Too Much Empty Space

Avatar
whats wrong ?? have goons got 2 many blues around them to find a scrap ?
Avatar
The answer is pretty simple. Make 0.0 worth living in. There will be a mass exodus of players from empire to the lucrative high-risk high reward lands.
Avatar
"Some might argue that the large coalitions that now exist prohibit new alliances from entering the area. While that is a valid point, it doesn't necessarily mean that the total number of players in Null would be significantly higher if it wasn't the case"Interesting how this is just dismissed out f hand.Wrong. If alliances/coalitions were smaller, players would be more evenly spread out, and you wouldn't need to go as far to find reds. But everything about 0.0 favours the bigger blob, so players do what players do.
Avatar
If I read the above correctly the author is suggesting that 0.0 could be made better and that one of the things that could be done to help is reducing the number of systems? If this is the argument being made I have to strongly disagree, 0.0 has been expanded multiple times in the past because it wasn't big enough. The fact that a lot of systems are empty now even though the player base has increased suggests something entirely different in my opinion.There have been features in the past on this site that have explained why no one is in those systems anymore. Simply put the risk/isk ratio for 0.0 is worse than empire/WH at the moment, this has little to do with how many systems there are. The removing of systems from 0.0 in my opinion is a horrible idea as not only will it use up a lot of dev time dealing with the technicalities it is literally removing stuff from the game instead of adding to it. While we can all agree that 0.0 needs to be iterated on, this is not the solution.TL;DR Yes 0.0 is broken, No this is not the way to fix it.
Avatar
This is pure writing for the sake of writing he doesn't seem to understand anything he isn't told I am part of a small alliance with virtually no blues we get a fights anywhere we go but can't take a system (we don't want to anyway), if we tried the now overwhelming blue force of the hbc/cfc/solar (goon pets) for the people that are complaining about nobody to fight how about reducing your blue list this is what soco would do and I hold them in a high respect for this the only people that are whining and crying about all this are the ones that have createdthis pproblem . TLDR: HTFU and reset the other 95 percent of eve and go diaf for the glory of fun maybe?
Avatar
what a bad post, seriously. You could "live a few jumps from a number of potentially dangerous alliances" if you didnt blue 90% of eve..
Avatar
With such a well developed null dialogue going on I can't believe the mittani has stooped to post this article, it's totally missed the point.You say " 'farms and fields' type systems that would help resolve this problem. Potentially such a system would bring out more carebears and more associated roaming gangs." but then go on to say " it won't help fill out Null any more than it is now."Now the system is highsec mining pays the same as null, and is easier and safer, lvl4's are as good as ratting, all the trade is in highsec. Manufactuing in high is vastly superior to null. So 71% of the toons live in high (1/7th of the space in the game) and never leave.The whole point of farms and fields is it gives people a reason to work in null to earn more money than they would in high despite the fact that roaming gangs occasionally come through and burn everything. If this happened, and a lot of toons left highsec, and you made more if there were less people farming your system, then null would fill up with players and gangs would roam again and pvp would work.Null is broken because it doesn't have an industrial base or a reason to work there and to make yourself a gankable target, or anything industrial small gangs can destroy. If it did all the emptiness would be gone, and as James 315 excellently puts it, a PVP food chain would be created.I find it unbelievable that, after so many great articles on the nullsec problem, themittani would publish this nonsense. This should be in GD on the forum.
Avatar
"But everything about 0.0 favours the bigger blob, so players do what players do."Players do what GAME MECHANICS says here the good way. That's why people says it should be changed by CCP, so that having a big blue list is not the solution everytime to win.
Avatar
Increasing the value of this space would works however, so half what he said is true given your arguments.
Avatar
What a load of rubbish. Null isn't broken because it's too big, it's broken because it doesn't have an industrial base.I can't believe themittani would stoop to publish this article, which should be on GD on the forums, after so many great articles about the state of null.
Avatar
Absolutely right. Also bubbles are instant death where as in low sec you have a chance to get away. So null sec gate camps on entry points and pipes filter out everyone but stealthy ships.Also stop being so blue.
Avatar
NBSI is scorched earth sov holding so expect no one to come through. If more sov holders were NRDS you might see more wonderers and you could kill the roams after them in your territory. I think CVA had success with this for a long time.The article solution, less systems is baffling. Says more about the writer's mindset that the nullisecunda problem.
Avatar
Wouldn't making space more valuable ( funny how it serves current holder) make already super wealthy alliances even wealthier- making it even harder to fight them?Goons and test have the bodies. Give them unlimited resources and no one came move them out.
Avatar
the problem is a mega coalition like CFC(NC 2.0) and HBCthe rest are bullshit
Avatar
Instead of less space, the space needs to support more people and industry, like it has been discussed on this website hundreds of times. Give null a viable and healthy industry by fixing the mineral issue, fixing POS and make a single system /support/ more ratters. Forsaken Hubs are the sweet spot, a min/maxed ratter can only share the 3 FHs in a system with max. 1 very slow/bad ratter, that's it. Add more FHs to systems and there will be more people in less space.
Avatar
The author is a Nulli Secunda member, genius.
Avatar
i second this. problem is more with opinions like authors. that seems to think "pew pew" is the only thing in eve. i for one like pew pew to some degree.. but 24/7, no.. that i have fps for. i will have to say that doing all the other stuff in 0.0 is to hard compared to highsec and thereby 0.0 is affected. secondly "carebearing" is so much unwanted by the same "pew pew" core running around in 0.0, that they have all shoot themselfs in the foot by forcing people back to High Sec and out of their alliances. and thus you sit left with only a few systems beeing used. so i`d say the problem with 0.0 is more the shitheads mentallity and the belief that pew pew is all that matters .added to the problem is that everybody has alts everywhere, so the entire 0.0 is so infested that noone has a decent thrustworthy identety.
Avatar
There are plenty of players in null, the problem is that the majority of them are on the same side. Finding a fight in NPC null isn't much of a problem. The reason you don't have lots of small gang fights in sov 0.0 is because they are all friends and those that aren't are too scared to make trouble.
Avatar
This is spot on, there is plenty of fighting in low and NPC space. sov space has fewer neuts in it looking for fights because they are far easier to find elsewhere Also the idea that more ratter = more fights doesn't really make sense as ratters are neigh on impossible to catch unless they are pretty dumb. Even if they were easier to catch ganking the odd ratter is hardly gf.
Avatar
People have surrounded themselves in blues, and are now complaining that they can't find fights...... Didn't see that coming.Heres an idea...... reset some blues? You nullsec dudes may not be risk averse when it comes to losing a ship(god knows you lose fleets of them all the time), but your risk averse all the same. You would rather play a boring safe game, then a high risk fun game, and why? Well to keep pixels safe of course, but it's not ship pixels, but pixels on alliance logo's that TCU's fly, or you see on dotlan. If your in a huge coalition, and your complaining about not getting fights, then you have nobody but yourself to blaim, your alliance leadership is no doubt rich, and will not want to stop the isk from rolling in, and blues keep them safe from losing that income, so they won't reset. I'm always 2-3 jumps away from a fight, space isn't empty to me, my alliance doesn't own any space, and my alliance has less then 100 pilots blue in all of eve, we run fleets every night, never shoot structure to get fights as everyone we live around wants fights also, and people never leave my alliance because there isn't they're bored. I live in NPC 0.0, NPC space is the way all of null should be like, no real ownership, you rat/mission in the space you feel your alliance can protect you in.
Avatar
For a minute there I thought your . key was broken.
Avatar
Bubbles are only instant death if you don't know how to deal with them.
Avatar
I think tech moons are a good example of how making space more valuable creates temporary conflict but ultimately has a long term negative impact on the game.
Avatar
It really is this simple. Between the introductions of the Anom Nerf, Incursions, FW LP farming, Wormholes. There is very little incentive to live and be active in 0.0 beyond belonging to a culture.
Avatar
So how do you explain why NPC/Low are so active?
Avatar
Interesting article. As always we can't excpect everyone to agree on every detail, but it raises interesting discussion which means we have to consider the article a success.Reading your comments there are a couple of questions that comes to my mind: (1) "isk/risk of empire" would imply people from nullsec go to empire to raise their primary income, is that really so? I find that very hard to belive. I don't doubt for a second that people line their pockets with side-activities in various other places than home, but i strongly doubt the balance of risk-reward send nullsec players to empire for their primary source of ship-replacement income.Next, (2) "reset some blues", with comments like that i think you need to ask yourself the question what blues actually do in EVE atm. Most of the game's design direction go to encourage that. You can try to ridicule the fact that many alliances favour income-advantages over good fights, but at the end of the day CCP encourages that type of behaviour - it's not the alliances fault that the developers promote that sort of gameplay - and shooting oneself in the foot is hardly a solution.Similar concerns go for (3) "in NPC space and Lowsec it's easy to find fights within 2-3 jumps": the question you need to ask yourself then is why the entities in NPC space and Lowsec don't frequent Sovspace more? In the past they used to do just that. It used to be the primary reason to live in an NPC-null region; close access to nullsec roaming points. The fact that NPC-null entities only seem to fight each other these days is a very recent development (the last year or two) and not really traditional behaviour. Ask any top-tier group in any NPC-null area and you'll learn that they used to roam alot more, and 20 jumps was nothing for them to find fights. The problem these days is that you won't reliably find fights even if you travel 200 jumps, and the fights you get is not based around space used and an escalation from there that would encourage roaming.The question remain, why don't people roam anymore? Why don't people use their space anymore? and Why do coalitions just grow larger, fewer and less content-frequent as the years pass by? The answer to those questions all revert back to that it is what CCP's current design direction promotes: passive income and ships that can always kill everything and be killed by everything - without much associated cost - that simply promotes having more ships and very little else.
Avatar
Or we could stop making huge coalitions and tadaaa, there would be people to fight right next door to you.
Avatar
All the last big wars in null sec have been over tech, to say it is doing anything but what its intended to do is stupid, the reason that null is shit is that to keep the tech people have blue'd up and that is gay, but that is more people nature at fault then tech, i do think a spread of the wealth would be a good thing in eve if not a complete rebalancing of t2 production.Tbh i dont know what the solution is but taking stuff out the game is wrong i like the idea you need to keep using a system for it to stay in your control, i read a very good idea based on this in a geeky eve blog but can not remember who wrote it.
Avatar
looking at the map, NPC Null doesn't really look that much more active then SOV null with the exception of Curse. Curse being what and where it is, has always been fairly active.
Avatar
OP missed the mark completey, Tech moons, SOV, every hour CTA and alliance leader douchebagatry is the reason. 0.0 can suck a bag of dicks
Avatar
Its not because its slow right now that its going to be like this forever or that we need to change something in the game to make it better, its a seasonal thing, as the summer vacations approach we'll start seeing more and more people, the problem with eve is that its not a game that you can play casually and it tend to suck your life if you let it.
Avatar
"Players come to Null-Sec for the large-scale fights and owning space"When your entire premise is based on false dichotomy, anything that follows is pretty much wrong as well.Players come to null sec for two reasons. The first reason is that they perceive that they will make more money in null-sec than in empire. The second reason is that you can shoot other ships without affecting sec, getting concord'ed, or giving someone kill rights.
Avatar
Mittani posts articles from all viewpoints, even if he may not personally agree, so long as the article makes a well written and coherent argument. Just saying. ;)
Avatar
Barnsy is in Nulli Secunda which can hardly be accused of maintaining an extensive blue list. Just FYI.
Avatar
This is literally the only sane comment I've read so far.
Avatar
Oh my, 20 whole jumps! Do jump bridges and titans really make people that lazy? I regularly roam upwards of 100 jumps :-/
Avatar
I see the validity of that and applaud an open forum of debate (except it's not open, only hired authors get to publish).My main criticism is that there is such a high level of thought on this subject on themittani it's surprising this comes out of left field and ignores all the previous debate.
Avatar
This article is terrible. The lack of research makes me cringe. Ten seconds on google would reveal that the major reason vast tracks of nullsec are empty has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with the risk/reward ratio in the systems.For example, take two nullsec systems, identical sec status, station type, rat type, number of belts, and anomalies. The only difference is that System A is a dead end system with only one entrance and System B is on the travel route from high-sec/low-sec/hostile null to the Sov Holder's market hub or to another region. You might think that they would have the same number of people in them, right? If you thought so, you would be wrong.The ratters of eve like safe havens such as dead end systems because they have only one direction that needs to be watched, and they typically have an out that is only usable by themselves and their allies, ie a jump bridge. Additionally, since dead end systems are dead ends, roaming gangs tend to avoid them, thus prolonging the ratters ability to make isk without being forced to safe up by a hostile incursion.Travel route systems are avoided at nearly any cost by ratters since they are frequently visited by hostiles, making the risk/reward ratio for ratting in them so high as to make the system worthless for that purpose.
Avatar
I'll have a stab at giving an opinion about why ‘why the entities in NPC space and Lowsec don't frequent Sov space more?’A lack of gang PVP in space has nothing to do with the value of the space, it’s about the culture of the people who live there.In the area of NPC I live in I know where gatecamps normally are, what systems bubble campers hang out and which systems the larger PVP corps roam. When my corp mates what a fight we have a pretty good idea where to find it. We’ve surrounded us with groups that enjoy a similar play style as us. I don’t need to travel into sov space to fight people who are going to give me a poorer gaming experience when it's all on my doorstep.If you’ll excuse the gross generalisation the difference between the cultures can be found in the solutions that these different group offer.Sov holding alliances tend to suggest that making space more valuable, reducing sov grind etc. Because they have a settling culture. They conquer space and then settle it: so the mechanics of conquering and owning space is their focus. NPC/Null alliances talk about removing local, changing gate mechanics etc. They are nomads who move around to find fights: so the mechanics of the fight is their focus.This article assumes that sov holding 0.0 is atypical of all null and it isn’t, there are distinct and very different player cultures.
Avatar
This seriously seems to be one of the biggest problems in null-sec today, where if you're a bear you can't really move to null even if you want to due to the culture of the groups that are already out there.
Avatar
You've contradicted yourself here, in the same sentence no less. You state tech is working as intended (e.g. making fights) and then say all the tech holding entities have agreed not to fight over it.
Avatar
You summarized the situation well, however the conclusion you drew is invalid. Null-sec is still broken since the anomaly nerf, however long ago that was. In all practical senses, systems with less than -0.51 (or is it more than?) are worthless unless exceptionally mooned. At the same time, power block alliances can easily control entire regions due to their capital fleets and ability to sov grind. So, the whole idea of nerfing nullsec based on truesec as a "means of letting smaller alliances get a foothold" is an utter and spectacular failure.What smaller corps and alliances need is a robust revenue stream, through moons, mining and ratting, to be able to defend their space. Making parts of nullsec "more valuable than others, to give people something to fight over" has completely gone ass-over-tits. Instead, a **few*** people can afford to fight over valuable systems. The remaining renters and small corps are left to try to carve out a small bit of space and income with pathetic resources.Jump bridges are not the problem. They're the only thing giving nullsec a remote semblance of an economy or industry. The size of nullsec isn't a problem, it's what defines Eve (don't fuck with it). Titan bridges can be a problem, but this is largely affecting the big players fighting over the most valuable resources.To make nullsec vibrant again, simply allow space of any trusec to be upgraded to the same levels as before the. You'd have capital pilots all over farming sanctums, making more targets and spoils of war. Or, to the same end, anyway to make the -0.01 to -0.50 systems economically viable **and** defensible against overwhelming numbers would be equally welcome... but isk cannot hurt the people making a go of it in nullsec.
Avatar
If the average player owned sov player can't make decent isk in their space they are doing it wrong.
Avatar
Curse being the single shadiest neighborhood in EVE.Not counting Rancer... but Rancer is the nuclear waste dump of EVE
Avatar
"higher risk, worse isk" lol wut... I've lived in null since the day I started EVE, I recently started learning about high sec space because well why not, it gives me something else to do. Let me tell you, null is a ton safer than high sec if you know what you're doing. In high sec you have so many people and each one could be a 1400 insta-nado. Meanwhile in null if someone comes into system you safe up or move systems with a scout, none of this "which random is gonna pop me now." As for isk generation ratting bounties are higher in null, better minerals in null (lol mining), null gas is more expensive, and pirate missions give better isk/lp than high sec missions. So no sir, I'm sorry, you are wrong and should try something before you talk about it.
Avatar
There is no need to reduce the number of 0.0 systems. Just make it more worthwhile to live there. Remove T2 production from empire for example, remove high ores completely from empire (even salvage) etc. Give bonuses to production time, mission agents to 0.0 stations and so on. People need reasons to go there and live there. Thats all.
Avatar
Seriously. This isn't rocket science.
Avatar
I have played EVE since 2005 and can tell you that the biggest issue with 0.0 is moon goo. Moon goo allows alliances to produce insane amounts of ISK that require only a hand full of players to manage and transport. (Especially so with jump bridges and jump freighters) Therefore 0.0 alliances do not need the taxation of players ratting or to take a cut of high end minerals mined in their space to fund their activities. Since this is true, the need to actually exploit their space is in fact minimal and since defending the gold mine is the priority, so is the recruiting of and support of PVPers. This then skews the 0.0 population from a more balanced care bear/PvP mix that would increase 0.0 population to a heavily PvP one that through its ravenous need to kill something drives out the last vestiges of car bears from 0.0 to high sec. further more with the insane amount of ISK they produce via moon goo it is far more economical to use the same jump freighters and jump bridges to bring back from empire any supplies they need such as replacement ships and POS fuel.I suggest that moon goo be removed and those minerals become a new type of ore 0.0 systems that would require a fair number of miners (Care Bears) to exploit, and PvPers to defend those operations. Also I believe there should be a limit to what can pass via a jump bridge system, making large scale moves of Pos fuel and mass movement of replacement ships to 0.0 more cumbersome and therefore encouraging the mining of ice in 0.0 as well as the mining of lesser ores for ship construction in 0.0.If implemented it could 6 months for the effects to be felt as, many alliances have massive reserves of ISK that will need to be burnt through.
Avatar
This is neither well-written nor coherent. Barnsey is speaking in half-facts, cat-scratch logic, and back-of-envelope, superficial numbers. It was difficult to determine the author's core point on the emptiness of nullsec until the last four paragraphs. He's repetitively driving home the superficial observation that space is too empty -- yes, I get that space is largely vacant in nullsec -- but starts to flounder when sewing together a fluid dialogue that reads as more than a string of quick, standalone forum posts duct-taped together.Why does it matter that the majority of space is empty? What's wrong with simply targeting busy systems and forgetting the rest? It would be one thing if all space was empty, but ~these handfuls of busy systems mentioned still exist, and their existence throws out the entire article as written~. Whether they're five jumps out or forty, these systems only contain ratters, belts, and moons full of strontium; worthless in terms of generating roam-level fights. On the flip side, what about enemies that live virtually next-door to each other and ignore each other anyway? Why is roaming distance so important if people just dock up whether you've traveled ten or thirty jumps?Is the problem that space is too empty to find sufficient densities of peasants to kill, or that there's no reason for peasants to protect their shit? If space is shit and your shit floating in space is shit, why risk your pod?I'm not pulling these questions out of thin air; Barnsey mentions them all but fails to address the counterarguments to which they easily lend themselves. It's clear the majority of readers find more truth in the few sentences on valuable Farms/Fields/Homes in Space worth defending than in the entirety of this weird speculation on effects of reducing the number of null systems.Ideas are made with one hand and marginalized / obfuscated with the other. If this is supposed to try to convince someone that nullsec has too many systems, it's self defeating. If it's simply trying to provide education/background on nullsec population, it leaves the reader hella confused. After a second, much slower readthrough, I'm left kinda blank on any memorable logical connections or arguments.It's bad writing. I don't necessarily disagree because it's bad (and I do disagree), but it's bad nonetheless.
Avatar
I really hope I don't get in spacetrouble for this.
Avatar
Leave your alliance that keeps you safe and you will know why putting more bonus stuff in null and making every other space poorer won't draw more people there, instead it will just make the huge alliances there richer and the people who are not in the huge alliances just give up and leave eve. Valuable things were already put in null. There were called among other things tech moons. And they ended up creating more of a problem than anything else. That's all.
Avatar
Amusing that you imply that SoCo's disintegration was some sort of honourable goodfights agreement which HBC cruelly exploited, rather than -A- being hopelessly incompetent as a coalition leader and pissing off all their coalition partners.
Avatar
This is a mexican standoff only if your goal is to hold as much resources as possible - be it anomalies, or moon goo, or drone alloys or whatever. It does not matter. You might as well get 20K people, each having 4 alts, one for each faction, and go play swings with the current FW, grinding one faction per turn all together and making a farce out of the otherwise working mechanics. It's a sandbox. It has an infinite potential of players inventing new ways to screw themselves with a wrong prioritisation no matter what devs throw at them.When you priority is acquiring resources for the sake of it, well, congratulations, you've got yourself a boring job instead of a fun game. It's not that different from the case of "perpetually unprepared". Only instead of being unprepared to risk your ship you use to earn ISK, you are unprepared to risk your space you use to earn ISK.The "various groups in the south" may have failed in doing a boring job, but I highly doubt it will be them who unsub out of boredom first.
Avatar
As much as I enjoy your ITS ALL THOSE GUYS FAULT whine, large coalitions are the result of the shitty sov mechanics and mediocre rewards which have stagnated 0.0 for years.
Avatar
The 'too many blues can't find fights' meme is really redundant. You know there are these things called 'jump clones', which you can place in any npc or friendly station on the map and use to base out of nearby to where the fights are, right?
Avatar
Crappy none sense with false assumptions and even falsier conclusionsstop fantasizing about nullsec, just be there and live there ...
Avatar
New corporations or Allaince have no change to independantly claim space. Because of the power projection of certain coalitions.
Avatar
ahahaha oh wow, this is beyond bitter and into stupid territory:>tech moons: I think we all agree tech is stupid, so I'll ignore this one>sov: Sov isn't the problem, making sov worth it is the problem - back to farms & field.>every hour CTA and alliance leader douchiness: you have been in the wrong alliancesBasically, if you think all of sov null is like your bad experiences, that's where your problem lies. Plenty of us have fun in sov null every day, otherwise there'd be nobody at all out here.
Avatar
He's talking about value for -individual players-, not for alliances.
Avatar
NRDS is a fucking pain in the ass to maintain and leads to nerds in your space getting shit on by people with a neutral cyno alt every single day.
Avatar
There needs to be a mechanism to draw people to null (rewards) while also limiting the number of players in any particular system (to fill out the empty systems). In a way anoms did this. While they are infinitely re-spawning, anoms can only support so many players per system. There are x top end anoms, they cycle every y minutes, thus they top out at Z players per system. More players, more systems in use.
Avatar
The reason why you won't find players using the space in certain areas is that CCP was kind enough to hand their favourite null-sec alliances a huge passive income. No need for anyone to do any ratting or mining is there.Then of course there's the ridiculous situation where AFK cloakers can shut down all ratting/mining activity in a system with NO RISK to themselves whatsoever. In my opinion if CCP addressed this glaring broken mechanic and made it possible for AFK cloakers to be found and killed, then you would see people actually using their space far more.
Avatar
I generally agree with Mono here... reducing the size of nullsec is not the answer.At the same point in time, Barnsy has one point right: A high density of targets is very conducive to PvP.Syndicate and Curse are general hotbeds of small & medium gang PvP, because they are single regions of hostile alliances that like to shoot each other. The old Provi Fight Club, which consisted of many small alliances packed into a single region, had tons and decent quality PvP. In all of these cases, NIPs and/or unconquerable NPC space removed Sov Warfare from the picture, allowing people to "have a home", with lots of nearby targets to shoot.When you look at EvE's Sov History, Coalitions don't let enemies live next door. They kick them out of the area, much like we hunt down and destroy that pack of wolves that keeps eating our sheep. And since Sov warfare is completely skewed towards large structure shoots and larger gangs, most coalitions can easily eliminate nearby hostiles. This leaves most of Sov Nullsec with multi-region coalitions that are all blue to each other....Reducing the size of nullsec to artificially move these hostiles closer to one-another is not the Trick... the solution is to make it much harder to remove hostiles from your zone.... i.e. to fix Sov....
Avatar
There are only a handful of ships that can escape. Everything else for a solo player, is instant death. So why bother?
Avatar
I agree with the above poster. Removing 0.0 systems is not the way to fix the place.We need space to settle , but we need a variables in space. Right now a 100 man can live in a good system. Lets say 40 belts, 40 anomalies + 10 PI systems and mining upgrades.And here you are - one single system is enough to hold a 100 players. As you mention a 10% active means a thousand man alliance can just live up in a good staging system.One thing that holds this true is that resources (aside from plexes) are undepleetable.Once you finish a mining belt (given upgrades) - you are rewarded with another one.Once you finish a forsaken hub - you get another one spawned.PI has no depletion in the general sense too.So those 100 man does not need to move around much , just put a pos somewhere and shoot your local rats, local will warn you about dangers and you can warp to the pos - fair and simple - if you keep alert on local you can't be caught.WHs have depletion so you have to scan stuff and move to get new pastures. Add to that an active groups that can jump on you anytime a new entrance is scanned and opened - and you get an active warfare paired with good risk/reward ratio. Unless this ratio and the need to move in 0.0 pastures is implemented - one should just keep his 10 alts in one system and do its best to utilize the never ending supply of rats/ores/pi and moon mats.PS :Another ideas is to move higher security status systems to main paths in regions or even put a security status dynamic to the how many players passed/are active in the system - this way a neutral can fish in the pool with the tunas, and tunas will spread , hunted down again next river or pool.
Avatar
If your not in something fast enough to get out of bubbles, the best advice I can think of is to avoid them. If it's in space you live in there is generally some kind of intel channel that reports bubbles and how they are setup (which is rarely flat on the gate) when found. You can also d-scan gates before warping to them. If your overview is setup properly for living in null, bubbles will show up in the scanner.If it's not space you live in and your solo roaming, you can check the in-game map for 'active pilots in space' or 'number of ships destroyed in the last hour'. If a choke system has an exceptionally large number of kills (especially pods) then it's likely there is a bubble camp somewhere on the other side. Like everything else it's up to the player to assess the risk and the tools are available to do it.There are also some 0.0 entities that truly abhor doing bubble camps and it's considered to be the most terrible pvp exercise in existence to them. It doesn't hurt to know which ones feel this way.
Avatar
If your idea of fun is spending over an hour going from A to B, sure...
Avatar
Yes because Nulli Secunda clearly hasn't spent half of last year in major conflicts...
Avatar
Progodlegend agrees that force projection is one of the major issues with null sec.
Avatar
I agree with the above poster. Removing 0.0 systems is not the way to fix the place.We need space to settle , but we need a variables in space. Right now a 100 man can live in a good system. Lets say 40 belts, 40 anomalies + 10 PI systems and mining upgrades.And here you are - one single system is enough to hold a 100 players. As you mention a 10% active means a thousand man alliance can just live up in a good staging system.One thing that holds this true is that resources (aside from plexes) are undepleetable.Once you finish a mining belt (given upgrades) - you are rewarded with another one.Once you finish a forsaken hub - you get another one spawned.PI has no depletion in the general sense too.So those 100 man does not need to move around much , just put a pos somewhere and shoot your local rats, local will warn you about dangers and you can warp to the pos - fair and simple - if you keep alert on local you can't be caught.WHs have depletion so you have to scan stuff and move to get new pastures. Add to that an active groups that can jump on you anytime a new entrance is scanned and opened - and you get an active warfare paired with good risk/reward ratio. Unless this ratio and the need to move in 0.0 pastures is implemented - one should just keep his 10 alts in one system and do its best to utilize the never ending supply of rats/ores/pi and moon mats.PS :Another ideas is to move higher security status systems to main paths in regions or even put a security status dynamic to the how many players passed/are active in the system - this way a neutral can fish in the pool with the tunas, and tunas will spread , hunted down again next river or pool.

PERSPECTIVE

Players come to Null-sec for the large-scale fights and owning space. Ideally, these fights happen multiple times a day. While that was the case in the last war in the North, Null-sec has become quiet for many alliances of late. Part of the issue is likely fatigue of both the player base and FCs, and frustration with the boring sovereignty grind. Regardless, everyone has been trying to 'create content' and use up the spare time: many are ratting, but some have tried to go out in small roaming gangs. Unfortunately that brings them back to their previous problem: space with a whole lot of nothing. God forbid some players actually manage to organize a small gang, they then have to look at the prospect of going over 20 jumps away just to see someone they're allowed to shoot. Just as the empty space is a deterrent to roaming gangs, it is a deterrent to enemy gangs. This creates a sense of security, and consequently players have no motivation to go out roaming (aside from sheer boredom). Clearly things aren't working as intended...

Nulli Secunda is currently living in Immensea, along with Pangu alliance. A lot of the systems in the region are still Against All Authorities space or one of their allies, but any player would be hard pressed to find any of them. In fact, in the entire region anyone would have to work hard finding anyone else. Immensea contains 84 systems and 17 conquerable stations. Given the total number of players for these alliances of around 2700, and at a 'good' activity level of 10%, that would mean at any one time there are around 270 active players in the region.

In a region with 84 systems there is an average density of 3.5 players per system. That doesn't look good for Null-sec. Of course, that average is very strongly skewed by the high concentration of those players in a few systems. Bringing up Dotlan makes it obvious that the players are concentrated in three or four systems. Even more disturbing, in the last 24 hours, there have been a whopping 5 systems with more than ten PvP ship kills, and over 56 systems without a single kill.

If only this trend was only apparent in this area of space and an exception! Unfortunately, much of Null-sec paints a similar picture. One can easily travel all the way from the North to the South without encountering a single neutral ship in 0.0 space. Even the 'denser' areas of null, arguably those of the HBC and the CFC, with leaders who actively encourage players to use their space, are not much better. The only way around this issue is the widespread use of jump bridges and titan bridges, the former requiring sovereignty (which tends to increase the problem rather than reduce it) and the latter requiring a cyno ship in a destination system anyway.

 

DELVING DEEPER

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about 'farms and fields' type systems that would help resolve this problem. Potentially such a system would bring out more carebears and more associated roaming gangs. Unfortunately, due to the spacing of the systems, it is unlikely to solve this issue (serious motivation is needed to go 30ish systems to find a fight). While it will certainly revolutionize Null-sec dynamics and provide much-needed rewards for the grunts of alliances, it won't help fill out Null any more than it is now.

One common solution that's been floating around is increasing the value of Null-sec systems. Currently, there is too much of a disparity between systems: some have stations and some don't (meaning alliances are almost guaranteed to NOT stage from such a system), some have -1 sec status and some have -0.1 (meaning ratting is much more profitable in one than another). Some are also inherently safer than others by being dead-end systems. If the values of systems are more homogenous but the actual value of systems increase, it may reduce the current 'island' system currently seen. It is unlikely that homogeneity is the answer: some variation can make space a bit more interesting, and it does actually cause some conflict every now and then.

The crux of the issue then is that alliances own too many systems to use them all. A simple explanation to the issue could be that there are simply too few players in Null (or too many Null-sec systems). Part of this may be due to the attraction of Null in the first place, or that there are simply not enough players currently engaged in EVE to populate the area. Even if alliances owned less territory, there would still be the issue of actually populating the systems in question. Neither of those two issues can easily be fixed, so they'll be ignored for now.

Some might argue that the large coalitions that now exist prohibit new alliances from entering the area. While that is a valid point, it doesn't necessarily mean that the total number of players in Null would be significantly higher if it wasn't the case. The only new alliances that would increase the total player numbers would be those already existing High/Low-sec that decide to make the move, and they are a rare breed.

 

SLEEPING NEXT TO A DRAGON

That is really what this issue boils down to: to get easier PvP, alliances need to live closer to each other. Bridges of various kinds make the effective distance between coalitions shorter than they actually are, meaning that in real space alliances need to be further away from their enemies and by association worsening the problem. CCP needs to increase the relative density of Null-sec systems, but that's not going to happen given that enemy coalitions are only a few 'effective jumps' away from each other thanks to titan bridges.

Here is a hypothesis: what if a 10000 man alliance only needed 5 systems to meet all its needs, and a 2000 man alliance only needed one? Judging by Dotlan, this is already rather close to being the case: Nulli Secunda for example, a 2000 man alliance, only actively uses two or three systems.  Continuing the hypothesis: what if instead of being 3-4 titan jumps away from each other, the alliances were 1 bridge away? And that said bridge had a lower range than it did now? So that while the effective separation of opponents was 1 bridge, it was only 10 jumps away (rather than the 20ish now currently observed per bridge)? Wouldn't it be glorious if two opposing alliances could just ship up and go 10 jumps away knowing they'd find enemies?

The obvious issue that arises with such a hypothesis is :"why wouldn't the larger entity just kick the other out? And that leads us to the previous issues". Clearly, sovereignty needs a revamp. There are a number of possibilities to address this issue: having sovereignty linked to player activity of sorts (so that a 10000 man alliance has trouble owning more than 5 for example), or to have detrimental costs associated with larger sovereignty. If the larger entity could take the smaller above alliance's sovereignty from a strategic standpoint, but it would risk losing one due to lack of activity or increased costs, it would focus on pushing it out by attrition. Effectively it would not take sovereignty but attempt to push the enemy alliance out through shitloads of PvP. Of course, to compensate for the added risk brought on by having an enemy alliance next door, the rewards from living in null would have to increase proportionally, close to the levels achieved in wormhole space (which would be justified: just like w-space, players would have to assume there are always potential enemies around).

At the end of the day, there is just too much space for the current player base. Without an effectively higher player density, Null will remain (for the most part) very quiet. Given the prospective increase in EVE subscriptions, it would take years to even double the current Null-sec population, which would not even come close to making it more populated (and that still leaves the large distances involved, the additional players could just join current alliances that wouldn't increase the spread of the populations).

Applying Occam's Razor to the problem: there are two variables that affect the average player density in Null; the number of active players, and the number of total systems. While CCP can always aim to increase the number of active players (and a farms and fields system would go a long way  towards that objective), their best efforts are unlikely to increase the player base by the three- or fourfold necessary to create a 'busy' 0.0 space. CCP HAS to reduce the number of systems in Null-sec. There are many ways they could do it: give players ample warning, keeping the systems with stations (where the most player-owned assets would be), refunding assets in other systems, eliminate least-busy/used systems first... It just needs to be done. CCP took the precautionary approach with the creation of a large number of 0.0 systems, but this has ended up creating a very quiet area of space that was supposed to be the most exciting with constant PvP. 

Living a few jumps from a number of potentially dangerous alliances? Yes please. CCP, make it happen.

[name_1]
Member of Nulli Secunda. Have been playing Eve for close to four years, already hit by bittervet syndrome. I've played a number of games over the years and generally dab in every game that's fun.