|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:30:00 -
[1]
I was reading the posts about the problems with local chat in regards to both macro miners/ratters and gate campers, and it seems to me that both issues are a result of the same thing - in order to enter a system (generally) one must go through a gate. This is a chokepoint for campers on one hand, on the other it triggers macros to warp ships to safe points.
My idea is for CCP to create a module that allows a ship to drop a beacon of sorts, that would allow the ship that dropped it to warp directly back to that location from anywhere else in the Universe. The restriction would be that only the ship that dropped the beacon would be allowed to use it. The module could create a one time and one way wormhole tunnel with the destination and ship mass known, and will be available as long as the module stays equiped to the same ship and the ships mass remains relatively the same. |
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 11:45:00 -
[2]
Why not? |
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 12:21:00 -
[3]
I see your points. However with my idea: In order to drop a beacon one must go there first - This creates traffic for PVP.
Asteriod belts become more of a focal point for PVP because ratters and miners would not be able to detect someone jumping through the wormhole. They would show up on local only after their ship appears, which could end up right next to them. This would discourage macro'ing and make the actual process of collecting ore and killing rats more dangerous than the transport of the loot.
I could see an issue brought up about when a player would know that it is the right time to use their wormhole. If the beacon is thought of as a direct link to another part of the universe, then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that the link can transmit/receive data. The beacon could have sensors on them that detect ships within a certain range.
I am thinking that more than one beacon could be deployed at once which would give PVPers more of a chance to find targets in the long run.
|
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 12:29:00 -
[4]
While yes, the idea is a way of getting around gate camps, it is also a way for people to not have to rely on it as much to find some action. It would create more movement I believe. While it would give the attackers more of an element of surprise, chances are there would be less of them because only the ships that could get to the point of attack (quickly anyways) would be those that dropped a beacon in the first place. Everyone else would have to take the normal route.
|
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 12:53:00 -
[5]
I think that my intentions may have been misread. I was not talking about buffing cyno. I was talking about dropping one beacon and letting only the ship that created it wormhole back to the point directly from another system.
No need to get rid of local. For those who wish, this would bypass it. You wouldn't show up in it until it was generally too late for a target to react affectively.
Dynamic playing? How dymanic is it really to sit in front of a gate, or outside of a staion and wait for someone to show up so that you can attack them. This is the main source of PVP action and it sucks in my opinion. I was not making suggestions that would avoid combat. I was thinking that this would improve it somewhat.
|
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 13:56:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz Gate camps are lame...
Macros ruin the game
We already have cynos... your trying to create a type of mini-cyno and you just didn't quite get it fleshed out enough for everyone to understand.
Yes you are probably right. Forget about the title. Can I change it? I was just thinking of ways that would improve EVE without really taking away the parts that are already there. Adding a new feature, if you will. I am not a troll, I just didn't get my point across correctly and it probably started off with the title. |
Pete Eichas
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 14:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sturdy Girl Obvious troll anyone? I'll bite anyway...
The symptoms discussed (macros and campers) are unrelated. One of the symptoms (macros) is complete unrelated to the specified cause (gates). The specified cause of the problem is unrelated to the proposed solution.
Your right the symptoms are not related, but the process is. Both use your entry in a system (showing you in local) to either attack you in the case of campers, or run away in the case of the macros miners and ratters. I would like to see a way developed for getting sround the campers while at the same time having more of a chance to get to the ratter and miners.
|
|
|
|