| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lubricious Cain
   |
Posted - 2010.02.06 22:19:00 -
[1]
I remember one of my first large(ish) fleet battles I was flying a rifter as a new pilot and much to my surprise I actually survived the encounter. My poor rifter had sustained heavy damage, straight down to my hull. I found myself flying that ship around with a small portion of hull damage unrepaired in future fleets. It was like a battle scar from the previous event.
Why not have something that rewards the experience of a ship and its crew after having survived many battles together? Something that separates it from a ship straight off the assembly line?
I'd propose a new mechanic in which modules such as weapons systems, repair systems and others would gain a small bonus over time from being active. Similar to rigs, any bonuses would be lost if the module was removed, or the ship was repackaged.
Of course it is possible for a ship to orbit a station for a week with its repair modules running, or shooting at an asteroid for countless hours to gain these bonuses. I don't see this as an exploit however.
The point of the bonus is to reward time in your ship, fitted just the way you like. If you choose to spend weeks in "training" before taking the ship to battle, that is the pilots choice. Either way, the ships destruction, and loss of the bonuses will be just that much more painful.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.02.06 22:36:00 -
[2]
NO XP GRIND IN EVE. KTHXBYE.
|
Ebeneser Scrooj
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 01:09:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ebeneser Scrooj on 07/02/2010 01:09:11
Like this idea except for the floating around with repairers going thing. If it was tied only to kills of NPC and players (or roids) I might support. That way someone would actually have to be actively engaged in something to make it work.
Whole new sub profession, crew trainer.
Also, repackaging or renaming the ship would kill the bonuses that had been built up. This would create actual legendary ships....Ebeneser Scrooj and his infamous Kestrel, "CaCaw"!
I know. 
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 05:15:00 -
[4]
This has been proposed like four times in the last month. The problem varies with the implementation, but in general it's too complex, not really meaningfully different from modules, and in your case, leading to an XP grind(which nobody wants). Not supported.
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 09:43:00 -
[5]
and it is so abusable that it hurts.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes.StevieSG |
Jonah Pod
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.02.07 09:58:00 -
[6]
This had been brought to and answered by CCP in September 2009:
CSM-CCP Meeting Minutes, see $ 6.57 (pp. 14)
 Quote:
While CCP likes the concept, the crews, according to the CSM's description, would basically serve as extra modules, which aren't very compelling.
In addition they don't want NPCs to become more valuable to flying your ships than skills or player created items such as rigs and modules.
CCP went over this concept when designing subsystems (apparently subsystems started their existence as ôcrewsö). However they concluded crews wouldn't be beneficial from a game design point of view.
The CSM argued it could be used as a ôrewardö for ships that go regularly into battle, which CCP said would only lead to people AFK-ing to obtain the benefits.
In summary, CCP is unclear as to what role this feature would fill.
As long there's no game play reason, CCP will thus not add another item that makes ship
balancing more of a nightmare than it already is.
I understand this as a "No".
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |