These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

"New Space" should equal EVE 1.1

Author
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#1 - 2014-01-11 00:45:41 UTC
TLDR version: New space introduced by CCP shouldn't just copy/paste the rules/gameplay from the rest of New Eden. Instead, take the opportunity to get creative and really CRAFT new space to be unique, with different rules, travel, resources, AI, etc.

The long version:

So CCP Seagull has a great vision of space exploration and colonization, and plans to give us the opportunity to discover and explore new regions of space over the next few expansions. While that in itself is a cool idea, I think CCP needs to basically take things a step further than what I suspect they are planning.

I would propose that any new areas of space that open up be looked upon as point releases to EVE itself.

By that, I mean, EVE 2.0 is probably never going to happen and that's fine, but I see absolutely no reason to just copy and paste old/bad/tired game play mechanics from the current EVE game over into any new space.

Instead, think of this as an opportunity to make EVE 2, the way you would after having 10 years of experience making EVE. At least, as much as possible. Ships are ships, that'll obviously transfer over to new space, but there's so many things that don't have to.

When Apocrypha was launched, that was almost like EVE 1.01, in that, it created an entirely new "terrain" or "flavours" of space for players to explore and find their niche in. While it was the same game, things play very differently in WHs than they do in the other flavours of space (highsec, lowsec, FW, null). FW shares most nullsec mechanics/flavour, but adds a dab of its own, so I counted it separately.

WH space is decent example of what I want to see in new flavours of space, but it didn't' take it far enough. While it had different NPC AI, resources, salvage, travel rules, ships from such, ect, lots of legacy stuff carried over too. Stuff like asteroids, PI, moons (POSs), etc. were all just copy/pasted from the current game.



For new flavours of space, why not take it to the next logical conclusion. Don't copy and paste game play from EVE as much as possible.

We don't need the same old rats, isk rewards, loot drops, etc. that the rest of the game provides, we need new and unique PvE content that focuses on different styles of game play and tactics than the rest of the game, and provides rewards unique to the new space.

We don't need the same old exploration sites that the rest of the game has, we need new and unique ones, with unique rewards.

We don't need the same old mining experience and rewards. No more Trit-Zyd minerals. Make a new mining experience, played with new modules/ships to get new resources unique to the space. Be it ring mining geared toward coop game play, or whatever, just don't' copy/paste asteroids/moon mins here.

We don't need new places to carry out PI. Use planets for a different interaction instead, if anything, that provides, again, unique rewards to the flavour space it is in. Also think very carefully about allowing nullsec outposts being allowed here. I'd rather you instead create whole new arrays of space infrastructure blessedly free of the old ****** code that EVE 1.0 is based on.

We don't need to copy/paste the moon/POS system. We don't need more sources of moon goo, and certainly NOT the same extraction method. In fact, just disallow POSs altogether, and focus instead on their replacement either in whole or add tons of mobile (and less mobile) structures that provide the infrastructure support of players.

Don't copy/paste the travel system from EVE 1.0. WH space was great for this, it added a new and unique method of travel from the rest of the game. Think along those lines. Don't just copy/paste gates, cynos/jumps, WH, etc just because its easier, invent new mechanics that enrich and diversify the experience from the rest of New Eden.

Build meaningful industries from the new resources each flavour of space has to offer, with some crossover to the rest of EVE to connect everything. T3 is a good example here. Maybe not the ships themselves, but the idea that there are new ships/modules/implants that everyone wants, but the resources to build them are only located in WH space.

Other game play mechanics don't have to be copy/pasted either. Effects in WH space was the start of this, but you don't have to stop there. There is no reason, for instance, that remote reps/assistance has to function the same way if it all.

There is no reason fleet bonuses have to work the same way/at all everywhere. Limited to squad only? Why not?

There's no reason communications have to work the same way everywhere.

Consider how different game play would be if broadcasts, keep at range, orbit, etc didn't work? Stolen shamefully from someone in the mobile structure ideas thread, but just consider how different the game would play if you had to truly manually fly your ship yourself?
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#2 - 2014-01-11 00:45:52 UTC
There is no reason to support alliance/corp infrastructure. You may want to, but there's no 11th commandment forcing that decision, and certainly not in every flavour of space.

Finally, there's no reason to just create ONE more flavour of space. Make a bunch! Lots of people are tired of the same old vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, napoleon, and chocolate chip ice cream they've been eating for years. Instead, offer them cookies and cream flavour instead.
Better yet, offer them yogurt and cake and pie and.... different desserts entirely. Still desserts, but really unique game experiences.


In Conclusion:


EVE's code is ancient and so are a LOT of its design decisions. EVE 2.0 might actually be a good idea, but realistically I accept that it won't happen. However, that's no reason to just continually use the same old and tired design/systems that New Eden already. If you want to grow EVE's customer base, then you also need to satisfy more varied styles of game play and play styles to do so.

So, to add even more analogies, instead of just expanding the sandbox sideways and tossing in more of the same beach sand, why not add a connecting tube to another sandbox and fill it with purple sand instead, then another with top soils, another with gravel and another with coloured marbles.
Thanks for reading.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2014-01-11 01:16:16 UTC
This is just wormholes on steroids though...
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#4 - 2014-01-11 02:11:06 UTC
tldr; OP wants to play a different game.


Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#5 - 2014-01-11 02:14:24 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
This is just wormholes on steroids though...


Not necessarily. They don't HAVE to change everything, but its a great opportunity to. My examples were just that though, examples and food for thought, nothing else.

Think of the problem of "Fix Nullsec" or "Make nullsec better". What does that mean? Tens of thousands of players play there, and they have 10 thousand views on what would make it better, all based on their preferred game play and style. Its an intractable problem really, because there is no "right" solution for everyone.

So instead of fundamentally changing how nullsec works, you could create nullsec 2.0. A new kind of space that is similar but different. Leave the current nullsec design generally as is for those players who like it, and instead make a new kind of space that fills a niche for another group of players.

As one example:

How many players have quit EVE or dropped out of nullsec because they are sick of huge blobs? They may love the idea of sov, and ownership, space empires and all that, but over time the scale of the blob has gone so far that they aren't interested anymore? Why not create new regions of space with different rulesets that "tend to" cater toward that group of player? I don't mean hard code anything, but just like the mechanics of WH space "tend to" limit group size, the new space would as well. You could still claim sov, but it would tend to be smaller groups instead of huge alliances/coalitions.

However, why copy/paste the HP based sov mechanic over? Make something more suitable for the smaller entities you designed the space for, but that can scale properly for fringe areas of course.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2014-01-11 02:43:41 UTC
Draekas Darkwater wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
This is just wormholes on steroids though...


Not necessarily. They don't HAVE to change everything, but its a great opportunity to. My examples were just that though, examples and food for thought, nothing else.

Think of the problem of "Fix Nullsec" or "Make nullsec better". What does that mean? Tens of thousands of players play there, and they have 10 thousand views on what would make it better, all based on their preferred game play and style. Its an intractable problem really, because there is no "right" solution for everyone.

So instead of fundamentally changing how nullsec works, you could create nullsec 2.0. A new kind of space that is similar but different. Leave the current nullsec design generally as is for those players who like it, and instead make a new kind of space that fills a niche for another group of players.

As one example:

How many players have quit EVE or dropped out of nullsec because they are sick of huge blobs? They may love the idea of sov, and ownership, space empires and all that, but over time the scale of the blob has gone so far that they aren't interested anymore? Why not create new regions of space with different rulesets that "tend to" cater toward that group of player? I don't mean hard code anything, but just like the mechanics of WH space "tend to" limit group size, the new space would as well. You could still claim sov, but it would tend to be smaller groups instead of huge alliances/coalitions.

However, why copy/paste the HP based sov mechanic over? Make something more suitable for the smaller entities you designed the space for, but that can scale properly for fringe areas of course.

as long as their are mechanics allowing people to get from point A to point B, there will be a blob.

if you restrict number of bodies allowed into the system, it will end with both sides rushing to N+1 eachother to win the bodycount, or if it is only X number from each side, the race will be to get as many combat alts as possible into the enemies corp to AWOX during the fight.

Even in wormholes (as an ex-SYJ pilot), blobbing is common, you just have to know WH mechanics.

no, the ISSUE with BLOBS in nullsec has NOTHING to do with number of people, as much as how quickly you can get that many people across the galaxy to defend that 1 system you have no business holding from a small group trying to take their first system.

On top of that, they cant just keep making tons of space to cater to EVERY niche of player, else youll end up with players who have no reason to ever see someone who plays differently, playerbase splits, pop density drops, and the game ends up dying, forcing multiple people to adapt their playstyles to an environment is the ONLY way to "force" interaction. theres already a place for people who dotn want HUGE blobs, its WH space, if they dont like the other mechanics involved or not rpesent in WH's, then tough luck for them.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#7 - 2014-01-11 02:59:05 UTC
New space is a terrible idea really. It serves no purpose other than either obsoleting old content or adding power to whichever entity grabs it first. We have many problems in the existing space that need solving first.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2014-01-11 03:13:57 UTC
Draekas Darkwater wrote:
Why not create new regions of space with different rulesets that "tend to" cater toward that group of player? I don't mean hard code anything, but just like the mechanics of WH space "tend to" limit group size, the new space would as well.

Sorry sir... but the REASON that big null-sec blobs don't often exist in wormhole space is due in large part to "hard coded mechanics."

Mass restrictions, unreliable points of access, lack of hot-dropping, and lack of permanent stations are those things.

And... here's the best part... none of those things can actually prevent blobs from forming. They just make the logistics of blobing extremely hard.
But, if someone is willing to spend the time and effort to bring in a godawful amount of people despite those restrictions nothing can stop him/her

So what if you can't make fleets? No problem. Just set the people you are working with as "blue" (or bring them into your corporation/alliance) and filter them out of your overview. You can act as a fleet even without being in one. You just lack the ability to warp to people, fleet warp, make broadcasts, or have links (which are nothing that can't be worked around).

How about taking away the ability for people to set contact lists or filter the overview? Okay... we'll stick to ranged combat and set the overview by distance. Or have everyone use the same ship type and nuke anything that isn't that.

However there comes a tipping point where if you take too many things away in order to force players to "behave" a certain way... the game will become extremely tedious, time consuming, and be less of a "sandbox."



Draekas Darkwater wrote:
However, why copy/paste the HP based sov mechanic over? Make something more suitable for the smaller entities you designed the space for, but that can scale properly for fringe areas of course.

What would you propose then?

Everyone HATES bashing structures... but what better method is there? If you reduce the HP of structures so that a small gang can take it down then a larger force can take it down quicker.

What about dividing up the HP of a single SOV structure into many different "smaller" ones (so you have to "scatter" your forces)? It was already done. Pre-Dominion SOV was based on the amount of POSs people had in a system. If you wanted to take a system, you had to kill all the POSs. People HATED it.

How about "capture the flag" timers like in Faction Warfare? Nope... players HATE that too. It's just a matter of piling enough people into a complex to prevent anyone else of taking it... then wait. Rinse and repeat.



What it really comes down to is this:

Without creating extremely arbitrary and draconian "hard limits"... how can you create a system that is simple and easy enough for a soloist or small group to handle that can't be done better by a more organized group of players?
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#9 - 2014-01-11 03:23:09 UTC
Spreading people out is a possibility, but I tend to think that you'll attract more people back to EVE by catering to different playstyles better. EVE's population has basically been stagnant since 2009 according to concurrancy numbers. I think EVE's playerbase has pretty much plataued, plus or minus a few thousand for those people who enjoy what EVE currently has to offer.

To grow the game, I think CCP broaden the appeal to more types of players. I don't mean dumb it down, or turn it into carebear land either.

Just reverse the argument though and play it out. We'll say that EVE is too sparsely populated already, why don't we just remove WH space so that all those folks come play with the rest of us?

Will all of the WH community continue to play EVE, or will some portion quit because their playstyle has been killed off?
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#10 - 2014-01-11 03:43:52 UTC
Well I meant hard coded as in, "fleet sizes are limited to 50" or "alliance sizes are hard coded to 500".

The mechanics are obviously hard coded. However, the choice of mechanics will "tend to" support one way of playing over another, without hard coding it.

So using the no communications idea, sure you can have a fleet of 1000 peeps, but organizing them effectively will be extremely challenging. Having no one you can "anchor to", having to warp yourself rather than fleet warp, ect. How many more people will "tend to" die to bombers, or stray away from the group, or have crappy transveral because they are used to just orbiting, etc.

So while sure you could theoretically get 1000 very personally skilled players in one fleet who can do all that, as well as target with no broadcasts, remote rep without broadcasts and only a limited watch list, etc, the odds of that happening are very small I would think.

If those specific mechanics were chosen for one type of space, then I think it would tend to favour highly skilled and organized groups of smaller players. Groups of individually skilled pilots who can work together well, and small gang play in general.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#11 - 2014-01-11 04:00:08 UTC
Draekas Darkwater wrote:
Well I meant hard coded as in, "fleet sizes are limited to 50" or "alliance sizes are hard coded to 500".

The mechanics are obviously hard coded. However, the choice of mechanics will "tend to" support one way of playing over another, without hard coding it.

So using the no communications idea, sure you can have a fleet of 1000 peeps, but organizing them effectively will be extremely challenging. Having no one you can "anchor to", having to warp yourself rather than fleet warp, ect. How many more people will "tend to" die to bombers, or stray away from the group, or have crappy transveral because they are used to just orbiting, etc.

So while sure you could theoretically get 1000 very personally skilled players in one fleet who can do all that, as well as target with no broadcasts, remote rep without broadcasts and only a limited watch list, etc, the odds of that happening are very small I would think.

If those specific mechanics were chosen for one type of space, then I think it would tend to favour highly skilled and organized groups of smaller players. Groups of individually skilled pilots who can work together well, and small gang play in general.

Teamspeak.
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#12 - 2014-01-11 04:19:57 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Teamspeak.


Slower, less efficient and more chaotic. IE more prone to pilot error.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#13 - 2014-01-11 04:30:53 UTC
Point is that any in game 'restriction' like that can be bypassed. And only serves to make people feel punished.
I am disposable
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-01-11 04:33:22 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
New space is a terrible idea really. It serves no purpose other than either obsoleting old content or adding power to whichever entity grabs it first. We have many problems in the existing space that need solving first.


This.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#15 - 2014-01-11 04:54:00 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Point is that any in game 'restriction' like that can be bypassed. And only serves to make people feel punished.


As I read the OP, I cannot help but that think three things:

1. He hates Eve players and wants us to suffer. Nearly all of the things the OP proposes just don't add up to a very fun game.
2. He hates Eve and wishes it was something else. Nearly all of the proposals are anti-Sandbox.
3. Nearly all of his changes would make it almost impossible to multibox, which means fewer accounts, which means less revenue for CCP.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Tsobai Hashimoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2014-01-11 04:54:16 UTC
I like the idea of adding in more space, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water and change up everything....I Honestly thing WH space did go far enough and added a lot to it...and many of the things you want new space to do, WH space did do

it had new NPCs and tougher and smarter ones, it had new loot drops and no isk drops, it was 100% diffrent on how you moved, it had all new mining stuff (gas harvesting) that made all new modules


Anyways, new space would be a ton of fun, add in a lot more content, and can have some really cool fresh things to do....

I would also like to seem them expand current space, I think WH space needs to be expanded, a Class 7 / 8 would be really interesting, at the same time, this would be a good time to add in T3 BC or T3 BS. and the extra / new resources one needs to build them

Also I feel that Class 7 / 8 should be void of planets and moons so no POSs, make it more truly exploration,

I also feel FW Space can be expanded and improved still, it could really use more mechanics to make the Corps and Alliances within FW more organized (like an isk tax on each LP spent that either goes to your NPC Corp "wasted" or to your corp) this would improve SRP etc. but you really can add more to the space itself, and even have more difficult plexs using the exploration, and have FW Hacking plexs etc.


And OFC. 0.0 sov needs a nice big overhaul :-)
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#17 - 2014-01-11 05:01:08 UTC
Draekas Darkwater wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Teamspeak.


Slower, less efficient and more chaotic. IE more prone to pilot error.

Lol

You have no idea how fleets work do you? (hint: with a good FC making sure everyone knows their roles, it's the opposite).
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views
#18 - 2014-01-11 05:19:24 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Point is that any in game 'restriction' like that can be bypassed. And only serves to make people feel punished.


As I read the OP, I cannot help but that think three things:

1. He hates Eve players and wants us to suffer. Nearly all of the things the OP proposes just don't add up to a very fun game.
2. He hates Eve and wishes it was something else. Nearly all of the proposals are anti-Sandbox.
3. Nearly all of his changes would make it almost impossible to multibox, which means fewer accounts, which means less revenue for CCP.


1. How's that? I'm sure some people won't like any new and different space they might add, just like some players hate nullsec, and others hate highsec. A subset of players will enjoy it, however, assuming CCP designs it to be fun for them.

2. Not at all. I've played for over 8 years. Some things I like, others I dislike, others I'm indifferent about. No area of space really fits me completely. Its not a square peg, round hole situation though, more like a circle trying to fit into various elliptically shaped holes.

I don't see how anything I said is anti sandbox. The sandbox remains, its constituents are simply different.

3. Some changes might, some might not. I'm not advocating for any specific changes, only that things ARE changed to create new opportunities for different play styles to thrive.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2014-01-11 11:01:14 UTC
Draekas Darkwater wrote:
Well I meant hard coded as in, "fleet sizes are limited to 50" or "alliance sizes are hard coded to 500".



If this space is linked to existing space, then how on earth would restrictions like that even work? Say I have a 250 strong CFC interceptor gang and fly into this new space. What happens? Do we all get booted out of our alliances or something?
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#20 - 2014-01-11 16:24:31 UTC
Poorly thought out idea is very poorly thought out.

I read through the OP's post and I immediately get the impression the OP has probably limited himself to non confrontational content and I am left with no specific idea or organized plan for what he wants. It's mostly a very fluffy, long, disorganized, long, aimless, 2 posts full, long, and unexplored "make it better" mentallity.

Until there are some more concrete or better organized thoughts I don't think this is worth the time of exploring.
12Next page