EVE General Discussion

That's actually a good idea but to get that started, CCP needs to limit Alliance sizes, enough with these huge power blocks in there privilaged santcuaries, null needs to burn.

Thanks for the suggestions so far. I've updated the OP with some of the frustrations/changes. Happy to see CCP Soundwave giving suggestions on changes which might take place - and it would be great if CCP comments kept on coming.

I firmly believe that we, the players, hold the knowledge and key of how to make this game better - so let's keep this thread going. You never know we might actually get listened to

BTW, wouldn't it help if asteroid fields were removed from nullsec and were replaced with gravity sites?

That would remove the giant "go here, gank miners" sign of stationary asteroid fields and also would make life harder for botters...

Just sayin'.

It would depend upon mechanics. I am inclined to providing some kind of "rating" to every ship in your color that shoots at the opposite color (not jsut sit there, but shoot). "Rating" would have a constant value that would be class dependant and a variable value proportional to the damage inflicted, and the higher the combined rating the worst the stacking penalty. That should be carefully simulated so a larger fleet holding fire to prevent a increase in their "rating" could not use a "hold and engage" tactic in defeating a smaller fleet. Also bringing in reinforcements beyond a certain ratio of the initial fleet should be penalyzed, so if you start as 500 vs 300, and end 300 vs 200 and then jump in another 200, your rating will be worst being 500 vs 200 than if you had started that way.

in perfect balance, "rating" should work so a subcapital fleet was less hurt by their firepower than what a capital fleet would be hurt by their ship class. (Say, 1 supercarrier have higher rating just by being there than n BS by firing, but also 1 BS have worst class rating than n cruisers firing)

They would quit and contract all their stuff to me.

I do not wish to participate in null-sec, zero interest. I prefer where and how I play now. Why do some of you insist that "players" must play in null-sec?

I really wish CCP would do an experiment. Make the whole game like null-sec and see just how fast this game would die - because it would. Look at every game that ever had the type of game play null-sec has and it is pretty much devoid of players. Why do you think UO changed soon after it was launched? Why do you think Mordrid server crashed and burned after a month. Why do you think games like DF and MO are barely scrapping by?

Not everyone likes full on FFA/PVP. In fact I'd say that is the least favorite game style you can find in an MMO(leaving off RPG because this game is not an RPG).

So do some of us a favor and stop trying to cram your play style down our throats. If you do not wish us to be here, just make all of EVE like null-sec and have at it. I'll join the other 80% of the player base as we move on to other games.

Just to give a completely outside idea, what if the executor corp mechanic was done away with (if it even could be). Now hold on, let me give my probably flawed, misinformed, ignorant reasoning here.

I agree with what many have said that you can not just arbitrary limit the size of an alliance, there are too many ways around that and besides it's just arbitrary. But what if you removed the executor corp (if you could?) and replaced it with a treaty system instead? Make the alliances more "loose" in their membership. That way the assets the mega alliances have now would still exist, but they would be in the hands of the corps that actually controlled them, and they would have to be given to the alliance voluntarily. Couple this with some way of needing to actual occupy a system to have SOV over it, and give that SOV to the corp not the alliance, and the mega alliances would start to have huge internal pressures on them if they grew to big. Why would X corp now fly 30 jumps to protect Y corps moons, if Y is getting most of the income (or suspected to be hold some back from the alliance). Sure they might still, but they also might think twice out it. Or if the treaty that set up the alliance permitted it, X corp, could even attack Y corp to fight over assets within the alliance.

I don't know if this would even fix the problem at all (perhaps corps would just become the new alliances) but it was the line of thinking I was going down to spread power around a bit and make null a little more intresting.

This may have some serious merit as corps would not be the "faceless masses" of the alliance as they appear to be now.
CEOs could actually run their corps instead of just passing orders along.
Of course, this might birth a whole now type of corp, purely a logistics corp .. or could that be the roll of the "former" executor corp?

Derpity-derpity, double post.

Scrap the way moon mining is done now and replace it with a PI style system that can be taxed from the new custom houses. Nerf and I mean really nerf the amount of minerals you get from reprocessed modules. Add more low end minerals to 0.0. A new class of T3 mining barges/exhumers. These new ships would have the same mining yield as current ships. These new ships depending on what the pilot wanted could be configured to get one or more abilities such as: increase shield/armor, unprobable, faster align time and getting into warp, cloak or any other number of ways to increase their survivability. Give bored PvPers more to do than shooting poor miners.