Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ok, bring these "small alliances" and "300 man" teams. We prolly should wait them with flowers and cakes, for them to have time to adapt, or even offer free targets. Dunno, maybe CCP invents something in this direction.
At this hour Black Legion has problems to have 300 man under arms all the time. Can't wait to see hiseccers doing better.

Right. But everybody waits to see the capsuleers flow to nul, etc blabla. Basically the logic of this change. or at least the declared one.
Except the intention to make you double your subs if you want to fly a cap reasonably in time. We want the hisec invasion coming to null.

Unintended consequence (or maybe it was CCP's intention to move small corps out of null sec). Now that its nearly impossible to move ships into deep null sec, small corps without the massive logistics machines that large alliances have, are being forced back to empire.

Just like all regulation, make it sound like its for the little guys while making it easier for rich and powerful to circumvent it.

Except that our cap pilot is not stupid, so he is warping to a ping just off grid from the gate, not directly to the gate itself. Then when he lands he activates his cloak until the system is clear.

It's not a sandbox when you are micro-managing the mechanics with exponential curves on small incremental jump distance wait times feed by a lagging fatigue bloom. It's kind of like telling the rest of the kids in the sand box that they have to stay in their corner and if they want to wiggle, then they will have to wait 15 minutes before they can wiggle again, unless they want to wait 45 min to wiggle next, omg. If that is a sandbox, I totally don't understand what a sandbox really means. I always thought a sandbox was allowing players to create their own content without scripting OR micro-management from the developers. When a developer has a very specific agenda, you can be certain that the sandbox will suffer. Next thing we know, we will only be able to travel through stargates if we get NPC missions directing us to do so.

We wasn't talking on what's called "roaming" nowadays. And we both, you and me, know none of ya guys will ever go alone, if has no fleet waiting on a titan, or at least a blops horde behind. So let's not be that confident about that single guy scaring off a whole system. Pretty shure and proven your own ratters dock up the same way.
Still was nice to meet BL in a lot of fights. THEY WERE THERE. Seems that the ones to wich CCP tried to give the keys to the kingdom are shy to take a hold of what's given, for reasons of bad gameplay once they invest or move into null. And they perfectly right. This game becomes a Travel-Timer game. Sry, CCP, if that's your ideea of fun... then you have to live a bit more, play your own game a bit more and generally be a bit more smarter than you actually are.
Also hope there will be a well deserved promotion to the author of all this, after all the lamb unsubs will kick in.
http://i.imgur.com/3RZ7jD8.jpg?1

If you must, then you can probably call EVE Online more of an "open world" than a "true sandbox", because there are "technical limitations or in-game limitations". However, I would argue that EVE Online is one of the closest examples we have of a true sandbox, because while we have "limits in the game environment" such as "just 7000 (or whatever) star systems to choose from", rules on how we can travel between these systems, and the idea behind "hisec", "lowsec" and "NPC/Sov nullsec", you're still free to do quite a lot within those rules.

There are rules and limitations put upon us, the players, when it comes to how we act in hisec, lowsec, nullsec and npc nullsec, and I don't see you bitching and moaning up a storm about that. I don't see you complaining about not being able to put up a station in NPC space, not being able to put up more than one station in sov space, not being able to setup more than one POS on a moon, not being able to have more than one JB per system, not being able to take JBs with caps, not being able to cyno into a cynojammed system/grid, not being able to cyno around in hisec, or not being able to run reactions in .4 space or higher. Why? Because you're used to those rules. If capitals had been introduced into the game in the state they're in, right now, you would not be bitching, because it would be new and it would be an extension on your current gameplay.

You are bitching, however, because you have based your current gameplay on the edition of the ruleset with which caps are governed by now, but the fact of the matter is that those rules were detrimental to the game because they allowed you to derp around the entire map too easily, just like the rules which were in place to allow ridiculous speeds necessitating the speed nerf were detrimental to the gameplay. So your bitching isn't based on the fact that "the sandbox is dying", but that "the rules and regulations with which the sandbox is governed is changing in ways which means I have to work harder to win/I can't do what I've been doing the last few years anymore". And in that regard I say to you: boo hoo, cry me a river.

Changing the rules with which the players play by is not anathema to the definition with which EVE Online goes by. It may not be a "true sandbox", but it still allows us to do whatever we want, as long as we stay within the rules. And in games such as EVE Online, where player movement is actually important, nay, a cornerstone of how the game works, there will always be rules which limit how you can actually move.

Rules which, incidentally, must be maintained to stomp out undesired gameplay or tweak our behavior in subtle (or not so subtle) ways. Whether or not the changes strengthen or weaken the sandbox is something which will have to be determined sometime down the road, but from where I'm sitting these changes are just as sandbox-compatible as the speednerf, or the limitations you're put under when entering lowsec or hisec. CCP has a game with rules: the number of systems, the distance between them, the gates between them, some player-built gates linking them together, content etc, rules with which to travel by (physics, warping around, taking gates, taking JBs, cynoing around, etc), some rules dictating how you act inside each system, etc etc etc. And from where I'm sitting, I'd argue that the new ruleset is actually deepening the sandbox, by adding more things which you need to consider when doing a thing, without adding too much tedium to the mix. Not only do you have to think of distance between each system, you have to think of time and how far you've travelled thus far, and how quickly. If, on the other hand, we look at your ideas, they've had a single component to them: time. Actually, I lie, they've also added tedium (hum, 1 hour of gastroscopy view before we arrive. yay.). What the changes removed: strategic consideration of distance between systems (except as a calculation in time spent), or even whether or not space in between is defended or inhabited (since you're able to avoid anything related to other systems, and can't be intercepted). I.e. your idea would definitely decrease the sandbox.

If you want a true sandbox, take a walk out the front door, or fire up a singleplayer game where the ruleset isn't mired down with having to consider things like inter-player balancing. Games like Elder Scrolls, where it doesn't matter if you have instant travel from one side of the map to the other.


This is reductio ad absurdum, and has no place in this discussion. This won't happen, and you should know this if you've been a part of EVE for as long as you have.

Shame on you.

We were free to do a lot in the beginning and then they added features which gave more freedom than what they wanted. In some cases, the new features were so stupidly broken exploits like area DD because they gave a single player the power to kill everything on grid except himself. They added jump drive capable ships, bridging ships, jump bridges, and wormholes. Then they saw us play in the sandbox with these things and they were like, we don't like how sandboxy Eve is with those things so let's micromanage the sandbox. They said, let's limit jump bridges to one per system because the sandbox chose to use them in a way which didn't fit exactly with how we wanted them to travel. There is a difference between providing a feature and enjoying how it is used in new and unanticipated ways, and nitpicking about how a feature is used to do things in ways that don't meet you pre-approved curriculum with how players should behave in the sandbox. If you complete f-up and put something ridiculously stupid in the game, then admit that you are an f-up and completely remove it with GENEROUS compensation to those who invested in it! Hence, the learning skills. Otherwise, the question is not so much how to micromanage as it is how to STOP micromanaging: "Does Feature X have anything which by its very nature micromanages the sandbox?"


You are right that we should all have issues with all of those other limitations (->micromanagements [not just general rules]) as well:

• one pos per moon, no where else,
• player station limitations,
• jump bridge limit per system,
• jump bridge ship type limit,
• cap limitation in high sec,
• actually requiring a cyno for the jump drive, etc etc.

There are plenty of issues with Eve's sandbox and with her ship balance. We have been patiently waiting for the fixes and for the ship balancing we have mostly seen step in the right direction. But with the sandbox, it is becoming more of a "let's force the players to play more in line with our script" than "let the players do whatever the heck the want without trying to encourage or discourage any particular activity"! They want to mine 24/7? fine! No tweaking yields to get exactly the amount of mining that we want to see. Unless something is a complete exploit, let the sandbox deal with it and enjoy the ride that the players take universe. So much micromanagement!

PS: Waiting for my last account, Joseph. Leaving everything frozen with them in place. Just because you don't see something does not mean that it is not happening.

Uh. No, I don't think they went "We don't like how sandboxy EVE is with these things", but rather "We don't like how the players are behaving with these rules, so we're going to change the rules to foster better behavior". This is normal and to be expected, because while CCP might have an idea of how a new feature is to be used, chances are us gamers are going to figure out ways in which to abuse them in ways which are game-breaking. And when they discover that, they make changes. In your view they can't do that, because they aren't exploits. This is a dumb attitude, and you should lose it, because the difference between what can be argued is a proper definition of an exploit, and "clever use of a game mechanic" is academic at best and irrelevant at worst. It doesn't matter if the error is in the implementation of a feature, or its design. If it is to the detriment of the game, it should get changed, regardless of why it's the way it is.

And what makes AOE DD "stupidly broken", while near-instant travel from one side of the universe to the other is just "an interesting use of the game mechanics"? From your description, changing the remote AOE DD would constitute "micromanagement", and thus be banned. Hell, even adding new content would be "micromanagement" and thus be banned, because it's "micromanaging how the sandbox is played".


No, CCP's job as the games developer is to do exactly this, they think up things they'd like the gamers to be able to do, they design a feature, they implement a feature, they deploy a feature, and then they monitor that feature. If things aren't being used quite as they wanted it to, they look at how it's being used, and if it's just being used in a cool and unexpected way, chances are it'll be left alone. If it's being used in a way that's breaking the game, they make changes to it. Force projection is one of those features which has, for a long time, been used in interesting ways, but the last few years have been used in more and more broken ways, and thus they make changes. As they should, and must. And no, this idea of "abloo bloo bloo I can't use my caps in the same manner I used to before, GIVE ME BACK MY SKILLPOINTS" is deplorably wrong. Caps aren't useless, in fact they're probably going to end up being more useful now, you're just too set in your ways to actually see this. That's your problem, not CCP's, and it's on you to change your viewpoint, not theirs to coddle people like you.

Personally I would've thought the first change CCP would make to fix the stagnation of nullsec would be to fix the sov system, but the sheer balls in making the changes they're making, and the fact they're aiming to not just make changes which impact sov, but also reduces their ability to run articles with headlines like "zomg 4k players fighting in one system!!!" makes me hopeful that they're going to be shifting their focus from thinking of as many players in a single battle as possible as the coolest thing ever(although it is quite cool from a marketing POV), to a view where they can advertise with how many players are involved daily in wars across eve, while still being a lot more fun to everyone involved and wouldn't give new players unrealistic views on what they'd be facing when they're joining these wars.

Arbitrary rules without good reasons is micromanaging. Good reasons stand up to scrutiny against the question, "If the rule did not exist, are there any other good reasons why players would not be able to adapt?" Which starts the cycle over for any "good reasons" raised against that question.

Practical Example: If I were to look up into Earth's sky, I would see absolutely no reason why the number of space stations in orbit should be limited to any particular number, and certainly no good reason that they should only orbit our moon and not our planet. In fact, the only space stations that we have up are only orbiting our planet and not our moon.

Analysis of Arbitrary Rule: One pos per moon and only on moons has no good reason. I can just as easily imagine two poses on a planet, each with its own grid. Shoot, I can imagine three poses on a single grid with a stargate, and furthermore see no good reason why it shouldn't be so. Would it cause conflict? Absolutely. Competition for controlling a single grid requires conflict. Is conflict good? pvp players usually think so.


There is a difference between "as they want", which implies an agenda, and meaningful structure for a sandbox. Meaningful structure avoids game breaking by setting reasonable rules which favor no side, group, or agenda. Reasonability is set by asking two critical questions, "Is there any reason that this limitation absolutely must exist?" AND "Does any other limitation seem to require this limitation?" If so, then instead of adding another complication, you can just remove the original aspect that created the problem in the first place. It turns out that instant travel of unlimited ships has made CCP think to require this new jump fatigue in order to keep the dog pile from getting too large or attracting players from too far away. It turns out that if time was required for travel, then there would be absolutely no need to reduce jump distance OR to add jump fatigue. It's ALL ABOUT ADDRESSING THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

The only game breaking elements are the ones which hand one side the ability to push a single button and gain instant and complete destruction of the opposition. Such was the area DD. Such also is the instant jump drive travel of unlimited numbers and masses of ships to a destination within range at the click of a button. Despite the instant travel of whs, they limit masses and therefore numbers. This eliminates the "unlimited numbers/ISK" aspect of the problem.

"As they want" should just be a simple sandbox without game breaking elements added previously (bad decisions always complicate things). Usually, the words "unlimited" and "instant" should be considered clear indications of what exactly is breaking any new feature. Jump fatigue does not address the "instant" or the "unlimited" for single jumps. It hardly addresses only the "instant" aspect for second jumps, and in a very convoluted way at that; convoluted because the lagging bloom effect introduces unnecessary and micromanaging complexity of scripting player travel by saying, "well, you can jump after 6 minutes if you want the fatigue to bloom to 45 minutes, or you can wait 45 min and then start jump with zero fatigue. and so on, iteratively and exponenetially"