in that you can obtain ammo from markets and log in safety.

Either make a more intelligible case or be silent.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2009.02.06 21:14:00 - [16]
 

There's plenty of space out there. Now that we have cloakable blockade runners, there's nothing stopping you from sneaking into 0.0 and putting up a little POS to mine or rat out of... and if your corp is worthy, you can build up from there.

I think the main problem is that while it's real easy for the "owners" of sovereign space to kill your little POS (I believe they even get an evemail notifying them that it's been anchored) it is very difficult for anybody to kill their POSes. If you want more new blood in 0.0, we need to reduce the benefits of sovereignty. Cynojammers in particular need to go.

Kitsumi
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:23:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Jove X
One thing that would help act as an incentive for the carebear types is more npc stations/outposts in none npc regions. I know this suggestion will be hotly debated, but consider this:


I have a counter. What's preventing the players from making an area of 0.0 which players can expand into without having to do so with force. If only there were a term for this policy. Nahhh, that area would be for NeRDS and would only come about by divine providence.

Irn Bruce
Posted - 2009.02.07 13:46:00 - [18]
 

How about making the pirate factions actually enforce their sovereignty similar to what the Empire factions do? Your ability to enter highsec is based on your sec status, which is directly linked to your standings with concord. So why not do the same for the pirate factions? You would need good standings with a given pirate faction to enter their space, and if you didn't have those standings, rats would spawn and attack you. They would also spawn to protect anybody with good standings that was attacked in their space. I don't think they should be as effective as concord, for RP reasons, and also because it shouldn't be turned into an inverse empire, but at the minute NPC 0.0 is just lowsec with better rats and no sec loss.

Of course, to get pirate standings, you would have to do missions for the pirate factions before going to their space. They could use the wormholes, and other exploration, for this. Pirate agents would have a chance of appearing at the far end of a wormhole, and of course there could be pirate cosmos agents in lowsec.

The problem would be that with the rats not being as effective as concord, it would be rather easy for someone with the required standings to turn up in pirate space in a tanked BS and just attack whoever was trying to run missions there. I'm not really sure that that's really a problem. It's not any different from what happens now, except the person being attacked would have some sort of help arriving. Like I said, it shouldn't be as safe s empire, this would just be a way of making it a bit more characterful, and giving the pirate factions an actual identity in their own space. I also think the pirate rats should stay in the belts, obviously the people living in their space wouldn't hunt them, but they could provide protection for their miners, and give the "enemies" of the pirates an opportunity for some behind enemy lines ratting.

ninjaholic
Gallente
House Aratus
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2009.02.07 15:19:00 - [19]
 

The answer?

Wormhole Systems.

Wait for the March expansion, as everyone with a head and a pair of arms can go looking for those systems. Loaded with new stuff. Very Happy

Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
Mordus Angels
Posted - 2009.02.07 23:58:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Irn Bruce
How about making the pirate factions actually enforce their sovereignty similar to what the Empire factions do? Your ability to enter highsec is based on your sec status, which is directly linked to your standings with concord.


This is a brilliant suggestion!

Red Flag
Posted - 2009.02.08 00:29:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Dirk Magnum
The only reason I'm not jumping directly to a flame over this idea is that the Eve population is increasing, but the system count isn't. As the population of Eve, and therefore nullsec increases, the danger levels increase to a point that CCP may not have originally planned on when the max concurrent user count was 10-15 thousand.


More players = More Danger

0.0 is supposed to be dangerous.

I don't see the problem?

Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
Mordus Angels
Posted - 2009.02.08 02:16:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Eventy One on 08/02/2009 02:29:57
Originally by: Red Flag
More players = More Danger

0.0 is supposed to be dangerous.

I don't see the problem?


Not surprising troll!

I suppose, if you mindlessly concluded that this is about making 0.0 safe - you'd likely draw that false, and somewhat simplistic conclusion.

I'd recommend reading the CSM notes - then re-readings the ops thread a before showing yourself to the community in such a poor light.

(Ill give you a hint - CCP would like to entice more people into 0.0 .... got any brilliant ideas - or is trolling the limit of your capabilities? )

Kitsumi
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.02.08 04:31:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Kitsumi on 08/02/2009 04:33:46
Originally by: Jove X
When I spend time in non-neutral territory, I have no access to markets, no place to dock and log ... .. it is, all risk (every time you fly its a risk), as someone else has already pointed out.


Ok, I was oblique in my last message because I wasn't how public the rank and file are supposed to be about the area I'm in. I asked. I'm fine in mentioning it.

You can go somewhere in 0.0 right now and gain access to places to dock and log. Access to markets. Access to ratting or mining. You don't have to join a corp, much less an alliance, to do it.

The Providence Holders, founded by CVA, operate a Not Red Don't Shoot (NRDS) policy in Providence. The player run outposts in Providece? Open for you to dock and log. They have markets for you to participate in. Neutrals are encouraged to come and join in on the economy of the region. The restrictions being, don't be an asshat. Piracy is right out. Don't can flip. Don't attack, but you're free to defend yourself if attacked.

Nullsec is what the players make it. Just because most players operated under an NBSI policy doesn't mean all must. What you're asking for CCP to put into code what several alliances have already done in practice.

JimBob Leeroy
Posted - 2009.02.15 19:04:00 - [24]
 

why would you need to make 0.0 safer, if you are in a mega ally, and in you space, 0.0 is as safe as high sec, with much better rewards,

you want to fill the empty space, change sov to a sec. based ownership.
that way the have to occupy the space to own it, not just fuel some PoS's once a week,empty isk (moon mining) and keep any one out that might want to use the space.

problem. mega ally's have the man power to wipe out any that try to live in there space, even though they don't use it other than as isk farm. and if it does not have anything great in it, they just hold it for sov.would be nice if map did not show them you where there, so as ppl could ninja rat and even start to take control of system with out them knowing. sec would give them this, the more ppl in corp or ally in system the faster it gets sec. and with that the outpost and other anti blob tools. but the mega ally's would still have too big of advage to keep them out.

if they had to get a sec. on there space, they would have to occupy the space to own it. and would lose many high end rewards as it becomes safer, and gain the benefits of what sov now gives them.

and the war torn parts of 0.0 would be up for grabs, and have the high rewards.this balances reward/risk.
now the blob warfare will still be the biggest problem, mega ally +blob warfare= win button= low risk/high rewards.

now 0.0 ally's don't want fair pvp, or fair balance of risk/reward. they want to be more umber and to cry because carebears will not come sacrifice themselves to there blob gate camps to keep them from being board.just like low sec gankers, and high sec grievers.


why would some one want to join a corp or ally to sit at gate or station being board(this is suppose to be fun),so they can have a chance to go do some things that have higher rewards. but the corp or ally will all ways make sure it's elite get the best of this. but hey, you do get to go on forums and cry about carebears that don't want to come keep you entertained by stupidly jumping in to your camps.

funny how the worst crybabies are the ones that just want to be able to kill you with out any chance of loss. and then cry you get too much with out risk,yet they rarely risk much.


hope this gives some ppl ideas,

BUT THE ONLY WAY TO GET CAREBEARS OUT OF HIGH SEC. IS TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO WIN!

flameing, and crying will not change the facts that many ppl don't want to work in game to make you better , they want to play and have fun.
pirateX> lolz, he should have brought some friends.
carebearX>my bad, 1vs 10, going to be stupid going to die, why i stay out of low sec.
....
pirateX> sh!t , 20 man blob, run!!!!
blob X> you should have brought more friends.lolz
... griever,pirate,or blobX. they should make the carebears move out of high sec.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.02.15 23:25:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Jove X

But 0.0 should give people a fighting chance to survive (if they're not directly involved in the control of Sovereign space) - and one way to do that is to give them safe havens.

Discuss.


0.0 is the main area for open pvp - i.e pvp without the security of stations when you're operating out of your home turf (i.e no outposts or POSs to run to). The dilemma here is how to create "safe/er" locales for small groups or individuals without skewing this element of .0.

I dont personally think NPC stations are the best manner in which to achieve this. A better concept in my opinion is to allow players to 'cocoon' themselves in some fashion whilst online.

Whilst 'cocooned' the player could, given the right modules/ship, conduct logistical production tasks - such as manufacture- to a small scale. A number of possible cocooning options might be imagined, burrowing into an asteroid, or weaving a structure around your starship - whatever the mechanism it would provide an element of security once completed.

Id suggest that cocooning would burn resources (fuel, mins whatever) so it wouldn't be as efficient a process as establishing longer term structures and would not be a process whereby you could sustain such a state indefinitely. Equally, as it would require an online presence to achieve it would place less strain on the data base, rather then say additional POS like structures littered all over.

Happy to provide more detail on this idea if anyone likes it and /or to post a seperate thread on what I've got written down.

C.



Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.02.16 01:17:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 06/02/2009 08:24:48
Really weird, i was thinking about posting this last night Shocked

The point i was about to make is;

0.0 is like someone pointing a gun at you and going "I'll shoot you and if you survive, you'll get a 1000 bucks. Or you can sit by that rock doing nothing and i'll give you the same 1000 bucks."

No reason to go there.

Funnily enough, as the "PVP crowd" usually is the first to say "risk vs reward man!", when there's about 90% risk in 0.0


Well except for cap pilots and alliance leaders handeling moons and cap programs you are correct. Its eve's version of a battleground for the lowly grunts


 

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