A question for CCP and players

I’d like to put my question in context first.

When I look at the Null sec Heat map for pilots in system. I see a deterioration (30+ players) of null sec systems.

I think your current goal is to reduce the Super Cap production and General “work” done in null sec.

High sec players are moving to null sec less and less.

I’ve observed consequences of your null sec changes and they include reducing Null sec population. Moons and moon goo have stagnated sov ergo we have no reason to push space.

Now my question: Do you want to increase null sec population? What changes do you see would cause high/low sec players to want to day trip to null sec if not move?

Question 1 : No, but I dont think thats the goal of this operation anyway.

Question 2: Players who dont krab/rent, join a bloc or do exploration/roams have no reason to go to Nullsec. If there were other things to do or other choices then maybe, but I really cant think of what those could be.

Well danger mining for small amounts to feed light industry is a thing but its probably easier to do now.


This may be due to many conditions. Its not normal for a lot of systems to have 30+ players. Over the many years iv played this game this tends to only be the situation during fundraisers, and coordinated efforts (namely war). Out side of that each coalition generally has 1-2 systems with “30+ people”, so its safe to say for null, your not looking at more then 40-50 systems like this (they are known as the regional hubs / hq’s).

Further, in general, null sec gathering of players tends to happen with the above, and is generally market related.

Do you mean via the blackout? the blackout is ment to help stop the “donut”, or collection of entities into mega entities, its not generally or directly related with super cap production, though as a bi-product may effect it.

The recent cyno changes may be better at effecting that.

Lets back up. Who said you had to play in null sec?

The introduction of the moon mining rework that allowed high and low to mine valuable ores was one of the things eve has had happen to industry.

This question has a set tune of biestness to it. Its more important and better suited to ask “what reason do people have to enter null”. Yes, the changes that have been done have invalidated the need for null, but this is more a balancing act.

over 50% of the wars in eve are done by 6 specific corporations, who operate in high sec. they are responsible for 100:1 kda ratio, and only 3% Of their targets ever get a kill on them. As people trinkle into high sec, there is an increase of this effect, and the result may actually end up being more in low sec. So it works out to being a personal choice in the end, if not slightly favoring low sec. Null’s best selling point on this topic is the “security” aspects of it, which will come around when null alliances learn to contract their space, and control more defendable locations.

Interestingly, this contraction of territory will open up more gorilla style pvp options, thus birthing more stealth corps, and will at the same time make the selling point of “safer space” that null has to offer stronger (as alliances will eventually retreat to locations that can be locked down with 1-3 entry points.

As the game takes on better changes, especially those removing things like abusive systems in high sec (suicide ganking etc), we’ll see more invalidation of null sec. Still, the majority of the games income creation comes from ratting, so it may be interesting to shift wormholes into raw resource collection (mining) and nulls to ratting.

I think these aspects of the game will be better. The concept of “this area’s gets the best rates, this one the best ore” might be right, but its not correctly applied (ie maybe null should all be the best ratting, and wormhole the best mining)

It may even be interesting to shift a large amount of production to low sec making it the most advantageous. This may even make null entities favor bordering low sec space.

I think we as a player group, use “player numbers” as a flagpole for whatever view we want to push about the game.

“player numbers are down because this issue, I personally don’t like, is the cause. Fix it now”
“player numbers will improve if this suggestion, I personally will benefit from, is implemented. Do it now”

In both cases “the game will be dead soon if CCP don’t listen to me”.

Obviously as a player group, the more people online, the better. However that only works up to a point, in that player numbers shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of development. Supporting the core values of EVE should be the driver of development. In a niche game like EVE, as long as CCP are happy with revenue, then that’s ok.

Player numbers will sort themselves out and clearly there is still a passionate community that includes people that don;t login all that often and as CCP balances the game, new people login, some comeback and others leave. That’s for CCP to manage.


Personally I don’t care about regional populations. As a player, all I care about is “are there enough interesting things to do? Does each area have an interesting ‘hook’ that gives players more options? Is there enough flow/choice/movement between the regions to promote an interesting dynamic environment for players to find niches to operate in?”

CCP may care about overall Null population. A number of us feel fairly strongly that CCP is pretty bad at analyzing the data and statistics of their player base. It would not be at all surprising to find out that CCP did a shallow, surface analysis, and came up with:

  • Players who fly capitals have given us more money and played longer than players who fly sub-caps.
  • Players in large, powerful corps pay us more money and stay longer than players in small corps.
  • Players who enroll in Null alliances pay us more money and stay longer than players in other regions.

Thus, from CCPs’ (hypothetical) viewpoint, they would wish to distort the game in ways that push players into capitals, to join larger and more powerful corps, and to enroll in Null alliances. (You know, pretty much what they spent the last 7 years doing.)

It would likely not occur to them that they are putting the cart before the horse, and that those statistical correlations were a result of their game design and of the type of player that game design attracts; rather than a cause of spending behaviour.

The ‘root’ cause would be “if there was something they could obtain from a day trip to Null that they could not obtain elsewhere, or not as effectively”. Obviously this could be a number of things. Until recently, people moved to null because as renters or bloc members/allies, it was the safest location for them to farm safely and profitably, and it occasionally featured some interesting action.

I think a better question to ask would be “what sort of activity/engagement should each region specialize in, and how can CCP enhance each regions mechanics to provide more interesting content for the player base, as well as encourage people to spend money on the game?”

Sadly, that seems to be the sort of question that CCP consistently receives a “D-” mark on whenever they try to answer it.


Previously they were owned by random investors who don’t particularly care about games, just short term profit. Wouldn’t at all surprise me if they pushed for the massive groups and super focus.

As they’re now owned by a company who understands games and themselves have an accomplished pvp sandbox, it sounds logical CCP is now “allowed” to go back to the core.


I am unsure. This Black Out event has cost me half my corp. And soon will be taking down stations, and moving to lo sec.
In rebuttal, by using the police in hi sec to only defend stations, would give a + to null sec population being CCP and the goon CSM want easy take over of null sec so they can throttle us all at there whim. To be honest, if I wanted to live in a Worm Hole I would have set up in one.

I want an increase in good players, not cowardly spineless krabs and carebears.

I don’t want people to day trip to null because that’s really pointless. The goal of player nullois to lay stake and claim to an area of space, and be able to fight to defend it. Not dip your toes in and day trip to make money like some pathetic krab.

1 Like

It is really nice to see someone with enough brains to move to an area where you are happier with the risk level, rather than coming to the forums and whining like so many of nulls spoiled babies.

Why should anyone move to nullsec to live there? Without an army of alts, you can’t do anything, you are stuck in the arse end of New Eden, with what to do? Ratting and mining, and showing off your big toys.

1 Like

What is your evidence for this?

1 Like


Part of the major purpose of donuts is military defense. “safe in numbers” concept, which is primarily done through a shared intelligence channel.

removing people in local invalidates that channel, which invalidates most of the reason of larger donuts.

Except it doesnt, because large Alliances dont use local for communication.
As has been explained numerous times in the Blackout thread, it has barely touched the Blocs, while decimating the renters.

Ergo, no effect on the so-called dough-knot

CCP havent even stated the reason for the Blackout, so you cannot say “this is the reason” when 1) thats not what its doing and b) you cant know

1 Like


Intel is communication.

It just happens that good intel is one way.

Thank you for your comments it helped me come up with a few ideas.

I think a base increase of S199 cosmic signatures in High sec paired with a gold rush in null sec would be a nice change. That has a good chance to increase the number of people in null sec while also giving the high sec players the same opportunities.

My second thought is some sort of high sec sov mechanic where players can push the security of a system up or down a few points.

Rewards for PVP? Maybe a designated LP store the rewards murder. Players could earn points for kills against non blue’s (this would have to be limited to a few kills a day to prevent abuse.

IF you cant see people in local, you cant report them in intelligence channel.

ergo, your wrong.

If you can see them on grid or DScan, you can

Thats not how you use that phrase.

If your in range, yes. Not every system is small enough for that to be a valid argument.