I like how it is hyped as some kind of meaningful thing with actual impact on anything.

+1.

Here I must disagree. This will lead to massive staging points and to the desertification of nullsec.

We want to lose :) Yea now You want to lose it because they will nerf Your ability to hold it. So You want more in less systems to sustain big and abnormal alliance/coalition that wasn't designed to be in this game. You will lose it anyway - there is no point to reiburse You with more resources. You still want to have blob available but this need to change - massive fleets are what is killing eve - tidi and no opponents that can match numbers. Only way anything will change is to slice the coalitions to pieces.

...and then takin rent from them also?

Wait, are you saying there's not enough space for all the players?

So that is why most of Your sov is empty ?
This is why it is rented out?

Is it just me or is it fishy this "proposal" is done pretty sudden (Some sovgroups only given 24h to respond) and straight after the CSM summit where CCP showed their plans for nullchanges?

Also having all players of an alliance in a few systems next to each other sounds a lot like 100% safety and death of smallscale roaming. Unless ofc your smallscaleroam consists of more ships than the owner has members...

Sorry for not feeling Your pain - my alliance can't afford double srp. Are You afraid goonswarm will break when there is no income to buy players? When they will need to buy their own ships? When they will ask where are the resources?

Welcome to the real world where players play and don't get bought. They actually login to have something and risk something so others can have fun too.

All that renting, crazy srp, massive coalitions must be nerfed so ppl start playing the game like it is designed to be played. When you bypass rules of the game it kills it.

If goons need to break for it to happen then well **** happens. Noone guarantee that You will always be able to buy players. they should wan't to play for fun not for someone that just buys them and commands them.

@baltec1

No. To fix it You need to slice the coalitions/aliances - not make them more powerfull in 1 place. Small alliances will not attack hundreds that are bunkered in one place.

They need to nerf null income so no srp. No ability to create crazy number of ppl in one alliance/coalition.

Over 300 corps in goonswarm alone - this is normal for You? Do You know how much content there would be if 300 corps would fight each other?

Ppl that wan't to fight not farm. It would exclude goons but noone would care :D

Will the proponents of the change in this thread do me the kindness of answering a simple question:

Do you see a CFC or an N3PL reset in the immediate aftermath of these changes? If not, what changes in the meta? You still have two super entities that vastly overpower anything else and the only content consists of farming this guy. Once the novelty of the new system wears off, aren't we back to square one: a bipolar eve with two sides refusing to attack each other?

All good then. I trust goons to not take my new established sov...

Seriously. You must have some information I don't have, else all this makes no sense.

but that's the point, you don't need to use it until some one contests it... then dogpile in to the system.

unless i'm missing something.

Hero entered null. Now being farmed alongside provi by N3PL. Truth is, anyone can enter null, even now. Most people just don't like being farm chattel.

So the same three choices will be present after your changes:
(1) I can stay in npc 0.0/lowsec/hisec and raid 0.0 to farm afk ishtars
(2) I can try and strike out on my own to be farmed for ~content~ by N3PL/CFC
(3) or I can get on the old SA account and become an "overman" alongside Retar thereby "winning" eve.

That's totally not stagnation.

so you do the token amount to keep it. which will be a trivial amount, unless you don't want small entities to be able to hold sov....

lol. yes it would. if a small entity can hold a system, a large entity can hold multiple systems just as easily.

as i said, if the minimum amount is easily obtainable for small entities you can do the "minimum" several times over to hold space you still won't use regularly. those systems will also always be tottering on the almost vulnerable side of things and essentially be a safari park much like people treat provi currently.

So why are they claimed by the major powers? No one is using them, right? Why bother with paying the sov fee?

couldn't care less.

but saying this idea will force coalitions to downsize, there's literally 0 evidence to support that.
also if you can't dogpile everyone outside of the area where you're living, attacking forces will literally always be outnumbered and be trounced resulting in an equally stagnant and ****** system.

Sure you want sov changed, but changes that simply result in the same thing... pointless.

So why would you give away this income if those same systems became more valuable?

The overall income in null sec is already very high.

Those systems are already valuable enough - that's why PvE alliances are renting them. Why not introduce the occupancy based mechanics without an increase in income potential?

Nullsec already has more than enough farming available, you can make a lot more doing missions, escalations, etc... in safe nullsec than you can in highsec.

It's just that the big alliances shaft their own playerbase by renting out the prime areas, and leaving over the scraps.

What null really needs is mechanics changes to compel larger fleet battles, and to shatter some of the larger powerblocs. Also the whole renting fiasco needs to be overhauled. The suggestion do precisely nothing to alleviate this situation, and are solely made to provide for even easier nullsec farming.

No, you are literally asking CCP to let you drop your massive cap/super fleets in any system and take control at any time.

Goonswarm Federation: 11k members, Sovereignty 232 systems. 11k/232 = 47 players / system. You're pretty much there already aren't you? Why do need more income?

No. You are asking them to make it unnecessary while upkeeping the same income. Instead of having to protect a dozen regions, the same people could rat the same amount of anoms just in Deklein. As a bonus: the high population density would allow ratters to use carriers/supers, as a cynojam would keep enemy capitals out and a small gang cannot break the spider tank of 50+ carriers. Not to mention that the nearest able enemy would be 5 regions away.

Fun fact: you can already kill 500k rats in one system in a month, check RQNF-9 in the Dotlan August toplist. Since 97M rats were killed, 180 systems could support all the ratters under the current mechanics. Hint: there are 3200 nullsec systems. And this isn't easy enough for you and want more nerfs?

No you don't. If you actually wanted them nerfed, you wouldn't have so many ready to go.

If you actually wanted to give up space, you would...give up systems...A game mechanic change isn't needed for that.

110 + is a joke

the best evidence that this is bunk is that people in nullsec aren't flocking to highsec to run missions.

They are perfectly happy to rat, run missions, anoms, etc... and to make more isk/hour than highsec. The SOE L4 highsec mission hubs are pretty darn empty. Nullsec doesn't need more isk, it needs for the big alliances to cast off their risk aversion and look for some big fights instead of one sided massacres.

Has anything changed at all after B-R besides the collapse of RUS and the expansion auf NA and HERO getting allowed (to be farmed) in catch?

Goons could have gone on the offensive after BR. Why didn't they? If the idea was to win and winning is controlling space, they showed how much they wanted to control that space by signing an agreement with the enemy just after destroying a good size of their opponent's force.

duuuuuude......

Wrong. Anoms are 90 mil/hr per pilot while blitzing L4s are 110mil/hr+ per person.

That being said, highsec income is too high. But the solution is nerfing it and not increasing nullsec income 10-folds to make PLEX 6-7B. Hyper-inflation is bad.

A good point, but lets take a look at the article in question. It raises 3 points (occupancy, npc stations, population density) and then provides an impressive list of supporters. Do all of those signatories also support a logi nerf? I suspect not. This is CCP we're dealing with. You handed them a mandate - it's anyone guess if they'll listen. But if they do, given that it is CCP, it's not exactly likely that they'll search out other proposals and heed them as well.

I take and criticize the proposal in a vacuum because it is presented in a vacuum. CCP won't see a logi nerf or any other proposed changes in the document in question.

I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying.

And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right?

I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined.

Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't.

I do not like the concepts of using missions. I still think other kind of anomalies or better belt rattign stuff woudl be the way to go economically.

And that 80% of dropped sov is going to be filled by who exactly? It's going to be more renters isn't it. Of course they won't "technically" be renters. They'll just have to pay you or PL or N3 protection money, or else.

Could you tell me who would the CFC fight with? Against Arthasdklol's mining corp?
Would you call the current PL vs HERO/Provi encounters "fights"? Because I sure call them ganks.

Fights needs able enemies who can shoot back. Who else can shoot back to Goons than N3/PL?

It doesn't hurt them, or they wouldn't have proposed it.

Love how you've pinged your alliance to +1 this thread.

Goonies, masters of propaganda, and why no one really cares what they have to say.

Where are these magical tens of thousands now? Why are they not fighting right now? Or you claim that highsec miners will take the abandoned space and will form deadly small gangs?

Well, considering such Goon sponsored events as Burn Jita and Hulkageddon, and such Goon sponsored organizations as CODE and Miniluv, and the longstanding desire of Goons to cajole (or even force) players to leave highsec for nullsec, it's quite reasonable that those who oppose that agenda would make their voices heard, and critically analyze the proposed "solutions" for nullsec, with a specific focus on how they buff nullsec rewards, and serve as a relative nerf on highsec income, which will attract more players to nullsec.

It's not "grrr.... Goons," it's just common sense.

The problem is that the suggested changes do nothing to fundamentally change that malady. Instead, they just serve to consolidate sov and make farming easier. It's basically bribing people to come to nullsec without making it any more exciting, and that just doesn't make sense.

Are you saying that there would be no requirement for the CFC to stay together if you get the sort of sov-system you are after?

My question is, can you point at an organization that isn't killing CFC now and with this suggestion will start killing CFC? Where are they?

Yeah, it's pretty funny. I mean this proposal is a selfless one, CFC, PL, N3 all gave up their own interests to help the little guys. Yet only the CFC, PL, N3 posters support it, and all the "little guys" hate it. We are a very ungrateful bunch and don't deserve your kindness. Maybe you should teach us a lesson and withdraw your generous suggestion.

The only hot spots in EVE right now are in NRDS space.

ok - so instead of seeing massive alliances stomp all over small ones at timer based points like POS-timers, we'll see the massive alliance perma-camping the small alliance's system, forcing them out, EVERY TIME THEY TRY TO ESTABLISH

bullies never like upstarts, and that's basically what sov is - being able to bully someone else out.

Very good starting point, now nerf jump bridge range and make outposts destructible and add something like the heavy bomber someone posted in F&I awhile ago, a ship which excels at fighting supers, would be good at fighting capitals but suck at pretty much everything else like a big player controlled fighter bomber with reasonable survivability and price tag (not too squishy and not too cheap) and things could be looking up in null space.

Bull*excrement*.
You keep blaming that on the mechanics, as if there's ANY set of applicable rules that can simultaneously discourage your kind from bunching up and carebearing in peace forever (all the while whining about no content) AND keep the game a sandbox.

So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.

If I would, I'd be having another corp/alliance ticker right now, don't you think?
What does the mechanics have to do with you wanting an easy life-style? At least don't be a hypocrite.
Any set of enforceable rules will succumb to that desire of yours to bunch up and "winwinwin", be it by dropping the node with a "thousand of megathrons(c)", having b0tl0rds of this kind or another, blobbing with titans and what not.

That's not something CCP CAN possibly fix. They can stir the pot a bit, but once everything settles into a steady state - that attitude of "If you had access to ..." will prevail. Always.

I hope they recognize it, and I hope that it settles in your head as well.

this:

You might consider it a nerf, but still safe.

How's that related to the "letter" at hand, signed by all the stars of our blue doughnut and then some?

No, we think you want to be safe because you are literally asking CCP to nerf your empires and your capabilities to wage war.

Treaties weren't enough because mistakes were made and suddenly B-R. You want to nerf yourself physically unable to harm each other, so your status will forever be stabilized. You want to be away from each other and want to feed your pilots with the kills of terribads so they never provoke the other empire.

You broke it, YOU fix it.

I don't fight cowards. Yes, cowards. That is why you blue everyone. Oh, PLEASE, don't attack me and I won't attack you.

That is what this is all about.

Blue Doughnut. You are nice and safe because you won't attack each other.

You even cry nerf on intercepters because a few come and attack you. Oh, yea, I've seen the tears on that also.

Cry some more.

There are like 50comments in this topic saying how you can abuse it...cant you just stop saying this now? :D

Who blued "everyone". Goon.

Did they nerf intercepters enough for you? Or are they still a threat.

Not technically blue, just have treaties with. Oh, now. That makes a big difference.

This point I never really understood. How do empty systems sustain players? Moons? With the now very limited income amount? They can also be harvested in unclaimed systems. Anoms? Again: empty systems? PI? Should I start counting Interbus Pocos in Sov 00? What else is there that I don't see?

Then if they are worthless why keep them to begin with?

With this small tweak, the small, medium enthities, will have a weapon to fight the super cap blobs, they can have a chance since their cap fleets will have the power to hurt super cap fleets.

Actually, they are. There is nothing in these proposals that say anything about reducing passive isk income (moon income), and making null sec systems more valuable from an isk generation point of view only increases their rental value (further increasing passive income).

The proposal is: "Give us more valuable specific income and we'll let others have 0.0 space"
The reality, if the proposal is accepted by CCP, will likely be: "Thank you for the more valuable systems, we can now increase rent"

The solution should be occupancy based sov with no increase in specific income of 0.0 systems.

So the answer is "yes, you will maintain rental empire".

It's pretty hilarious that you expect people to think the Goon elected CSM representatives don't leak inside information to their boss. Pure comedy.

WRONG: High concentration of players in systems is bad for roaming. I killed hundreds of Ishtars in Deklein in past five months. Even Orcas, Tengus, Vidnicators... and believe me, the more people in system, the lower chance for a good kill, because defence is so easy when you have 30+ buddies on local. Some of worst syst+¬m to kill a ratter is JU-UWQ, where is permanently 40+ guys, often 20 or more farming at the same time. There are people in Deklein who live in one system for months and never feel the need to go to another systwm because anomalies would be occupied. If enemy comes, all they need to do is dock and reship. No effort, no coordination. Just dock,reship, warp to gate - piece of cake.

CCP should change the anomaly spawning so that no more than 6 good anoms are in system at the same time. Also, Forsaken Hubs should be bad anoms again, Havens and Sanctums should be the most sought anoms. The yield per anomaly could even be higher - just not for 20 dudes in one syst+¬m at the same time, just for the 6 who were lucky to be there first. Others would have to go looking elsewhere.

Decreasing number of anoms per system would force people spread across universe looking for unoccupied anomalies, there would be less empty system and roaming would be funnier. Also people who would want to join home defence fleet would have to travel to staging system.

Is that a bad thing?

The reality is that null sec entities are going to hold as much turf as they can - whether or not the specific income of each system is ridiculously high or low. The specific income only sets the rental rate on the areas they choose not to farm for themselves.

Also, unrelated note, I hope CCP doesnt do anythign to alleviate the goon's concern with "getting new members out to our space on day 1", memebers shoudl bo considered assets/resources, and should eb forced to sit on their ass until the enxt weekly freighter convoy back into null to get out there.

You guys are going to hold all of the systems anyways. We both agree on that.

The only question is how much isk you're going to generate from renters while doing so, and at what threshold you're going to have to undock to defend your space (get pew).

Again, you are posting some sort of extortion threat to CCP. "Give us rich farms in null sec or we won't let anybody else use get in."

And yet you have so much space.... hmmm... Maybe there isn't a link between being able to support your base and the number of systems you'll own.

Maybe a simplistic question, but given the history of CFC itself, why would anyone assume that it is somehow immune to change?

I would note that I fly down through Goon space a lot, even right through the heart of Fountain from time to time, and 90% of those systems are empty, as in not a single pilot in local, 90% of the time. Your claim seems to have little factual basis based on simple observation.

OK, but doesn't this suggest that the nature of warfare and conflict is likely to become more dynamic because of the changes? If an attacker doesn't have to worry about being instantly hot-dropped by a massive capital fleet when they decide to attack some remote system and in fact could even plan blockades/ambushes on the approaches to counter said "vast subcap fleet" trying to get there, that will change the strategic balance. Perhaps in a major way.

Surely, that's a good thing?

In fact, if these changes will have no impact on your space tyranny at all, as you suggest, why then is there any problem with them?