Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Mechanics:

Rift Gates (see storyline sample below) are created all over New Eden.
These gates have security restrictions as to who and what can approach and pass through.
Gates have a 2AU perimeter which can never be breached. Attempted violations will be dealt with promptly (insta pop).
Any capsule may pass through (with a positive security status). Only one type of vessel is allowed (pod).
Technically passing through is just like jumping clones. Gates are more station-like and one must dock up at one of these gates and must be in either a capsule. This preserves the low load and minimal requirements and behind the scenes creates a jump clone if none exists or jumps into one basically (on the other server).
Moving stuff (ships, modules, resources, etc) is done via NPC transit corps (each server has one) for a specific fee plus tax.
New Eden gets more aggressive (lower concord response times in hs or even the demolish ion of hs all together) while the new sandbox gets to be completely pvp-free.

It is important to note that while the new shard would be "risk-free" - rewards would also be proportionate. New Eden would have resources unavailable in the new world as well as NPCs with the better loot.

The idea is not to create an alternative but to create a supplement. Done right this would cause initial new sub influx into the new world but then subsequently gradual migration to New Eden as characters (and players) mature and progress.

Reserved for sample storyline

That would defeat the entire purpose of the game.

What's with the personal attacks buddy? Who said I want the server? Did you read what I wrote at all? I'd like to stay on the pvp side actually and make it better. Who's post are you responding to because I can't find one word mentioning more hs in New Eden.

Double post from the phone... Grr

How much "development" have you seen lately? I am proposing something to actually allow this development we all want through increasing revenue through new subs through mass appeal. Additionally this would also free us up from the constant whining and arguing over what the purpose of the game is and who wants to ruin who's game.

I honestly can't see how this would be workable or beneficial. There are already a good balance of areas to play in, simply ignore the whining and everyone play their own game.

A) New Eden would still be one shard as it is now.
B) Where is the call to compromise? There is none.
C) Technically this isn't difficult to accomplish quickly and would be much quicker and cost much less than creating another separate game.
D) I still do not see how the current game would suffer in any shape or form. Those who like things the way they are will continue to do so. Those who don't will migrate to the new shard (instead of quitting). Those who never gave it a try just might.

No, it wouldn't. That's the whole point of your suggestion.

In your suggestion to alter the game for an audience that doesn't like it.

You mean aside from the massive infrastructure that needs to be purchased, the dev hours that need to be poured into it, the very long balancing process required if you want to tie the two together? You're being very naïve here.

What you're asking for is a different game, with some basic reused code. That's what the CARBON initiative is all about and it is, as mentioned, already in progress in the form of WoD. If you want to get an idea of how “not difficult” it is, you can take a glance of how quickly that game is progressing.

Because of the distortions and imbalances it would create; by removing one of the key selling points and unique features of the game; by wasting huge amounts of dev resources.

All that to try to appeal to an audience that has already been lost.

"Proper implementation" is not the problem... it's systemic. The way the current game exists is not compatible with "safe zones" of any kind.

I order to make your idea work;

- the "new server" would have to be completely independent of the "current EVE"... with no character, money, or item trades of any kind. Again... the current economy depends on destruction of ships and assets to keep demand going. If you remove the reason for demand (see: ship/asset destruction) then supply begins to swell and prices fall... and if you remove risk (see: ship/asset destruction) in gaining/gathering ISK then you create an excess supply of it... which causes inflation.
These two do not cancel each other out though... it just creates extreme "boom-bust" cycles that leave newer players with less experience and wealth in a bad position.

NOTE: if you keep the ability for characters, money, and items to move back and forth between the two servers you still create an imbalance because on one side you will have industry that cannot be attacked or thwarted in any way shape or form (both for you and your enemies)... and on the other hand you have no industry whatsoever (because you'd be dumb to keep in an area where it could be attacked).
The current imbalances between high-sec and null-sec mining and industry illustrate this point pretty well (see: most mining and industry is done in high-sec for "safety" reasons... and it will continue to be this way even if it is becomes more profitable to do these things in null-sec).


- in order to mitigate the above problem... you would have to introduce a new mechanic to arbitrarily force people to buy new ships and equipment and/or spend ISK. Most other games use "durability" type mechanics... but that kind of thing is never especially popular and usually causes various degrees of frustration among players.
I would also shudder to think of the coding and database nightmare that would be required to make it work... especially with 10 year old single-threaded legacy code.


- CCP would have to redirect most of its efforts to creating new "themepark" content... something that it has never been especially good at.
This becomes a problem in the long run because "themepark" content usually has a "shelf-life" of less than a few months. After that it usually has been picked apart, analyzed, documented, and had "min/max" guides made for it. At which point you lose peoples' attention until you create more content... while maintaining the old content for the "die hards" out there... which builds up over time and requires ever more resources to maintain (which the fluctuating subs may not support).
"Multiplayer Sandbox" style content merely requires the DEVs to keep various "tools" more or less in balance and add a new one when they identify an area that is "lacking." The players make their own content with each other (for better or worse).


- you have have to create more than few extra incentives for people to stay in the "current EVE" because people by and large shy away from danger if they can (even if they enjoy risk)... because really... you'd be dumb not to.


With all these changes OP you are basically talking about creating a completely different game from EVE.