The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
3529

They will.

How do I know? They’re making null safer and safer and hope for alliances to create connections between everywhere. Nullsec once was space for colonisation, but this can not keep going on forever. That’s just not going to happen, at all, because there are too many big ones and the cycles simply are not going to repeat themselves any more on a scale that matters.

So null sec will become player’s empire space and we’ll get new space for colonisation eventually, just like Seagull announced we would.

3530

It was easier because gate were already there, now they would have to build them themselves and protect them, it would be whole new level of engagement. Connect the dots the way they like them to be not how it was premade, wholly control of sov space.

3531

I assume we will see Dev blogs and forum stuff, and I,hope we spend a good chunk of time on it at the CSM summit in February.

3532

The gates are replacing jump bridges. And speaking of stuff at fanfest, I want my customized skins

3533

105/1
Lets balance it.

3534

Which part of this do you see as a buff to nullsec defenders?

3535

How about you let players balance that out themselves?

1 Like
3536

Players have. That’s why the kill ratio is currently 105:1. The ‘balance’ right now is ‘one side attacks, the other doesn’t defend’.

So one of the goals needs to be to produce something that settles into a better balance.

3537

So these players that don’t already shoot back, how are they suddenly going to be interested in shooting back?

Does CCP intend on drawing more pvpers into highsec?

1 Like
3538

They’re not. They’re going to not anchor their own structures and not get wardec’d. If you remove the ‘we won’t fight back’ from the target pool, what you’re left with is the people who will.

3539

Care to guess how frequent we find that a group fights back over a structure?

1 Like
3540

Or, the other defends and gets utterly wrecked.

3541

I don’t have to guess. When the defending group has a structure anchored, all wardecs across EVE average 1.655 kills per week. Considering the number of idiots you guys kill who belong to null groups (who do, after all, have structures anchored), I’d say the numbers indicate that highsec targets tend not to defend their structures.

Remember? Posted it upthread by about 91 messages? This, for the record, is unsurprising. But this will discourage those groups from anchoring structures before they’re willing to defend them, and allow for the cleanup of structure spam.

And if that means the predators who’ve overhunted the herds end up starving for a while… welcome to ecology.

Edit: incidentally, that eventuality was pretty much inevitable when you’re hunting targets who don’t fight. The predator/prey population ratio has been inverted for some time now. You’ve been fishing out stocks that collapsed years ago.

2 Likes
3542

And CCP wants to fatten the piggybank when its still time. :smirk:

3543

Or they’re hoping that by following the Norwegian model, they can manage sustainable farming. Cod stock collapse and rebound is something the top-level CCP guys would have reason to know about, after all.

1 Like
3544

The fact that NS will now build their own gate network with range much farther than regular ones. Link them all to main hub or capital and just send capitals all around your domain. If not just spam beacons everywhere. Add to that cyno jammers in every system you want. On top of that all above structures will be in range of citadels weapons. Content just died. I’m just waiting for nullification removal from combat ships as some CSM want to and there you go. If you want such huge money from NS it must be more dangerous not less. Risk will be close to 0 when this patch hit TQ.

3545

I wonder what you people will day when the merc k/d gets even higher with this fix :thinking:

3546

Let’s go down the numbers:

  1. No. These are replacing jump bridges, which do everything these do except for needing an ACL, allowing tolls, and passing capitals. In fact, while JBs do have fatigue, they also have a 7LY limit, not 5LY as these will be. Also, ‘range much farther than regular ones’… uhm… what?
    Have you ever looked at the distances crossed by some stargates? Regional gates cross more than 5 (or indeed, 7) light-tears, but so do some constellation gates within a region. These new gates will not, for example, circumvent the Y-2/ZXB chokepoint between Fountain and Delve, or the J5A/B-D gate between Fountain and Cloud Ring. Not even close.
  1. Do you think nullsec groups don’t do this now? At max fatigue, it’s 30 minutes before you can jump again. It takes 3 jumps to get that high.
  1. There is literally a cyno beacon in every system in Delve. Other groups have the same thing set up. The only difference here is the new beacons will use ACLs, so allies can jump in as well. That means holding your own space will be less important, and null groups can consolidate more if they have half a brain, freeing up more of the map.
  1. The only thing that prevents this now is the price tag. And even that doesn’t, when there’s a war on. In the final stages of the Northern War, every system in the constellations around the defenders’ keepstars was cyno jammed. We had to take down the ihubs in those systems to break their ability to anchor jammers.

Right now, they’re all in range of a POS’s guns.

As things stand right now, all of the dire predictions you’re making are in effect. when this change goes through, though, things get… interesting. For example: right now, someone comes along and RFs your jump bridge. Then they leave. You bring out a few faxes or a dozen logi, and rep up the jb, turn it back on, and keep going. Elapsed time? Maybe an hour.

Once these structures are in, someone comes along and RFs your Ansiblex (the gate), if you’re lucky, it’ll come out of RF in an hour and you can defend it. If you’re not lucky, you can form up to defend it tomorrow. But you’re not getting it back online until then. And the same is true of the beacons.

Wanna know the really funny move that’ll happen, though?

People will put 3 jammers in systems, because they can. Only one of these gets to be online. Only the online jammer gives notifications (because anchored-but-offline structures don’t give notifications).

So the enemy comes in, finds your jammers, kills the two offline ones outright. They can do that. Then they start shooting the third one. As they do that, they are anchoring 2 jammers of their own[1]. That means when the defenders go to anchor their own… they can’t, unless they’re willing to blow up one of the attackers’ jammers…

… but by then, the attacker’s still got an open window to bring capitals in, which is what you desperately needed to avoid in the first place.

And you think this gives a defensive advantage? Oh my, no. [/Farnsworth]

  1. Because if you paid attention, Lebowski said that you don’t have to be the guy who owns the space OR the IHUB to anchor these things someplace. The intent, obviously, is that people who live in space with someone else’s ihub can anchor a defensive jammer if needed, but it’s going to be used offensively, trust me.
4 Likes
3547

Still think that CCP should granulate/tier wars so that a corporation assumes more risk/war level per structure anchored. A PvE corp usually cannot challenge a PvP corporation on anything approaching a fair/equal basis. To an industrial or mining corporation, a cruiser may represent their ship of the line, a BC their flagship. CCP should tailor the wardec mechanics so that the defender’s previous structure anchoring decisions declares the level of ante they are willing to put on the table; no more all wars are all total wars. More PvE corporations might be willing to put their toe in the pool of PvP if they felt that there was a limit to their loss and that they knew that loss level potential ahead of time by their previous decissions to build a certain number/types of structures.
Initial and very rough idea for corp tiers:
NPC corp
Social corp ((NPC or other corps station office)
Class C corp, 1 structure which stats are equal to NPC station in services and percentages available. Wars fought with destroyers and below
Class B corp, 2 structures with 1 of them able to be improved beyond NPC stats in regards to percentages/services. Wars fought with BC and less.
Class A corp, unlimited structures, just like current mechanics, wars fought with all ships.

The goal is to let a corporation open a door, walk down to the street, turn the corner, and then let him decide what path he is going to take to the store based on his risk assessment. Now days, it’s more like open door, met with baseball bat or gun. If you gradually tie increasing the rewards/opportunites to accepting a higher risk/level of war, you encourage more wars even if they are at a lesser intensity. However, for many people, the lower intensity is perceived as both more fair and, much more importantly, more fun even if they lose. This creates more fun and content for everyone.

3548

and which part of “we will have gates now in every system possible” you don’t get it? Who cares about offensive using of jammers when defender just blob caps on you with gates without fatigue. Yeah I prettty sure that will boost defenders. It will be gates, jammers have no use there.