EVE Search - Conflict Drivers in Null Sec

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Conflict Drivers in Null Sec

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 05:39:30 - [1] - Quote Current: Personal Enmity Cartel Behavior (market capture and moon goo) Topology/Stellar Geographics* Personal Enmity - Hey that guy betrayed me or has a punchable face...lets invade his space and bust it up Common-esque overlays with organizational politics. Cartel Behavior - Mostly Moon Goo related and controling market access to materials and maintaining price controls so leadership can get fat while line members NPC in carriers that HK catches (thanks guys). This is how coalitions cometogether and break up - cooperation and emergent play - "Competition is a sin" - John D. Rockefeller Topology/SG: Examine that Cache is terrible in system count but is fairly hard to access despite not being all that deep in space versus Providence that has excellent access. Much more conflict happens in providence on all scales thanks to more systems that are more accessible. Deklein is a vertical damned fortress the way it it laid out and is nearly impregnable to assault as such. Logistically challenging maybe for resupply but JF's + WH's +BLOPS bridges make it eminently a success. So why the lack of conflict? I have a few theories as well as possible solutions. Minimal Conflict: 1) Cartel Behavior - enemies agree not to threaten each others' sov - mutual beneficial for power players to keep the ISK rolling in 2) Cartel Behavior II - Moon goo accords like the B0tlord and OTEC stuff related specifically to moons 3) Phoebe - difficult to project overwhelming force means logistics are more complicated and time consuming but also enable more regional/constellation level players 4) Regulatory Flux: This is the big one IMO - Since the Phoebe Sov and subsequent iterations have been put in EVE has been in a period of flux where committing to anything is a bad move. This is similar to allowing for tremendous mis-allocations of capital by not communicating a monetary policy or more appropriately how the USA currently handles Gen IV+nuclear reactor regulation - there isn't any so no one can make a wise investment as the risks aren't clear. 5) You Don't Roam Home Space - It would be like roaming your house or yard all day waiting for 1 poor person to step over your property line just so you can shoot him/her. 6) High Sec Incursions: You don't need to live in sov space to earn isk you can just have an alt that runs incursions in near perfect safety. How to fix this - to a degree at least: 1) Make Moon mining a player activity and make the moon materials be dynamic and somewhat randomly generated so that tech/neo/dispro moon isn't always that type. 1a) player activity should be rewarded as should living in that space; dynamic materials means you have a reason to alway s be out scanning even those dead moons - possibly enhances the life of people in otherwise useless space - creates potential conflict driver. 2) Having players actually mine the material loosens the control leadership has over resource control/distribution and will eventually break up some of the cartel control - also might provide a more useful role for siphon units - draining that moon goo while players are AFK/logged off. 3 & 4) Only solved once the new system approaches the next phase in June and players can evaluate the new systems benefits more fully - CCP need to be clear on what happens to the old outposts on their roadmap. I personally would say that planting a citadel of any kind should trigger a 7 day self destruct timer on any outpost in null sec. This will spur short term conflicts since anyone could potentially do this with medium class citadels. In the long term it solves a lot of problems with the overlapping period. 5) I'm sure player built stargates will mitigate this to some degree assuming players can connect gates to any system in null sec that isn't cyno jammed or something like that. (maybe requires a second one to be deployed in target system - or enabled as a one way gate). Discuss please. 5a) Way back when...I'm sure most of you don't remember but the gate layout was vastly different from what it is today with both less access, fewer systems and a much more closely connected high sec environment. I propose another "Great Gate Redirect" as a part of the RP narrative with Minmatar and Caldari being a bit more closely aligned and adding some new navy/fleet sites in every security level of space that all go to far flung null sec but are temporary like WH's are. Make them anoms so you don't have to probe them. There should be NO high sec between caldari and gallente space no between amarr and minmatar. The fragmentation should grow with the border zones like Perimeter/iyen-Oursta being separated from each other to low sec of those regions and added to FW space. (maybe drop security of Perimeter to 0.5 as a result of this change - my god the suicide gank carnage haha). 6) Make High Sec Incursions LP only - increase LP payout by 50% and once an incursion hits 100% within 8 hours the mothership site spawns and it is all over. No more 7 day grinds. Push super carrier bpc drop to 100% in low sec if it isn't already and reduce high sec incursion spawn rate by half - increasing it in low sec to compensate. For null sec incursions - increase ISK payout by 100% and LP by 25% over even the low sec. Make the sansha forces fight back harder in null sec like incursions were originally. And if not dealt with - spread like cancer to neighboring constellations - only crossing regions when the entire originating region is under sansha control. This should include NPC sov as well with maybe in-space NPC agents offering incursion related missions as a mini-event. I'm not saying this will solve anything and I'm sure my incursion ideas will be hated - but I consider the risk/reward ratio for incursions to be way off the target for high sec. So disagree if you like - but please back it up with something rational besides your own casual style
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2957	Posted - 2016.02.07 05:55:42 - [2] - Quote High sec incursions are nowhere near as lucrative as certain null bloc voices like to push. Additionally inflicting a stick on High sec will not help with low & null sec players. The last income figures that people like to quote for incursions include a near full time low sec incursion fleet running as well, and do not provide a meaningful comparison for how many man hours actually get spent actively running those incursions, nor for how many man hours get spent running C6 WH escalations and what the income from those is, and what the similar comparison to man hours vs income of null anoms are. Bearing in mind that no datamining can ever determine wait times in any of these cases we'll have to assume wait times because someone is roaming your system are similar to wait times because fleet is full, and our personal experiences are sure to disagree. Additionally low & null Incursions already earn about 214% of what highsec ones do per site, and site clearance times should actually be faster in low & null due to the greater number of hulls even if less bling. Really, this is just a 'nerf high sec incursions' thread hidden with a bunch of other stuff, oh and also a 'destroy every trade hub except Jita' thread.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 06:18:46 - [3] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: . Really, this is just a 'nerf high sec incursions' thread hidden with a bunch of other stuff, oh and also a 'destroy every trade hub except Jita' thread. My prediction is true - first poster concerned about being a casual. Look it isn't like I don't have experience in this and I'm talking out of my sphincter ok? I have experienced the income of a grindy incursion fleet and I know many people who continue to do it. So to help you with an idea of W-space income I'll provide a healthy range for you with one clarification - once we run sites - they disappear and only reappear quickly if others in w-space are also running or at least de-spawning sites. This is not always the case and it is a more dynamic environment than null-sec where it respawns within 60 seconds of being run. C1-2: 100M-150M isk/hour - total amount mostly determined by number of sites which can be 0 and remain at 0 especially if some jerk is despawning your sites by pre-warping them (all w-space sites have a 4 day timer once warp is initiated). c3 - 250M/hr c4 - 250-400M/hour c5 - Hero Dread with all capital escalations - 2.5b/hour maximum (roughly 6-700M/ site) c6 - Similar to C5 if done with capitals The infrastructure required to run the c5/6 sites is fairly intense and you can get killed by anyone rolling into you at any time and you can also easily get log-on trapped by a hostile prober that is spaying on you in your system. I know because we seed carebears running their sites all the time. On a per-person basis for c5/6 if you run as a group - again more sites = more isk but assuming 1 site per person and a 7 person fleet including all support... 70 minutes for 600-700M for a single pilot repeat that 4x over 4 days for 2.8B for roughly 3 hours of play. You're welcome for the education. Maybe you'll give w-space a try.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2957	Posted - 2016.02.07 06:49:34 - [4] - Quote Been there in the lower end WH space, familiar with all the income rates that people post. What those rates don't actually show is how many man hours of each type get invested, and therefore what the incursion income actually means. I.E. If Null Anom hours are half incursions, yet turn out the same per month, then Null anoms are actually making double the real incursion income per hour. You can post all the 'the fleet I was in managed 200/hour on this particular day' you want, but it doesn't actually say anything about real income rates across all of EVE. It just says your particular fleet that day had a good run for whatever reason, and doesn't actually reflect averages which is what we balance to. However thank you for posting a bunch of meaningless numbers and buzzwords in an attempt to back your attack on highsec. Especially when even your numbers don't support any need for incursions to be touched.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 07:19:54 - [5] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Been there in the lower end WH space, familiar with all the income rates that people post. What those rates don't actually show is how many man hours of each type get invested, and therefore what the incursion income actually means. I.E. If Null Anom hours are half incursions, yet turn out the same per month, then Null anoms are actually making double the real incursion income per hour. You can post all the 'the fleet I was in managed 200/hour on this particular day' you want, but it doesn't actually say anything about real income rates across all of EVE. It just says your particular fleet that day had a good run for whatever reason, and doesn't actually reflect averages which is what we balance to. However thank you for posting a bunch of meaningless numbers and buzzwords in an attempt to back your attack on highsec. Especially when even your numbers don't support any need for incursions to be touched. You're paranoid about the "high sec" attack. 1) I don't care about the income quite as much as I do the safety of the activity in relation to the income. If you want incursion income then you should put up with an associated amount of risk...and you do not. Aside from the occasional suicide gank or logi pilot who decides not to repair you. 2) incursions are consistent and constant income - similar to nullsec anoms if you want a direct comparison. W-space is its own thing with a very dynamic environment that requires fairly intense effort just to live in much less make an income out of. I'm not measuring things in Units of Incursion. That isn't even a real metric. You can't really get an average continuously for WH's thanks to its variability. And this is why you're stuck in high sec. It is entirely about the lack of risk - not about the isk/hour but that you can continue it without major interference. 3) Non-FW Low Sec needs some sort of boost and maybe citadels will help with that and the other structures CCP plans on introducing. I'd like to see low sec citadels able to have an NPC Office they can rent to a faction with high standings - so say Mara with a Guristas level 3/4 agent or a Caldari Navy 3/4 agent. Or Zainou Biotech or whatever... 4) Null Sec needs its anoms made more varied with more webbing and even actual warp scrambling rats (not disruption). High end sites should have web and neut towers and pay out more as a result but also be less frequent (FML my probe scanner). Null Sec local should have a 30 second to 60 second delay in player sov areas unless someone has an intel upgrade. That intel upgrade (observatory structure) should be disabled once a cyno jammer is active. You can have one type of safety but not both...the exception maybe being your designated capital system so you can have your great wall of deklein or whatever.
Iain Cariaba 2601	Posted - 2016.02.07 08:04:09 - [6] - Quote Here's a better idea: Realize you're playing a sandbox game and make up your own reasons for creating content anywhere in the game. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid. I couldn't have said it better. Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
Kuetlzelcoatl 27	Posted - 2016.02.07 08:28:39 - [7] - Quote I like some of the ideas as how to fix Null Sec. Moon goo as it was originally designed made it too easy to be strictly funneled to the few. But, tying your Null Sec "fix" to a Hi Sec activity only shows the misguided idea that it somehow directly completes with your Null Sec fix. Living in Null Sec is really only for those who can find the spare time to do it. I used to have such spare time, but now do not. I used to do the Null Sec thing and had a lot of fun doing it, but now I cannot. As with everything, there are exceptions to that rule, but for most, living in Null Sec can be far too time consuming and would directly interfere with more important RL needs and issues. Many Null Sec dwellers seem to think that incursions is somehow cutting into their fun. That if Incursions would just go away or severely limited, all their Null Sec issues would be resolved. But I suggest that many of the players who do Incursions don't have the time for the Null Sec thing or have done it and are disgusted with the way things have been setup out there. There is a dirty little secret about Null Sec that is amazingly familiar with real life. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Most of the super rich were or are leaders of large alliances in Null Sec. All that moon goo and taxes gets funneled to their control; then either someone steals a large chunk of it, or there is a failscade and everything gets split among the few at the top, or it stays up there, in the control of the few. The average player that goes to Null Sec is strictly a pawn that gets fed leftovers and is left to fend for themselves when things go bad. Suddenly all ship replacement programs are stopped and it is left up to you to firesale or keep your things locked up indefinitely in a hostile station. The only options for the average guy is to either wait it out or join the side that invaded. And all that moon goo goes to the few at the top. Rinse and repeat for about a decade and the super rich don't really need much more isk and are getting bored with the game and blame it all on everyone else but themselves or the game mechanics that allowed this to happen. It doesn't take a degree in economics to see that the ones in control of Null Sec are silly rich and they themselves have no reason to go to war. They are already stupidly rich and simply prevent any others from threatening them by removing them as noxious weeds before they could be a threat. The problem with Null Sec is that those in control of it are so rich they have lost the need for controlling more than they have and simply want to keep that status quo and blame everything else for it. The Moon mining mechanic and the Alliance structure are the biggest contributors to getting us here. It allowed the very few to control the biggest ways to gain isk in the game and keep that isk for themselves when things go bad with no accountability. The problem with Null Sec are the ones who are in control of it who have such vastly greater isk to anyone who could challenge them that it simply stifles any gameplay to change the status quo. Now what are incursions role in this? They are one of the few ways isk can be quickly made in the game that those who are in control of Null Sec can't directly control. Incursions is where many of the former pawns of Null Sec have gone to make some isk for themselves, to maybe go back to Null Sec someday when they have enough isk to challenge the current owners. I would agree that Null Sec has lost many to Incursions. But it was the greed of the few that gave them a reason to leave. Now those few want to shut off that outlet to force the pawns back into their control. I say cut off all Moon Goo and make it a player activity like you suggest, but don't do anything to incursions because that is one of the few ways others can gain isk that the few silly rich can't somehow gain control of. Then eventually, we will get new leaders of Null Sec with a better system to spread the wealth instead of focusing it into the hands of the few, who most will only become eventually bored, like when you have 10 times the money you ever spend in a game where you have got all the best gear. That is why your idea of changing Incursions is so bad. It is because it plays into the hands of the stupidly rich, who already can control any way of getting isk in Null Sec as it is now.
Renfus Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 22	Posted - 2016.02.07 08:40:12 - [8] - Quote Moon mining is pretty rigged towards alliances.. You're not going to find an r64 in null not controlled by an alliance.. I think it should be set up like pi.. ((( Alliance Creation ))) Corp Update Service available ( 10,600 Member limit ). ++ Free with Alliance Creation ++ Contact me In-Game.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 08:57:20 - [9] - Quote Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: I like some of the ideas as how to fix Null Sec. Moon goo as it was originally designed made it too easy to be strictly funneled to the few. But, tying your Null Sec "fix" to a Hi Sec activity only shows the misguided idea that it somehow directly completes with your Null Sec fix. But I suggest that many of the players who do Incursions don't have the time for the Null Sec thing or have done it and are disgusted with the way things have been setup out there. There is a dirty little secret about Null Sec that is amazingly familiar with real life. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. All that moon goo and taxes gets funneled to their control The problem with Null Sec is that those in control of it are so rich they have lost the need for controlling more than they have and simply want to keep that status quo and blame everything else for it. The Moon mining mechanic and the Alliance structure are the biggest contributors to getting us here. Now what are incursions role in this? They are one of the few ways isk can be quickly made in the game that those who are in control of Null Sec can't directly control. I would agree that Null Sec has lost many to Incursions. But it was the greed of the few that gave them a reason to leave. I say cut off all Moon Goo and make it a player activity like you suggest, but don't do anything to incursions because that is one of the few ways others can gain isk that the few silly rich can't somehow gain control of. That is why your idea of changing Incursions is so bad. It is because it plays into the hands of the stupidly rich, who already can control any way of getting isk in Null Sec as it is now. Whoa Whoa there Karl Marx. Back off the socialist screed a little bit. There is no dirty little secret about null sec...they are in-fact quite open about moon goo being their personal piggy banks. They however do redistribute much of it in the form of SRP. Null sec players actually get quite a nice deal out of it in fact and it should encourage fights - and often has done in the past. My Null Sec Fix isn't in any regard tied to high sec. I didn't say it had to all be done or none of it. That is how children read. One could take any part of what I suggest and implement it to effect change in the game. The all or nothing argument is a non-sequitur and you should be ashamed for suggesting such a thing. Whether or not incursion runners are disgusted with current null sec politics isn't my concern - so much as that they feel an inalienable right to have the incursions remain unchanged and their income stream left uninterrupted - simply because they like it that way. I had this argument with a fellow WH resident who was angry with me putting a probing scout in his hole. He also felt entitled to that income and in-fact felt like it was a PERSONAL attack as it seems many high sec whiners do. It isn't. You don't get high income and safety in my opinion. I already identified the moon goo and cartel behavior as a problem in null - not sure why you're using that to justify incursions status quo rather than my suggestion of disrupting null sec via player interaction and dynamic moon materials. There are many null sec fc's and players who run incursions on alts - it isn't like one player can't do both - they do. They even apply many of the same divide and conquer tactics in the larger groups to fence out independent runners. Don't be fooled you're still a null sec puppet. It wasn't greed for isk that made people leave null sec for incursions - it was reliability and safety. Your conclusion is shallow and lacks sincerity - I have done nothing but suggest disruption to the null sec powers and to boost player progression in non-fw low sec. High sec has the vast majority of players and has plenty of content - I am not suggesting NO incursions in high sec - although I will post another alternative you will hate subsequently. I want more ISK in the hands of the average null bear not less and if you examine my suggestions you will see that I am speaking truly.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 09:04:47 - [10] - Quote Renfus wrote: Moon mining is pretty rigged towards alliances.. You're not going to find an r64 in null not controlled by an alliance.. I think it should be set up like pi.. Yes that is partly what I was suggesting - but making it more active than PI - i.e. using a mining barge type ship to get your moon goo...and the moon will get depleted over time and not regenerate. Instead you will probe it again and it will either be dead or have become another type randomly...like if you mined a belt out and the mix of ore changed upon respawn. For example Region A would have a static number of moons in total that would be R64/R32/R16/R8 - those static numbers wouldn't change much but the distribution would. Moons that are beyond that amount would randomly adopt a value between r64 and dead moon value. So Region A might have 32 R64 with say 4 of those 32 always being technietium. Those 4 tech moons when mined out...would regen on a dead moon elsewhere in the same region. If there were a total of say 8 tech moons in Region A - those other 4 would be considered in that surplus amount...and when mined out could re-appear anywhere in low/null space among the dead moons. This gets people to hunt for value...makes power blocs more nomadic in nature and less prone to occupy the same space for years on end simply based on resource allocation since it is now dynamic. Crap regions could see a gold rush - or an imperial invasion of sorts. then suddenly bust when its all gone. But yes...I think you got something from what I wrote.

Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 09:08:02 - [11] - Quote Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: I like some of the ideas as how to fix Null Sec. Moon goo as it was originally designed made it too easy to be strictly funneled to the few. That is why your idea of changing Incursions is so bad. It is because it plays into the hands of the stupidly rich, who already can control any way of getting isk in Null Sec as it is now. My other idea that you will also hate is that high sec constellations with an incursion have their sec status dropped to 0.4 until the players have beaten it back to 100% and reestablished CONCORD control of the systems - that is after all the RP goal of the events. It is much simpler than my previous suggestion but I was attempting to leave you the security you desire in high sec. So if it is all about the ISK then perhaps this idea works out better for you? I have no problem increasing low sec payouts another 100% in that case.
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 127	Posted - 2016.02.07 09:52:04 - [12] - Quote Justin Cody wrote: Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: I like some of the ideas as how to fix Null Sec. Moon goo as it was originally designed made it too easy to be strictly funneled to the few. That is why your idea of changing Incursions is so bad. It is because it plays into the hands of the stupidly rich, who already can control any way of getting isk in Null Sec as it is now. My other idea that you will also hate is that high sec constellations with an incursion have their sec status dropped to 0.4 until the players have beaten it back to 100% and reestablished CONCORD control of the systems - that is after all the RP goal of the events. It is much simpler than my previous suggestion but I was attempting to leave you the security you desire in high sec. So if it is all about the ISK then perhaps this idea works out better for you? I have no problem increasing low sec payouts another 100% in that case. Just the same old tired suggestion other sheep have had. Not a bad idea, but hardly original, just like the rest of the ideas in the OP and this one. Learning to use search might be an original idea though. But this, not really.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:09:49 - [13] - Quote Top Guac wrote: Justin Cody wrote: Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: I like some of the ideas as how to fix Null Sec. Moon goo as it was originally designed made it too easy to be strictly funneled to the few. That is why your idea of changing Incursions is so bad. It is because it plays into the hands of the stupidly rich, who already can control any way of getting isk in Null Sec as it is now. My other idea that you will also hate is that high sec constellations with an incursion have their sec status dropped to 0.4 until the players have beaten it back to 100% and reestablished CONCORD control of the systems - that is after all the RP goal of the events. It is much simpler than my previous suggestion but I was attempting to leave you the security you desire in high sec. So if it is all about the ISK then perhaps this idea works out better for you? I have no problem increasing low sec payouts another 100% in that case. Just the same old tired suggestion other sheep have had. Not a bad idea, but hardly original, just like the rest of the ideas in the OP and this one. Learning to use search might be an original idea though. But this, not really. legit criticism. well minus the substance and sincerity.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2272	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:15:34 - [14] - Quote Dropping High sec security level to low sec is not easy. People can jump capitals into these systems and use them, move drugs through there and do POS stuff that is not possible in High sec and will result in mess ups when the system sec status is restored one week later (show me low sec incursions that are run on a regular basis), to name a few things that make your "easy" suggestion not so easy. If ISK was the problem, people would flock to Null sec or W-space by the troves as you can make significantly more with significantly less effort on an individual basis there compared to High sec. But ISK is not. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2957	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:19:43 - [15] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: (show me low sec incursions that are run on a regular basis), to name a few things that make your "easy" suggestion not so easy.. Actually read your journal for incursions for the last 3 months, there is a full time low sec incursion community out there, I believe it's russian from what I know.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2272	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:23:04 - [16] - Quote 1 group. Great coverage. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2957	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:27:43 - [17] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: 1 group. Great coverage. Asks to be shown low sec incursions being regularly run, then complains when shown low sec incursions being regularly run. You sir win the troll of the week award.
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 127	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:29:17 - [18] - Quote Justin Cody wrote: Top Guac wrote: Justin Cody wrote: Kuetlzelcoatl wrote: I like some of the ideas as how to fix Null Sec. Moon goo as it was originally designed made it too easy to be strictly funneled to the few. That is why your idea of changing Incursions is so bad. It is because it plays into the hands of the stupidly rich, who already can control any way of getting isk in Null Sec as it is now. My other idea that you will also hate is that high sec constellations with an incursion have their sec status dropped to 0.4 until the players have beaten it back to 100% and reestablished CONCORD control of the systems - that is after all the RP goal of the events. It is much simpler than my previous suggestion but I was attempting to leave you the security you desire in high sec. So if it is all about the ISK then perhaps this idea works out better for you? I have no problem increasing low sec payouts another 100% in that case. Just the same old tired suggestion other sheep have had. Not a bad idea, but hardly original, just like the rest of the ideas in the OP and this one. Learning to use search might be an original idea though. But this, not really. legit criticism. well minus the substance and sincerity. Oh no. It was quite sincere. 2 out of 3. I'll take that.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:36:31 - [19] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Dropping High sec security level to low sec is not easy. People can jump capitals into these systems and use them, move drugs through there and do POS stuff that is not possible in High sec and will result in mess ups when the system sec status is restored one week later (show me low sec incursions that are run on a regular basis), to name a few things that make your "easy" suggestion not so easy. If ISK was the problem, people would flock to Null sec or W-space by the troves as you can make significantly more with significantly less effort on an individual basis there compared to High sec. But ISK is not. Luckily, CCP is has started to consider to remove incursions completely in the mid-term future, so that problem will resolve itself in due time. -- Renfus wrote: Moon mining is pretty rigged towards alliances.. You're not going to find an r64 in null not controlled by an alliance.. I think it should be set up like pi.. And what is that going to change? Export mechanisms would be expensive and alliances in Null sec can control who can install a poco on their planets as well as cut a 100% share of your exports when a non-sanctioned player does PI on their planets , which means they can do the same on moons or with rings should it be like PI. 1) no they can't drop caps - incursions are cyno jammed...they could blops drop however. Too bad for you. 2) who cares about drugs? 3) you can beat the incursion in a day if you really wanted to instead of grinding for 7 4) I already said that safety was the issue not ISK 5) I haven't seen CCP say one word about incursions - please link or provide evidence. 6) its "by the droves" not troves. 7) It feels like no one read anything I wrote except about high sec - I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:38:59 - [20] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: 1 group. Great coverage. heh yes incursions - single payer health care even a communist can love!

Kuetlzelcoatl 27	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:50:14 - [21] - Quote Justin Cody wrote: .... 7) It feels like no one read anything I wrote except about high sec - I feel like I'm taking crazy pills Your points about Null Sec are kind of obvious and are not original. Your points about Low Sec have been brought up many times and CCP has stated, "well, maybe if we had originally done that..". Your points about Incursions are kind of na+»ve, and ignore the larger issue.
Rivr Luzade Kenshin. DARKNESS. 2272	Posted - 2016.02.07 10:54:01 - [22] - Quote Justin Cody wrote: 1) no they can't drop caps - incursions are cyno jammed...they could blops drop however. Too bad for you. 3) you can beat the incursion in a day if you really wanted to instead of grinding for 7 5) I haven't seen CCP say one word about incursions - please link or provide evidence. You can move caps via gates from adjacent low sec constellations into Incursion constellations, you can move them via wormholes into these incursions constellations, you could build them there during the incursion. Drop does not necessarily mean to use a cyno. Yeah, sure, you can. Now tell me how many people have been running low sec incursions in the past, why they didn't do it, how many do it now and guess what is going to happen and why I said 7 days and not 1 day. Though, for all I care, CCP could remove Incursions entirely. As far as I remember, it was mentioned as a side note in one of the recent o7 shows. I can't find the exact show right now. UI Improvement Collective My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Justin Cody Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 344	Posted - 2016.02.07 21:43:38 - [23] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Justin Cody wrote: 1) no they can't drop caps - incursions are cyno jammed...they could blops drop however. Too bad for you. 3) you can beat the incursion in a day if you really wanted to instead of grinding for 7 5) I haven't seen CCP say one word about incursions - please link or provide evidence. You can move caps via gates from adjacent low sec constellations into Incursion constellations, you can move them via wormholes into these incursions constellations, you could build them there during the incursion. Drop does not necessarily mean to use a cyno. Yeah, sure, you can. Now tell me how many people have been running low sec incursions in the past, why they didn't do it, how many do it now and guess what is going to happen and why I said 7 days and not 1 day. Though, for all I care, CCP could remove Incursions entirely. As far as I remember, it was mentioned as a side note in one of the recent o7 shows. I can't find the exact show right now. 1) you can still leave the gate restrictions intact 2) if you move them in via wh's they still can't run the incursion 3) why would you build a cap there specifically? surely because you can isn't a good enough reason. 4) The risk and Reward ratio is way out of balance for incursions specifically in high sec - you have yet to adequately defend the counter position. "Because it works for me" isn't a defense. 5) High Sec Dwelling Sub-human robots don't do low sec incursions...because they're in low sec 6) Those that do low sec incursions finish them in good time so they can get the revenant bpc - and there are a number of people that do them when they show up in their territory from Shadow Cartel to Test Alliance. 7) If you had caps in there during the incursion you would have to move them out before it ended otherwise the weapons would be offlined - I shouldn't have to explain to you CCP's policy on caps in high sec.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.