EVE General Discussion

A problem I've been thinking about for some time - what could be done about the nature of space, its politics, its control by the sov blocks, logistics of getting around, force deployment etc.

I realised that a part of the problem is the map itself.

The way space is, or rather the where of space, leads to the host of problems New Eden is currently facing.

Tangent: Years ago, there were these thing's called MUD's, some of you will be able to ask your parents about them I'm sure. The one I lived on was having similar problems that we're now facing, everything had become a bit static, people were fixed on their patterns of behaviour. In order to shake things up, a big assed comet hit the realm (it was a D&D type mud), destroyed massive swathes of land, scattered the hell out of stuff and allowed for a whole bunch of new stuff to go down in its place.

I realised that maybe New Eden could do with something similar (though clearly, not a comet hitting ye olde local tavern).

Story wise, I'm sure there is a bunch of rationals that could be given, some freak subspace disruption causes gates to become linked to new partners or what have you.

The idea itself would be to completely change the maps of the universe as we think of them now.

Consider this, we have the FW system that allows for the transfer of control of a bunch of systems between the 4 factions, but those changes don't particularly have an effect on the grander scheme of things.

Now consider what could happen if the nature of regions in Eve became more interspersed with each other, areas of different security becoming smaller and more scattered between each other. How would the game be affected if there was no longer a direct high sec route between every trade hub? How would the game change if it was impossible to get from one high sec to another without having to get through some null on the way? How would empire bears be affected if there wasn't one of the big trade hubs on a nice safe high sec path to sell their wares? (Obvious note is obvious, having lowsec/null between highsec means more potential bear deaths and new market hub systems springing up)

There has been discussion on these boards about the problems with force deployment, SC blobs, jump ranges etc. What if the distance between sections of low/null became much larger? What if regions of null all became smaller and more remote from each other, making heavy SC redeployment more time consuming? Would that help break up some of the huge sov blocks we see? Might it help encourage smaller alliance to stake their claims on pockets of null that are maybe only 4/5 systems at a time instead of the areas of 40/50/60 systems we see at the moment?

Another thought that comes with all of this is what if an alliance with a certain degree of stability and force deployment wanted to really improve their hold on their area of null? I'm not the first person who's wanted the ability to deploy gate guns under their own flag. Not all alliances are made up entirely of vicious pirates and gankers, some may want to try and foster safer trade or what have you, what if an alliance could deploy better levels of security for paying patrons? Early warning systems, gate guns, even minefields? (Yes, I know, Eve used to have mines back in the year dot, given the improvements CCP have made to hardware and underlying software, is it not about time things like mines were revisited?)

Now, clearly, the political machinations of people like Mittani are still going to lend presence to blocks like Goons and Co. - but I rather expect (and Mittani, if you're reading this, I'd love to discuss your thoughts on it) if the null regions as we see them now were broken into smaller more bite size chunks, they'd either lose to force or relinquish voluntarily at least some of them for a purely logistical reason alone if nothing else.

Now I'll be the first to agree that the idea has its downsides and its problems - but then ANY drastic enough change to how we all play is going to be cursed with its own issues and complaints (for the record, I thoroughly believe that capitals as a whole need revisted, not just super capitals). If nothing else, some poor bugger would get tasked with having to redraw every map for DOTLAN!

TL/DR: Shake the map up, smaller regions of all security types interspersed more thoroughly. All capital class ships need love/re-examined.

Sorry..need to train up "Understanding Gibberish" to lvl 5 before i understand all that...........

No.
The game is player created content, not company forced content.

Like if we were usin the space we actually have in game properly... Lol

The sandbox is a lie.

We already have that.

Oh I almost entirely agree, Eve's strength is its people and its community - anyone who denies that is kidding themselves. However I still feel that the nature of the space (rather than the sandbox itself) we're flying in is arguably a root of at least some of the problems the sandbox is facing.

I don't see that changing the map as it were would inhibit the sandbox and interaction you talk about, if anything it would lead to fresh developments and new approaches for all of those involved, be they an industrialist, a mission runner, a market trader or a pvp'r of any flavour.

And that's rather the point isn't it? It's not that we particularly want drastic changes to the inherent nature of the game itself, it is that we want drastic changes to how we -could- play the game.

As such, I thoroughly believe that juggling the map is almost certainly the one thing CCP haven't particularly considered but I fervently believe they should.



An alternative concept came up in conversation in the early hours this morning after I posted this, and that was to make the security status of a wide range of systems/regions variable based on the behaviour of those in it. I'm fairly certain the ideas has come up before and it was shot down in flames by almost everyone, as it would likely lead to all those variable systems sinking to low/null type status, and I don't think that would do anyone any favours.


As for the couple of folks about about new space/using the space/mechanics to restrict holding.

1: New space means more resource usage on the TQ farm. That brings its own problems.

2: Utilisation is the key, if areas became more scattered and smaller, it would give scope for smaller groups to lay claims and promote better utilisation.

3: Restriction through mechanics whilst sometimes necessary is I believe against CCP's Sandbox principals.

We now have wormholes and their exits are mostly unstable. The entire wormhole space is a constantly changing network of systems. Jump in and find out!

I think new eden would be more interesting as an irregular galaxy--a "ball" of systems that could not be delineated in 2D

People would quit.

No one should be forced to play in an area they don't want.
HIgh sec people, who want to stay in high sec, shouldn't have to worry about low or null.


I think it would be more fun, yes, but I understand a lot of people would simply quit if they had to worry about flying through low or null systems.

I would like to see more low sec systems within the confines of high sec though, along the borders between apposing empires. They could even convert some of the low to high sec or null systems if there's an issue of balancing numbers and ensuring that there aren't "to many" low systems then there are people willing to utilize them.


PS: My gallente alt flew to Jita, there was no war happening in any of the border systems I looked at. Two nations are at war with each other and none of their borders seemed to be effected by this.