Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Mutnin
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:39:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mutnin on 15/04/2009 20:43:32
What would you do different, if you owned and developed EVE? Please lets keep the typical Falcon and no local whines out. But rather give your ideas for things that could add to the game.
I'll start with 3 things for now..
1) I'd give better control of manual flight, by the use of keyboard controls . IMO the point and click is buggy and laggy at times. I think fights could be a whole lot more interesting if you could manually control your ships via the keyboard and it would better merge the line between "trained" skills and real experience skills.
2) I'd introduce user side development tools, which would allow players to design new ships and components from scratch using basic limitations. Meaning not only could you design the look of the ship, but you could design the fit and component layouts and ship bonuses.
This would of course bring in a whole new group of skills that would need to be trained and I think each ship class would need to require highly focused skills. The designer would then have control of the BPO and could seed BPC's into the market or keep them for himself or corp/alliance.
I think something like this could bring a whole new level into the manufacturing as well as warfare and tactics. You would have the ability of unlimited types of fits based off unique designs, so every fight would have unknown factors.
3) This one is more of a pet peeve, but I'd make it much harder to control large areas of 0.0 space. IMO the big alliances can easily control far too much space and in many cases they never use much of what they control.
I think 0.0 would be a lot more fun, if it involved more smaller alliances holding systems rather than the handful of large alliances like it is now. I'd rather see hundreds of smaller groups owning space and I think it would make the lines much less stagnant and more interesting.
|
Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:44:00 -
[2]
Your #2 point is completely unfeasible for a MMO... Do you realize the load that umpteen thousand different ship types would cause to the system? For a singleplayer game, or for a small population server type game that would be fine, but for a server that already has to handle 40k+ people, adding the capability for players to come up with their very own ships would exponentially increase the amount of ship data that the server has to handle. --------------------------------------------
Quote: EVE-Online... Too rough for ya? Don't like it? GTFO...
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:48:00 -
[3]
Not release any more half-baked features like Factional Warfare and Tech 3 until they're actually finished, and not rush out any expansions-that-shouldn-be-called-expansions like Quantum Rise. ---
|
Arvald
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:49:00 -
[4]
kill everyone...
....(ingame)
ok but seriously, next person that derails my thread gets a railroad spike shoved through their neck |
Mutnin
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:54:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Mutnin on 15/04/2009 20:55:44
Originally by: Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts Your #2 point is completely unfeasible for a MMO... Do you realize the load that umpteen thousand different ship types would cause to the system? For a singleplayer game, or for a small population server type game that would be fine, but for a server that already has to handle 40k+ people, adding the capability for players to come up with their very own ships would exponentially increase the amount of ship data that the server has to handle.
Yes I know what you are saying, but there are ways around that. Number one would be the need for highly focused skills. This would reduce the amount of ships built and likely cause the need for a group to fully design and build one ship.
The ship would then have to be approved by ccp and introduced in a patch update. Meaning it would be a slow process that would weed out the all but serious designers. However those that stuck it out, could then reap the rewards.
Looking at games like Spore and Second Life, this kind of idea is feesable even in a large game such as EVE.
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:56:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mutnin
Originally by: Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts Your #2 point is completely unfeasible for a MMO... Do you realize the load that umpteen thousand different ship types would cause to the system? For a singleplayer game, or for a small population server type game that would be fine, but for a server that already has to handle 40k+ people, adding the capability for players to come up with their very own ships would exponentially increase the amount of ship data that the server has to handle.
Yes I know what you are saying, but there are ways around that. Number one would be the need for highly focused skills. This would reduce the amount of ships built and likely cause the need for a group to fully design and build one ship.
The ship would then have to be approved by ccp and introduced in a patch update. Meaning it would be a slow process that would weed out the all but serious designers.
Looking at games like Spore and Second Life, this kind of idea is feesable even in a large game such as EVE.
Do you happen to know how much work goes into coding, graphic design, testing, q/a, etc?
Heck, even with most modern game companies slacking on the testing and q/a sections, it still takes MONTHS to properly develop new content.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------|||-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 20:56:00 -
[7]
well.
I would let ccp do what their doing, because their doing it damn well.
Then I would tell ccp to make proper level 4 epics (or at least level 3)
Then make them make t3 frigs... because imo on a frig there are more options than a cruiser.
Then i would remove POS's (or at least not pos spamming for sov), and replace it with a mechanic that creates less pos spam ^^ (dont ask what i would actually do because im too lazy. Thats for the design team, not me!)
Then id go on vacation :D
Originally by: Akita T
Seriously ?
...wow... I'm such a forum ho' !
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:01:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Faife on 15/04/2009 21:02:10 i'd replace the spaceships with dinosaurs.
we'd be fitting artillery on T-Rexs and have tackling Raptors that were actual raptors. and there'd be these squid and whales that'd be eating the asteroids. it'd be awesome. --
|
Mutnin
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Do you happen to know how much work goes into coding, graphic design, testing, q/a, etc?
Heck, even with most modern game companies slacking on the testing and q/a sections, it still takes MONTHS to properly develop new content.
Yes, but many games do use player created content and have done so sucesfully. Meaning it can be done with the right setup in place.
I haven't done much lately, but I used to do some 3d work and hobbyist game development. I'm not a programmer, but yes I understand the work involved in adding content to games.
|
Mutnin
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Faife Edited by: Faife on 15/04/2009 21:02:10 i'd replace the spaceships with dinosaurs.
we'd be fitting artillery on T-Rexs and have tackling Raptors that were actual raptors. and there'd be these squid and whales that'd be eating the asteroids. it'd be awesome.
maybe you should play Jetpack Brontosaurus..
http://blurst.com/jetpack-brontosaurus/
|
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:12:00 -
[11]
I would increase the size of systems, as well as the celestial products inside of them. More planets, belts, moons, gas clouds, etc.
I would add a lot of new anchorable objects to compete with POS's. Listening posts, missile batteries, fighter deployment bases, supply depots, etc. A lot of mechanics to add more content to what a system IS and what can be done.
I would add a planetary colonization metagame, which could be used to support the system POS's, etc.
Player stations would be able to host factional agents, to introduce nulsec agents outside of pirate colonies.
Crime would be legitimized with reasonable mechanics to allow players to steal, kill and lie with their own skills and modules.
Security systems would be scaled to allow progressively larger ships to be used in piracy and violence, as the security level decreases.
Criminals would be given mechanics to escape the law, but punishments for crime would be increased significantly, and more diverse.
I'd have the UI completely redone, with popup tooltips and more short-access information, less reliance on right clicking.
Planetary interaction, on the scale and depth of PlanetSide.
Avatars walking and fighting.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------|||-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
|
Kaidem
Minmatar Black Rebellion
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:18:00 -
[12]
New UI
Improve Faction Warfare
Perma-Delete characters / accounts that have been inactive for over 2 years "meaning more character / corp / alliance names to choose from".
Give the Minmatar dread a full rack of missiles or guns, not both.
Maybe a few other things but to be honest, CCP do a damn good job as it is.
|
Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:22:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Mutnin Yes, but many games do use player created content and have done so sucesfully. Meaning it can be done with the right setup in place.
User content lends itself to many types of games, but MMO's are not one (and no, second life is not a game, and its ugly and runs like crap, so you cannot use it as an example).
For FPS games (TF2, Unreal, etc...) mods are a huge part of the community and keep breathing life into the game, however, 90% of mods that are 'released' are complete rubbish, you would see this same thing in trying to implement mods/custom content into EVE. As for your suggestion about skills and dev review etc, well.. lets just say that those development resources would be better used elsewhere, as a scheme such as you propose would be a huge drain for minimal return. --------------------------------------------
Quote: EVE-Online... Too rough for ya? Don't like it? GTFO...
|
Drahkar
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:22:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:25:48 Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:24:41 Make it so you can see people's same-account alts.
Doomsday the forums.
Make the Muninn a T2 Rupture because other than the Sacrilege (which is actually good), it's the only HAC that's not a better version of the T1 hull. In the meanwhile, Ruppy ftw.
Make it so ECM prevents acquiring further locks instead of removing those you already have, rendering it near useless for solo PvP and as an alt, but keeping its use in larger fights where your target changes often. This would come along with the cancellation of the currently proposed Falcon nerf, allowing it to keep its range. The Rook, however, would have its combat capabilities increased significantly.
Remote repping someone in highsec requires you to have aggro on whoever he has agressed, leaving it just as useful for wars but obsolete for creditcard fights (RRing yourself on an alt).
Make it so contracts selling an item also sold on the market show the same comparison to average market value as when you sell it on said market. Overpriced contracts would show you it's being sold at 700% average market value, for example.
Re-allow linking in freeforms.
Add Abrazzasomethingwhateverhisnameis' many mining improvement suggestions because they sound awesome (and I'd like to hear someone whine about his Hulk being roasted by a solar flare or disintegrated by a very large comet chunk).
Make it so you can smartbomb within 6km of a wormhole again, which is now restricted since last patch or the one before.
Add a T2 destroyer class that can detect cloaked ships (on grid and not accurately, think WW2 destroyer searching for a submarine).
Add a T2 frigate class that specializes in remote repping using heavily bonused small remote reps and change the deadspace small shield transfers so they're not worse than the T2 version.
Boost all faction ships to be more on par with Sansha ones (not by giving them the Marauder-like bonus).
Remove insurance payout when Concorded. (default payout could remain)
Implement the suggested bounty system where bounties are claimed by asking for a bounty mission from a bounty agent who tells you who in particular he wants you to kill (can't remember the suggestion's author's name).
Add a Give Aggro function to simplify duels without using lame arenas nor making duelists invulnerable from usual interferences. Add a function to disallow people to give you aggro using the Give Aggro function but not other methods of giving aggro (said function would be activated by default, have pity for the newbies). |
Khlitouris RegusII
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:22:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Originally by: Mutnin
Originally by: Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts Your #2 point is completely unfeasible for a MMO... Do you realize the load that umpteen thousand different ship types would cause to the system? For a singleplayer game, or for a small population server type game that would be fine, but for a server that already has to handle 40k+ people, adding the capability for players to come up with their very own ships would exponentially increase the amount of ship data that the server has to handle.
Yes I know what you are saying, but there are ways around that. Number one would be the need for highly focused skills. This would reduce the amount of ships built and likely cause the need for a group to fully design and build one ship.
The ship would then have to be approved by ccp and introduced in a patch update. Meaning it would be a slow process that would weed out the all but serious designers.
Looking at games like Spore and Second Life, this kind of idea is feesable even in a large game such as EVE.
Do you happen to know how much work goes into coding, graphic design, testing, q/a, etc?
Heck, even with most modern game companies slacking on the testing and q/a sections, it still takes MONTHS to properly develop new content.
You should let ccp know that
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:32:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:30:26
jumping in to say "you suck at muninn". it's a dedicated sniper you idiot. fit it to shoot at full damage to 105km. --
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:33:00 -
[17]
1) Make players able to customize SOME things, like the UI, or graphical tweaks (it took AGES to see the few actual options in the game. CCP seems not appreciate give power to the user...). This would permit to players to have something who correspond to theirs needs.
2) Change a few the 0.0 system, who promote too much the defenders, and so generate immobilism.
3) A completely different balance politic. The CCP one is : Big patches, who are used to balance/nerf things, after testing them on Singularity.
Singularity is great to test new functions, stability or others things... But it sucks for balancing, as gang roamings and fleet battles are not REALLY reproduced on it, etc... So a change don't have the same consequences on SiSi than TQ. Also, if something is broken, the actual system takes ages to correct it (over-nerfed missiles/nosferatus/others), and I suspect CCP to be too proud to admit some errors.
So, I would apply a "small changes" politic directly on TQ, who would happen more frequently. Small tweaks, nerfs or boosts... Maybe all two or three weeks. Of course, this is in supplement to SiSi, where all critical changes or new ships or others would stay inside as usual.
Act directly on TQ will permit to recept and use more serious and accurate feedbacks, as all changes will be really tested, and corrected if required, more fastly. This can permit to players to accept and adapt more easily to a change too. I would avoid nerfs if possible to prefer boosts/buffs, as nerfs means the creation of new problems.
|
Drahkar
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:36:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:35:58
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:30:26
jumping in to say "you suck at muninn". it's a dedicated sniper you idiot. fit it to shoot at full damage to 105km.
Jumping in to say "you missed the point". While in my opinion the Muninn is not very good, I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about how the Rupture is an AC boat and I would make the Muninn a T2 AC boat. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:36:00 -
[19]
more space, less concord.
|
Dmian
Gallente Gallenterrorisme
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Malcanis more space, less concord.
Wormholes? ----
Originally by: Anne M. Lindbergh There is no sin punished more implacably by nature than the sin of resistance to change
|
|
Faife
Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:51:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:35:58
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:30:26
jumping in to say "you suck at muninn". it's a dedicated sniper you idiot. fit it to shoot at full damage to 105km.
Jumping in to say "you missed the point". While in my opinion the Muninn is not very good, I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about how the Rupture is an AC boat and I would make the Muninn a T2 AC boat.
you miss the point of t2 ships. they are all niche ships that do NOT outdps/outtank their t1 versions, but use a trick to stay alive
range for muninn, speed for vaga, range for zealot, freakish drone size for ishtar, range for eagle, range for cerb, etc etc.
t2 is not and will never be "uber pwnmobile". --
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:52:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dmian
Originally by: Malcanis more space, less concord.
Wormholes?
half the job done
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:53:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:35:58
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:30:26
jumping in to say "you suck at muninn". it's a dedicated sniper you idiot. fit it to shoot at full damage to 105km.
Jumping in to say "you missed the point". While in my opinion the Muninn is not very good, I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about how the Rupture is an AC boat and I would make the Muninn a T2 AC boat.
you miss the point of t2 ships. they are all niche ships that do NOT outdps/outtank their t1 versions, but use a trick to stay alive
range for muninn, speed for vaga, range for zealot, freakish drone size for ishtar, range for eagle, range for cerb, etc etc.
t2 is not and will never be "uber pwnmobile".
I think what he was pointing out is that, in a general sense, T2 ships are improved models of their T1 base. If a ship is prone to use missiles as a T1 ship, it's usually going to use missiles as a T2 ship. There are exceptions, as you pointed out, but the gist is the same.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------|||-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
|
Drahkar
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:54:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:56:19
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:35:58
Originally by: Faife
Originally by: Drahkar Edited by: Drahkar on 15/04/2009 21:30:26
jumping in to say "you suck at muninn". it's a dedicated sniper you idiot. fit it to shoot at full damage to 105km.
Jumping in to say "you missed the point". While in my opinion the Muninn is not very good, I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about how the Rupture is an AC boat and I would make the Muninn a T2 AC boat.
you miss the point of t2 ships. they are all niche ships that do NOT outdps/outtank their t1 versions, but use a trick to stay alive
range for muninn, speed for vaga, range for zealot, freakish drone size for ishtar, range for eagle, range for cerb, etc etc.
t2 is not and will never be "uber pwnmobile".
You're funny. You actually think this thread's purpose is to say we think the game is currently perfect? You think this is a balancing thread? lol
I never said you missed the point of T2 ships. You missed the point of this thread.
If I owned and developped this game, the Muninn would be a T2 AC boat. That's a fact, not up for discussion.
Keep it up. lol |
|
CCP Atropos
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:57:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mutnin What would you do different, if you owned and developed EVE? Please lets keep the typical Falcon and no local whines out. But rather give your ideas for things that could add to the game.
If I might make a request; I'd love to see more innovative ideas. We get enough threads telling us we're horrible and we should actually do something this way. This thread has awesome potential if it's all about new things we could be doing rather than catering to existing gameplay efforts (boost Falcon/minmatar/etc, for example)
Software Engineer CCP Engineering Services |
|
Magnus Orin
Minmatar Northern Storm Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 21:57:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Faife Edited by: Faife on 15/04/2009 21:02:10 i'd replace the spaceships with dinosaurs.
we'd be fitting artillery on T-Rexs and have tackling Raptors that were actual raptors. and there'd be these squid and whales that'd be eating the asteroids. it'd be awesome.
OMG DinoRiders MMO
________
|
Th0rG0d
Caldari Pilots From Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 22:01:00 -
[27]
Edited by: T***G0d on 15/04/2009 22:02:36
Originally by: Magnus Orin
Originally by: Faife Edited by: Faife on 15/04/2009 21:02:10 i'd replace the spaceships with dinosaurs.
we'd be fitting artillery on T-Rexs and have tackling Raptors that were actual raptors. and there'd be these squid and whales that'd be eating the asteroids. it'd be awesome.
OMG DinoRiders MMO
Holy ****!! I used to have all those.... Oooooh, how did I forget those?!
Edit: Removed image from quote...
|
Serpens Sol
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 22:01:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Mutnin Edited by: Mutnin on 15/04/2009 20:43:32
1) I'd give better control of manual flight, by the use of keyboard controls . IMO the point and click is buggy and laggy at times. I think fights could be a whole lot more interesting if you could manually control your ships via the keyboard and it would better merge the line between "trained" skills and real experience skills.
2) I'd introduce user side development tools, which would allow players to design new ships and components from scratch using basic limitations. Meaning not only could you design the look of the ship, but you could design the fit and component layouts and ship bonuses.
3) This one is more of a pet peeve, but I'd make it much harder to control large areas of 0.0 space. IMO the big alliances can easily control far too much space and in many cases they never use much of what they control.
1) WASD controls would not work out. There would be so much additional input for the servers to manage that the lag would destroy gameplay. Also, latency would have a much larger effect on the outcome of battles.
2) As someone with 3D modeling experience for games I do not think it would be feasible to allow players to design ship. Although it would be cool and quite possible to adjust the colors of our ships using some shader based approach.
As for modules, I think taking an approach like the Front Mission RPG series, which allows players to build mechs from modular components, could be possible and very fun.
3) I do think that CCP should continue to develop the "RTS" side of the gameplay.
Most of all I think they should rethink the UI and continue to develop and tweak what is already here.
|
Sirani
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 22:01:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: Mutnin What would you do different, if you owned and developed EVE? Please lets keep the typical Falcon and no local whines out. But rather give your ideas for things that could add to the game.
If I might make a request; I'd love to see more innovative ideas. We get enough threads telling us we're horrible and we should actually do something this way. This thread has awesome potential if it's all about new things we could be doing rather than catering to existing gameplay efforts (boost Falcon/minmatar/etc, for example)
there's a idea and suggestion forum with tons of good ideas, try implimenting some sometime ------------------- |
Cyonidicus
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 22:03:00 -
[30]
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: Mutnin What would you do different, if you owned and developed EVE? Please lets keep the typical Falcon and no local whines out. But rather give your ideas for things that could add to the game.
If I might make a request; I'd love to see more innovative ideas. We get enough threads telling us we're horrible and we should actually do something this way. This thread has awesome potential if it's all about new things we could be doing rather than catering to existing gameplay efforts (boost Falcon/minmatar/etc, for example)
Here, have some love and friendship <3
What i'd do is change the sovereignity mechanics, so that its easier for smaller non-borg alliances/corps to get a slice of 0.0. How, I dont know.
Also, POS's should be allowed some more innvoateive stuff as mentioned earlier, like fighter/drone hangars and maybe even a quicksell trade module to be deployed outside the shield.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |