Buff NullSec Support for Building Tall Empires

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Buff Pirate Sov Upgrades to spawn more Highlevel Anomalies. (+6 Heavens for example)
Reduce SovUpgrade Upkeep Costs (more Pirate and Mining Upgrades in one system)
Introduce SovUpgrades for cheaper Upkeep of Athanors etc.
If you don’t want Alliances crawl across Regions please also give a carrot to reward owning space and using it, even when the Constellation only consist out of -0.2 Sec Systems.

NullSec is the premiere space that advertises EVE and mostly been the victim of Nerfs while Wormhole Space (more specific C6) is controlled by pretty much a single entity with no disruption to their gameplay for a long time.

2

Why do large null sec empires need buffs to grow even larger in number?

Wouldn’t it be better for null sec if the large groups had additional reasons instead to spread out and to split into smaller groups? Wouldn’t it be better for the game’s health if it was not possible for the majority of a huge bloc to do all PvE within jump range of a single capital umbrella? Sure, I get that it is convenient and safe for the line member like myself if that is possible, so I understand where the suggestion is coming from, but I don’t see how that is good for the game balance.

I think the game is in need of the opposite.

People have plenty of advantages already of joining the largest groups. Safety in numbers, less pressure on survival, more convenience of existing IT structures, content, easier to win fights, the ability to use capital ships in PvE and in PvP… many players are pushed into the largest groups anyway already! In other words, the game doesn’t need to add even more reasons for blocs to grow large.

If anything, the game should create more incentives to not join the largest groups. And a buff to tall empires is not what the game needs right now.

3 Likes
3

Well in the same thought why should smaller new Groups try to get into NullSec if the experience to hold space is just miserable?
Lot of space is dead because it just not good to live in as a Group beside the point that the big neighbors sideeye you for content if not deciding to turbo curbstump you. Mostly that means your choice on which space you can try to capture is limited and its really not the best or good to settle in.

I foresee a lot of downsizing space from the AnsiPlex change but trying to hurt the big alliancees also just effect the small Groups the same. While the big groups are limited what they can reach in what time, the space is as miserable as it has been for the past 5+ years.
I had a look how the Space Sov Works with the Skyhooks and how you have to reallocate resources to fit Ratting or Mining Upgrades into a system.
If small Groups should thrive, there needs to be more incentive to why they should sacrifice all the Time and Logistics to set foot in NullSec.

Momentarily if you are a small Group you rather look for C4 wormholes and hope you don’t get evicted by the C6 dwellers for content but still make more money than whatever awaits you in NullSec.

4

This is not a buff to small groups though, small groups do not have the numbers yet to feel the need to ‘grow tall’.

This is mainly a buff for the largest groups as it allows them to have more people do PvE under the limited range of their capital umbrella.

I do not think large groups need a buff like that.

1 Like
5

and small Groups continue to have no real reason to own space.

6

Then why not come up with better reasons for small groups to own space, instead of buffs which mostly benefit large groups?

1 Like
7

than what would your idea be that would make NullSec Space more attractive that wouldn’t buff the large Alliances?

Every change FC (formerly CCP) did to limit large Alliance, hits the small ones just the same.
Industrial Folks have the biggest use case for NullSec but to hold space you need PvP capable folk who often don’t really like to sit on Rocks. You need to accommodate them in the limited small space you want to carve out.
Otherwise we will probably see a return of Renting Agreements is my prediction.

8

You’re right that renting agreements are a risk and that changes shouldn’t push small groups into renting structures instead of letting them claim their own part of space.

But to rent, the landlords need to be able to defend the rented lands. And to defend rented lands, landlords need force projection.

So I think the current nerfs to ansiblexes are a good direction to both nerf the size of the amount of regions blocs can hold as well as their ability to have renters.

Null sec would be attractive already to settle in by small groups, if only the large alliances weren’t already there.

So I do not think the game needs to make ‘null sec more attractive’. Instead, the game needs two things:

  • discourage large alliances from sprawling
  • fewer incentives to join the largest blocs

So my suggestion to have less sprawl of large blocs and smaller bloc sizes, and space for smaller groups in null sec is twofold:

  • reduce force projection
  • reduce the ability to build tall

This combination makes it less convenient for blocs like Winterco, Imperium or Initiative to be the size they are, reduces incentives to grow and adds reasons as well as space for players to start new groups elsewhere in null as well.

After all, bloc size is a balance between factors.

Bloc-increasing factors are things like:

  • N+1 beats N
  • safety in numbers
  • cooperation allows players to use their toys, their (super)capital assets in PvP and PvE
  • less effort from line members needed to protect space

Bloc-constraining factors are things like:

  • the limit on how many mining and ratting resources are available
  • the CEQ limit for capital ratting
  • boredom by not enough enemies and content within range

So while there are consistent reasons to still join a large bloc anyway, the bloc itself is sustained by the amount of resources it can claim and defend.

If the amount of resources in range is reduced and the amount of practical range is also reduced through force projection nerfs, this means it becomes far less profitable and less encouraged to have groups the size they are now.

Reduced income and fights over resources like mining sites, ratting sites, CEQs may make those groups spread out and take more space, but with force projection nerfs those outer regions do become far more vulnerable to attacks. Yet if they stay the same size, profits and content are reduced for the members, decreasing the incentive for small groups and new players to join those large groups and thus increasing the incentive to start their own separate groups elsewhere.

While such changes would obviously cause some pain to those large groups, this is a way to encourage players to form smaller separate groups spread out instead of joining the large blocs.

And many small groups would gladly claim a part of null sec space if large groups withdrew further.

Building tall, as you suggest, allows large groups to withdraw further, but also allows the large groups to still grow in numbers and become safer while they do so as they now get access to more resources within jump range of their defence fleets, which allows them to recruit even more people who could have joined small groups instead. I think ‘building tall’ is the opposite of what would help encourage small groups to form.

TL;DR: to make null attractive for small groups, the game needs to hurt the big groups more for being too big.

9

This is so dumb it could come straight out of CCP’s design labs. What you suggest is the reason why big blocks exist in the first place: Not enough resources to build an empire in a relatively small enough space. You need multiple constellations or regions even to maintain a certain alliance size.

You want strife without any benefits, any rewards for the strife. You want to require groups to grow huge to be able to own anything but make this necessity a punishment.

At the same time, you think that reducing resources for large groups makes this same space a good investment for smaller groups without the necessary manpower and logistics to own it. This is hilariously backwards.

Instead of this reprobate punishment approach to discourage bloc growth, it should indeed be what the OP suggests. Make it possible to grow large but do not require vast amounts of space to do so. It should be possible for 10k, 20k chars to live out of a single big region. At the same time, regions should be moved further apart from each other (think Delve - Fountain, Period Basis - Stain, Tenerifis - Detorid) so that they are not in blops, titan, carrier jump range of each other) to make it harder or outright impractical to hold space in several regions. This way, you reduce the necessity to own lots of space, open these regions up to other groups, make it harder for blocs/other attackers to willy-nilly launch sov assaults, and give every group breathing room from camps and other “hardships”.

Group size should be limited by geography first, not by resources that you need to be able to thriving form a group in the first place.

10

Well I don’t agree.
If anything FC (formerly CCP) would want to have big alliances doing big fights. Its THE news that catches on to new players that see the big gigantic fights and inspires them to try EVE me no exception.
If the big players can maintain or even grow with a single Region you can keep that potential while growing newcomers that can add more numbers to potential Fights.
NullSec needs to be more profitable in a Tall Fashion if you don’t want Alliances to sprawl.

11

I agree for a part, but disagree for another.

Yes, if we want alliances to occupy less space and restrict power projection, we should give them ways to keep investing into their heartlands and make them viable to “feed” a more dense population.

So I agree with the part that the game should offer a lot more and better longterm infrastructure projects that help both in defending your most valuable core systems and also allow more lucrative wealth generation there.

However, what I strongly disagree is the idea to just “spawn more” of the same content that is then grinded in endless cycles of risk-averse farmers, be it belts, be it anomalies.

All the new 'buff content" should spawn strictly as ‘group content’ and be designed in a way that it s extremely inconvenient to massmultibox. So normal 1-3 account players have to group up to do it.

These “upgrades” would require huge amount of power and workforce to run, but can be linked to power- and workforce-generating structures of adjacent systems. Which means you can greatly improve the efficiency and defense capabilities of a core/central system, but during an invasion you need to make sure to also control the nearby systems to make sure the opponents don’t starve you out until some of your upgrades cease to work.
This would allow alliances to establish regional “fortresses” which are highly profitable and filled with locally present population to protect them against occasional raids. But the claiming of hundreds of non-developled systems only to give them to 2-3 ratters or miners in the end but being unusable for other groups who really wanted to settle there would end. Both because being closer to the “megacities” is more lucrative and offers more protection, and because a limited force projection as already foretold, makes owning remote systems far away from the mainlands a lot of effort for very little gain.

3 Likes
12

What you suggest is to make blocs have even more members and make them safer from harassment and from invasion as well.

You may be posting on a forum alt, but I suspect you have characters krabbing in one of the largest blocs and are asking for more personal convenience instead of a healthier null sec, Dyver.

Personally I prefer to ask for game improvements for a healthier game even if they go against my personal self-interests, but I think not everyone does so.

I recall a common request of goonswarm players is to put NPC stations in range of all of null sec space to make it easier for small groups to launch attacks on the large blocs, not to make it harder.

And while goons are an ally of me I don’t agree with everything they say about what makes a healthy null sec. However, I think they make a very good point with this.

Null sec shouldn’t be made safer by geography, it should be made safer through player effort.
Your suggestion does the opposite.

13

Ask any Alliance Leader how much Power or Workforce there is
Hint: not a lot.

14

That can be done in addition to what I suggest. In fact, especially large regions should have NPC presence. You could even make it so that the pirate factions are the central nexus of their clusters and all connections to other regions go via their space (long gate connections to keep the unjumpable distance between regions). Make pipe camping in C85-, FWST-, YZ-LQL, 4GQ-/LGK and so on relevant and farmable again.

That is not a suggestion from them, by the way. They just jumped on the bandwagon.

You punish player effort. Your suggestion does the opposite of what you want.

How about you start doing that instead of only asking for punishment of player effort and player cooperation?

I have never crabbed in space that was part of an oppressive power bloc. Nulli Secunda space back in the days was constantly being harassed by hostiles from NPC Delve. GOTG was a medium size coalition by today’s standards and regularly under pressure from Goons and N3. When I was with MC, we only had a single constellation and I ratted in one of the forward systems close to the entry. I’m currently blue with one of the 2 biggest blocs, sure, but I have not crabbed in the traditional sense (ie. Ishtars, Carriers, Supers) and make most of my money in hostile territory.

From my perspective, healthy space is where people can build actual empires, build out space for real, instead of being forced scrape by just because some rando small group thinks they are too big. What I want is that space rewards cooperation, which is something CCP can’t stop talking about, while limiting the reach outside the main focus area.

15

The problem is that space already rewards cooperation.

The reason those blocs get bigger and bigger is because cooperation wins. N+1 wins.

What I’m asking is not for big groups to lose space and to lose members, although that would be a welcome side-effect. What I’m asking for is for the balance of incentives to be slightly less in favour of N+1 than it is now.

Most people will still join the largest blocs anyway, even with my suggestions. They won’t die. I just hope more smaller groups will be able to live, by reducing incentives for players to join the big blocs and reducing the reasons for big blocs to sprawl too much.

An I say reducing, not removing, because I think cooperation should still be valuable. And I think that big empires are still very much part of EVE’s gameplay. Just that they could be toned down a bit to make room for more variation of groups in null sec.

16

Isn’t that hard to figure why I said: Those upgrades can be linked to adjacent star systems, which means you can use Power and Workforce from ~5 or more systems to focus on the “fortress”.

The upkeep requirement values have to be balanced around what is reasonably possible, but also hard to achieve and maintain. It should not be easy nor cheap to do this, as said, it’s a long-term project for large alliances. But it also shouldn’t make such a fortified system “invincible”, thus the requirement to be able to control also the sources of your “fuel” in case of a siege. Invaders can and will cut supply lines if you cannot mobilize fleets to stop them, and slowly but steadily the “walls” of upgrades will break down. But that only happens during a large invasion and a battle for conquest, small roams and assaults will have little to no effect on those upgrades.

17

Then your suggestion will lead to the opposite of what you want to achieve. You want to reduce the means to build large empires/sov holding, which inherently means you reduce the means to build any meaningful empire/sov holdings.

Currently, we have the largest number of “small groups” independently living in Sov Null (ie not renters) in a decade with Delve, Querious, Cloud Ring, the whole of Drones being in the hands of Small/Medium alliances, and they even fight among each other. With reduced resources to prevent empire sprawl, you limit their abilities to hold space and live in that space. CCP will already punish their cooperation to hold space by removing Ansi access for friends with benefits of these small groups.

You see, that is your issue and that is CCP’s issue all the time: Hope. You hope things happen. You don’t make sure they will happen. Hope is poor guidance.

18

How are those two the same thing?

Something that hits large empires does not necessarily also have to hit small groups in null.

For example by reducing the resource of CRAB beacons: the amount of signal interference a system can take before being capped out, this only limits groups with capital umbrellas who can run those CRAB beacons, without hurting the small groups.

FCCP can limit large groups without also limiting small groups. The challenge is finding a way how, while many players in those blocs naturally ask for the opposite thing.

19

If you cannot use a resource in the first place, how would reducing it for blocs improve the situation for the small group? How would that drive people out of a bloc into a small group? It would not. It would make it even harder for the small groups to actually be able to use this resource in the first place because of how little space they own.

grafik
grafik1328×1378 134 KB

Looking at the map, only 1 bloc actually uses CRABs at all. All other groups don’t use them a lot or not at all. Which in turn means, at least judging by this snapshot, you only limit this resource for 1 bloc, the other 2 big blocs don’t see any change, small groups don’t have any benefits from this. This is not going to improve a thing at all.

We’ve had other limits in the past. For instance, excessive and toxic respawn timers for anomalies thanks to Rattati. This limitation drove even more people, chars and alts into the big blocs instead of making it possible for smaller groups to exist and grow, simply because big blocs have the space and infrastructure to compensate this toxic punishment game design approach to an extent. Limited mining resources? Same story. What else? Limit the infrastructure maintenance resources energy, workforce and whateverthethirdis? Which means you require more space to do anything.

1 Like
20

Such a change wouldn’t impact small groups directly, because as you say the small groups cannot use those resources in the first place.

What it does is reduce incentives for players to join the big blocs, therefore less of an incentive for players to ignore joining the small blocs. After all, right now the main way someone can run a CRAB beacon in relative safety is to join a big bloc, which is one of many incentives for players to ignore small groups and join big groups instead. Reducing such incentives makes small groups relatively more attractive.

So indirectly it would be a buff to small groups if big groups had fewer incentives like that.