It's 3 jumps to VFK from old man star, not 2.

But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems...

I did it in 2.

Gee, I wonder what would be the better incentive for an alliance to consider taking space from another alliance.

But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems...

(Edit: this is not to say industry should not be buffed, just that putting some generic "more income sources" is not a conflict driver, if anything it drives will to fight over the good stuff less intense).

I edited my above post for more precision.
Anyway I don't believe that introducing "more riches" with an equal distribution is a great conflict driver. It's why in PvP games they don't give flags and "hills" to every player but make them the objective.

I still have some stuff in nullsec , you can even go find screenshots on these forums with some google.

But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems...

(Edit: this is not to say industry should not be buffed, just that putting some generic "more income sources" is not a conflict driver, if anything it drives will to fight over the good stuff less intense).

Except if there's "more riches", there's "more people", where there's "more people" there's "more targets", and where there's "more targets", there's "more PVP".

Sure, it may not be the be all end all of conflict drivers on the sov scale, but it'll sure as hell provide more content for more people who might want to roam around in small gangs or solo, and don't feel like large fleet fights over structures are the eve endgame.

And, if the sov system was fixed so keeping control over large swathes of space was harder, there'd be more chance for smaller alliances to grab a tiny slice of the action as well, because the defending alliances end up having to contract because they just can't defend all the space they have.

But having those exact same income sources in hi-sec is more a "conflict driver" than having them in 0.0?

If they don't do those things in null, then they aren't null sec players.

Okay . . . what is NVEDS?

Null sec industrialists have access to a greater abundance of building materials. I thought we'd gone over this. Are you genuinely not getting that? Are you playing stupid? Or are you stupid? You can have a bajillion slots, but if you don't have the material to build the item, then that becomes the limiting factor. High sec has slots. Null sec has mats. You want null sec to have both and I suspect you'd like high sec to have neither.

The "if there's more riches, there's more people => more targets" does not work so good in hi sec (where we have the living example), exactly because of the "stuffed" factor. Why fight, when space is so big and there's some stuff for everybody.

Why fight, when you can just drop to an NPC corp and be immune from wardec, at no risk or cost to you?

You come tell this to someone who would like to have hi sec = 3 starting systems and the rest NPC null sec?

The "if there's more riches, there's more people => more targets" does not work so good in hi sec (where we have the living example), exactly because of the "stuffed" factor. Why fight, when space is so big and there's some stuff for everybody.

CCP will never do this because they'll lose the ever-growing part of the playerbase which consists exclusively of bad players who do not want to play a multiplayer game in multiplayer

CCP will never do this because they'll lose the ever-growing part of the playerbase which consists exclusively of bad players who do not want to play a multiplayer game in multiplayer

What an absolutely moronic argument. There might be some other factors that explain the level of conflict in hisec...

Why even post if you're going to be so utterly obtuse and inane? Do you think this sways anyone but the already decided droolies?

...ridiculous

I think the "farms" should be upgradeable, that would make them more appetible even if they start in equal terms.
If they are static, instead, it's easy to enter in a state of "stuffed apathy", where people lose the drive to go out and conquer similar nearby systems. It'd take the leadership to push them, and this is less effective than having people eager to go out by themselves.

The "if there's more riches, there's more people => more targets" does not work so good in hi sec (where we have the living example), exactly because of the "stuffed" factor. Why fight, when space is so big and there's some stuff for everybody.

[quote=Vaerah Vahrokha]I think the "farms" should be upgradeable, that would make them more appetible even if they start in equal terms.
If they are static, instead, it's easy to enter in a state of "stuffed apathy", where people lose the drive to go out and conquer similar nearby systems. It'd take the leadership to push them, and this is less effective than having people eager to go out by themselves.

Says the Alliance that wants to play omnipotent over lord and won't share their toys with anyone who doesn't pay 10bux.

What sort of drive do we have to conquer similar nearby systems today?

I've no idea why hisec is coming into play in this setting, since hisec has routinely been nerfed in the ground every time there's been any hint of any organized PVP in any way, shape or form.

Says the guy who paid 10bux and didn't get in anyway