As always, you missed the point.
I attempted feedback on this problem statement:
I agree with the problem statement, but disagree with their solution. Would be nice of you to offer something constructive for a change. How would you fix this problem statement?
My solution: give constructive feedback.
Might be better than telling players to stop playing Eve. Especially in a discussion focused on a proposal to help small player groups in Eve. Perhaps you can try something constructive in the future.
It seems we agree on the first line, and I have already given constructive feedback on the idea earlier in this thread.
Your idea however repeatedly insults players who enjoy PvP as ‘anti-social’ players, and insults players who enjoy fighting for space versus other groups as ‘anti-social’.
Your idea then attemps to severely restrict the freedom of player factions into some rigid NPC faction system where groups get assigned allies instead of being able to do their own diplomacy, where grinding PvE is necessary to offset friendly kills in order to not get kicked out of their alliance, their group of friends. Friendly kills, which happen occasionally as fun brawls, ratting accidents or just by sending someone home quick.
So do you partake in any of those social activities? Get kicked, because Joe Amiedoule Vemane or whoever the main is of this forum posting alt does not like PvP in this competitive game about space battles.
Do you want to help another group one day but also fight them another day? Not allowed by Joe, because he does not like people who do PvP.
It’s simply an awful idea and better treated as joke than as a serious suggestion.
I don’t think all PvP players are anti-social. I think a good chunk of the playerbase is anti-social, narcissistic and borderline psychotic. EVE seems to attract a disproportionately high percentage of these types of individuals (I couldn’t tell you why).
There is a difference between anti-social PVP, mob violence rule forcing small groups out of Eve Online, and entertaining PVP. Please share an idea to allow small player groups and solo players to thrive somewhere on the Eve Online map.
The End User License Agreement for Eve Online limits gameplay to entertainment purposes only. All players must either find entertainment value in gameplay or not support it. I would like to see a healthier player base through broader entertainment value (not just large destructive groups) and increased gameplay viability for small groups and solo players. Given the problem statement for this proposed game update, Fenris Creations seeks to do exactly this.
I’m afraid there is no place for small groups to thrive in EVE unless they are under the umbrella of a larger group. In Eve, numbers are everything. The only way I see the break up of the large blocks is to limit their size, but this could cause a mass exodus. Something Fenris is trying to avoid while trying something to achieve their goal.
Null SOV is not easy to capture or maintain. No group under a thousand will have much luck without backing. With the Equinox changes NULL groups had to go wide instead of tall. Making it more problematic for small groups as they would require many systems for it to be useful to them.
Fenris needs to play their own game. It appears they have assumptions about NULL they don’t seem to fully understand very well.
I see another option that might be beneficial and that is to add more Null space that is directly gated from high sec. Might work, not really sure, but it may be worth a try.
There is plenty of space for small groups, as corporations. They can even band up with other corporations that share a similar goal and make an Alliance. Alliances can do many things, except when they cripple themselves by not being social. Not sure why there are those who call PVP alliances anti-social…when it’s the ones that can’t or won’t gather large numbers to fight that are lacking in the social department. If you want to take on Imperium or Winter, you need to gather up the numbers to do so. They exist, heck, even AO was able to gather up a sizable alliance, they just decided to support an abhorrent world view.
Please explain this. How is there plenty of space for small groups? Even in your explanation, you require them to cease being small.
Why is cooperative agreements so difficult for small groups? Trust. That takes time, effort, and social skills. The question then becomes which other corporations, alliances, and other player groups are worthy of trust. Obviously look for cooperative players attempting to build something entertaining to them.
There are also warning signs to stay clear of player groups. Any group engaging in mob rule violence may be ruled out. To those players, agreements either make them more powerful and controlling, or threaten their power. Cooperative agreements that reduce their control over space might be temporarily accepted, but will not be trustworthy. Sure, they might rent space for a while. Either pay them or be destroyed. How long before they change the terms of the agreement? Either require higher rent or simply declare war and destroy everything the smaller group values.
Why do I believe this is an issue? What portion of current Eve space systems are empty? Name a region with all constellations seeing healthy player activity. Much of my Eve experience is high-security space. Still, I have enough experience in low, NPC null, and Sov-null to be familiar with the player activity in those areas as well as high-sec. I can name 2 systems with high player activity: Jita and C-J6MT. Hek is an active trade hub, but significantly fewer players in local. Take 1 stargate out of them and check the player activity. Expect empty space except for those traveling for trade purposes.
Find traveling through null space non-social. Either there’s no one there or a few players concerned a neutral entered system. My social intent or skill does not matter. The other players do not trust neutrals and refuse to risk ISK interacting with me. Paranoid that socializing with get their ships destroyed, rightfully so. For null experience, have taken a shuttle to the Outer Ring region several times. For the Air Career Program explorer mission, send new alts in shuttles to visit 5 null regions in a single autopilot route (safer space preferred). Now, I expect an empty local. The space security level does not matter.
For some industry activities, I routinely fly T1 haulers through low-security faction warfare systems. The first few times, I expected to find smart PVP players engaging in PVP. A few times, lost my ship to a smart 2-ship fleet. Tackle found me somewhere away from the gate and held me until the DPS ship arrived. For those losses, I considered it good fun and attempted to learn from it. However, those are the abnormal PVP experiences.
How do I define normal PVP in Eve? A large fleet dwarfing anything they expect for opposition surprising players with overwhelming force. Their targets? Non-combat ships preferred. Mob the player before they can respond; flee at the earliest hint they might be engaged by opposing PVP.
My biggest infuriating scenario: gate camps. No skill or active PVP involved. Nope. Park and wait. Targeted players have no input in the battle. Its just “surprise” and hope to save the pod. The counter strategy: either use fleet maneuvers (large group), recon the path, or don’t travel. Who sees no issue with these? Large player groups. Who finds these worthy of forum complaints daily and rage-quits? Single-character players and small groups.
Why does this info matter to this particular topic? Small groups need some way to establish and maintain space for their activities. Lost count of how many desolate systems could be used by small groups. High, low, null, doesn’t matter. Some large mob decides they own systems without occupying them. Anyone entering those systems without a permit will be destroyed. Some systems do not have the permit option. Some large group simply keeps them empty. Why? Either change game mechanics to transfer ownership to small groups wanting to use the space or continue watching large destructive player groups destroying small groups.
Please note. At the present time, structure and sovereignty ownership directly reflects war declaration game mechanics. Right now, the Eve map shows Goonswarm Federation holding massive amounts of sovereign null space. That is intentionally a false impression. Many Imperium Coalition Partners lack sufficient combat strength to defend sovereignty. The constructive, cooperative agreements have GSF hold sov for small player alliances. Why? So large destructive player groups cannot declare war on defenseless small groups and make themselves occupy more space.
The same situation exists for structure ownership. Industry corporations never directly own their structures. Either a shell corp or a powerful alliance holds ownership. Why? So defenseless player groups are shielded from much larger groups intent on destroying space occupied by small groups.
Destroying the game mechanics used by these small groups for defense against major hostile forces will not make room for them. No. Expect large groups get bigger and less space for small constructive player groups.
Please reconsider this proposed game change.
You don’t throw away your group’s identity by joining an alliance. Your corp is still a small group, part of something bigger. It can even be a small part of a corp depending on the size of the group in question.
Mechanically, don’t need much trust, it’s not like you are opening your corp coffers to them. But socially, you gain it by flying together more often. I’ve been a part of a corp joining an alliance, and have accepted corps into an alliance, I can tell you that the bigger risk is to the alliance, than to the corporation joining, but even then it’s a small risk and more likely than not, you just accepted a corp that has more dead weight than it does have bad actors.
So avoid those groups…most are not those groups.
Fountain, Guriastas regions, Angel regions, and a good portion of Dronelands.
Yes NPC null space sucks, it’s worse than low sec.
Most small gangs just use filaments or wormholes.
They do. Dronelands is the null sec space for it, you also have wormholes, even low sec, especially if you get into FW. My small group has a wormhole and a high sec moon, we don’t get bothered much. Sometimes we do lose a structure, but we bounce back.
Which ones in your opinion can’t defend themselves? Most can hold their own unless someone bigger comes by (like Winter).
What game mechanic is being destroyed that would harm small groups?
There are a few points to what you have posted.
Anti-Social vs. Anti-Societal activities. Some players just don’t want to interact, and some chose to express this via PVP/Ganking. Where as some players want to play in a “rule-less” [anarchial] way that would seem out of step with relatively normal societal norms…even within videogaming circles. Which is where EVE gets its “bad boy” image, which is kind of outdated now and in some cases actually becoming a PR problem for getting new players into the game. So we need to kind of break things apart.
Anti-Social playstyles. (Based more on social interactions between players and wider game universe.)
Solo- Most players in MMOs especially first time players, are fine playing a game by themselves, they can reach out to fellow players if some content is difficult but sometimes they enjoy the challenge by themselves. Sometimes these players are the most immersed in a games ecology/environment/lore. Probably also the purest role-playing even in EVE. And sometimes they go years without really interacting directly with other players. Not always hostile just want to be by themselves or are comfortable in their in game identity as a solo player.
Multi-box- Not exclusively known just to EVE, but the game brings bring out one of the more severe issues. Yes people will make the argument of some content needs multiple “agent-alt” characters to efficiently to complete content. However, one of the problems is this avoids social interactions and relationship or even knowledge transfer or assistance circumstantially. The consistent growth of this has had social implications to EVE since. [It is also weird to find players who predate the multi-character/multi-box and who admit to doing it before it was allowed.] Which does raise some questions even of playerbase health in the past. Multi-box is concentration self but also denial of content and interaction.
Bittervet - this one is kind of a weird spot, its players who have either survived all the changes from the Beta to Today. They are either active or inactive in game. They tend to be very hostile to any changes in the game. And will actively try to ruin perspectives of players, or will wax deep in colloquial rants of older eras and how everything in this moment is bad or in our case “EVE is dying.” More like a neighbor who drives everyone around them away. Now generally considered harmless unless they go attack people directly via anti-societal actions. Sometimes you feel like they are “Grumpy Gramps” or “Negative Nancy” but even new players like to hear their stories. Its when they do certain things in game due to their perspectives they become a pest.
Old Guard Gamers- These guys have either been gaming for many years (one type) or have been in the specific game for a very long time. Some even have participated in Alpha and Beta testing for the game, and still stuck around. They are sometimes the pillars of the community, and people will defer to their input if they have issues with new content or even information in the game. (Sometimes can cause problems with idea progression or even new content development they have that much pull.) If they are Old Guard as in gamers who span decades of the “Gaming Lifestyle” their input and feedback and experience has alot of weight. Some are Devs themselves, or have experience in this field. Not really easily ruffled by hype and ideas, but at the same time they can squash new ideas because of their experience or biases of content. If you are new you really don’t have right to have input, or they treat you like a kid.
LEET (Elite) Gamer- if the Bittervet and Old Guard seem like wizened or geriatric ancients in the gaming sphere. The LEET (Elite) are the aristocrats and novu rich of EVE online. They participate in specific content almost to the exclusion of all other content. This is not just specific to lets say PVP only. But it can be specific grades of space, specific content, or specific ways to do that content, or do you fly a specific fit or build in that content. If you do not ascribe to their group or specific bracket of the game your input doesn’t matter. Its more of anti-social because you are not part of the social class/bracket in game. They may push back at you if you suggest something needs to be change, because you threaten their special status in that content.
Fanboy/Fangirl [Yes man Syndrome] - you will get some players who will defend the game or the game developers at all costs. There is a myriad of colorful nicknames for what level this particular player is, so I will only use these more polite terms. It can be combined with the above labels, but sometimes they stand by themselves. The game existance is their identity in a way, any even slight criticism of the game or maybe even a constructive criticism will set them off in either a shielding interaction or drowning out interaction. Tending to keep feedback from reaching the devs on specific problems. Usually more offline, but some players are in game directly. They are anti-social because if you are not all in with the game, you will be attacked or drowned out. If you have criticisms of the game your input doesn’t matter. If you don’t like EVE your input doesn’t matter. You don’t play EVE in the official matter same problem etc. You have a little hiccup with the devs your input doesn’t matter.
Anti-Societal Playstyles- these are playstyles that break either external “rules and norms” or even gamer society “codes” that are present in other games. in many ways these are “outlaw” playstyles in many game universes. And one of the problems of EVE is there is no definition exactly of these rules. [Whether by laziness or just wanting to avoid more convoluted issues…ironic since submarines and spaceships (ships) require massive structure and rigid enforcement of rules to even function.]
Ganking (Also known as PK-Player Killing/Killer)- I can hear the intake of breath and fingers arcing to strike in indignation, but hear me out. In many games ganking exists under different names etc. It is a way of gameplay generally for PVP or people kill other players to get their gear or stuff. Now many games have rules on where to do it and consequences, EVE on the other hand (until recently with Exordium)…didn’t have such protections. So the violence and player killing was almost haphazardly random and without reason. Other games put restrictions on where such interactions start and even incentivize the interaction by loot drop rules. So people who are lets say too lazy to craft, but wanted gear would have to risk PVP to kill players who were crafting things. Now in EVE there is a little complication to this because not everything is easy to move. And so multi-boxing ganking with alts to pick up the dropped loot was the way to go. This was out of control when alpha ganking was common. But now ganking is very specific content with Omega Accounts. And with the security status system as it is. Gankers need to repair Security Status to get back to blasting the unaware. Its anti-societal because most games and even outside of games these kind of random acts of unnecessary violence are frowned upon.
Griefing- Is a step above Ganking in implication. Because its more of a direct attack on the gaming society, usually for a perceived or invented reason you are playing the game wrong…you are going to be attacked for being '“Wrong X playstyle”, or you get the additional adjustment of an anti-social above modification of this. Like a bittervet player decides to grief all newplayers because they are playing (not EVE like they did) , or we have people who grief miners just because they mine. Its more of a psychological anti-societal attack, because someone disagrees or finds something offensive to their sensibilities and just decides to be a stick in the mud for everyone else. This becomes a very noxious and toxic issue that then drives away new players, or even makes established players quit out of frustration. Griefing is anti-societal because it takes apart the society, because someone dislikes some facet of the societies evolution or existance, that has changed or goes against their percieved preferences. It breaks down the societal drives and incentives, because if you do this you will attract their attention and ire. (Some do it for pleasure, and street cred; but the whole game society suffers because of that.)
Stream Sniping - Although a form of both Ganking and Griefing, its a more public form of anti-societal interaction in game activities. Streamers and related Public Relations/Publicity players who make guides, videos, montages, etc. Trying to promote the game, some Stream Snipers do this activity for content/notority, or sometimes just for lolz, others for drama/attention/ and disruption of targets activities. Depending on what is going on this can be good or bad. Stream Sniping is very poorly received by most of the gaming community at large. [This usually ends up with punishments/bans in other games. Especially if the stream was doing pro-donation/goodwill drives or game content promotion for a Dev Group.] EVE is a little different comparatively, which can cause some issues on this front. Usually steam sniping isn’t punished (to my knowledge as heavily if at all) but it does give a bad PR image of an out of control or very undisciplined fanbase. And its anti-societal behavior by disrupting game promotion, and even showing content of the game. Repeated Stream Sniping can drive content creators and streamers out of the game causing net negative perception and feedback on the game. Now in EVE if the person is enough of a pain point, there has been some punishments handed out. Although many times the players themselves will take up arms and go after the stream sniper and any supporters. Although there are some limitations to what people can do with that.
There is much on this front…and in some ways the way most coalitions, alliances, corporations, and groups operate in EVE can be classified as anti-social or anti-societal. Like GSF is famous for the line “We are not here to ruin your [dev group/ game environment-ecology] game, we are here to ruin your[person/group specified] game.” Its more of a declaration of war on specific gamer society thought processes of groups they are engaged with a war with. In some peoples eyes its “anti-societal” meaning GSF goes against some of the closely held gamer society ideals and thought processes of some groups. I wouldn’t say GSF in any way is “anti-social” by any stretch of the imagination because of their willingness to engage any group in discussion, streaming, PR, propaganda, and a good dose of digital fisticuffs [in game ship preferred PVP.]
Now we do have groups in EVE who are “anti-social” they refuse to interact with the wider game and do not want to discuss issues or problems. They are not “anti-societal” but their society norms are very rigid or precise in how they want to shape the game in their image. And they refuse to interact with people who either oppose or do not fit that typeset they want everyone to fit.
[Exhales]
That said, yes I do agree that this change is going to have net negative impacts on EVE besides nullsec. Since 2020 we have been getting hit not with sticks but sledgehammers for the “sins of a few” in various places of EVE space. [Or incompetency’s depending on perspective of the offending parties.]
The ACL list switching to alliance only, is going to severely curtail movement around nullsec.
Its going to create a much more homogenous consolidation of groups and control in order to keep holding onto space. And some organizations…will become untouchable in name and not in game. This didn’t factor in so much of the 3rd Party systems of organization that will shift more outside the game.
I understand the thought process behind it. I thought fatigue on ansi…was a bad idea in the long run. I personally would rather have had more options to hack/jam/redirect them. I feel we will see a repeat of some pressure issues both for Fenris, because if the changes are too net negative, they will have to walk back the changes. Or Null groups could just play poker again, and it will be Scarcity all over again just in another factor of the game.
Personally, I think EVE as it is, is too small for what it could be, and for the player ambition and organizations within it. The rigidity of systems in “explored null” is causing alot of major problems for balancing especially in alliance on alliance warfare. Now if we had the expanse and openness of Frontier, the pressures and problems actually become much more dispersed, and strategy and placement can be do or die. In that game you need alot of planning, organization, and logistics to keep your player gate network running in Frontier. Or you have to jump around alot yourself, so fuel is a limiting factor. And if the fuel shifts outside your territory you have to fight or starve.
EVE Online has too many “safety” features.
Local always on in null security space. [Should be player installed/hacked/jammed/destroyed]
Safety Assets jumps away [Safety Assets need to tied to m3 limitation container/warehouses on stations. If you don’t have your stuff in an asset safety can/warehouse…its a loot drop.]
Station m3 (un)limitations. If you think on this, this is one of the more egregious issues in all EVE. Each player who visits a station has X amount of item hangar space. [Only real limitation is Fenris Code only allows like 1000 seperate blocks of items] If stations have finite space that has to be measured and parceled out between players then stations have different value for usage. An Alliance Hangar is limited/ Corp Hangar is limited/ Asset Safety is limited. So you have to weigh pro/cons on what docks or is in what station. And this means specific stations can be ID as strategic targets of interest. Keepstar has the fleet stored…hard target to hit. But that Sotiyo over there is the fuel depot for all the system structures and station…BOOM now, the other group has to replace/refuel or asset safety out.
Lack of meaningful ways to interdict or disrupt supplies or production other than direct action. We don’t have hacking options / entosis options to frustrate station usage or operations. We don’t have anyway to siphon or sabotage supplies in any meaningful way. [Skyhooks had an idea…but now the timers and everything is controlled by the alliances.] ESS same problem not really useful because every change directly takes away options for conflict (denying content) and just consolidates power for established groups.
No meaningful use for Fuel, or lack thereof. EVE in comparison to Frontier is very simplistic. Fuel blocks into stations and you get function for X amount of days etc. Where as in Frontier, your fuel and capacitor are affected in various ways. In one odd thing…the lessons from Frontier should have been applied to the Ansiblex. IE. Fuel is loaded into the ansiblex fuel bay…this fuel helps with recharge of the Ansiblex Capacitor. If you shove alot of ships through the capacitor, the fuel is used up aggressively trying to keep the capacitor charged up. This means you have two “throttles” on the Ansiblex 1) Capacitor usage by ships going through. 2) how much Capacitor is recharged by certain fuel blocks. 3) Fuel Bay m3 limitations [could be fitted with upgrades/modules to increase space…or even upgrades to increase recharge rate =/= fuel usage increase.] 4) Economic production of fuel blocks. IE net drain on the economy of EVE because fuel blocks are needed for everything. And this becomes an interesting pressure point in null PVP. Because now the strategic calculus shifts from N+1 to can we support the war effort with resources and supplies? Do we keep the Ansiblex open and shove more ships through, or do we risk our reserves that fuel our stations and infrastructure? [And with above note on m3 restrictions on stations this could make for some very very interesting adjustments to overall health of the game.]
Because you can’t just build Keepstars for everything, because the m3 and resource limitations becomes really important. Yes your main fleet anchorange will be the Keepstar…probably in your staging specifically, but now you have to defend several supply depot stations and other infrastructure that allows you to run and operate that Keepstar. It means yes a group can field a massive fleet, but if they can’t or are not willing to engage in small scale patrolling or raid protection. A critical station could be offlined or even destroyed and critical resources and m3 space lost creating a timer for that system.
This is the other problem for small groups getting started in EVE, there is no really good way to progress build up. Either in null, or anywhere really. Too many mechanics have been shifted from solo to scale [Multi-Box or Corp/Alliance level operations] that its very difficult for people to build up naturally in EVE. IE the infamous pull up the ladder situation that is ongoing, and might accelerate with this change. There is no real way for people to start building to the first station [Astrahaus is so weak after Siege Green…you have to be out of your mind to even attempt to deploy one. It gets mobbed very fast.] And there is no small station or build up option to allow people to attempt to organically build their empire/corp from the ground up. And with current organizations and 3rd Party external systems available any attempts will be detected and squashed post haste. Unless something drastic is attempted, but then again the established groups will not like that change, because it means uncontrolled threats outside of their influence.
There is alot of mechanics that could be upgraded or adjusted so people have options in all areas of space, but also building up to eventually holding sov, but current mechanics are major hinderances and hurdles for such groups.
huge wall of text, but you have some spot-on points, especially on the “safety features”.
It all comes back to the 3 ultimate coffin nails of this game, the elephants in the room:
Poor design choice. If you have local as an Upwell service, you either have sov holders pay for local that hostiles can use, too, which is absolutely unfair, or you have no for anyone but the sov holders, which negatively impacts attackers (and even friends of the sov holder).
Local as it is not too powerful. It provides a level playing field for anyone in system. Everyone sees the same without discrimination.
That’s the most idiotic idea ever, and it comes straight from Hilmar. Limit structure storage, and you have even harder limits and issues for small groups to do anything because they cannot afford or maintain the safety of a big structure park. Congrats, you drove even more players into the big blocs and made it even less likely that small groups can achieve anything. Typical Hillmar reprobation.
EVE definitely needs more limiting and frustrating factors in the gameplay loop. This is going to make everything so much more enjoyable to play.
Excellent design choice, because that “leveled playing field” creates a boring and risk averse playstyle.
A network of Surveillance Infrastructure would allow complex interactions all around it, especially on smaller scale. And large-scale sabotage- or infiltration-ops in case of a bigger conflict, adding much more strategical options than right now. JSpace shows that it works, on a daily basis. You can live entirely without local, you can have everything from industry over small and medium to very big fights.
It all depends how it is done. But the general idea is absolutely superior to what we have right now. A general insta-updating local should only exist in Empire space (HS+LS) where - you name it - the Empires provide it via surveillance technology that is blocked from Capsuleer Access.
Thats the most brilliant idea ever and it basically comes from the Devs that were in charge when the game was young. POSes had exactly this mechanic. All hangars were limited in size, limiting both storage and production. Even the physical space under a Forcefield was limited and the numbers of POSes in a single system was also limited.
All that ensured that in order to grow, you had to place more POSes. You had to accept more fuel costs. More fueling runs. And in the end you had to conquer more systems. That drives conflict. Over the best anchoring spots, over extremely valuable staging points, over whole systems that are strategically important.
POSes are superior to Upwells from pretty much any angle you view it, they just lack convenience for everyday use. But the general concept behind them is brilliant game design. Funny thing: They are the one type of structure small groups actually can hold in hostile environments, while Upwells die like flies. Coincidence? I think not.
If CCP/FC wants to do something for their game, they should re-design Upwell Citadels from scratch and look at everything POSes did right.
You wouldn’t ask “what car is better for moving a family of 2 parents and 3 children in comfort for 1000 kilometers” a person who never used any car would you? You won’t even ask this a person who only and extensively drives trucks, for example. You would seek for a family person who does exactly this from time to time (better - often does).
And if You think that You understand what is needed for you to be there, then history proves that humans never guess it right what they really want changed. They usually “good enough” know what bothering them, but how it should be changed - almost never.
But this isn’t only about having the best car for moving a family of 2 parents and 3 children, but also is about road safety for other users.
Other users may not have experience with driving the family car, but may have opinions about certain family cars which are too wide or too tall to be safe for other users, or about not being seen well while on their bike or bicycle next to the car.
It’s the same here in EVE, it’s not only sov null sec players who are impacted by sov null sec force projection, but other players as well.
And those other players will also have their points of view and opinions, which also can be valuable.
Especially when it is about force projection by null sec empires we shouldn’t only listen to opinions of those null sec empires only, of which some could be inclined to be arguing in their own favour, but also listen to everyone else impacted by it.
It’s the most idiotic idea because, even in these days, CCP did not design the game around this principle. POS were only meant to be used for few aspects and temporary living space, not for permanent residency. Had CCP designed the game wholly around limited hangars and the drawbacks that come with this, it would be a different story.
Which is something people apparently don’t like because the big blocs own too much space and suffocate smaller entities from getting any.
Lol, that’s patently false. Unlike Upwell, which does not give the sov owner a notification of a hostile structure being dropped, POS send a notification to the sov owner immediately. They are also easy to get rid of because of shorter timers.
CCP has no positive track-record of implementing something like this in a way that enriches gameplay and not just makes it more frustrating. The recent ideas about force projection are the perfect example for this. Other aspects like Merc Dens (which were meant as hostile attack vector but are exclusively farmed by the owners) or FW botting and mass multiboxing are other things they have screwed up in recent history.
Arguing with J-space here is also completely moronic and flawed. You do not have any strategic options with J-space local. You simply do not have it. You cannot influence if you show up or see someone else. There are no ways to do that in a strategic way. Structure service based local chat is something deeply different than that. It’s either Local for sov holders and not attackers (which is unfair) or local for all (but it’s unfair that sov holder should pay so that hostiles have free intel). In addition, hostiles can hack or thwart that service in different ways. This has nothing to do with how No-Local in J-Space works.
No. 
Let me tell you a story, rookie. Many years ago some company called “CCP” created a game called “Eve Online”. Yes, the one you have discovered just couple days ago. It’s no wonder you don’t know what “CCP” is because that company has renamed itself to “FC” before you joined.
Learn something new. You have long way here.
You welcome
Thats got to be the least intelligible thing ive seen all day, grats; you have impressed me.
They could have just reinstituted warp to 15km at the celestial points. I have some old bookmark books I could put back on the market. There is reasons they made travel easier over the years.