Thursday, 18 August 2011

Nulling about

A new blog came out about reshaping null sec (bloggity bloggity) and my interest it was piqued.  I've been into null sec all of once so far and I ended up losing both my ship and pod.  I was very new to the game still and bought a Heron from a corp or alliance mate not knowing the ship was in null.  I decided to go fetch it before I could use a cov ops cloak.  I was at the high sec gate and decided to jump to 100 to check the gate for a camp.  No bubble was up so I proceeded to slowboat to the gate instead of turning to 150km for a warp.  Part of the way there a bubble went up, my cloak got dropped somehow (still don't know if bubbles can uncloak you), and I died.  All in all I had fun seeing something new, found out I needed to learn much more about bubbles, and I've been curious about null ever since.

I haven't gone back to null however for two reasons.  The first is I like my corp and they haven't made the decision to move to null.  The second is I'm not sure what I would do out in the deep black.  I'm mainly a mission runner with most of my interest in playing the game being the low stress environment of empire space.  I like the freedom of choosing to do whatever I feel like doing and not having to worry about someone camping the system or small gangs hunting me down.  Similiar to the reasons I don't like low sec, but I can at least see myself one day moving into null whereas I doubt I ever enjoy staying in low.

Then I read the blog and the emphasis being placed on allowing small groups to own a slice of star studded space.  Now there are visions of having a pos, getting into manufacturing, hunting down sites for exploration, and of course having some fun in PVP.  Should the designers come up with some way to offer me a "secure" base of operations then I would be more than willing to give null a try.

I won't be beholden to a mega alliance though, and I won't pay rent.  The game isn't about making mountains of iskies, being the best at PVP, having the biggest ships, or owning the most space.  The game for me is chatting with friends, having some kind of mission/objective that is achievable and is relaxing, or trying stuff I've never done before.  Currently the impression I have of null sec is that it only caters to the bigger groups and I would have to join a large conglomeration to have a chance of getting a place that is somewhat secure.  Rent must be paid regardless of my activity level and in the end logging on would add stress instead of taking it away.

I'd like to see CCP put in small group friendly changes sooner so more people can try out null sec on their own terms.  I realize a lot of current nullsec dwellers don't like a carebear mentality, but the distribution of population clearly shows more people prefer the relaxed atmosphere of high sec.  Hopefully CCP will be able to make changes that allow the hardcore to still feel like they are tougher than the rest and allow the rest of us to get out there to enjoy the parts of the game we like.  There is room for compromise and I'm glad to see the dev's acknowledging that carebears might go into null if there is a bit less stress.


  1. Bubbles don't decloak you. Since you can't use a covops cloak, it's likely a cloaky dictor was there waiting and saw you land and cloak, and you maybe triggered the cloak on accident. Said cloaky dictor then bubbled and smashed you. Or you got too close to something not on overview, it's hard to say.

    Null sec alliances won't demand time you can't give, but as you say, the rent must be paid. If your participation in CTAs is lacking (no ISK rent), you get kicked, and the same if you fail the pay the ISK rent if you owe it (no CTAs).

    Also as you say, only large alliances (usually a coalition of alliances). It's necessary for survival.

    I don't ever see non-npc null being open to small alliances without forming a huge coalition. Without forming a powerful coalition, the alliance won't stand a chance of holding territory against the larger foe.

  2. I think significant changes will have to be made to the way null works. Off hand I would say that system modules designed to block the entrance of certain class of ships would be one way a small alliance could hold territory. There could also be a population limiting module.

    Example: System XYZ is rated for an alliance of 50 members. This system has a capital jump block preventing all combat ships of capital size or larger from jumping in. Additionally the alliance has set up a pop limiter restricting total number of neutrals or lower status to no more than 50 personnel. The alliance is limited to 75 friendly personnel in system at one time.

    The above example would still allow small scale combat, would require the alliance to maintain an active membership, and provide a home environment to live in. Should the alliance wish to expand into the capital ship market they would have to use a different system or run the risk of letting caps into their home ground. Should the alliance grow in size they would have to increase the threat against them. Finally, if the alliance were to grow smaller the modules could be adjusted downwards as well.

    System resources would be tied to the population inhibitor and a specific income per capita ratio would ensure funds are sufficient but not over powered.

    Hmm... this post just inspired me to make a full fledged post on this topic. Yay \o/