An idea that can change the scope of eve meta forever

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Hello pilots and ccp,

So i had a crazy idea today to really break up the meta of eve. It would involve some balance passes being done to ships in the game at current, but it would be worth the effort.

The idea is to create new ship modules, ships (potentially jovian?), things that could all together be new, exciting and so forth. Place these things in a BPO, and then reward alliances with them based on their rankings in the yearly games. This has the potential of creating new controlled technologies in eve, that an single alliance has control over (ie, PL has a machan BPO, Goons has a New weapon (energy blasters) etc).

This would then be manufactured by an alliance, to start the development of new weapons, ships, and so forth allowing alliances to be unique, develop unique tactics around their technologies etc.

2

How will this break up the current “6000 people in a fight” meta? Because that needs to stop if we want to be able to destroy structures.
This idea is encouraging even more “bunching up” and power block creation. Do you want TQ to end like the chinese server, where you have 2-4 allaiances running the entire server?

5 Likes
3

That is a seperate issue, which i have already addressed. This suggestion changes what they are fighting in, and the tactics around that. Not the size of fleets.

There is only real way to break up the larger fighting in eve, though through conversation in my alliance the point that this is eves marketing directive, should be mentioned.

in truth, there is only one real way of breaking up the massive fleets, its to remove the massive alliance/coalitions. Since players can ally out side of game (so to speak) the only real way of addressing this issue comes in hardcaping systems, which is exploitable in ways. So the only real solution is logistics, in which it becomes impossible to distinguish allies from enemies. The good news is this is easily fixed but requires a bit of work to really have a massive effect.

First, removing the ability for people to recognize others is simple, and is to be redone by changing the limit of allies and potentially enemies (blues and reds) on the alliance standings system. This is step one, turning the majority of people neutral.

Step two is to remove the ability to distinguish neutrals on the battlefield. This can be done by removing corporation and alliance from the overview. Any experienced pvper in nullsec, knows that often we work with neutrals. When we do this, we use these mechanics in the overview to distinguish who to shoot at and who not to.

If we do the above the result will be, say 5 blue alliances (which imo should be limited to 3) on overview, a few red, and mostly neuts.

from here the only work around from players involves incredibly complex (thus unlikely) teamwork, which basically in the end results in popping your own allied neuts, or a 1v1 situation. Yes, in ways multiple chain attacks can still be used, but the problem of blobbing is gone.

I should note, that i stronly believe that corporations should be capped at 250 players, and alliances at corporations limiting a coalition to a population of say 10k, which is a significant drop from what we have now (potentially unlimited).

**

lets not get side tracked with the blobbing in this thread, its not for that.

**

4

I would like to point out that the game doesn’t understand what a coalition is. It’s a player-made concept.

2 Likes
5

a nonsensical argument.

if the game did not know what it is, tell that to the massive amounts of code put in place to support them existing and fighting.

6

Alliances is the largest organisation that the game understands and has code for. Coalitions are a player-made concept.

1 Like
7

Oh really?

What the hell is blue standings for? Chop liver? You really gotta work on your intelligence a little. Its clear you have no idea what your talking about.

Code to support coalition battles, logistics (structures etc) to support coalitions, diplomacy that supports coalitions, to make a few. Its pretty clear that the games code does support coalitions. Though i guess for someone with low intelligence like you, you probably believe that you need a “Coalition chat” window to mean its part of the game (Rolls eyes).

8

While you CAN use the standings to show what people you are friends with and what you aren’t, it’s not designed for only coalitions. The devs didn’t know players would create such things when they made the system and the game. They didn’t think we would need anything larger than a alliance.

The more of your ideas I read, the less intelligence I seem to have due to the content of these threads. Your ideas (not just this one btw) are half-baked, easily exploitable, game-breaking and just overall bad. I love how you keep touting yourself as a “game designer” , yet you keep forgetting what kind of game you are playing.

1 Like
9

The only one here with limited intelligence is yourself.

2 Likes
10

oh cool moongoo and t2 bpos
worked so well in the past
and it doesnt give anyone anything to fight over
it just becomes oh cool this alliance has access to the best weapons
lets all join that alliance
and no one can ever steal the bpo
it will always belong to one player
you cant forcibly remove it from his hanger

2 Likes
11

The result would either be modules that are stronger than the current, which merely causes power-creep, or they’re the same/worse, in which case, why bother?

2 Likes
12

…and I want an Eidolon, so I can go on a roam again…

13

Ugh!

The daily Amanari Talar post.

I really need to start looking closer at posts before i open them.

2 Likes
14

I understand his word in a way - PL got a Macha BPO and Goons Blasters. So goons won’t have ships to fit blasters on and PL won’t have blasters to fit into ship. Shipless and weaponless. And yes they can’t trade between each other. Sort of conflict driver.

15

i dont know about not trading, but to just have it and make the choice what to do with it. this could be a huge driver of unique meta in the game.

16

Simply no.

Not only would it give larger alliances more powerful tools than the shear amount of numbers they can field already but these ‘bpo’s’ would simply be made and sold to each other then stolen and inevitibly end up all in a few players hands; I would suggest you go look at how some goons abused the facwar system to see just how clever and manipulative some of the players in eve are… no, no new ‘super’ weapons please.
Also balance passes are weak, the drake got ‘balanced’ now no one uses it, there are a few items in game that this has happened to i wont list them all but in reality when a group of people scream at ccp ‘emigerd is ovapowaaaad plz nerf’ ccp should take a proper look at it and balance lightly or create a counter ‘module’ or ship; for example t3d’s:

brawl svipul and hecate balance made them less viable as brawlers but still pretty crap kiters; however they still see a lot of use by solo and small gang players so all is actually good.
jackdaw… not overpowered, it can kill a confessor fleet that burns into it but if the opposite is true (the jackdaws burn into the confessors) then the jd’s will die - conclusion? not overpowered…

Command destroyer micro jump… not over powered but starting to become incredibly hard to counter; not impossible… hard to say though i feel it would be amusing to have some sort of rig or module to counter (a bit like warp core stabs)

Drake… way overpowered… should have frigate size shields… nerf pg… and cpu… take resists away… in a year we can add them all back (again)…

just sayin…

17

i would like to say that i would like to see some of the ship bonuses changed though to encompass the many different weapon systems more easily and allow for more, diversity of ship fits for example; drake should have missile bonuses not strictly related to module types, similar for sacrelige or macherial; so instead of only getting a bonus for ‘ship size’ and ‘specified module’ the spectrum would allow it to encompass all weapon types across the group and perhaps even small weapons on bigger ships, i mean imagine if you will a raven being bonused for rapid lights as well as torpedos, i see no reason why it wouldnt actually have two or three of each fitted (i cant be sure of this) but it certainly would [seemingly] give battleships a fair chance of seeing more active use solo and in small gangs as well as seeming more akin to the powerhouses they are supposed to be.
As it stands many of the t2 cruisers and battlecruisers dont get bonuses for rapid light missiles launchers when clearly these are indeed a cruiser sized weapon…

my 2 cents

1 Like
18

who the hell said anything about super weapons?
who the hell said only the winner gets these bpos?

you guys are so dense is unbelievable, no wonder why ccp has problems fixing this game, you whine about EVERYTHING.

19

you said it.

1 Like
20

No, I said reward them with the bpos based on their rankings, THAT DOES NOT MEAN ONLY TO THE WINNER.