Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Greetings,


I wanted to write a post about eve.

I am a 2003 Player, and i have extensive knowledge of game design. I wanted to talk about why eve has a few years life span left on it, and what can be done to fit the game.


Before i start, I want to say to CCP the following...


Eve as a game, engine has another 5 years in it easy with some modifications. If specific modifications are not made to the game, the offer all health of it will continue to digress and will eventually die off. The things you guys are doing to eve are not addressing the important problems that are causing immense amounts of abuse, a hostile environment, and a vastly un-supportive one. This paired with the immense amount of complexity that is required for eve will ultimately lead to the death of the game. I do not know what developer is in charge of the show now, but they are highly abusive, and are ruining this game. There can be no doubt about this from the symptoms that are presented, they should be removed at once.


Now on to the topic

There is a special equation that grants success to games, regardless of their genre or style. That equation is a very important aspect and if you study the game(s) Or have worked long enough with them you are aware of the potential issues that come from them. What is puzzling is that eve (a long standing game with potential for more much) Is suffering these problems and there is no address to it.

the fact that eve has allowed the population to cluster in to two large groups is highly abusive and destructive to the game.
lets take a look at the flow chart to get an idea of whats going on...

Flow Chart


As you can see the health and current state of eve is vastly different. the only way to restore this is to destroy the coalitions capable of holding and controlling such large amounts of the player-base.


So what are the Solutions?

- Limit Corporate Population to no more then 250.
- Change Alliance Skills to limit it's size by member count (in this case member counts are members) Ie make a skill that gives + 1 corporation allowed per a rank (as opposed to + population to corporation) (causing a max 2.5k cap)
- Remove the ability to filter overview by "Alliance or corporation".
- Make Large Nap webs IMPOSSIBLE (By a hardcap of 3 "blue standings").
- Remove the ability to manually set standings, cause standings between bodies to be event based like "if ship of allied is kill -0.5 rating" in a similar way that ratting works with npc bodies. This will bodies in positive or negative standings by what they earn, not what is "easy on them to set in the click of a button".


FAQ

How does this resolve the coalition blobs?

By making only three alliances blue on overview, and removing the ability to sort by corporation and alliance, People in 0.0 battles will show even as one of the three blue bodies, or neutral. Distinguishing between allied or enemies beyond that point will not be possible.

Why Limit the amount of allies?

It's basic math. Limit the allies, you limit the population. You limit the size of bodies, and you force other to rise up. the interest of each coalition will take place here, which will cause friction and fighting between them and from that the natural life and death cycle will restart itself.

What about work arounds?

With this system there should not be work around. There is one that comes to mind, but this can be corrected by some technical alterations to eve.


What other things would help eve?

Another great change eve can get is "free to play". A lot of people argue against this (specifically the powers that are scared of population entering the game that could rise up against them), but ultimately fully free to play eve would return many vets as well as bring many new players, and these would start a massive infusion of new corporations, alliances, and bolster the existing ones as well.

Plexing would not be invalid under this either. Most people dont know it, but eve is already micro-transaction based. The only thing that is holding it back is this fear that is propagated by either members of the board at ccp, or a some players only interested in their own political power / control. Making eve free to play is probably one of the best moves ccp could do in a very long time.

lets see how many pages this gets before its locked.

Well, you're not wrong OP, so I'll give you a +1

Problem with telling the truth is, someone's going to gun you down.

We're also painfully aware CCP also know this, however Pandora's box was opened and there's no closing it.

Sadly, this thread will probably get closed for ranting, even though its fairly well reasoned.

1st.....page.

Hey Jenn, remember when this exact same assertion was first made? What was it... 10... 12 years ago?
I don't have the endurance to point out everything that was overlooked, won't work, or is completely exploitable... I hereby hand the reigns of sanity over to the younger generation.

Ironically, I actually believe that there is way to much of it, and the races are way to close. I'd like to see story line drive the amarr into khanid, the gallente into dek, the minmatar into provi.

and i would love to see all high sec area's reduced to a max of 9-12 systems. I would turn all remaining high sec into low sec, and all current low sec into 0.0 (or something like that).

Ideally the make should look something like 4 empires in various corners away from each other by 50-60 jumps, with 0.0 and nullsec between. This would improve alliance options for access, improve pirating "holes" and make the trade hubs for each race and the story line have more impact.

but i think all of this is a big dream that will unlikely happen.

Ok guys, we can move on! This is just another remove AFK cloaking thread.

If you are wrong, will you post again in 3 years to inform us that you still remmeber posting this and at that point agree that you were wrong?

And if i'm right?

Well, if you're right, I doubt they'll keep the forums going after the game dies, so it would be hard for you to post about how you were right.

Maybe Reddit?