The holidays are rapidly approaching. This is traditionally the season for gift exchanges. We already know what we are getting this year from CCP. Retribution is the name of the game. And it is true that some of what is in Retribution I have wanted for some time. But it isn’t even close to enough to keep most player’s interest long term. That’s kind of the way it’s been for a year now.

It seems to have caused a general malaise within the EVE community. I made comment on it with my last post. A lively discussion kicked up on that post on whether interest in EVE Online was declining. EN24 picked it up on syndication and the discussion continues there unabated  One thing is certain, the numbers are inconclusive but my gut tells me the decline is real. One fact folks bantered about was the reality EVE is 10 years old next May. It is a bit long in the tooth and wears its age poorly in this new decade.

New games like Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen will soon start development. What can CCP do to rejuvenate EVE Online and meet these upstarts head on with overheated blasters? Reading through the descriptions on Kickstart for both new projects, they look good but lack the breadth of possibility that is in EVE Online. In this post, I want to touch on some of those possibilities. These are the ones I think CCP needs to shore up/enhance/create in order to fend off the coming competition.

Walking in Stations

Stop, just stop; get over your Incarna prejudice you bitter old vet. That rebellion was more about CCP not listening to players on what was broken in EVE than it ever was about full body avatars. But I do not mention this because I want to lounge around some virtual bar in high-sec. I want CCP to combine Dust 514 tech with EVE Online tech and create fighting in stations! That’s right, dock your ship and fight the bastards hand to hand. Every corridor becomes a battlefield. Every hatch becomes a portcullis. They have taken the first step with this concept in Dust. When Dust goes into null-sec, planets will no longer automatically switch loyalties with sovereignty. Mercenaries will have to conquer them. The same needs to happen with stations and outposts. CCP cannot port this to another demographic of players. This needs to be capsuleer stuff in order to keep people interested in EVE. Without EVE, the rest fails.

Microtransactions

There’s that Incarna prejudice rearing its ugly head again. And again, that rebellion was more about the (mistaken?) assumption that EVE was going pay-to-win rather than simply pay-to-shine. Anyone who follows the gaming industry knows microtransaction business models trump subscription based business models hands down when done properly. Many of you have already proven this. How’s that you ask? What’s your cyno alt for? What’s your scout alt for? They allow your main character to be more successful. You already participate in pay-to-win you ninny. Let’s stop the posturing and the fear mongering and get down to business. Having zero barrier to game entry is the best way to get new players. Free trials are still too much effort and 21 days are not enough time to grok EVE Online. Custom ship skins will help CCP make the lost revenue back IMO. There is demand for that aplenty. I know I’d buy them. The only question would be whether they were expensive and permanent or inexpensive and blown up with the ship. I’d lean toward that second one myself. Not because greed IS good, but it provides a more constant cash flow and that is good for business. It also broadens the demographic of those that can afford them. Lastly, the upstarts are going to be using the free-to-play model. If CCP doesn’t – EVE is dead. Given a choice of free-to-play or buying a subscription for a new game, which would you choose?

Eliminate Time Dilation

More accurately, this should be “eliminate the need for time dilation.” I just wanted to get some blobber blood hot with a sensationalistic title. This is a tall order. The capital investment in hardware alone may be out of CCP’s reach. However, if they could create a playing experience for giant fleet fights as quick paced and action packed as a first person shooter, they would have a real winner IMO. Currently they are at an unhappy compromise. No one really likes the system but it is better than crashing the node or worse, stalling it out so some get their actions carried out and others wake in clone vats. If you think about all the epic EVE videos you love to watch, you know the ones, the movie trailer like videos that have been heavily edited to remove the lag – that is what CCP is selling. That is not what they are delivering. That fact adds tarnish to EVE like fingertips on silver. For those that aspire to this…

…time dilation has to go.




Right of Refusal

This is my pet desire and doesn’t hold the promise of the others but I have to mention it. I’m an industrialist after all. Let’s say I am in a single person corporation. Let’s say my big mouth tends to get me in trouble. Let’s say the largest corporation in the game declares war against me. I am not a PvPer. I will never win that sort of war. But I have friends. Why can’t we boycott this corporation? I don’t mean stop buying stuff from them, though that would be shiny. I mean stop selling stuff to them. Far fetched? Okay, forget the war stuff. Let’s say they simply start ganking ice miners while simultaneously buying all the isotopes on the market. They are going to corner it. How do you stop that? You reverse embargo them! Some ice will still get to the station. To stop the market play you need to restrict who can buy your isotopes; exclude the manipulators. They can gank all they want, but it will lose them ISK because the market now has teeth of its own. When it comes to market manipulation you can certainly fight fire with fire, but halon is much more effective.

What else do you think CCP could do to move EVE Online into the next decade?

Fly Careful

– Mabrick

He’s been around the block a time or five. With over 15 years of MMO playing under his belt and a memory that reaches back to pencils and dice, he offers his insights into the not so virtual reality we call Eve Online.

Send us Intel/Corrections via dropbox or shoot us an e-mail

75 Comments

  1. Akrasjel Lanate

    After playing this game 3+ years, I don't see EVE as a f2p(microtransactions) game realy mate

    November 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm Reply
  2. IRC Grunt

    I like the idea of combat in stations. Why not rely on Dust marines to capture them though? I'm sure 0.0 alliances are already planning for a standing army to complement the Navy.

    Just like in real life it doesn't matter how many fancy toys you have you need boots on the ground to capture land.

    So I guess for SOV warfare you'd still need ships to drop the station shields. Then have marines loaded up in hull breaching craft to actually get in the station and murder everything inside. A series of missions would increase station control and eventually flip it. Really depends if the Dusties are reliable enough to be part of Sov warfare. Well organized alliances should not have a problem with this, however.

    November 9, 2012 at 6:26 pm Reply
    1. IRC FC

      I'll be honest this is my hope for eve within the next 3 years.

      November 10, 2012 at 2:57 am Reply
    2. LD

      If they had the option to play Dust on PC that would be great, but I have the opinion that the Dusties on PS3 aren’t going to be very reliable.

      November 19, 2012 at 4:58 am Reply
  3. The Observer

    I kinda like your idea on market restrictions. This, of course, has some far reaching effects. Obviously, allies will still sell to you, but this will mean that A.) Market manipulation will be much easier and creating monopolies could break the game and B.) will DRASTICALLY change the prices of simple things like minerals and Isotopes, making it more cost effective to harvest it all yourself. Perhaps make it so people on the proverbial shit list will have to pay a higher tariff?

    November 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm Reply
    1. -A- FC

      Nope only key items will become restricted. It would force there to be allot more self sufficient corps which is something which is sadly gone from the game these days with the reliance on trade hubs alone. It would also drive prices up and conflict and more market PVP and diversity as well as making trade very profitable. In the short term it will make some items prohibitively expensive but yea adapt or die.

      Possible scenario:
      Goons imposes Tech embargo.
      Everyone else imposes low end mineral embargo.

      Will goons take on more miners?
      Will people set out to kill the miners?
      Will someone deal under the table to one or both sides?
      Will they get caught, or make a killing?
      Will massive trade wars in high sec spiral into full blown conflict?

      Most wars have been fought due to religion or resources as well as for the more stupid reasons already present in EVE. Lets make it a bit more interesting and a bit more fractured.

      November 11, 2012 at 6:37 pm Reply
      1. Shattershark

        "Goons imposes Tech embargo."
        Because they don't want any more isk?

        "Everyone else imposes low end mineral embargo."
        Because every miner now is under aliens' mind control?

        November 11, 2012 at 10:46 pm Reply
  4. shackdavid

    First of great Article :)

    Have been waiting for "Right of Refusal" to be introduced into game for years.

    Also what happened to all the mining updates that were promised at fan fest, and no better hulls does not make mining more interesting :(

    November 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm Reply
  5. Rkanon

    I still don't understand why they don't sell the NPC ship skins they've already been designed so they wouldn't have to spend any development dollars making them charge 5 bucks or 3 dollars for a ship skin that will be destroyed with the ship maybe I want the paint job from a widow on my regular scorpion 5 dollars or maybe I want a road in shipyards Megatron paint job 5 dollars these skins already exist and they could be making money hand over fist

    November 9, 2012 at 7:26 pm Reply
  6. DubbaYooArr

    + Right of Refusal, very good idea. IRL you dont have to sell goods to your enemies. you shouldnt need to in Eve. This way giant blob alliances that gank and bully and corner the market, cough cough, will face consequences for their actions. Reputation will matter and will have real effects. If you gank and bully industrials why would the industrials willingly sell to you? Makes no sense

    Such ability would also add a new angle to Eve politics

    November 9, 2012 at 7:31 pm Reply
    1. derp

      you have the right to refuse to sell period, thats is the only way to stop a 3rd party brokering for your enemy , just like IRL…

      November 9, 2012 at 8:22 pm Reply
      1. DubbaYooArr

        But if a 3rd party was necessary to broker for your enemy they could demand a percentage off the top. Either way alts would seem to defeat the problem though as Shattershark said.

        Either way, its a good concept in theory lol

        November 9, 2012 at 9:59 pm Reply
    2. Shattershark

      I want to say one word to you, just one word: alts.

      November 9, 2012 at 9:39 pm Reply
      1. IRC Grunt

        What if 0.0 stations could be set to only sell goods to those with good standing. I suppose empire could work the same way. Sell only to those on your good standings list.

        November 9, 2012 at 9:49 pm Reply
        1. Shattershark

          Can be bypassed with a bit of social engineering, plus you'll have to set A LOT of standings.

          November 9, 2012 at 9:58 pm Reply
        2. DubbaYooArr

          That would seem to work, except everyone would therefore need to set standings for anyone they wanted to be able to sell stuff to.. if you want to sell to everyone thats a lot of standings lol

          November 9, 2012 at 10:00 pm Reply
          1. M1k3y

            Well, in 0.0, the people who you want to buy stuff would be the people who can dock in your station.

            I also think that it would be nice if we could set up buy orders to NOT buy from reds.
            Sure alts could get around it, but it would be an added inconvenience to hostiles.

            November 10, 2012 at 11:17 pm
          2. Silentskills

            About the right to refusal:
            Restrict sales to those with neutral standings and above.
            In other words, add a new slider in the sell order market menu to select who can buy your goods. I'm not sure how hard it would be to link market code with character/corp standings' code. Market pvp here we go!

            November 11, 2012 at 3:56 pm
    3. Captain Anonymous

      I really like the idea of a corporation/alliance electronically cutting off anothers products from being displayed….

      November 9, 2012 at 10:35 pm Reply
  7. herpaderp

    f2p vs subscription in eve…

    gimme a subscription any day, you pay your rl isk and you play, and with that you can have anything in the game you want as long as you earn the isk for it, microtransactions are a long slippery slope to somewhere not good.

    New games use microtransactions as it's a good model if they don't know how long people will keep playing for, players will probably spend more or at least the same as subs for a few months, buying stuff for their character, and either get bored of the repetitiveness and quit, as opposed to subscriptions where it's geared more towards longer player life who are in it for the long term.

    November 9, 2012 at 7:48 pm Reply
  8. BlueDoughnutComing

    Right of refusal would be a little much. Huge coalitions could freeze out competitors by refusing to sell raw materials that are in short supply (like technetium) to anyone not on the blue list.

    Instead of refusal, add a surcharge percentage to each sale depending on standings – same as can currently be done with station manager settings. Neutrals get a flat rate, people you like pay less, people you don't care for pay more. It would give actual teeth to bumping someone from neutral to orange without completely stalling the market.

    November 9, 2012 at 7:57 pm Reply
    1. Bandalon

      Would create a secondary market with additional margins, no drama

      November 9, 2012 at 8:51 pm Reply
    2. EW Guy

      And that would drive PVP to the roof to atcually secure the supply of an item. The coding could be similar to the Fleet mechanics right now (Show if you meet criteria).

      And of course, could create a whole new market middle man profession.

      November 10, 2012 at 1:51 pm Reply
  9. wokyr

    The ability to refuse selling to red is an interesting idea… dunno if it would work long term, but I do like the idea.

    November 9, 2012 at 7:59 pm Reply
  10. pupy

    This is for much, the Fail post of the year! Bring Incarna back, remove EVE without Time Dilation (is like playing Max Payne without slow motion). And MicroTransactions? Plex is enough…. evenews is lack of posters, for put this complete garbage in his content.

    November 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm Reply
    1. Guess what.

      what………

      November 10, 2012 at 12:15 am Reply
    2. anonymous

      You clearly did not read if you think he was arguing for the removal of time dilation and going back to what it was before

      November 10, 2012 at 1:43 am Reply
  11. Alx Warlord

    The market embargo could be easly made using a new POS system where you would prevent enemy corps to dock on your POS and buy your stuff ( assuming ccp place a market module on it..)

    November 9, 2012 at 9:24 pm Reply
  12. Glenn

    Death to downtime

    To me, the thing that really shows EVE's age is daily downtime, no sane development company would consider this acceptable in a new product. It persistss because of legacy crap that CPC have been dragging around for probably the whole 10 years.

    Even if they have to focus all applicable develepors on it for 6 months, they need to do it. A MMO should be like "the city that never sleeps"

    Daily downtime is a shameful embarasment on the game and the developers.

    November 9, 2012 at 9:52 pm Reply
    1. its half an hour every day, sometimes even less, are the 23.5 hours of game time really not enough for you? lol

      November 9, 2012 at 11:06 pm Reply
      1. 99%

        Those crazy ompanies guaranteeing 99.9% uptime for the last decade are dumb because nobody is awake 99.9% of the time, right ?

        November 10, 2012 at 5:54 am Reply
        1. sjenkie

          Death to downtime will significantly improve the EVE experience, attracting massive amounts of new players and keeping bitter vets within the flock…..

          oh wait. it wont matter.

          November 10, 2012 at 7:40 am Reply
          1. Arlekyn

            Pretty sure some bots can't relog by themselves at DT, while some do :) Glenn, go read more about bots:P

            November 10, 2012 at 9:40 am
  13. Captain Bob

    1. Fighting in stations would be awesome yeah, but with the current model PS players are supposed to do the FPS part and not the players. Planet flipping depends on PS players, and fair enough but no way in hell would it be viable to extend that to null sec warefare.

    2. I'm in no way an expert on online games, but it does seem to me that online games who fall in declein resort to micro-transactions as a way to stay aflot and keep their game alive when they can't hack the subscription model. I will give you that people DO pay-to-play in the form of alts (fucking falcon alts anyone?).

    3. I recall some threads on the forum which addressed this very issue. The python code which eve is built on, was never meant to handle this big a game/so many players at one time and haven't scaled every well. Besides that I'm almost sure that CCP has one of the best server parks that money can buy, so no they can't just shell out a 'capital investment' to fix this issue. So to summarize: The problem lies with the code which the game is built upon, and overhauling or changing language would probably involve the aforementioned 'capital investment'. Again I might be wrong and a Python Programmer might know more about this.

    4. Interesting idea to give the bears a mean to fight back, but no idea how you would implement this without upsetting the balance of, well basically the entire game.

    November 9, 2012 at 10:59 pm Reply
  14. Cynical Jovian

    Right of refusal is an interesting idea, but you have to consider that if you block your product from someone, there is nothing stopping them from creating a neutral alt, and then buying out your stock.

    November 9, 2012 at 11:59 pm Reply
  15. EVE_Dude

    Right of Refusal

    Yeah, right, people will just do what they always do when their corp is marked to get around the inconvenience – use neutral alts. Another useless broken feature to file along with bounties and war decs, in game to be exploited and abused for everything except its intended purpose.

    November 10, 2012 at 12:27 am Reply
    1. Anona-mouse

      Think about it though. People get around it by making alts, they use PLEX to keep alts going, money for PLEX goes to CCP, CCP makes more money. Plus it can create a middleman style occupation people can play as. Sure people will use alts to get around it but not everyone will do it and those who do will end up giving CCP more money.

      November 11, 2012 at 3:34 am Reply
  16. get out

    November 10, 2012 at 1:05 am Reply
  17. anon

    Right of refusal is an AWSOME idea…

    I by no means mean fuck goons but I would liek to continue playing EVE online and not the future GOONS online that is the current future of this game.

    November 10, 2012 at 1:19 am Reply
    1. Mhmm

      i liked that idea as well, and i don't think it would even take that much coding either.

      November 10, 2012 at 2:56 am Reply
  18. The_Oracle86

    i like all the ideas, right of refusal is an interesting one, although im not sure how you could make it work considering neut alts.

    November 10, 2012 at 3:16 am Reply
    1. Anonymouse

      can solve the problem of neut alts by only selling to blues or dark blues…

      can't stop them from reselling to reds though unless you can force this rule via corp management… as well as block contracts and trades…

      Until that happens, I guess abusing the new bounty system will have to do. Oh look, my mark just bought another mackinaw to replace the last one ganked, let's take his isk and add more bounty. Another happy customer :)

      November 10, 2012 at 6:33 pm Reply
  19. Dekyk

    Surely making it F2P would turn PLEX into just a big cheque? And would play havoc with the pricing. I'm apprehensive about such a massive change. Make people want to come to eve because it has fast paced fleet battles like an FPS? Sure, that's a great idea. But I really don't think turning it into a disposable, Korean style P2P MMO is a good idea.

    And as a poster above pointed out: An simple way around market refusal would be alts.

    Other than that, some interesting points made.

    November 10, 2012 at 8:26 am Reply
  20. Dekyk

    Sorry, I mean "Korean style F2P".

    November 10, 2012 at 8:27 am Reply
  21. skrrimpery doo

    Most real world market systems dont allow a discriminatory seling system. A right of refusal (or rather, a right to sell it only to only to corp/alliance/blues) should imo only allowed in stations in nullsec where it would provide a significant logistic improvement.

    November 10, 2012 at 9:30 am Reply
    1. Hammer time!

      I would like to point out that in RL Corps pay employees while governments tax….so really corps in eve are more like governments and nations trade embargo each other all the time especially in war time! Remember its not about selling to only blues its about not selling to reds!

      November 10, 2012 at 1:47 pm Reply
      1. Shattershark

        In real life you can suicide gank only once.

        November 11, 2012 at 7:04 pm Reply
        1. Ravyn

          You say alot of words but in the end it doesn't mean much, you say Alt and social engineering, but in the end that's still alot of work just to buy some tritanium from someone. So whether they alt buy or don't we are still causing discomfort, the idea is a good one and the market needs a overhauling anyway, wouldn't be difficult to toss it in and see if it works, if not then all well we tried.

          November 14, 2012 at 8:52 am Reply
          1. Shattershark

            Yep, I write a lot of words and reading them might be a good way to find out what I've actually meant. In replies to -A- FC I already stated why "sell to blues/neutrals" won't even require change in habits to bypass, and why "sell to blues" setting will be inconvenient and detrimental to seller. Specific answers or comments are better than just "ur tarded lol".

            But yeah, in your later statement you're right: shit idea may be actually good. If you throw it away and replace with something barely related. Like internal market for corp or alliance would be an interesting tweak to 0.0, but has nothing to do with majority of players or punishing hostiles.

            November 14, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    2. -A- FC

      errr yes they do?

      Has USA sold weapons to Iran recently?

      Does China really maintain massive exports, low labour costs and high currency value through open and fair trade?

      So why should, say Solar corps sell ammo to Gypsy band corps at competitive prices?

      Refusal or additional surcharge cost could be based on standings so that items can be sold only to those who are +ve thus making simple buying thru an alt much more difficult. Then if some blue hauler pilot is spotted over in hostile space, doing dodgy dealing in large volumes of kit or keeps getting spotted outside of normal operational space, they can 'addressed' with guns.

      Would also create a new market and competition through rogue traders and middle men dealing to both sides just like real world market both over and under the tables.

      Sci fi rogue traders hauling for more profit risky and even fun? Win.

      Screw open market, more PVP!

      November 10, 2012 at 7:29 pm Reply
      1. Shattershark

        "Then if some blue hauler pilot is spotted over in hostile space, doing dodgy dealing in large volumes of kit or keeps getting spotted outside of normal operational space, they can 'addressed' with guns. "

        As if enemy fleet will buy ammo or fuel at your station because they forgot to bring their own.
        If you sell moon goo/minerals/deadspace loot, then most likely you do that in Jita or another trade hub. Limiting sales to blues there is an excellent way to shoot yourself in foot and cut off most of demand. Even then it can be bypassed by "Hey, guys! I'm an out-of-corp trading alt for WH corp. Can I haz some tech?". He can even provide full API and still hide transactions from you. In fact just enlist that alt into one of your reds' pet alliances and you can skip explanation part at all

        There might be an argument for internal alliance market to prevent enemy or neutral characters from messing with your logistics. But then the same functionality is already provided by contracts (see: public/private/corp/alliance) and since it only makes sense in 0.0 and lowsec, this would be another feature that most players won't care about.

        November 11, 2012 at 11:12 am Reply
        1. -A- FC

          Most alliances do CTA ships and kit by alliance contracts yes.

          Limiting sales or making them more difficult / expensive to your enemies would be just another thing that makes eve a bit more interesting wouldn't it?

          This makes the "out-of-corp trading alt for WH corp" actually rogue trading, with others trying to counter rogue traders, a whole new profession and hence new player content?

          November 11, 2012 at 6:27 pm Reply
          1. Shattershark

            "Limiting sales or making them more difficult / expensive to your enemies would be just another thing that makes eve a bit more interesting wouldn't it? "
            No, it wouldn't because it wouldn't work the way you write it would.

            "This makes the "out-of-corp trading alt for WH corp" actually rogue trading, with others trying to counter rogue traders, a whole new profession and hence new player content? "
            No, it doesn't. "Convo once to get , then trade" or "bullshit your way into carebear citizen corp to trade and say "Hi" once in a while" is not a profession – it's a waste time (both for devs and players) and unnecessary complication of setting orders and standings.

            "Don't sell to reds" isn't going to work because of alts or even characters on same account as mains. I assume that most trading is done by characters in either NPC or independent corporations. If it isn't – it will be if this change is implemented.

            "Sell only to blues" is retarded on many levels. First you have to figure out if you want to slap it on every order from your alliance member, or leave it to a seller to decide.
            Mandatory alliance-wide (or corp- on a smaller scale) sales policy means that in order to sell stuff fast (or at all) you'll have to set a crapload of blues on request. Who and how figures out what corps or characters to set blue is another problem, because number of people willing to buy high-end mineral measures in thousands and some of them don't even know that your alliance is on the map.

            Obviously, your miners (or ratters, or those who buy out their stuff to sell in Jita) won't be happy when they'll have to sit on their goods for a month or sell it at lower price than they would have otherwise. They have several options in this case: ask for policy change, tell you to go f yourself and leave… Or just haul stuff to Jita, transfer it to an alt (or another character on same account) and sell it as usual. You could try and police things like that, but then it will be a full-time job and there are still ways to evade this monitoring even with full API access.

            If "sell to blue/neut/red" option is left at individual seller's discretion then this slider will be stuck in "all" or "neutrals/blues" all the time and therefore ineffective for reasons mentioned above.

            TL;DR version: waste of time for programmers, unnecessary complication that will piss people off for no good reason. As if we don't have enough problems with margin trading exploits.

            November 11, 2012 at 7:00 pm
  22. Trooth

    That's not nearly enough and other parts are lame.

    – Fighting on stations? If I want an FPS I'll go play BF or the like as a dedicated FPS will be much better then a piss-poor hybrid. Also you are forgetting that in other space games like Freelancer and the X series, no one wanted to see their avatar do such ludicrousness crap. What I want to see is my avatar at the helm of my ship – where the hell are cockpits? Integrate the hideous HUD into a brilliant helm setting. That way your ship will feel more like a ship with character.

    – On that note, put corporation logos and alliance logos onto ships or have dedicated paint schemes. Let's get some customisation going. There's nothing quite as underwhelming as seeing two fleets face off and the only way to distinguish between them is looking at the overview.

    – This part will get hate but ISK income needs to be tripled at least. Why? To increase PVP. Currently PVP is full of station dwellers and blobbers because that's a sure way of staying safe, something people choose to do because losing a ship a lot of the time isn't worth it. So, let's make it worth it. In FPS' you are happy to play Rambo because the loss is merely score related rather then you dying, being kicked from the game and slammed into SP for the next 4 -20 hours. If ISK was easier to earn, then people would be happier to lose ships whether they are faction, caps or sub caps. You only need to look at the massive decrease in caps that have been brought to fleet fights ever since the timer changes to realise the risk vs reward factor airs on the side of risk far, far too much. This would also speed up PVP because as more people would roam, encounters would become more likely. In an era of "quick match" buttons, the EVE PVP set-up is just too damn slow.

    – Make Eve shiner. Location damage, wrecks relevant to the actual ships and so forth. Also scale everything. The first time I saw a dread it was completely underwhelming. Look to X2 & 3 for a better approach to scale. If people look at the youtube video where the ships are imported into crysis and scaled to size, the capital ships are not really of an interstellar size but still of an atmospheric/low orbit size. Nerdy, but everyone likes big ships. On that note stations need improving – they look crap and the scale is all wrong.

    – Improve the sense of community. I don't mean force people to be bestest buds and not to scam, but what about seeing a few of the other ships in the station? This would give eve a better sense of interaction without having to be in a fleet, otherwise most other ships may as well just be NPC's.

    Ultimately if EVE wants to really improve what it offers, there are other games out there it should be getting ideas from such as X2-3 and Freelancer, as well as the other space games in the works. The end game content on Eve is undoubtedly brilliant in theory but if eve doesn't get it's act together (patches aren't expansions no matter the size), then it will face problems in the years to come. And as shown above, the mechanics don't need to be massively altered, but just kicked into this decade.

    November 10, 2012 at 10:07 am Reply
    1. Teq

      Too bad we pilot from a windowless capsule =p

      November 11, 2012 at 3:47 am Reply
      1. Trooth

        Well change it – no one who matters cares about such intricate and meaningless lore. Have it so that when the ship pops you go thunderbirds style into a pod or use a virtual HUD; have something because as it stands, a cockpit is something people expect when they first start playing and it would give far more character to the ships. Sticking to ideas that were clearly meant to avoid the complexity of a cockpit are dated, as is much of eve.

        November 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm Reply
  23. MarketPVP FTW

    From CCP's point of view more alts -> more accounts -> more income. So this Right to Refuse would be a good addition noting that market hasn't got anything really new content-wise for ages.

    November 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm Reply
  24. Eirene

    Right of Refusal doesn't work. Take an Alt -> buy stuff -> contract.

    What we need is an improved combat system. Objects in space have to block attacks (for a while) if you stand behind them. We need Area with different properties, like gas clouds, planetary rings. Eve Combat System is laughable in it's interaction. We need better FC tools for giving commands and people should be more important then pressing F1. The Day CCP allows scripts is the end of PvP, 'cause a scripted bot fleet fires it's alpha more reliable then biological F1 drones.

    November 10, 2012 at 2:48 pm Reply
  25. droljica

    gift exchanges <> expansion

    November 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm Reply
  26. qqq

    There is a reason eve has worked with the subscription model, its a fantastic game with limitless potential for the first few months and that is worth paying for, it also keeps the community smaller then it would be which has its good and bad (if it was F2P goons would own everything already) also if it is f2p… I could have 70 accounts…. making it really stupid to do that, good thing about making u pay each month is limiting alts to atleast something managable.__What needs done is a buff to caps and supercaps. Titans need to be dangerous, right now the only things that would run from a titan are other capitals and structures. IM not saying a titan should be able to completley destroy 5 drake fleets, but they should be able to kill some of them. Super carriers are pretty powerful but could use some buffs as well. The reason capitals arent used in battles is becasue they arent useful in battles, sure you get your triage carriers and stuff but dreads arent good against subcaps…. neither are Supercarriers or titans. __Soverigenty system also needs some management, I say fuck the blockade units and just if you kill the TCU (plus the ihub and reinforce the station) then you should be able to take sov… makes the sov war more exciting and less stagnant and more fast paced.

    November 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm Reply
    1. anonymous

      clearly you've never heard of blap dreads and slowcats

      November 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm Reply
  27. Markus Reese

    Well, time for my two bits and change.

    First, the transaction thing is a good idea. Station access in null already is regulated by standings, so why not a simple enable transactions to match.

    Second, combat for station controls. This works well if a sov influence model was presented. Example, today I flew through test space solo in a frig. Barely saw anybody. It was the NPC space that was dangerous. What does this mean? Sov needs other ways than just a nuke it from orbit to be effective. More complex sov infrastructre and influence spread. Thinking civilization series and corruption as you distance from capital system.

    Another. Caps. Caps need a full redesign and balls to the bittervet. They need to be possible to die. Cut the cost, (not production time) and cut the hp. They are dangerous ships, no doubt, but when a large group of sieged dreadnoughts cannot take out one because of EHP, system is busted.

    November 11, 2012 at 4:03 am Reply
    1. Markus Reese

      Me continued:

      Fix cap transfer. Large fleet fight like the B5 vid don't exist because of the spider tank. Cap transfered should be less than cycle cost always. Minimized with ship and skill, but never exceed cost. Fix spider tank, and a way to take out a power imbalance (power creep from an indestructible fleet)

      Last. Some sort of antiblob mechanic and promote tactical play. Bonuses for squads sharing target. If many things are shooting one target, damage stack penalty. Face it, how can a gun accurately lock and track a tiny object if there are explosions etc going around. Want your fleet to put out max damage, split up your squads to different targets. Let squad commanders take a roll. Bonus, promotes lower cost fleets for easier new player access since will be more difficult to fly only shinies. Let expensive stuff stand out as apposed to be a requirement.

      That sums it up for the veteran side. Won't get into the issues with the real core of eve which is PVE. PVE is what gets new players in and then that can work them to pvp. A year before pvp broke the 2000 person fleet fight (at least in the news) PvE did.

      November 11, 2012 at 4:03 am Reply
      1. anonymous

        Line of sight firing. Put 250 people anchoring one person and you will kill your entire fleet with friendly fire. It would require you to actually pilot your ship.

        November 11, 2012 at 4:19 am Reply
        1. Stuff

          I would love friendly fire too, but thinking about the coding, I wonder about the posibility of this. At current, the mechanics as far as the servers and computers are concerned would be dots moving. hence why landing out of warps ships all point in wierd ways. No previous reference point to determine orientations etc. Line of site would require using the models and hardpoints to raytrace calculate and complex server tracking and modelling.

          While possible in small fights, would be impossible for large fights. I would love it too, but would come down to ships needing some less complex area of influence and tracking form Possibly some sort of IFF thing so if a ship nears your firing solution, it simply will not fire. Reason I say this is a ship visually might not be actually blocking site, so to have it hit would be meh, but to have it unable to connect a firing solution would be interesting. Be really good for small and fast ship combat to wind their way around a fleet to prevent the instasniping.

          November 11, 2012 at 4:25 am Reply
  28. Alx Warlord

    The market embargo could be easly made using a new POS system where you would prevent enemy corps to dock on your POS and buy your stuff ( assuming ccp place a market module on it..) Although the development of eve is not as fast as people want, and this is the cause of manny people leaving the game and coming back after a somewhat long time.

    November 11, 2012 at 4:20 am Reply
    1. Alx Warlord

      I agree with most of this text, the only thing that I disagree is the time dilation critic… as it is a mechanism that allow you play even on the worst situations, but off course the ideal was to have always a better hardware to prevent the most this happening….

      November 11, 2012 at 4:24 am Reply
  29. Just some ideas

    Got me thinking if transactions could be changed due to friendly status.

    How about get rid of ability to block docking rights or at least making them not an instant flip of the switch? If there were stations like this they show on the map and can't be changed for say 48 hrs or whatever and maybe longer if red occupied. Actually tho if changed to not allow reds then there should perhaps be a repair to services that has to be done. Allow for reds to freely come in and out of stations. A limit on how many could be docked would be imposed. Allow it to also be their choice by dropping certain amount of SBUs or killing your TCU. That may be too far off subject but another idea for sov. Stations set to open docking and the system they are in could not be taken until actual sovereignty is lost per regular mechanics and the 48hrs (or other criteria) have passed. In other words these systems would be made harder to take as the alliance is sticking it's neck out to allow this. This could also be an incentive to set more stations this way.

    The main point is sell to non-blues at crazy rates and allow them use station services at a much worse rate of course. Have an area of nonaggression around stations say 20k or something. No cynos or targeting, no bubbling of undock. If they have aggression from earlier in system or aggress anyone in or out of safe zone they can be targeted in the safe zone area and have the timer for docking. They can get out but may have an accident trying to leave the system.

    I know this makes it similar to NPC space in some ways but the alliances could be getting that isk and perhaps having fights. Red loses a ship they can dock up and buy one from you with an arm and a leg. However, they also have very little hangar area so as not to be able to bring much or hoard mods, ammo or ships. Would be entertaining to be in station and see 200 reds have infiltrated and log on in station and know you can't just bubble up. Besides, who really wants to come out when 300 PL and friends have you bubbled in and are sitting at optimal on the undock?=P (This mechanic would only be for a station in open docking mode.)

    November 11, 2012 at 6:43 am Reply
  30. fatti riverini

    so why all of a sudden a carebear would pvp in wis?
    i don't buy it you are a faggot barbie lover.

    November 11, 2012 at 11:58 am Reply
  31. Ikov

    First off Dust 514 is made with the UT III Engine, the Eve Online engine would need an immense amount of coding to mimic what you see in Dust 514. I don't think it will ever happen. Secondly it was obvious that CCP was going to make Eve Online a micro transaction F2P game and the "customers" said "no". F2P would be a mistake for Eve in a player driven economy. How can anyone at CCP not understand that you cant scam players based on a game that specializes in scamming players. F2P would be a loss for CCP with Eve since it is a market scam to begin with. As far as CCP goes with WIS all they have to do is premier what they want to introduce on the test server and go from there, as opposed to hyping up the content. In fact I would say that the games mechanics are dated and half the tech is not even fully used to its capability. Avatars are stiff and lifeless. Same in Dust 514. Avatars won't come along for a very long time. And frankly I have given up on Eve Online due to the fact that a company with a large amount of artist, game designers, and programmers, really don't do anything that is amazing new for the game. They stall, rinse, and repeat.

    November 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm Reply
  32. UncleBob

    "To stop the market play you need to restrict who can buy your isotopes; exclude the manipulators."

    -Ever heard of out of corp trading toons?

    November 11, 2012 at 11:07 pm Reply
    1. sad

      As evil and wonderful an idea this is (and I'm a Goon, for crying out loud), it would be very easy to bypass an embargo through a third (alt) party.

      This ability to sidestep embargos parallels real life, to the extent that you don't have a blockade physically halting trade. That would be station camping.

      November 12, 2012 at 4:48 am Reply
  33. phalanx1911

    Figured I would add a suggestion and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned already. When I first started playing eve I found it to be death by window and very hard to immerse myself in the game because for the majority of your gameplay you are either rifling thru dropdowns or fighting menus just to perform basic functions in the game. I'm sure the task would be monumental from a development stand point but why not implement full flight controls via joystick or controller? Shooting little red "plus"signs and flashy boxes is only fun for so long, we are pilots who don't truly pilot our ships

    November 13, 2012 at 4:46 pm Reply
  34. It is a bit long in the tooth and wears its age poorly in this new decade.

    November 17, 2012 at 10:16 am Reply
  35. That’s kind of the way it’s been for a year now.

    November 19, 2012 at 9:54 am Reply

Leave a Reply