Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Thats not possible with current server technology and you STILL have not fixed the problems with null.

Most of null is already empty and it is very much game mechanic issues at the heart of nulls problems.

Empire sprawl is the result of each system only being able to support at most 10 ratters at a time. Sov mechanics dictate that we need huge fleets to fight a handful of battles to grind down billions in EHP. The way carriers work means we can dump massive boot/wreckingball fleets into a cynojammed system and be invincible. Supers and titans are a pain for everyone including the people flying them as they are now trapped in a space coffin. Logistics means that smaller fleet dock up because they simply cannot kill anything.

These are the problems with null not a lack of space.

Most of these are player made problems.

@Sara Torsa
That is exactly what would happen if more space is added people whould be spread thin.

If you study military history you will see that splitting forces is the last thing you want.
You will keep a delay army on one battlearea and then use your main forces to win the other battlearea.


@baltec1
Just because there is no one willing to find or able to make a countersetup work does not mean the game is broken.

As far as I can tell from these discussions (those who are in nullsec please feel free to set me straight/clarify) it is the instant power projection that is the problem (if you believe there is one). Standing armies are irrelevant for controlling an area if you can just drop a fleet of titans/supercaps/etc on any given area in a very shprt time. A mechanism that would require the defender of any given space to maintain a presence would make for more dynamic space and give better chances to smaller entities to carve out a chunk of space for themselves.

Maybe a change to the jump mechanism whereby it has a limit on distance as a function of mass. You want to bridge a massive fleet? Then you can only jump it 1 ly. You want to bridge a fleet 5 ly? Then the mass you can jump comes right down (a frigate fleet for instance). People would now have to balance fleet size/composition against range. Large fleets could still be bridged but it would place more assets at risk and at higher cost. Dropping larger fleets of smaller ships would become a more valid proposition. You want to take a huge fleet in to an area you'd better start taking and holding nerby staging areas.

At the very least it might bring a bit more thought to fleet composition and attacks, splitting them over multple systems with a bit of luck.

Power projection is not realy the issue.

EVE is full and I will try to explain.
We started with an empty null , then we learned to live in it and to controll it.
In the beginning we had multiple alliances who took space. Over time they collided and coalitions were formed(Something that was never intended by a game mechanic).
At the end 2 Powerblocks and a few minor blocks where left.
Now self preservation kicks in, none of the minor blocks can turn the edge and both sides do not want to lose what they gained.
We reached the point were there is nothing left to conquer and the space there is has been distributed.

EVE is full


EHP, jumprange, tactics, everything around ships and how they are not balanced is all jumping around the issue of EVE is full.

Yes there should be more distance between the systems or less jumprange (which is basicly the same).
Yes EHP is a problem if you want to attack SOV with a small group but the 1000players stoping you in search of good fights will be a bigger issue.
Yes ewar immue ships are like a hardcap which should never exist but they still die.

EVE is about promise, opportunity and the option to build your empire and all this in a multiplayer enviroment which encourages community.

So you say the good space is full and the other space is not worth it.
There will be always bad and good space you can not change that and most of the time this is the buffer between the coalitions.
So you realy say EVE is full

What you might want is more PVP and hope to accomplish that by adding more people into null.
The problem is most people do not want to PVP all the time so adding more people to null will not help.
It also will not increase the fighting over limited ressources because we already done that .

Yes null is not as full as it could be in terms of player numbers but it is definitely in terms of systems and ressources.
You proved my point, thank you for that.

Its not about willingness its a hard fact. It is impossible for a new power to break us. It is also impossible for either of the two powerblocks to beat the other. In order to break a boot fleet you need more subcaps than the server can handle and even if the servers could handle it neither of us have the manpower to do it. And we still have all of those other issues to deal with.

@ baltec
So we agree on that there are 2 superpowers left and that they will not kill each other.

The question is if this is a failure in game mechanic or is it natural?
I say it is natural.
To make my point let us take a view on the history of humanity.
In the middle of the 19 century we reached the point where we had all continents fully colonized. At the end of this colonization we had 6 nations USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan who wanted more.
For the next 50 years they fought some smaller wars and in the end it escalated in the 2 biggest and cruelest wars the world has ever seen. After that 2 coalitions were left one around the USSR the other around USA with a few states left in a block of states with no alignment.
At the end none could fight the other, but the critical threshold was the moment when there was enough personal, ressources and technolgy to colonize the world. The rest was just a change in distribution of the territory they had control over.

The same applies for EVE we had a colonization time, then we had smaller wars and it escalated to a number of bigger wars and in the end 2 coalitions are left.

I could tell the same story with companys but this is simpler to understand.

So I say this is the natural it is not the fault of CCP or the game mechanics they created.
We just hit the threshold and then we had 5 years of amazing battles.

@Sara Tosa
What baltec said is right we would lock down all gates to empire like we did when we had the cynojammer screen in 2006-2009.

So you can change the game mechanics which is the technology in this universe but it will not bring you below the escalation threshold. It will probaly make the universe less believable which would be sad.

EVE is full

@Athryn Bellee
Who said that EVE is only about PVP?
EVE is a multiplayer enviroment with lot's of opportunity.
It can be about shooting stuff it can also be about creation and building.
Most people assume EVE is about PVP because this is what brings the most interaction and because it was the biggest thing in the last 5 years.
If EVE is only about shooting why is there production, mining, trading or claiming space.
You do not need that to shoot each other.
You are right the npcs in EVE are pretty themepark style and there are a lot of good ideas how to make EVE more fun.
But all of them can not solve the issue of 2 coalitions keeping them self alive both relying on mediums outside of this game to organize there power.


The leading groups are the same in both examples they are risk averse to keep them self alive and this is natural.

Stop accepting rent income and let the renters fend for themselves. Slightly in jest, but an idea none the less.