"if I had control over eve's design choices"

I would

High Sec

  • Remove Insurance from ships that die in criminal acts
  • Make getting in a ship from a pod impossible in high sec space
  • Make cargo looted by concord and immediately returned (to his next docked station) to a player that was attacked and killed illegally in high sec
  • Raise the standard for all isk income up to 80m / hr for high sec
  • add many more combat and exploration sites
  • Add level 5 missions back to high sec and encourage team play

Low Sec

  • Make Gate and station guns deal 20% of the targets health in damage per a shot.
  • Make Guns attack multiple targets at once (unlimited)
  • Create a responses time for concord to react in low sec (60-70 seconds).
  • Improve the hourly isk gain rate to 100m an hour
  • add many more gas and ice sites in low security space
  • add many more combat and exploration sites

Null sec

  • Reduce corporation numbers to 250, and alliance corp count to max of 5 (1250 people)
  • Redesign standings system to take effect over time so there can no only be instant, and removal there of, of political relationships
  • Cap the number of systems and alliance can have under its sov to 15
    • Once capped, you cannot challenge other alliances space
  • Add a significant cost per sov system upkeep per a month (1b per system + 500m per additional system)
  • redesign local to not show people in local for 5 minutes after entering the system
  • add wormhole gas to null sec, and nullsec gas to wormholes

Wormhole space

  • Redesign local to not show people in local for 5 minutes after entering the system

I’m glad CCP is making the design choices :wink:

Instead of being mean let me rather just explain to you why your thought process won’t work.

The isk per hour: Hourly rate for activities is determined by what the players running those activities feel they are worth, if they sell their loot too low then it becomes low income.

The more risky those activities are the less people run them and the higher the loot become’s, therefor the only way to increase loot for an activity is either make it extremely irritating to run or to make it extremely hard or group orientated.

Is not a bad idea because the mission rewards can just be set to sec standings and be much much lower than in low or null.

This would make it impossible to tank gate gun’s with logi although this would also make it much easier to camp a gate as first player in a super cheap ship will point you, then the 2nd will point you while the first warps off to a nearby bookmark then the 3rd points you while 2nd warps off and 1rst warps back then 2nd warps back and 3rd warps back and gate guns aren’t hitting anyone anymore and your getting owned on gate by 3 cheap ships :].

You mentioned more sites, do you realize that sites are infinite, once you finish them they will re-spawn somewhere else within the same region, if you scan every system in that region and do a 2nd pass afterwards you will see immediately where all the good sites are re-spawning again, one thing CCP could do is decrease the despawn time of sites that are half finished to 30min instead of 2hours which would help with the low site problem.

It’s actually good that a whole bunch of noobs come together thou, it make’s the game easier for them encourages team work and also makes them easier to kill becuase then they get cocky and fly terribly, until they drop a capital on your head which requires 1 button to win the fight :].

Low sec does not need concord low/null sec is to generate pvp, concored is to kill pvp.

Will benifit only the big groups like goons but all the smaller groups will suffer.

Why? Null is t2 production worm holes is t3 production.

[quote=“Naari_Naarian, post:1, topic:148194”]
redesign local to not show people in local for 5 minutes after entering the system
[/quote] (Null)

That would be cool but 5 minutes is unbalanced, 5 seconds would be more reasonable.

(People love wh space becuase there is no local why add local.)



You have some good suggestions individually but the package deal is just too obvious. If you want to get a good response you probably need to focus on quality over quantity. Pick your best suggestion or two and go with that, save the rest for a separate trolling effort.

1 Like


But to be more constructive:

These two are already in the game. Unless you mean to make ships exploded by criminals get no insurance or prevent non-criminals from boarding ships in space. But as it is, criminals get zero insurance and are prevented from boarding a ship in space while they have a criminal timer.

How would a player commit piracy in highsec if there were no loot drops? Wouldn’t it be simpler, from a game design perspective, just to lock people’s safety to yellow or green so they cannot shoot another player criminally in the first place if you wanted to eliminate highsec piracy?

All income? From like Lv1 courier missions to exploration to highsec PI? Like how would you even do that? So much of the income is determined by other players and shouldn’t there be some progression of rewards even if the rewards are hardcoded by the game?

That won’t encourage team play - it will just encourage veterans to trivially farm them in their top-tier ships like Leshaks or Marauders or whatever. The goal is good and CCP did (try to) add real team play features like Resource Wars and pirate FOBs, but I think they should continue along that path rather than adding another open mission tier that will just be run solo, or solo with alts, 99.9% of the time.

So effectively a 5 second CONCORD response on all gates in lowsec? That seems rather drastic no? Well, I guess without scramming so it would just lead to a meta of high alpha ships one shotting targets and warping off. I’m not sure that is helpful.

Can’t “challenge”? You just mean not capture? Because what if I want to push out someone from space?

Isn’t this already a thing? Like doesn’t it cost ~500M ISK a month per system for the TCU? Haven’t ever held Sov I am not sure how much it is, but I am almost positive this exists.

While I think local is OP right now, this seems the opposite. Surely there is a middle ground where owners of their space can detect interlopers with a structure or something? There should be a window where an invader can do something, but the owners of a system also should have access to intel on who is in the area somehow or securing space and reacting to threats becomes very difficult.

Why? Isn’t it more interesting that some resources are found only in one area and need to be traded (or taken) from another?

So like everyone in wormholes would appear in local after 5 minutes? Because otherwise this is already the case.

In general, your ideas would benefit greatly if you described what you were trying to do or what issue wou were attempting to fix. I can infer some of your reasons, but mostly, you are spouting out ideas that could have been something CCP chose, but without explanation why your version is better than what CCP went with. It’s hard to comment on whether they would be good or not when you don’t say what you are trying to do.

So -1, to the bulk of these, with an extra demerit point for failing to explain your goals.


To elaborate a bit, since I think you have a lot of potential if you just follow some advice:

Your ideas about nullsec alliances are promising. It’s believable that you’re new enough not to know the history of the game, but it’s an idea that’s absolutely insane if you do know that history. So you can get the smug vets jumping in to tell you all about how alliances existed before CCP made them a game mechanic and how player coalitions will bypass all of your proposed restrictions. Sure, there’s probably not much room for fighting about the actual idea once its flaws are explained, but there are enough people who are unhappy about the state of nullsec alliances that you can count on it turning into a tangent on some other issue and generating plenty of moderator action.

Your suggestions on lowsec, on the other hand, are just bringing the post down. It’s just too over the top to be believable. No real player could possibly suggest something as utterly stupid as making gate/station guns deal 20% of your HP per shot, so once your targets read that suggestion it’s immediately obvious that you’re trolling and not worth the effort. Worse, you’ve put it before your quality work on nullsec alliances, so you can’t even get the people who rage over an idea and immediately reply before they finish reading the rest of the post.

In short, the best trolling is simple and elegant. Maximize your outrage potential, don’t dilute your effort with weak secondary arguments that give away your real motives and prevent the best stuff from escalating.

Allow me to point here: High Sec needs serious income buffs and mechanic changes

OP’s a phony, dishonest and can’t be taken seriously. In this thread he also exposes that he doesn’t really understand the concept of “friends” and “working together”, which does not surprise me in the least.


No, It would not be possible because the guns would shoot everyone with aggression, not one person at a time. If you bothered reading what i posted you’d get that. This would make gate and station camping near impossible. The result of that would be to force the pvp into the belts, and sites, where they should be making low sec slightly safer through rng (and less punishing on pirates).

I was speaking of the frequency of them, ie, how many are in a system. some systems have none, and they should be common place.

Capitals need to be reworked.
They need to lose the ability to target subcapital ships, so they are required to be escorted. This would put battleships in meta by being a serious threat to capitals, while being untouched by them.

This would also push stealth bombers into a serious form of meta combat as they would now be able to pop capitals and supers with out any return fire (forcing the super coalitions to actually defend them).

Not true. This would limit goon’s to a smaller area. This change would effect everyone. Actually, if anything this will hurt goons because of the population changes to corporations and alliances, it would force goons to kick the inactive characters.

Because industry and mining are a really big part of eve. Ironically, as eve’s population dies off, it seems to be primarily pvp based. Opening up gas significantly improves the options of industry, which may be a means to help miners explore other aspects of eve then ore mining. Diversity has a big role in retention rates.

I would agree with the probing system, dscan is not nearly as important as it was before the days of probes. Having to “spam” a button to sit in a wormhole is bad game design. This is largely due because wormhole space local and how it works.

On the flip side, null sec is overly exposed, and intelligence channels massively invalidate pvp. by swapping both to delay’d response in local, we reduce or even remove the need to spam scan, and invalidate intelligence channels. This will also increase pvp in wormholes, while at the same time make it safer, since it will be easier to identify if people are in it or not.

I have been here since 2003, June.

I am a co-hc member of Ascn (the first alliance to build titans) and from there, i continue my career in gbc/bob until 2010. Later i moved on in allied entities to either nc, gotg, or tri. On top of that i had close relationships with the co-leadership of FE., I am well aware of the history of this game, considering i fought in ever war from 2003-20010

You cannot by-pass the purpose mechanics i have for nullsec alliances. lets recap the changes

corporations reduced to 250 people (to spread out the population)
alliances reduced to a cap of 10 corporations (effectively limiting alliances to 1250 people).
corporation, and alliance ticker options remove from overview
Standings now grow over time, as opposed to being instant. This means it would take up to 3 months to become +10, or -10
Docking rights, and war declaration rights based on standings. (you’ll need to be -5 to declare war, or +5 to dock).
Limited amount of allies (5)

The result of the above changes is that when multiple people with the same alliegence (coalition) engage the same enemy on the battlefield, you will end up killing (out of game) allied players, as they will display as “neutral”. Since there is no instant way to set standings, it will just be a few red groups, a few blue, and mostly neut.

This makes it highly impossible to manage multiple fleets for a single timer with out killing allies. The result of this will be political drama because of “blue on blue” (ie blue on neut) interactions on the battlefield, which means people will adapt (being efficient) to other non-blob based strategies.

That leads us to the question, Why will people do if they cant blob out of game friends?
the only real answer to this is wave attacks, and on that point smaller entities have more of a fighting chance.

In essence this will invalidate massive donuts, and increase pvp frequency.

Actually its quiet genius if you think about it.

Low sec has very rarely been used. It’s almost useless. If it was not for the fact that a few gate pirates sat on a gate, and a few capitals did logistics there, it’d be utterly dead. The reason largely is because of the few people that camp it.

I would like eve to heal, and i advocate for piracy changes that are less lethal (like npc pirate ships gaining a unique module that only they can use that can “Teleport” cargo off targets).
I think this would both improve piracy income and help make low sec less dangerous for players.

Gate camping is one of those things that really does not benefit the game, or the players doing it. in the long run, its not generally profitable unless your camping amamake (and then i assume maybe not).

In the end, the designer in me wants to say that “low sec needs to be safer, so that its utilized more”. that however does not mean that i do not want to encourage player to player interaction both cooperative, and destructive. I do want them to interact in pvp, just not in ways that will utterly scare people away from it.

I’d be willing to bet if ccp did a release of population data, it would read something like

  • some low % of eve’s population uses low sec
  • some 4-5 entities are reponsible for 95% of that population

Sorry to say, but the risk vs reward is not there to motivate people to leave high sec.

in the end the transition to null (or wormhole) should be smooth, done over time, starting in high sec, then transiting in low, and then ultimately what we recognize as end game content (null/whs).

Most butt hurt post EVAR :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: :rofl: :crazy_face:

Then what is the point of capitals? Killing the enemy capitals, which have no reason to be on the battlefield because they can only kill capitals? You just effectively remove capitals from the game and replace them with battleship spam.

Nonsense. Players had out of game means of creating organizations long before CCP added official alliances to the game. All of your changes would just force the standings into out-of-game third party tools, making the interface a pain to deal with but not in any way preventing large groups from forming.

You are 100% correct here, but there’s an easier solution: highest loses all level 3 and 4 missions, all ability to manufacture anything above T1 cruisers and their equipment, and all mining with an ISK/hour rate better than level 2 missions. If you stay in highsec you are capped at level 2 missions and their equivalents, if you want to make real money you have to leave the tutorial zone and go into lowsec or nullsec/WHs. The problem is not that lowsec has too much danger, it’s that highsec has too much endgame content that can be run with 100% safety and therefore there is no incentive to leave unless you’re going straight to a nullsec botting operation.

Capital Vs Capital (which can be extending to combat sites that are rats with capital ships to help curve the insane isk making rates of caps and super caps while expanding the fun of capital ship battles in pve)

Also Capital Vs Structure, with some reworks can allow capitals to be highly effective at killing them (maybe a slight buff in health, and capital to station damage)

Yes, this is a big-ish change, returning capitals to needing support, but it also helps place capitals in their own balance bracket. Is the smallest change that can be made to capitals that will not significantly change them out side needing escorts from sub-cap fleets (no more roll a cap and win fights).

With the above purposed capital “ratting sites”, this would place them in a really good spot, both in terms of reverting the recent “null respawn nerf” and balancing their isk hourly rates. It will also stop goons multiboxing super cap bots (which im still at a loss why they have not been banned yet, its clear they are botting).

Ok, Lets go with your arguement for a moment.

Lets say the current Coalition breaks from 5 alliances, into 25.
1 Alliances could ally up to 5 others. This would allow for a small donut, which is good and healthy for eve, however, it would present some complications, even if they allied out of game.

Once the next “out of gate” 5 “friends” come along, they are now neut in the fight, no way of distinguishing them from the real enemy (as corp/alliance tickers are removed from the overview).

This means, the 5 allies, kill their neut allied friends. IS there potential work arounds to this? Yes, But none that will result in massive power blocks being easily managed for war-fare. Eventually due to the “tired of managing logistics”, people will give up on it and revert back to the “a few good friends for life” attitude, which we had in the early days of eve.

By the way, “out of game alliances” as you state did not exist pre-standings. In fact, the diplomatic standings system was a result of a fix to something goons was doing (with local). I don’t want to mention it in detail here. That however, can be easily fixed by ccp if they move a few things to server side or simply remove pictures from local (converting to a compact view).

This is the opposite way eve should go.

Let me point out an important point. These types of views are what has dominated eve over the many years, where has that gotten us? At what point do we say enough with this mindset, and move onto something else? its been what, 15 years now? It’s time we get away from the “Beat the ■■■■ out of noobs and force them into null” mentality.

In fact, while we are on tat point null entities are highly abusive and destructive to the game. The only reason why people tolerate them, is a testament to our efficiency drive as humans.

Nerfing the high sec income rates when they already feel horrid, is a good way to kill anyones interest in this game, long before they build it. How fun do you think it is mining mindlessly 4 m/hr to get a ship? These design positions are antiquated and need to go.

Why dont we just nerf null down significantly along with wh space, and bring everything in the game down to 20-40m /hr? That would be much better. Of course you would never agree to that, because you know how shitty it feels to make those isk rates.

Stop trying to oppress they very limited players we have, They need a buff. Any intelligent designer knows this, and would of made these changes long ago. This is why I demand the immediate termination of the creative mind at CCP, clearly hes an idiot and need to be fired. his dream is a utter mess and failure, because he was carried by the people who quit ccp long ago.

I could fix this games population rates, Very easily, and very quickly. Its clear as day what needs to happen.

Again, what is the point of having capitals on the battlefield in the first place? I could bring capitals to kill your capitals, or I could just bring sub-capitals only and ignore your capitals because they literally can’t even target anything in my fleet. And because you know this you have no reason to bring capitals either.

And no, PvE doesn’t change anything. Farmers don’t do PvP, PvE will never be interesting or fun regardless of which ships it uses, and the difference between capitals shooting at sub-capital NPCs and capitals shooting at capital NPCs is meaningless.

Also Capital Vs Structure, with some reworks can allow capitals to be highly effective at killing them (maybe a slight buff in health, and capital to station damage)

IOW, capitals are reduced to being mindless structure grinding ships, the least interesting role possible. No thanks.

Once the next “out of gate” 5 “friends” come along, they are now neut in the fight, no way of distinguishing them from the real enemy (as corp/alliance tickers are removed from the overview).

Until every alliance has a mandatory third-party program that uses image recognition to look up the names of the arriving players and compare them to the third-party standings database. Or you have alliances that have mandatory character naming rules that put the alliance tag in the character name (and remember, injectors and character sales make creating a new character easy). Etc. Making the interface more awkward to use is not a substitute for good game design.

These types of views are what has dominated eve over the many years, where has that gotten us?

It has kept EVE alive in a market where countless rival games have died. EVE succeeds because it embraces its unique qualities and doesn’t sacrifice design integrity in favor of desperate attempts to make the game appealing to everyone. Removing the risk vs. reward tradeoff and encouraging zero-risk highsec farming to appeal to WoW farmers is the kind of thing that is likely to kill EVE by making it another irrelevant WoW clone.

Nerfing the high sec income rates when they already feel horrid, is a good way to kill anyones interest in this game, long before they build it. How fun do you think it is mining mindlessly 4 m/hr to get a ship? These design positions are antiquated and need to go.

It may not be fun in the moment, but that grind is what makes success in EVE meaningful. You earned that ship, and you care when it is destroyed or when you win a PvP fight at 10% structure. At each step of growth in the game you have to set goals and work to earn them, you aren’t just handed success with 15 minutes of farming. The sort of instant gratification you’re demanding devalues success and kills the game. If all you have to do to reach endgame content and have maximum income is spend a few minutes running a mission or two then what incentive is there to keep playing once you “win”?

Why dont we just nerf null down significantly along with wh space, and bring everything in the game down to 20-40m /hr? That would be much better. Of course you would never agree to that, because you know how shitty it feels to make those isk rates.

We don’t nerf everything down to 20-40 million per hour because risk vs. reward is a thing. Highsec has essentially 100% safety, it should have minimal reward. I would listen to arguments that nullsec farming, especially high-end nullsec farming, is too profitable but whatever ISK/hour rate is assigned to nullsec should be massively higher than what you can get in highsec. And if that means setting nullsec at 40 million per hour while highsec is capped at 400k per hour then that’s fine with me.

Killing stations.

modifications can be made to increase their life, or changes can be made so that sub-caps cannot break the passive tank (shield regen). This would force capitals to be deployed.
you’d also have the situation where a cap gets caught in a capital ratting site.

This is not true.
Super caps farm up to 600m an hour using DD wave tactics to instantly clear sites after the first spawn. By shifting this to 100-150m an hour, effectively making dd less effective (as the kind in question does not (or can be slightly nerfed) kill capitals instantly it would balance the farming rates).

That does matter, when you consider 6.5 quadrillion isk go into eve’s economy monthly by ratting (Especially super caps).

This would have a huge impact on balancing out isk earning rates, as well as controlling isk gains which are clearly out of control (the reason why ccp nerfed spawn rates in null, and why wh’s have become the craze)

No intelligent game designer will make changes to the game that makes it “unplayable” like that which involves removing spawn sites which basically causes players to have nothing to do.

horrible designers @ ccp.

You and many others keep quoting this. I am not advocating this does not exist. I am advocating your egotistical minds get off that the variance between low risk, low reward, vs high risk, high reward is not as large as you think it should be.

Further more, while we are on the topic of risk vs reward, its been clearly demonstrated through eve’s statistics that high sec is far more dangerous. 50% of the wars in eve are launched by 5 corporations in high sec, that have 105 to 1 kill death ration, that have a 4% chance to lose a ship in a war. a single ship. This demonstrates how utterly abusive (and dangerous) high sec is at current.

I grow tired of this “Risk” nonsense. First make high sec safer, then come talk to me about this nonsense you call “risk vs reward”.

btw, can you provide me an official statement from ccp saying this? I’d like one for reference purposes. Iv heard them say many things over the years, but never this.

This had to be tackled individually.

Please Show me evidence of this.

This guy is a liar.



Naari as usual I actually like your ideas. I won’t lock your thread down this time by being an autist and raging at these people on your behalf. I 100% agree that high sec needs an income buff. My post on the mission reworks got completely buried and I don’t think they even landed on CCP’s radar. CCP is never going to do anything about high sec. They hate carebears. They begrugingly put missioning in the game. They begrugingly made “high sec” what it is. If they had their way the entire game would be null sec. The sec system was an afterthought. Their original plan for the game was an entirely player driven content much like Fallout 76. It’s an insane idea and would have folded the game just like Fallout 76 has folded. So they gave the “carebears” a thread with a carrot dangling on the end of it just to lure them into the game and then quickly FORCE them into pvp combat. This game is all about PVP and CCP doesn’t give a damn about players who just want to chill out and fly space ships and earn some cash and maybe, just maybe even get a little bit of power under them before they dabble in PVP. That’s not CCP’s thought process.

Everyone goes on and on about how this game has 60K active subscribers. Big wooptie-doo. You know the crappiest, littlest known MMO’s out there have 1.5+ MILLION subscribers. Just look at WoW in its hayday. over 35 million subscribers. Yeah that. CCP could be a giant but no. CCP themselves are autists that just HAVE TO HAVE IT THEIR WAY. And the crowd that goes on and on about the nuances about high sec life are their chronies who have been playing this game for far too long. EVE is for living the thug life and honestly it’s what has kept my money away from it for so many years. I leave the game for 2 or 3 years then come back for 6 months. Only to realise I am completely wasting my time.

I have tried so many times to get the average gamer to play EVE. But EVE now has a bad rap for being a game that is brutal on your nerves and plays out more like a spreadsheet MMO. Which is sad. Because some simple changes to certain mechanics coughmissionscough would bring in hordes of players. 60K subscribers??? It’s laughable. Imagine 600K subscribers. And that could still happen if CCP pulls their heads out of their asses.

1 Like

It is better to have 60,000 quality subscribers than 1.5 million carebear parasites endlessly farming their missions.


I would rather see 1.5 million carebears than one single puritan idiot like you. At least CCP would have the funding they need so badly to do the things they want to do. And 1.5 million subscribers, even even a tenth of those were logged in at any one time, that would be 5x the players at ALL TIMES than you see now at EVE’s peak player times.