EVE Search - Sci-fi influences, EVE vision and you.

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sci-fi influences, EVE vision and you.

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Topic
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:50:00 - [1] This board gets a lot of ideas, daily. People want this game to become what they think is the best experience, and I get that. But the ideas are usually taken from other games, which are really borrowed from past movies and books. I have my own idea to share, maybe first of many, but I want to quickly say something about the process first. I want EVE to be completely unique and original, not a unique mix of cliches (Starcraft). Its the difference between starting a trend, and continuing one. I've read enough books and watched enough movies to know what space sci-fi usually involves, and I still like it. But new and fresh is always better, and even though we're all heavily influenced by that stuff, I'm trying to look at why space sci-fi has to have a certain feature. First I looked for the number one reason why people are fascinated by space sci-fi, and this game. My Guess: it's the vastness and freedom. Space is big, really big. At the same time you're flying away from danger, you could be walking right into it. The unknown infinity is both scary and exciting. That vastness and unknown quality is kind of lacking here. I figure the reason is cuz everyone can see where everything is. Space isn't space, its 5000 places on a fully explored map you can visit. What passes for the "frontier" in here has been explored and conquered a hundred times over. I'd like to see the frontier spirit return to this game (pun intended). Before we start throwing mechanics around, I offer a slightly gentler start. It won't let you go out into deep space and lose yourself among the stars, but it'll make EVE feel vast. The background skyboxes for each system must be changed. You can really tell the systems in EVE were procedurally generated, when there's 5000 of them using 10 backgrounds. They try to make systems different by tilting and spinning these background nebulae, but that can only go so far.. Check it out: you're traveling somewhere in empire and you're in a deep crimson system where your hull gleams like its on fire. You look out and see tendrils of gas wider than a hundred solar systems, stretching out like a sea. You make 1 jump, and its green. You make another and its blue. What the hell? Maybe you're lucky, and the constellation/region you call home has some semblance of unity, but then you take a roadtrip to the other side of the map and everything looks the same. Or maybe you wanted to see what the edge of known space looked like (do a bit of explorin'), and realized it was Jita with less traffic. Alright, you get the point. COSMOS was the old solution, but it's really hard to churn content for that many systems. I think the following should be possible: Systems are arranged in 3D space, so why not make one giant, highly-detailed nebula or nebulae. Then we overlay the entire map, and have a computer process what the background skybox would look like from each of the 5000 positions. Voila. Each system is completely unique, while constellations and even regions would have a common theme. EVE might be a long way from system-wide nebulae and asteroid belts, but at least jumping around would feel as if you're moving across a vast expanse. The devs are big enough to have the necessary artists for a project like this, but even if the man-hours are too much, its also a project that could be outsourced quite easily! We can also include some feeling of mystery and the unknown by having interesting places in the nebula resting in the empty spaces between regions. Examples: Vapor Sea Trace Cosmos Cord of the Elements Ginnungagap I'd like to hear if this is even feasible, but don't really mind otherwise. It's just a small example of the process at work. What other root reasons exist that force you into loving space sci-fi?
Kiarah Gallente Janus Pilot Corps	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:52:00 - [2] tl/dr
Zaqar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:59:00 - [3] Edited by: Zaqar on 30/07/2008 19:01:30 Well, we were told that the ship/station overhaul was only the first part of the new graphics. Hopefully they will include this in one of the phases.... Edit: Jeez. TL;DR version: Eve's system backgrounds are samey, boring and in need of more variety.
justsometrader	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:00:00 - [4] someone please tell me what the big text is about ?
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:05:00 - [5] Originally by: Zaqar Edited by: Zaqar on 30/07/2008 19:01:30 Well, we were told that the ship/station overhaul was only the first part of the new graphics. Hopefully they will include this in one of the phases.... Edit: Jeez. TL;DR version: Eve's system backgrounds are samey, boring and in need of more variety. Maybe, but I doubt it mate. This isn't really about overhauling graphics. The current skyboxes are pretty enough. Even if we see a whole lot more, its not changing the way you feel when flying about.
Danzig256k Caldari Mortal Devastating Kin Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:13:00 - [6] i agree with the op, plus want to add that it was a very well written point hopefully they have that already in the works
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:20:00 - [7] You guys are really bad at making tl;dr versions, but I can't really explain that in a short version... Summary He is saying that the eve universe we have now is very static and already explored, in a way this feels wrong and makes exploring less exciting (and I agree to that). And to change that he trows in a simple example of how to make it more interesting to fly arround, also eliminating the problem of having only . backgrounds. /Summary While I completely agree to that and I think it is a feasable idea it might get too big if you have 5000 different static backgrounds. I think a system will be needed that actually calculates the background as you jump in or whatever because whatever you say, 5000 pictures is alot of space, especially at eve sizes. As for your first point, I think we should get new space... but in a way where we actually need to explore ourselves, where we need to go to work to setup research on a star to see if it's a possible stargate location and send ships/whatever to it to like put up a cyno and enable you to jump in equipment to build a gate in space... I think something similar to that would work really well and even gives smaller corperations a chance to explore their own space and hold it by controlling all structures... Even better would be if the systems available for us aren't actually pre made but generated in a dynamic system that will allow the eve universe to grow by demand... Also this belongs to features and ideas. Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Sky Grunthor Minmatar The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:38:00 - [8] you wouldn't need 5000 different backgrounds... the change in perspective wouldn't really be noticeable from constellation to constellation on the grand scheme of things. so if we just had a background for each constellation... that isn't any where near 5000, maybe 100 or so? Search: Sky Grunthor
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:41:00 - [9] They are going to update the backgrounds for trinity, as they will eventually update mission objects, riods, effects (weapon effects seems different on the advertisements that recently propped up), and sky boxes. They hope to also expand eve inward, but more stuff into space in this already empty place, so being able to do more stuff between stargates isntead of just breezzing thoguh. New Ship Idea: Tender Supply Ship, The Logistics Sister
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:44:00 - [10] Originally by: sg3s You guys are really bad at making tl;dr versions, but I can't really explain that in a short version... Summary He is saying that the eve universe we have now is very static and already explored, in a way this feels wrong and makes exploring less exciting (and I agree to that). And to change that he trows in a simple example of how to make it more interesting to fly arround, also eliminating the problem of having only . backgrounds. /Summary While I completely agree to that and I think it is a feasable idea it might get too big if you have 5000 different static backgrounds. I think a system will be needed that actually calculates the background as you jump in or whatever because whatever you say, 5000 pictures is alot of space, especially at eve sizes. As for your first point, I think we should get new space... but in a way where we actually need to explore ourselves, where we need to go to work to setup research on a star to see if it's a possible stargate location and send ships/whatever to it to like put up a cyno and enable you to jump in equipment to build a gate in space... I think something similar to that would work really well and even gives smaller corperations a chance to explore their own space and hold it by controlling all structures... Even better would be if the systems available for us aren't actually pre made but generated in a dynamic system that will allow the eve universe to grow by demand... Also this belongs to features and ideas. That is an admirable attempt to summarize, though its one example of applied ethos you're focusing on. That is why I do not place this in features and ideas. I want to hash out what people like most about space sci-fi, and then why. If we know why something is good, we don't have to copy it. We can give EVE the right feeling and experience without constructing it from used parts that some author created. I don't want to spew a bunch of mechanics without really explaining why I'm changing stuff, but I don't like pointless analytics that don't contribute.. you know? Here's another quick example being applied to show you what I mean: Why do people want crazy massive ships and space stations? - Because of scale. Why is scale important? - Because it reminds us the universe is big locally, giving everything in the background distance more immensity. How does this work? - Structures like giant spaceships and stations fill the size difference between you and celestial objects. These objects allow our brains to extrapolate the true size of something at distance. Does it work in EVE? - Sort of, most people play zoomed out to reduce lag and help control combat. What can we do to fix? - Now you tell me. Why do we have ships several times longer than Babylon 5, and stations large enough to compete with the Death Star if we just ignore it?

Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 19:50:00 - [11] Originally by: Sky Grunthor you wouldn't need 5000 different backgrounds... the change in perspective wouldn't really be noticeable from constellation to constellation on the grand scheme of things. so if we just had a background for each constellation... that isn't any where near 5000, maybe 100 or so? Maybe that would pass, I don't know. But the only reason is to reduce the amount of hard drive space EVE takes. Most of the new games I've installed are chewing through 6-10 GB, and EVE is maybe 2-3 GB after a year of logs, screenshots, portraits and planets. If you can render 5000 high quality images, you can render 5000 low quality images and give people the option. Really, this is technical discussion. Does it matter? EVE has overcome far greater obstacles of engineering.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:21:00 - [12] Originally by: Entenderizer ... We not not 'ignore' it, most of us simply do not know there is an issue with scale and sizes in eve and are less interested with it. Anyway to the point, what you are saying is that what you state in the op post is a part of a bigger problem, in the end it all falls under immersion of the game. And I understand you do not want to explain a game mechanics as your idea, because this is in fact wrong, it will not be an idea just a badly written design of a mechanic in the game. You should understand that raising a problem together with why it is a problem and where and for whom, then suggesting something that may be able to solve that specific problem (while not exactly telling the devs how to realise it) is in fact a very good features & ideas post. Therefor it this should belong to features and ideas discussion. If you feel you want to adress a bigger point, say overall immersion in the eve universe then it would be easyer to put it in a general topic and feed people some basic info and ideas of what you think, making them realise the problem and brainstorm for a solution. And you gave an other really interesting example that immedialty relates to immersion in the eve universe, namely, the scale of things. I think I have a fairly good idea of the scale of things within eve and how it relates to other sci fi movie objects and such. I am well aware that everything in eve is massible and not to be underestimated when talking about size. The problems with scale really start where people cannot scope the size of things, if you have ever seen the size comparisation chart (it's an old one features the 4 titans moms, carriers, freighters and some BS) there is is a small tower in the left or right bottom wich represents the size of the eifel tower from paris, france. People cannot imagine the size of their ship... or atleast not yet. This is because they can barely relate it to something they know, because most massive things we know, are small compared to eve ships. Hopefully this part will be solved in ambulation if you can watch your ship floating from the outside. So thats the first problem we have with scale and sizes. The second is that the scale and sizes of objects, except planets and moons here, thats a different problem, feel 'wrong' compared to each other... in relation to each other the scales in eve are not right, the stations do not compare 'corrrectly' to a battleships... or battleships to carriers. Or maybe it's all correct but we cannot scope the size of things here... but then again is very unlikely that you can fit as many ships and equipment in the 'small' stations we have now... I really do not know how to solve this as I am well aware that this is a technical limitation for the most part, but it is a problem if you ask me. The last part of the problems with scale and dimension, are planets and moons, and the sun. Again, while it is very hard to even imagine the scale and size of things here, things feel and are wrong here, but possibly it is not the scale of the planets and moons here, but the representation of them. Simply put, they do not look like planets, or not like we think they should look at least, they have no atmosphere etc. I think the planets and moons are probably one of the easyer parts to 'fix' and they probably are already on the way, judging from the things I've seen and read. But there is an other problem with this, after it looks good, it doesn't mean it is going to feel good as well. This is where the problem of bumping into planets/moons is being a problem.... it is not going to work if I will still bump off some glowy surface if I come too close. I know eve is not a champ in physics, but I think this part is something that needs to be added, I don't care if you will lose your ship then, make a comprehensive warning system to warn people about the dangers of their enviroment, but make it, or it is still not going to feel real. Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:24:00 - [13] Originally by: Entenderizer Originally by: Sky Grunthor you wouldn't need 5000 different backgrounds... the change in perspective wouldn't really be noticeable from constellation to constellation on the grand scheme of things. so if we just had a background for each constellation... that isn't any where near 5000, maybe 100 or so? Maybe that would pass, I don't know. But the only reason is to reduce the amount of hard drive space EVE takes. Most of the new games I've installed are chewing through 6-10 GB, and EVE is maybe 2-3 GB after a year of logs, screenshots, portraits and planets. If you can render 5000 high quality images, you can render 5000 low quality images and give people the option. Really, this is technical discussion. Does it matter? EVE has overcome far greater obstacles of engineering. Well, even if it is technical, it is still and issue, I like to raise issues even if they are technical, just to see if someone has an answer to it, and Sky Grunthor definitly raised a viable solution, maybe not the best but it is a solution . Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:33:00 - [14] Oh, here's another sci-fi trademark that comes to mind.. We have ship classes of varied size, and the smallest one is almost always fast and maneuverable. We like this because the naval fleet style is familiar and understandable. It also looks good. But is it realistic? If we're 23,000 years into the future, with AIs and lasers and quantum sensors, there is no chance a fighter type craft could avoid being tracked just by flying fast. It's kind of stupid, but it makes for great gameplay. Battleships being able to instapop your frig/cruiser was never much fun. And more recently, Devs have taken action against ships that fly so fast they break the physics this game was designed to support. In the end, its all about small ships being able to evade large ones. That's the feeling we want. That a small ship you're ignoring can sneak up close and drop some firecrackers down your chute and save the day. If it sounds familiar, its because of George Lucas. Instead of raw speed, how about we play up stealth and electronics a bit? We already have the basics with sig radius and lock time, and I do not want to get into any game mechanics of how it can be expanded. So just like the first idea with maps, we can do an entirely visual change: When a small ship is moving with transverse it's bracket icon would fade out some. If its got a high sig and sitting still, or moving straight at you, it would brighten up. Ships you are never going to hit would have their brackets blink out out of existence, and skip around trying to follow the flight path. Maybe it would appear slightly offset from the actual ship. Your client already has this information, and some people put it on their overviews. Only now, it feels right because the information is presented in a good way. Heck, it might make you fight better. You can do the same trick for distance to give battles more depth. That's one of the main reasons people zoom out, or stay glued to their overviews. I hate that; fighting a fleet battle from a text box. Instead of making brackets fade out with distance (as was done in the past), make them morph in size. A battleship sitting 20km from you is going to have a bigger and more detailed icon than a battleship sniping from 200km. But it will unmistakably be a battleship icon. This is a partial fix to the scale problem I pointed out above. Even if people continue zooming out, a capital ship is going to appear bigger than a cruiser, and a Titan icon from 200km might still dwarf a battleship icon near you. That visual difference is just extending the physical one. Once again, whatever the future of EVE is, its going to be judged on the player experience not features and mechanics. That experience has to live up to the expectations people have created from books and movies, but it doesn't mean adding something straight from books and movies will equate. Simplest gripe I can point out that proves the point is EVE's proliferation of capital ships. I'll throw another one forward: Why do some people like the concept of mining space rocks so much its their first thought when they hear about a game like this?
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:37:00 - [15] Heh, you wrote a good post when I was busy writing one. I'll think about it and respond in a while. It'll let other people take catch up and throw in two their comments in the meantime.
Sky Grunthor Minmatar The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:43:00 - [16] your getting into ideas that cause information overload. a player still has to process that information and truthfully the only thing that people see when pvping is red box, orange box, red star whatever and they have to use there knowledge of what ships are what to make a judgment. Simplifying the UI is helpful... not making it more complex. On the other hand changing generic background or tertiary imagery and objects to make the environment less repetitive and more engrossing is a good thing. Messing up UI interaction and such so that it does too much, or not enough from the other direction is not a good thing. Search: Sky Grunthor
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:47:00 - [17] Originally by: Entenderizer Heh, you wrote a good post when I was busy writing one. I'll think about it and respond in a while. It'll let other people take catch up and throw in two their comments in the meantime. Heh... yeah I actually ran out of space there so decided to round it up a bit Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 22:21:00 - [18] Alright, doing my best to avoid a crummy response. You're right that we're pointing out problems, and offering solutions thus making it a valid Features & Ideas thread. You're also right that if there's anything for generalized discussion, its to raise awareness about problems with immersion that most people have learned to live with. But if we generate interest and awareness in anything, its that we can improve the game we have now without changing it into something else. For low risk, and relatively low effort, everyone can win. To prove it, lets ignore all the immersion problems and trying to create an awesome space sci-fi experience. What about the popularity of MMOs? It's the people and social interaction that makes you keep playing, long after the game loses its magic. Well CCP's current megaproject is Ambulation, which is certainly going to address the socializing atmosphere. But we can try accomplishing the same, with far less effort. Put a communication station service that creates a regional chat channel or ingame forum. Maybe this station service would include a public channels list, that would also display the name, MOTD, and player count of various player-owned channel stats. A lot of channels exist, but there is no easy way to know what they are. Obviously, I am not suggesting this is cooler than walking around in physical form. Big projects only create new potential, but we're not even close to exhausting what we have before declaring it done and finished. Anyhow, enough of that. On your points about scale: all good. I didn't consider that seeing your ship docked in Ambulation might help you visualize the true size of ships. I don't want to comment much, because we don't know how well that works. Current ship models and textures make me skeptical, and it might hurt immersion as much as it helps it. You finally realize how big your ship is, then start wondering where the hell your station has hidden the other 6000 ships docked. As for celestial objects, maybe there's another easy 'visual' improvement: Planets are big, but they don't look big because the warp in point is always very far away. I understand why this is so. If you've ever seen how blurry and non-descript moons/planets look from up close, you wouldn't want them in your face constantly. Even the massive distance of moons to their gas giant hosts is made large just to hide their inadequacy. Unfortunately, saying we could move warp-ins closer doesn't fit well in my ethos of improving what we have, because it requires on CCP to release big changes. That sucks, but on the positive side, these are changes we know to be happening and not something we have to plead for. I can only hope our Titan pilots will eventually get the shit humbled out of them in 2008. Second part of the scale problem: we humans don't have any everyday objects next to EVE objects to compare. I've seen the scale chart for ships in EVE, and putting small Eiffel towers in space doesn't seem right. The closest thing we have is port windows. But these are screwing up immersion quite impressively: - They're all different sizes, even after Trinity II upgrade - Even the smallest one would be like.. tall as a house and the biggest as tall as a city. What are we, Zentradi? Fixing it now is a lot of work, so here's something easy: Many stations have multiple exits, but only one is used - the biggest one to accommodate the biggest ship. Why doesn't the station eject you from the appropriately sized port? If there is one just big enough for frigates, you can have an accurate representation of that ship's size by having conning towers and small car-sized robotic vehicles around it. That gives players a baseline reference they can build on. As an added bonus, it makes station camping more interesting. Then there are the biodomes many stations have.. we could do something there too.
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 22:28:00 - [19] Originally by: Sky Grunthor your getting into ideas that cause information overload. a player still has to process that information and truthfully the only thing that people see when pvping is red box, orange box, red star whatever and they have to use there knowledge of what ships are what to make a judgment. Simplifying the UI is helpful... not making it more complex. On the other hand changing generic background or tertiary imagery and objects to make the environment less repetitive and more engrossing is a good thing. Messing up UI interaction and such so that it does too much, or not enough from the other direction is not a good thing. You are totally correct, it could be overwhelming to the player in the way I described it. But it does not prove that our current UI is very streamlined and efficient to begin with. There are plenty of ways to overwhelm yourself with information as is - cue overview filters, hiding passive mods, and bracket filters. The solution is, of course, to either streamline the UI or do what I said in a less intrusive way. Or both. Probably both. And we know CCP is already aiming for a complete GUI overhaul. I'm happy to counter any technical concerns, because we should avoid ******ed suggestions that could never be implemented. It is much easier to debate on the technical side, than argue with someone who is offended/scared this idea would take resources and delay another idea. But in the end, its not our concern. Our job is to articulate what we want, and why. Half the blame of lackluster features/expansions of any MMO can be traced to the players who asked for stuff in a vague and unreasonable manner.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:01:00 - [20] There aren't a lot of 'easy' solutions for problems, if there were, we would have seen that in the game. I am not saying there aren't any easy solutions but in the end there will still be some work needed to realise them. This is the point where you are urged to say "Ok so we want this changed to this, but in time it might not works as well as intended and be bad as well, why not put more work into it to get it right?". In the even the best of program/game designs will have flaws and things that can be done better, and over time that number increases, but to change things to make it work once again you need to spend a whole lot of time extra to see if it is actually better. Small changes can make a big impact, they need to be considdered and well thought out. A good example of small things that are actually quite big is the undock suggestion you give. If we ignore the problems with scale and size, there are a lot of oppurtunities here, but in the end someone will have to go over all station models to find and code new exit points on them. Also there would be a need to a system that makes the undock procedure a lot more complicated, together with that is also needs extensive testing, as it will have a big impact if there is even a slight problem. A good example of that is how the sig radius of stations was a bit messed up after the gfx update and people were undocking outside redock range. Meaning death to many that did not realise this. An other thing you suggested is that stations have biodome like structures on them, and you could do something here. Unfortunatly we already know seeing a real time presentation of what is out there is never going to happen, however if you mean something else/static animation it could be really nice yeah... Would love to see that work. On the side of the planets and moons, I do not know if you realise this but space is actually not far from here, only about 100km upward. I think it is unlogical to warp in @ 10 000km or further from a planet (although with the larger planets that might be nessacery) when you can be safe and have 'a better view' close by... ofcourse the issue of the grafics sucking is still a valid reason not to, but when that changes there really isn't any other reason. And depending how they do it I might be warping arround exploring the differences between planets eh. Then the last issue would be the UI... we all know the current UI sucks and that it does need changes, I am easy at learning simple mechanics of programs/games I was able to master it long ago and never really think about it. But after reading some excellent posts made by Xaen I was made aware how bad the UI is in eve, you can ask Xaen all about it, he will know. CCP knows their issues with the UI and they actually have a few applications open for UI developers, which means they intend to fix it. Also, since there aren't a lot of simple solutions, sometimes big changes are needed to create new oppurtunities, I hope ambulation will do that, as well as any upcomming big release, because the playerbase will not notice a big patch with small improvements. Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.

Xano Heroma Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:18:00 - [21] to get the sci-fi feeling, EVE needs to be made bigger ( not actual size, but the way it apears ! ) the fact that you can travel anywere quite fast, makes it seem small... much like airplanes do in RL. the fact that we have map functions that shows were people are, and that a system(zone) have a channel that show those who are in the system makes a system seem like just alittle room. make traveling longer.... travel from 1 faction space to another should be a time consuming thing. (so you would feel that you actually travelled) remove local channel (or modifi it) so you can't see other people in system.... bring back the mystery of space ! remove the map funtion that tells you were people are... and how many ships been destroyed and so on....... EVE is a controlled space, were everythings locations are known , it should be more unknown ! IMO.
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:11:00 - [22] Well sg3s, you don't have to tell me how small and seemingly innocuous changes can end up going astray. I'm a game programmer, but I think any programmer could appreciate that possibility in code of this complexity. However, small changes are still easier than big ones, and this game almost always has some major project going on. As you said, player demands (and marketing concerns) create strong pressure. There's no reason to shy away from the smaller details, because in the end they do add up to that feeling of polish. I'd also like to point out that its less about the size of change, and more about improving the experience without changing the game. Basically, what are the improvements anyone can live with? Mr Xano here suggested a few commonly recurring ideas for making EVE feel bigger, and I do agree with them. But good luck trying to pass them into reality, its like shitting bricks. No matter the logic for something like, say.. removing local, people will oppose it because it changes gameplay first, then it changes the EVE experience. I don't want to bury discussion with the logistics related commentary, so I'll continue with the asteroids tangent I brought up earlier. I think asteroid belts have appeal because they're a part of the natural environment you can interact with, whereas celestial objects are static eye-candy, human constructs (gates, stations) are not natural, and the largest physical property of space is the absence of anything :/ Another reason asteroid belts are cool, is because they fill local space with objects that - in purely sci-fi reasoning - offer both riches and ruin. Safety and danger. It takes the vastness of the universe, and hides it to an almost claustrophobic level. Its the idea that no matter how much of the universe you can see and chart, there's always a measure of unknown right under your nose that will always change form. A third reason is that asteroid belts require more interactive piloting, whereas in deep space you'd set a direct course from point to point, then sit back and wait. Hence why asteroid belt space combat is so much more interesting to watch on film. Now, I know there have been changes promised in the field of mining and tactical environments for ages. But how about something we can have right now? A possible course: Remove asteroid names from overview and scanner completely, and give the asteroid scanner module 5-10km range. The kicker is your scanner is not going to be 100% accurate. It might think Bistot is Dark Ochre. You use your visual skills and test drills to separate the good and bad. Kind of like actual prospecting, you know? How about asteroid belts do not show on your system list, scanner or in space unless you're within 1au of the planet in question. It makes sense that asteroid belt mass would be more diffuse and harder to distinguish at a distance. This validates the system surveying aspect of the "miner's fantasy" without making it ridiculous time/isk sinks (a la moon surveys). It wouldn't even affect pvp, and it would give some weight to local terrain knowledge. Plus, those passing through a system wouldn't have 90% of its mysteries revealed right away for no reason whatsoever. If it screws with macros in any way, well that's just peachy. Current belts could stand to change shape to something more inclusive of the Z-axis, but that is (hopefully) coming. In the end, we could have a much more polished experience without doing much of anything to the game. What about the jet-can issue with mining? That one has been around for years, and resulted in the addition of criminalized theft flagging. Its a small, but nagging question I have: why did the ore have to be jettisoned into any container at all? Realistically, that's not a very efficient use of space, and visually it looks lame. Let miners launch a small gravitonic beacon that attracts pulverized gravel-ore into a loosely held sphere, maybe? It would even "grow" with size.
sg3s Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:48:00 - [23] Well, while the ideas for mining are in fact pretty good, it does have it's bad sides. In this case, suggesting to remove belts from the 'standart' locations in the system means you add a new task to what a miner has to do. Currenly we all know how to mine, it's not hard, it's as easy as it can be, it's so mindnumbingly boring that to some being called a miner is an actual insult. Adding even one simple task may upset a lot of people just because it's gonna cost them 30 seconds more to actually start chewing of a rock. And I'm sure you didn't completely forget about it in your thinking process but changing the belts would also have a huge impact ot ratters in 0.0 (something I love to do), and in effect roaming gangs and thus pvp etc... I will not go into how this affects those aspects, they just had to be mentioned. I think CCP is probably going towards a system like you described, based on what they have already done with the on-board scanner/exploration developments, but obviously there are some holes. Simplest being that it is a lot to learn if you are not used to it right now, the mechanics in this part are so complicated that it is even unknown in some parts just how something like scanning down a complex works, although this is obviously somewhat more 'advanced' scanning, just raising the issue. An other reasons, one I think is definitly not really that important, but many people will think it is, is that you will spend more time making the same ammount of isk and thus make less isk/hour... People want to see a solution for that, I can not predict the exact impact of such a change in that degree by merely thinking about it but there might be some interesting problems that arise. And the other suggestion is a sort of bubble for your ore... Yep it is a good idea, in a way, but it needs a bit more elaboration and explanation to it I think. Maybe make new systems based on it rather than replacing the old (obviously making is slightly more efficient to use), because jetcans are a big part of eve and people will not be able to change the way they do their stuff in a single day (well maybe some can but not all). It would be interesting to see how steal mechanics would be incorperated to these 'bubbles' of ore and what more you can do with it for mining, because while you have then changed the way you go to your location and store your ore, the core process is still the same. Thats where the idea of removing ore types and changing scanners to a degree comes in... It is again a very good idea and it does solve a part of it's boringness but it is sort of the same issue as with the belt places... you merely add a chore to the list, because once you find your rock you can enjoy chewing it up. People are not going to like that without some kind of compensation. And now I'm done, it's almost 6am and I think I might go to bed now Originally by: Tarminic Because even when EVE sucks, it sucks less than every other MMO out there.
Entenderizer Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.31 15:46:00 - [24] Aye, a lot of what I described could be interpreted as a chore. But if you step back and look at what constitutes mining in this game, it is simplified down to the last common denominator. You warp to belt, you activate miners. Changing pretty much anything is guaranteed to 'complicate' mining with extra chores and steps. The specific ideas I am not any more confident than you. For a good mining and asteroid belt implementation, it has to do the following: 1. Make prospecting as big a part of mining as the act itself, giving benefits to corporate teamwork. Finding belts (hidden or not) is merely the first natural step. Finding and bookmarking good asteroids could only have value in the near term if said asteroids slowly drift through space. Maybe the rarest things exist in small, fast moving fragments (return of ninja mining?). 2. Make luck as big a part of prospecting as skill, which means doing asteroids with various compositions and visuals. This should be especially prevalent in higher end ores. 3. Asteroid belts must be dangerous in multiple ways, with some hidden from the player. It should be emphasized as an environmental zone with great unknowns. NPC strength would follow the current pattern, but every once in a while they would exhibit completely different behavior and skill (even in empire), making specially fitted ships and afk-mining less secure than. 4. Mining itself should become more active, the higher the ore quality. So if you're mining Arkonor, it wouldn't have to be a pure asteroid that is to be mined completely. Perhaps 90% of all Arkonor in the universe exists in veins and traces of larger, more worthless rocks. 5. Large scale harvesting operations should involve the investment of time, money and infrastructure (think drilling platforms and rock crushers). You pay for the improved efficiency by risking assets which can be destroyed by roving hostiles (black ops vs alliances). 6. Asteroid belts need to be massive to such an extent that hiding yourself amongst the rocks (or staging an ambush) is viable, and would apply to hiding structures from scanner as well. Therefore, all asteroid belts would be 'tactical environments'. Because of their obstructive nature, CCP must also find a way to improve the physics engine to accommodate combat and travel among debris. Those are some of the things that I believe a good space game like EVE needs very badly. During EnB Beta, I had many great experiences with mining because it had a good number of the above elements present. By comparison, in EVE I've always detested it and anything to do with it. I know why the whole asteroid belts / mining element in EVE was never given proper attention, and I'm happy that it will. But it really is like making a car, and forgetting to bolt on the body. It works, but it just ain't pretty. Kind of like fleet battles.. ...

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.