Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trimutius III
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 17:17:00 -
[61]
Epic and radical... But needs a heap load of work for balancing team... I doubt CCP will do it... In near future absolutely no... Huge changes to mechanics of game takes at least years... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Lifelongnoob
Caldari Final Conflict UK Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 17:29:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Trimutius III Epic and radical... But needs a heap load of work for balancing team... I doubt CCP will do it... In near future absolutely no... Huge changes to mechanics of game takes at least years...
exactly why bother change from gates (which work fine most of the time) to something completely new and untested?... it's a pointless waste of resources.
i'd rather they spend time ensuring ambulation (walking in stations) deploys and runs perfectly rather than a different way to jump from one system to another.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 17:50:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Caldari 5 Yes it will be hard for the Small Alliance to take a system, however I believe that it will be easier than it currently is.
Again, I disagree. The relative power difference between small alliances and the large power blocs means that if defensive advantage is eroded those small alliances will, one by one, be taken unless they can get together and defend in a coordinated manner. This would, in effect, make another, more disparate power bloc, exactly the opposite of what you want. I do agree that things will become more dynamic for a while until the strategic bottlenecks of the new system are discovered, but after that it will stabilise again.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 18:06:00 -
[64]
i think the main problem here is that we are talking about several different concepts.
What i proposed was that you spawn randomly on jump in and that one can jump to every neighbouring system from certain jump out points. to camp a system a fleet would have to camp these jump out points (maximum 6). probes are not required.
i also stated that claiming sov would require placing poses at these jump-out points that would also need a claiming structure with high cpu and power usage to reduce the amount of weapons these poses can employ. this would enhance defence, especially with pos gunners present.
|
Mistress Iceka
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 18:17:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Mistress Iceka on 11/05/2009 18:16:53 I take it most of you dont keep up with the history of eve very well...The removal of star gates would be a odd story line change for eve also..dont ya think...anyways..any ideal to change the star gate machenics...is dumb..as all pll are tryign to do by that ideal is make it easyer to enter enemy systems..and kill gatecamps..and yet again..make the game more care-bearish(IMO)
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 18:24:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 11/05/2009 18:24:30
Originally by: Mistress Iceka Edited by: Mistress Iceka on 11/05/2009 18:16:53 I take it most of you dont keep up with the history of eve very well...The removal of star gates would be a odd story line change for eve also..dont ya think...anyways..any ideal to change the star gate machenics...is dumb..as all pll are tryign to do by that ideal is make it easyer to enter enemy systems..and kill gatecamps..and yet again..make the game more care-bearish(IMO)
Fluff is not a reason to not change the game if the gameplay needs it - reasons can always be made up and fleshed out. For example, the discovery of the miniature gate drive system which has been retrofitted on all ships has made the use of gates uneccesary, although inter-system jumps must be made from various bookmarked lagrange points within the system. Or how about this: the release of a virus into the stargate system by Jove agents has put the focussing mehanisms off balance, meaning that ships using the gates will appear at a random point in the system they are warping to instead of at the gate.
The idea must stand on the basis of gameplay alone, and I personally do not think that this one does.
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate Black Mesa Project
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 18:44:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Mistress Iceka I take it most of you dont keep up with the history of eve very well...The removal of star gates would be a odd story line change for eve also..dont ya think...
There's a storyline? :P
Originally by: Mistress Iceka anyways..any ideal to change the star gate machenics...is dumb..as all pll are tryign to do by that ideal is make it easyer to enter enemy systems..and kill gatecamps..and yet again..make the game more care-bearish(IMO)
How is it making the game more care-bearish? just making the Combat pilots change tactics, making them make more use of all the ships/skills in eve rather than a small select Combat ones :P
Now if if there was only a way to force a combat group to have an industrial in the fleet.......
|
Mistress Iceka
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 18:48:00 -
[68]
was directed more to just the gatecamps..
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 21:41:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
The idea must stand on the basis of gameplay alone, and I personally do not think that this one does.
so, in your opinion perma camped pipes are ok?
|
Valhallas
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 22:09:00 -
[70]
EvE is too far down the path of using stargates to turn back now. The methods discussed here are good, but not for EvE, they may see the light one day in another game.
One day CCP will draw a line under EvE and launch the successor to EvE, and at that point they will be in a position where they can change the most basic conventions of the game, like having stargates.
The OP describes something similar to Frontier Elite II, you jumped into a system and ended up at a random position in the system. This was a 1 player game but the travelling, hunting and area defence mechanics of the game would have suited PVP in EvE better than the current EvE mechanics, in my opinion.
|
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 22:22:00 -
[71]
Originally by: silken mouth
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
The idea must stand on the basis of gameplay alone, and I personally do not think that this one does.
so, in your opinion perma camped pipes are ok?
Pipes exist as bottlenecks between systems, like it or not. Wherever the bottlenecks exist, no matter how you put them there, they wil bw permacamped. There are routes around them, they take more time but they are there. Your idea merely shifts the location of the bottlenecks, and will therefore change the location of the routes around them.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 13:02:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 11/05/2009 22:22:13
Originally by: silken mouth
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
The idea must stand on the basis of gameplay alone, and I personally do not think that this one does.
so, in your opinion perma camped pipes are ok?
Pipes exist as bottlenecks between systems, like it or not. Wherever the bottlenecks exist, no matter how you put them there, they will be permacamped. There are routes around them, they take more time but they are there. Your idea merely shifts the location of the bottlenecks, and will therefore change the location of the routes around them.
it would eliminate almost all bottlenecks and i dont see what other bottlenecks could arise
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 22:03:00 -
[73]
Originally by: silken mouth it would eliminate almost all bottlenecks and i dont see what other bottlenecks could arise
One-way bottlenecks would exist very nicely through gatecamps, and whole systems would become bottlenecks where they only connect to two other systems in a pipeline. Your idea won't remove the bottleneck, it'll just open them up enough for the larger alliances to take advantage of and maybe shift the locations of some of them.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 23:38:00 -
[74]
You all realize this is the way Eve started right? It was very boring.
|
Sir Substance
Minmatar The Empire Nation Dead Mans Hand
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 00:13:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Lifelongnoob
Originally by: Captain Zemo They are not technically necessary, the player could make a selection from a menu that causes the server to transfer them from one system to another.
that would require even more server power than the current system does the game would be lagged to death if everyone was simply hopping from system to system from anywhere in a system.
you are equating real life to a computer system. the server will not know the different if people change systems from planet 5 or from next to a stargate.
personally, i think OP's idea has a lot of promise. but i would make "long warp" a function of certain ships, rather then all.
blockade runners come to mind. never mind the cloak, if you can long warp and bypass stargates, you dont need it. not to push too hard a point on carebear uses, but freighters would be another obvious choice. i would make cov ops frigs do it as well, to help re-differentiate them from stealth bombers.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 12:06:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Originally by: silken mouth it would eliminate almost all bottlenecks and i dont see what other bottlenecks could arise
One-way bottlenecks would exist very nicely through gatecamps, and whole systems would become bottlenecks where they only connect to two other systems in a pipeline. Your idea won't remove the bottleneck, it'll just open them up enough for the larger alliances to take advantage of and maybe shift the locations of some of them.
you didnt really get the idea, there would be no starsystem connecting to only two other systems, not to mention the problem with bottlenecks is that there are no alternate routes, my idea would basically remove Pipelines.
i didnt know that eve started this way, but i can understand that it was boring then, because eve wasnt as crowded as it is today. on the plus side this means that the mechanic was already there.
|
ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 12:24:00 -
[77]
Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 13/05/2009 12:24:47 This is not merely a radical idea. This is a suggestion to change one of the fundamental gameplay mechanics, most of the backstory, etc...
EVE minus stargates isn't EVE at all, just a very similar looking game with the same core combat mechanics.
~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious |
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 12:46:00 -
[78]
Originally by: ShadowDraqon Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 13/05/2009 12:24:47 This is not merely a radical idea. This is a suggestion to change one of the fundamental gameplay mechanics, most of the backstory, etc...
EVE minus stargates isn't EVE at all, just a very similar looking game with the same core combat mechanics.
sorry but gameplay mechanics change all the time, secondly nobody said something about removing stargates, i merely wanted them as some sort of highway you have to pay for, thirdly what has the backstory to do with that? thechnologies evolve....
hell, you could simply claim them to be mini jumpdrives with ultra short ranges that dont require cynos but can only jump from certain locations...
|
ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 13:38:00 -
[79]
Edited by: ShadowDraqon on 13/05/2009 13:38:18
Originally by: silken mouth nobody said something about removing stargates
Why is the thread called "remove stargates altogether" then? You're misreading my post. I mean different gameplay mechanics like half-life vs. red alert. It wouldn't be the same game.
~ MED-SEC ~ AND The Blatantly Obvious |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 14:50:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Lear Hepburn on 13/05/2009 14:51:45
Originally by: silken mouth you didnt really get the idea, there would be no starsystem connecting to only two other systems, not to mention the problem with bottlenecks is that there are no alternate routes, my idea would basically remove Pipelines.
i didnt know that eve started this way, but i can understand that it was boring then, because eve wasnt as crowded as it is today. on the plus side this means that the mechanic was already there.
I thought you weren't planning on changing connectivity between existing systems? This means that the Yong-Biphi-Mamet pipeline (Domain), for example, would remain as the Y-B-M pipeline. Maybe there would be two gates in Biphi which would each get you to Yong or Mamet, but the pipeline would still be a bottleneck unless you are planning on changing which systems Biphi connects to. Second, there are plenty of alternate routes around bottlenecks, they just take a lot of time to use in most cases - that's the price you pay for safety.
|
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 16:31:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
I thought you weren't planning on changing connectivity between existing systems? This means that the Yong-Biphi-Mamet pipeline (Domain), for example, would remain as the Y-B-M pipeline.
dooh! increasing connectivity was the central point of my proposal.
so in biphi you could jump to mamet, valmu, unefish, sibot and hoshoun from the the jump out points on the different sides of the solar system. you couldnt get to yong from jump out points, since it is to far, thats were the stargates would come in, which would connect distant starsystems, for a price of course...
basically a large portion of stargates would become obsolete, while those which connect locations over large distancees would still see use.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 16:44:00 -
[82]
Originally by: silken mouth
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
I thought you weren't planning on changing connectivity between existing systems? This means that the Yong-Biphi-Mamet pipeline (Domain), for example, would remain as the Y-B-M pipeline.
dooh! increasing connectivity was the central point of my proposal.
so in biphi you could jump to mamet, valmu, unefish, sibot and hoshoun from the the jump out points on the different sides of the solar system. you couldnt get to yong from jump out points, since it is to far, thats were the stargates would come in, which would connect distant starsystems, for a price of course...
basically a large portion of stargates would become obsolete, while those which connect locations over large distancees would still see use.
So you basically want to increase the routing options. This would drastically reduce transit times across large distances and make it almost impossible to defend a system, let alone a group of systems, at all as there would be multiple routes into any constellation. The economy would be drastically and detrimetally effected with an evening out of prices as those 20-jump trade routes became 10-jump routes due to the increased routing options. Many systems would become underpopulated as they would not be on the shortest route between trade/mission/mining nodes in hisec, and travel betwen nodes would take no time. What you are suggesting would effectively make New Eden smaller, and the knock-on effects of this are the reason I feel it would be detrimental to Eve.
|
Tuscanspeed
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 17:21:00 -
[83]
Originally by: silken mouth taken from another thread: 1. Stargates and free travel This game mechanic is taken from the scifi computergame "Independence War" where ships can do inter- or intra- system jumps from the LaGrange points 4 & 5 of planets or moons to other neighbouring solarsystems. now going from this i am proposing to adapt this to eve that in order where your (lets call it) L-drive will only jump to the next solarsystem as long as no other L-point is between you and your destination. Jumping there means when you click jump you will get a context menu with possible destinations, once selected, your ship will jump there using a certain big amount of cap depending on your ships mass. You will end up in a random location in your destination solar system.
the advantage would be that there would be no more bottlenecks, so gate errh i mean lag-camping, would still be possible by camping outbound L-points, however people would be no longer forced to go through a certain system, they could easily go around avoiding the camp, so the whole system would become more dynamic. it also gives people a lot of choices e.g.: a.: warping to the outbound l-point directly b.: warping to the closest l-point and jump to the outbound l-point c.: use a stargate and getting to your destination faster by paying isk
2. Sovereignty and Security
The L4 and L5 would also have another purpose, because all traffic goes through there, in highsec you will see an empire owned POS with a large bubble and its usuall concord detachment. In lowsec only one of the two will be guarded. This allows criminals to roam through lowsec with ease, while also giving lawful citizens more safety. this will hopefully draw more people into lowsec.
In nullsec, L4 an L5 are required to hold sov. this means that you have to have sov claiming poses on all L4 and L5 points in order to gain sov in that system. Furthermore it will be not the towers that claim the sov. but a special modul with power and cpu demands that use up all of a small poses resources. This modul only claims sov for 48 hours until it needs to be 'recharched' by the presence of a ship the speed of the recharging is determined by ship number and size, where 1 noob ship will need 48 hours and a titan 5 minutes.
the advantages of this system here is multifold, first of all the large anchored bubbles in highsec and lowsec increase traveltime which makes it more lucrative time-wise to use unprotected l-points in lowsec or stargates. it also, as mentioned, makes traveling through lowsec much safer and once people find it safer to travel it will be more populated and there will hopefully be more people ratting and mining there. also this system forces alliances to actually patrol their sovereign territory on a regular basis, which effectively limits the amount of space an alliance can claim by its active numbers, it also gives alliances some access control over their territory but also limits the destructive capabilities of the pos due to the hefty requirements of the claim module.
^^This Never have been. Never will be. An Alt. |
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 18:28:00 -
[84]
Edited by: silken mouth on 13/05/2009 18:28:39
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
So you basically want to increase the routing options. This would drastically reduce transit times across large distances and make it almost impossible to defend a system, let alone a group of systems, at all as there would be multiple routes into any constellation. The economy would be drastically and detrimetally effected with an evening out of prices as those 20-jump trade routes became 10-jump routes due to the increased routing options. Many systems would become underpopulated as they would not be on the shortest route between trade/mission/mining nodes in hisec, and travel betwen nodes would take no time. What you are suggesting would effectively make New Eden smaller, and the knock-on effects of this are the reason I feel it would be detrimental to Eve.
1. the routing options would increase yes, but due to the very short range and the time required to recharge capacitor before you can jump it would take more time not less. many routes would take 2 to 3 fold amount of jumps since you cant use long range stargate anymore, unless you pay for it.
2. defending your territory would automatically come with claiming sov, because in order to claim sov you need POSes with claiming structure on every jump out point. small gangs are either well organized for remote repping or fast on their feet or the POS will claim some of them.
|
Talesha
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 18:38:00 -
[85]
Having grown up on a steady diet of Elite and Elite 2 I've always been partial to the idea of having no jumps gates or at least only jump gates in higher security regions. X and other space games always felt just like a series of boxes to me rather than being in open space and whilst I think eve has done better than all the rest of the space gate games to keep it's openess it still suffers.
I would go the whole way and suggest you can jump from any point in a system to another system in range and you would land at a random spot in that system. However to ensure pvp and that options on route still mattered I would propose a system that meant the further you wanted to jump the longer it would take your ship to correctly align and power up for the jump, during which time you give off a wapping big signal that's pretty easy to scan down - welcome back a proper role for fast warp interceptors! Additionaly you could have downside jump interferance which meant the longer the jump the longer it is before you can give your ship instructions. You then have a choice of lots of small jumps to minimise exposure or several big jumps to minimise travel time.
Only one idea, but I think there are plenty of options out there for being able to make this work.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 18:51:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Talesha Having grown up on a steady diet of Elite and Elite 2 I've always been partial to the idea of having no jumps gates or at least only jump gates in higher security regions. X and other space games always felt just like a series of boxes to me rather than being in open space and whilst I think eve has done better than all the rest of the space gate games to keep it's openess it still suffers.
I would go the whole way and suggest you can jump from any point in a system to another system in range and you would land at a random spot in that system. However to ensure pvp and that options on route still mattered I would propose a system that meant the further you wanted to jump the longer it would take your ship to correctly align and power up for the jump, during which time you give off a wapping big signal that's pretty easy to scan down - welcome back a proper role for fast warp interceptors! Additionaly you could have downside jump interferance which meant the longer the jump the longer it is before you can give your ship instructions. You then have a choice of lots of small jumps to minimise exposure or several big jumps to minimise travel time.
Only one idea, but I think there are plenty of options out there for being able to make this work.
i would really vote against longer jumpranges as it would really reduce traveltime to much.
so i would set the jump range between 0.7 to 1.5 lightyears.
if you want to check out what i mean, you can use ICSCs Jumprange tool and test it with the mentioned Yong-biphi-mamet pipe. Note : a dread has 5 ly base jumprange.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 19:51:00 -
[87]
Originally by: silken mouth 1. the routing options would increase yes, but due to the very short range and the time required to recharge capacitor before you can jump it would take more time not less. many routes would take 2 to 3 fold amount of jumps since you cant use long range stargate anymore, unless you pay for it.
Then you would still have bottlenecks at the Lagrange points, and you would still have bottleneck systems where you can only get to two or three other systems. Are you suggesting that capacitor powers these jumps, and therefore your cap size will determine your jump range? That would turn the capacitor into a strategic system as well as the tactical system it is now. High cap haulers would be the order of the day, for example.
Quote: 2. defending your territory would automatically come with claiming sov, because in order to claim sov you need POSes with claiming structure on every jump out point. small gangs are either well organized for remote repping or fast on their feet or the POS will claim some of them.
I'm not talking about Sov, I'm talking about defending an area for a short period while a mining op is ongoing, for example. Under your system all defenses are permenant. I agree that Sov mechanics needs an overhaul, but I think that FW should work in the same way - after all, who cares if the territory is owned by NPCs or by PCs? I also agree that border control is an essential part of any realistic Sov/FW mechanic, but under your system you could only ever control who exits your territory, not who enters.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 20:28:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Lear Hepburn
Then you would still have bottlenecks at the Lagrange points, and you would still have bottleneck systems where you can only get to two or three other systems. Are you suggesting that capacitor powers these jumps, and therefore your cap size will determine your jump range? That would turn the capacitor into a strategic system as well as the tactical system it is now. High cap haulers would be the order of the day, for example.
bottlenecks in a solarsystem are necessary for pvp, because thats where most of the pvp happens, but the traveling pipelines are the thing i want to see gone.
i thought more of a capacitor percentage to jump with skill deciding how far you can go (0.7 to 1.5 ly) similar to the skillset for capital jumpdrives.
Quote:
I'm not talking about Sov, I'm talking about defending an area for a short period while a mining op is ongoing, for example.
and the problem is? sure simple gate camping isnt gonna protect your miners, but you can always put your defensive fleet right next to the miners. keep in mind that an entering hostile gang would first have to gather somewhere unless they are willing warp into combat without unit cohesion. Quote:
I agree that Sov mechanics needs an overhaul, but I think that FW should work in the same way - after all, who cares if the territory is owned by NPCs or by PCs? I also agree that border control is an essential part of any realistic Sov/FW mechanic, but under your system you could only ever control who exits your territory, not who enters.
better than having no control at all, i am not even strongly opposed to allow jumping only from jump point to jump point. just like with stargates just more options where to jump to.
and regarding sov: from my original post Quote:
This modul only claims sov for 48 hours until it needs to be 'recharched' by the presence of a ship the speed of the recharging is determined by ship number and size, where 1 noob ship will need 48 hours and a titan 5 minutes.
so policing was something i had considered.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 20:42:00 -
[89]
Ok, now I think I understand, and I think some of your ideas could work. The question really is whether they should work, and what effect they would have on the game.
Increased routing options would make trading safer and easier. The number of jumps may not increase, and the time taken may not increase, but the ability to easily sidestep pirates would make it easier, which would have a detrimental effect on trading in general (if ist's easy it's not profitable) and would remove some of the steeper price gradients we see across some of the more heavily camped pipes.
Defending a mining op, for example, would be harder if point defense is your only option. Under your system a blitz attack could be without warning and devastating to the miners. Under the current system the miners get a warning at the gate nd can jump to a SS, and they are not immediate targets as any scouting attempt could be disrupted, or at least made harder.
Regarding Sov, I would rather discuss it as a seperate topic, but policing cannot be effective unless both entry to and exit from a system can be controlled.
|
Narcil Starwind
Exa Utopia
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 20:44:00 -
[90]
EVE did not start out with Star Gates. They were added later in order to facilitate conflict. They are now ingrained into the fabric of EVE and effect everything from Trading to PVP.
It is never a good idea to remove working functionality. Star Gates make it possible to jump very very long distances that Jump Drives can not reach. Inter region gates along the rim allow roaming gangs to go very far from home, and also allow for trade.
Something I would like to see that wouldn't require the removal of star gates, but would allow you to bypass some gate camps, would be every ship in eve receiving a short ranged jump drive. Like 1 LY or something like that. It would only allow you to move short distances so real travel would require star gates. In order to jump you would require some fuel like normal jump drives and you'd have to lock on to a large celestial object in the destination system, a Lagrange point, or a cyno field.
This would not break any of the current tactics, but would give you the option to short cut some of the short distance gates.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |