| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cygnet Lythanea
   |
Posted - 2006.06.19 14:34:00 -
[61]
I think that player houseing should be an instanced thing. Though, once again, CCP dosn't like instancing. By instancing player housing, you get around the lag that a FP or TP veiw gives as you stroll about your housing and look at all the crap youve gathered up to decorate with... mmm... Exotic Dancers....
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomine Tuo Da Na Glorium |
Jim Striker
|
Posted - 2006.06.23 14:40:00 -
[62]
I think the introduction of planetary interaction/exploration would upgrade Eve from one of the best games of our time, to THE best game of our time.
Awesome, in other words.
|
ShiNoKaze
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 18:13:00 -
[63]
Planetary Interaction.
If this actually comes out, there are a number of people who would stop doing anything but playing this game.
I mean, if I was able to run missions for cash, buy some troops and deploy them on a planet for conquering purposes, and then take stuff over that could add money or resources of any kind to my character, that would just be too awesome.
However I think there is a concern that has not been addressed. I like to think that I would have the willpower to actually leave the game world and have an actual life if this were to actually be added to the game. There are those that do not have the incredible willpower that I have and would not sleep, eat, work, or take bathroom breaks, were they capable of galactic domination on a planetary scale. Please think of the children.
|
Amon'Reh
|
Posted - 2006.07.18 10:45:00 -
[64]
Planetary Interaction and housing, greats ideas !
I m also offering a interaction in starbase, like in Privateer (Bar, merchants...).It could be only client side, so it would not be another process to servers, and give a more immersing feeling.
And why not, with a chan for each Bar..
|
Mr Xofar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.23 01:18:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Mr Xofar on 23/07/2006 01:19:51
 Quote:
Player Structures - "Housing"
It would richen the EVE universe and provide a simple player owned structure which could be introduced early for players to get into the player owned structure tree. However, usually opens up more cans of worms than it closes.
Deffinitely cool. Especially for those of use who insist on playing solo. Maybe some Minor POS structures with very low yield refinement capabilities and minimal defenses, etc... Setup in only 0.6 space and higher. I'm pretty disappointed that I MUST join a corp in order to build a structure for myself. To me, that's just counter-open-ended.
edit: Oh yeah, about the can of worms. Lag, and such. Couldn't be much worse than the littering of anchored cans/bays/warehouses in an asteroid belt.
|
Mhute
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.07.23 07:12:00 -
[66]
I've been thinking about how a game like Eve is going to handle bringing in more and more content like housing and I have a suggestion that might help.
Don't create your objects until players are within proxmity of the object. If houses are planetside or within spacestations noone is going to see them until they are really close or already inside the building. So maybe it is better to put a place holder for an object at a location and only replace the placeholder with the actual object. This might work moreso in less populated areas of space or it can work all oer so experiment.
|
Mr Xofar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.25 19:25:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Mr Xofar on 25/07/2006 19:30:41
I think that player's individualy owned structures should remain outside of a station and mobile. Not mobile in the sense that they would be able to move on their own power, but that they could be emptied, disassembled, repackaged and moved with a freighter to another system.
I think players should only be permitted to anchor them in orbit around a moon in a system that has no stations. Also, they should only be permitted to anchor only one per region, or only one period.
The structure shouldn't be big enough for any ship to dock inside, and only Destroyer sized ships and smaller can dock outside of the structure to gain access tothe interior. It's storage should be modular, like installing a Station Warehouse or something smaller maybe, and it should actually connect to the outside of the structure and be visible, and scannable. :P
Edit: Oh, and the size of the structure itself shouldn't be much larger than an Indie, minus the attachments.
|
Ozmodan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.27 15:53:00 -
[68]
I really dislike the idea of gate control mainly because of the choke points in 0.0.
Someone could gate control the choke points to an area and then have easy mode in the entire area. Hard enough now with all the gate camps at these choke points without further introducing additional defenses.
It also makes the independent 0.0 player extinct.
It also tells new players, 0.0 is not for you. Nothing like telling a new player that much of the game content is closed to them.
Learners permit still current |
Za Po
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.07.28 08:57:00 -
[69]
I'm not so hot on planetary development beyond the "Simple" model.
Making planets explorable would immediately multiply the amount of "interesting space" by a huge factor.
There aren't enough players for that. I don't think there will ever be. Right now, there are 5000 systems; which means that at any given time there are more planets than logged players.
In 0.0, the only place where you can expect local planets not to be already claimed by the empires, there are probably at least five planets per player logged right now.
There would be no point in a planetary RTS game, because there would be so many resources that there would be no point in fighting over them.
Unless managing those resources is so drastically simplified that a single player or corp can manage dozens of planets... IOW, unless it is not a RTS. The "Simple" model.
I can't see the planetary thing ever going beyond that.
--------------------
Do you have a solution to the BM and instas problem? Test it against the bookmark requirements. |
AKGUTWORM
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 08:20:00 -
[70]
DUDE are you crazy if a faction could control the stargates it would be near imposable to get inot 0.0 cuz bob would block all enterances
man i need a sig |
|
|
Ruecocteau
|
Posted - 2006.07.30 22:24:00 -
[71]
I'd like to see the ability to expand your drone cargo hold.
You could use a hull conversion mod to expand your drone capacity at the expense of either your cargohold size or structure hitpoints. Maybe there would even be a limit to how many you could use on 1 ship. This has probably been on the boards before but I didn't see it anywhere recently. Just my opinion, thanks :D
-Ravey
|
jethranda
|
Posted - 2006.08.02 19:59:00 -
[72]
on the player housing note. i think it would be best to have corp/alliance housing instead. this way the corp/alliance would have the ability to meet at a spot and have a meeting about tactics or have a board room, etc... i would also like to see the whiteboard sort of tactical display of a map where the ceo could draw on it sorta like football play. would be a great way to rally the troops. |
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.08.12 01:09:00 -
[73]
I like the idea of simple player structures. Something relatively cheap with very basic functionality that doesn't require obnoxious fuel requirements or charters. They can't be too beneficial or give too much of an advantage because then some rich players will just build a lot of them and just increase their ability to farm isk. Maybe small maintenance buildings like an armor repairing building, a shield recharging building, a structure repairing building, a capacitor recharging building, or all of them in one; maybe some cargo capacity capacity; and/or basic ship maintenance array features. Allowing people to have a staging area where they can fix their ship after warping out of a tough mission, or complex, without having to go through the whole docking procedure to rearm and repair before going back out again. Obviously restrict where they can be placed so that they don't clutter stargates, stations, or asteroid belts; maybe requiring them to be a few thousand kilometers from any celestial object. This would be to restrict potential abuses too, like putting them next to stargates during camps or high-sec ganking. Maybe have a weekly rent set by whoever controls sovereignty, with a default cheap rent for Empire. It would be especially cool if you could set up entertainment buildings for other people to use, but that's a huge can of worms. Some sort of entertainment industry in this game would be an amazing addition in general.
|
Borgholio
Minmatar
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.08.25 19:38:00 -
[74]
I noticed that a few features many people are looking forward to were moved to the "drawing board" section. These features include Constellation Sov and randomized asteroid belts that you need the scanner to find. Does this mean there's a chance those features won't be added in Kali 1?
-----------------------------------
You will be assimilated...bunghole! |
Nytemaster
Guardian Clone
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:51:00 -
[75]
Where's the so-called replacement for instas that we read about in the latest patch notes? I don't see it in testing, development nor on the drawingboard. Can I expect that someone was talking out their behind when bookmark copying restrictions were implemented? Everyone uses instas, EVERYONE. I think we hit 30k players because people were using all their characters to create bookmarks before they were nerfed.
The fact that there hasn't been any real talk about the one issue that affects our gameplay the most really irks me. The last dev blog about instas was over a year ago. Unacceptable. This solution is more important than new content. This solution is more important than some low end bug fixes. This solution is more important than Kali itself if you ask most of the community.
DETAILS are needed. You got solid proposals all over the place. Pick one.
---
Nytemaster |
Cemial
|
Posted - 2006.09.09 14:29:00 -
[76]
"Ship Sub-system Targetting"
What about starting with giving ships four different Shield and Armour sectors each with a share of the whole, creating a weak spot typically on the back?
Front û 50% of the total
Left û 20%
Right û 20%
Back û 10%
Or a more radical approach to make combat last longer:
Front û 1000% of the total
Left û 200%
Right û 200%
Back û 100%
This way a ship would be much easier to destroy if attacked from the back and tactical positioning would be relevant for both, attackers and defenders. A big blob attacked by a surrounding force of 4 smaller groups wouldnÆt stand a chance of winning, as their back would be always in sight for one of the four attacking groups while they would be pounding the strongest sector of their well positioned enemy.
But this would only work if it was painfully slow to turn around while you are not moving or at low speeds, and hard at high speeds for big ships like BS. You would need to be moving fast to be able to manoeuvre and it would favour a more dynamic combat style.
Also, if you had to choose one of those sectors to fit your weapons, and you could only fire with them if your target was in sight for those weapons, your position, your direction, and your speed would be as important in combat as the weapons you are using.
All these at a fleet scale, could have an effect on a poorly deployed blob that could be easily led into an ambush if they were all facing and pounding the same target and a new group would warp in right on their backs. To prevent this, a fleet would need to deploy their ships creating a perimeter of security so that nobody could get into the back of any ship without offering their own back to the enemy.
|
Heldar NiteShade
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.09.10 11:37:00 -
[77]
now i've noticed a lot of people wanting this combat upgrade or some other that involves sovreinty and so on,
so i'd like to speak up for the mission runners of eve,me being one of them,
i noticed on the 'The Drawingboard' section was i little 3 line bit about agent offers,
<quote>
Agent offers would be converted into a form of store, where you can choose from a larger selection of offers from the agent. Possibly also moving Loyalty Points to the corporation level, so that you are building Loyalty towards the corporation and not necessarily the agent.
</quote>
personally and having spoke to a lot of mission runners,this idea would be very welcome,the lps system atm is way to random,the ability to see wot offers are availible for the amount of lps you have would be useful,being able to choose the highest offer or a mix of lower offers to the total of your lps would be great,
cheers
|
Veetor
Gallente
Acme Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2006.09.10 16:48:00 -
[78]
"sub system targeting" Fantastic idea. Then we could get out of the current jamming/WCS rutt! |
DrAtomic
Polytope
Ghosts of Retribution
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 13:58:00 -
[79]
For the Gang changes in delopment, with these issues in mind.
Could you please make it so that by default you can't attack members in your gang; add the following option to gangs:
-. Enable/Disable inner-gang aggression.
-. Enabling inner gang aggression will send a message to all gang members that the option has been enabled presenting them with the option to drop the gang.
-. Upon enabling a 5 minute timer kicks in where a gang member can't be targetted.
-. Former gang members carry this timer with them (presenting them with an opportunity to flee from a hostile gang).
-. When inner-gang aggression is disabled gang members can still target each other but only use logistic modules and logistic drones (nos will be regarded as weapon) on each other.
-. Make any form of inner-gang aggression free from Concord intervention.
-. Add option for gang leader to flag a player or players as hostile.
-. Flagging a player as hostile will trigger a 5 minute grace period
-. Flagged gang member will directly be kicked from gang
-. A 30 minute aggression timer (kill right) kicks in for all gang members and the kicked member(s) after the grace period has expired.
-. No docking or jumping allowed till the aggression timer has expired.
-. Agression and kill rights are transfered to a new gang if kicked member(s) start one.
-. Members joining the new gang will be informed about the effective agression timer and will get the remaining agression timer as well upon joining.
-. Leaving a gang will automaticly trigger the 5 minute grace period for both gang and the former gang member.
These changes will allow for easier grouping with outside of corp members without loosing the possibility to attack a thieving/scamming/misbehaving gang member and therefore allow for paid escort services, hauling contracting with miners and all sorts of stuff any smart pilot simply doesn't do atm with pilots outside of his corp.
These changes will go a long way into making the community interaction within EvE a lot stronger.
-----------------------------------------------
The BIG Lottery |
Kithicus
|
Posted - 2006.09.20 01:03:00 -
[80]
I was wondering if you could implement a triangulation feature that wold allow us to see the physical distance between 2 objects, and not just "own-ship" and an object. Would be great for those in Mining Barges so we can tell which 2 asteroids are 29km apart, and posibly allow for seting of a course to the exact midpoint, so we can maneuver the barge between those 2 asteroids in an eaiser fasion then ping ponging back and forth to get as many roids within mining distance.
|
|
|
Mithras Antari
|
Posted - 2006.09.20 14:39:00 -
[81]
Planetary interaction sounds fantastic.To be able to do away missions or some kind of first person exploration and combat would give this game everything.As great as this game is it needs somthing else.
|
DenBrown
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 09:54:00 -
[82]
READ THIS!
|
DenBrown
|
Posted - 2006.10.08 09:56:00 -
[83]
READ THIS!
|
Lysanter
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 14:38:00 -
[84]
NEW INFO ABOUT EVE!!!!
|
Stop Scams
|
Posted - 2006.10.09 16:30:00 -
[85]
SITE ABOUT EVE! VISIT NOW!!!!
|
VertigoDragon
|
Posted - 2006.10.13 17:15:00 -
[86]
I would really like to see a UI mod that allows manual ship flight control with the possibility of compatibility with various flight sim controllers. All targeting would still be computer controlled but firing could be linked to the trigger button on controllers or the left mouse button.
|
lady2isis
Caldari
Slurm Industries
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 19:45:00 -
[87]
Skill Training - Queue or Dual training
sadly, i am against these ideas.
Queue is fine IF a player can only set a maximum of 2 skills in a queue.
Reason: i could train ALL my level 5 skills and log out and only login months later when the skills have completed. i see this as unfair advantage if the queue were to be longer than 2.i havent worked out the proper details but i will get to it soon enough.
Dual Training is a big NO NO. dual training?! where's the fun in that? and yes, unfortunetly i have yet to compile a proper rebuttal for this but i will soon...
a strong gut feeling tells me if these were implemented, the very essence of EVE would be destroyed. Will provide a proper rebuttal soon...
p.s: the above comments are mine and mine only. They do no represent the ides/thought of my corp... and please dont flame me :)
i am who i am; therefor i am Her |
test bird2
|
Posted - 2006.10.21 22:27:00 -
[88]
just wondered why with minmatar being primarily an armour tanker, you have given shield tanking skills to the t2 battlecruisers and the new battleship. i originally trained my char with armour tank slills"because" minmatar are armour tankers. so before useing the new battle ship i have to totally change how i run , fight and use my ship, let alone the time it will take to train my shield skills to match my armour. does this seem abit odd.
i hope im not the only one who thinks so
|
test bird2
|
Posted - 2006.10.21 22:32:00 -
[89]
skill training dual or queue.
i made a comment on this months back under my other char. the only way i can see multi training is training on an alt at the same time as main. not 2 skills on a main thats mad as someone here said you could set training and leave for months.
hey for mee an alt with some skills is better than a main with slower skill training.
|
Iyanah
Minmatar
Mining Munitions and Mayhem
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 19:00:00 -
[90]
Originally by: test bird2
just wondered why with minmatar being primarily an armour tanker, you have given shield tanking skills to the t2 battlecruisers and the new battleship. i originally trained my char with armour tank slills"because" minmatar are armour tankers. so before useing the new battle ship i have to totally change how i run , fight and use my ship, let alone the time it will take to train my shield skills to match my armour. does this seem abit odd.
i hope im not the only one who thinks so
cyclone = shield tank.
hurricane = armour tank.
the OLD battlecruiser was the shield-tanker, the hurricane is an armour tank, so your argument does not apply to the minmatar battlecruisers old or new. admittedly, i've not payed much attention to the battleships, as i don't fly them (don't get me wrong, i trained battleships), since i'm going for command ships at this time.
hope that helps ^_^
==========================================
Iy |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |