Remove some of the connection points in eve null

Can you please remove some of the connection points in null, especially in npc null? This would help create a better, calculated form of control over the regions. Since the blackout was added, removing some of the many connection points in regions like curse or stain will enable entities there to take a better position on defending those region.

until the many connection points are removed, these regions will never really offer much in the form of potential saftey. Effectively, places like the npc regions in the south east need more back end constellations, etc.

(connection points here being if a system has more then 2 other connected systems)

Why do these entities need this “better position on defending those regions”?
Is there a demand for it? Will it help the game overall? Is there a need for it?

Or are you just throwing out poorly thought random ideas again, Naari?


Yes, the regions in general are undesirable, and have been plagued with non-stop wars forever. I am a big fan of buffing the value of npc space, its trade offs should be clearly distinguishable from sov space, and probably should involve interaction with null missions, and the defensive aspects of never losing a home.

Light years ahead of you.

you say that as if it is a bad thing.

also NPC stations cannot be destroyed.


1 Like

My guess is the op wants more choke points so its easire for alts to spot incoming roamers.


If you want potential safety, hi-sec is the place.


They are busy crying about the sky falling because they may have to deal with a tri-recon squad periodically.

1 Like

Except, statistically, as stated by ccp, high sec is the most dangerous place in eve. It always will be as long as suicide ganking is part of the game play.


In the same way Luxembourg is more dangerous than space…

Meanwhile in non-moron land, the average high sec player encounters less danger than the average null sec player.



Over 50% of the wars in this game are in high sec. and all of those wars are done by 6 corporations, who sluaghter the target they war dec, In fact its so bad, only 3% of the people dec’d are able to score ONE KILL. we’re talking 130: 0 KDA factor.

Its insanity to think this is healthy for the game.

This needs to go now!

Over 50% of wardecs are in hi-sec? You don’t say!

100% of gun crime happen on the earth. So uranus is a more hospitable planet.


You dont know that. Aliens could be out there with gun crime.

The wardec dynamics would be shifted largely if they were required to entosis structures in null. This would stop the annoying games, and validate a more role-play centric position of null war’s meaning something. It’d also help the economy significantly.

AT the end of the day, People leave this game because of the massive amounts of abuse, and bad income rates they experience in high sec, because you guys dont have enough of it to come play in null with the rest of us big boys.

Your bullies, and im here on eve forums to bully you and teach you a lesson.

One of the reasons people leave any game, not just eve, is because they lose a lot and either can’t or don’t want to persist with a game they keep losing at.

That’s all it is. One player shooting another in hisec is not bullying, it’s just one victory won by one person/group over another.

Yeah we can try to find a healthy balance such that noobs are not oppressed by vets and industry is a viable operation for a wide range of players. But that healthy balance also needs ways for players to shoot eachother and kick each others sandcastles down, and not just once in a while for a small group of people. Constant production by everyone needs constant destruction by everyone on a fairly even scale. Otherwise you get what we’ve had for the past 5 years which has ruined the game experience and ruined the economy.

Nerfing the wardecs is what caused the statistics you’ve quoted, and nerfing them again (in the name of safety and the new players) has caused a ‘double-downing’ of the majority of wardecs created by just a few groups. If you want the opposite where wardecs are spread across more groups with more kills on either side then what you want is not more nerfs, but instead the wardec cost to go back to a few million and for decs to be opened up against corps without structures again.

That’s how you get new players fighting new players. That’s how new players ‘stick-it’ to vets. By being allowed to wardec, and to choose who they wardec.

1 Like

These are contradictions.

People lose things by being bullied. It is undoubtedly the major source of New player retention issues in eve, hands down, and it is the second greatest source of retention loss for the game as a whole (new and old players a like).

Not really. It’s always been this way, since the age of privateers. CCP should of left war dec caps at 3, when they had it hard-locked there. They should uncomment that code, it was a really good change for the game on many different levels for many reasons.

No. Statistically, most new players do not want to do pvp. They just go thrown into a massive game which has historically the highest complexity the industry has seen. They are over whelmed, and desperate for skill points and isk. PvP Is very unlikely the thing they are focusing on, unless that is, it comes from free hand outs, in which case those inclined to pvp (<20% of the over all population) will go do it.

Then we come to other issues like being punished doing missions with friends, having absurdly low income rates, and so on.

Eve loses 50% of its players in their first two hours of game play.

You think that’s to do with bullying?

Let’s ignore the bull-■■■■ you got caught trying to pull on new players…


Region control is already a problem with nulsec, if anything they should make it harder to control, not easier.

They should also add more nulsec regions IMO.

Of players that have never played this game and try it yes, however, 2 hours is far longer the the suggested time frame most designers say you need to hook someone ( less then a minute) so eve is either doing really good in this way, or its a totally bogus metric (i’d vote latter because i dont trust the lies and falsified metrics hellmar pushes).

They need to hardset the amount of systems you can claim for an alliance. It probably has to be based off the amount of people a system can support linked with the average sizes of alliances (or better yet, targeted desired sizes or a mix of the two).

Imo, alliances should not be able to have more then 3 allies (blue standings) and should not be able to hold more then 15 systems.

You just pick the metrics that you think support your agenda. What a surprise.

1 Like

I’m sure having 1 gate to defend would be easier than 3.

Null bears trying to return null to bear country :rofl: