| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
SpaceSaft
Sub Par.
The East India Co.
76
   |
Posted - 2014.05.11 17:53:00 -
[31] - Quote
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:In your opinion, do you feel the quantity of available anchoring positions could be increased without breaking the system?
Without breaking the system we currently have, no. There has to be some kind of limitation for it or some other mechanism to keep things under control.
Apart from the moon materials that present a natural pull, it doesn't really make sense starting next month either: There are plenty of less valuable moons around that you could anchor on and all other cases will be taken care of by the industry changes.
I'd be interesting to see what CCP would come up with and I'm not entirely against having hundreds of mini - POSes that have nothing but guns that defend your space in 0.0 and whs, because that sounds like fun.
But with the current system, no.
Hope restored. |
Zol Interbottom
Theft and Taxes
309
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 00:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
I have a feeling that small things left in deadspace would slowly drift out of the system or crash into things, which is why so much time is spent blowing them all up
"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba |
Beofryn Sedorak
64
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 00:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Zol Interbottom wrote:I have a feeling that small things left in deadspace would slowly drift out of the system or crash into things, which is why so much time is spent blowing them all up
Are you familiar with the reasons Pluto is no longer a "Planet"? It's because it's just one a a huge quantity of small planetoid objects in the same orbit as Pluto. They don't all just drift off into space. There's plenty of ways for there to be objects large enough to anchor things at without them drifting out of the star system and still be large enough to anchor on without them being "Planets"
So speaking canonically (AKA Game balance and mechanics aside), This wouldn't be a valid reason against it.
Great thinking though, Certainly the type of thing I was hoping for. Keep em coming. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9725
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 00:46:00 -
[34] - Quote
I still think scarcity of anchoring spots is important, but since this is just because they're expanding pos use to 0.8 I guess that's not a huge deal.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
DaReaper
Net 7
The Last Brigade
507
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 01:01:00 -
[35] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Joshua Foiritain wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:In fact, the current number of moons should be decreased. this tbh. Pretty much. Even then, some 18,000 more moons are still being made available as anchoring spots in Kronos, and there have been hints that the mysterious CSM statement from a few days ago meant even more will be available over time. POS spots is definitely not something the game is short of.
source please? i'm curious |
DaReaper
Net 7
The Last Brigade
507
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 01:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
With the kronos buff of losing the slots, and pos' doing a bit better job, you will actually, in theory, see a decrease in pos'. As people who used them because the system they were in had all the slots in use, will pull them down and use stations so as not to risk there bp's. But also, if someone had say more then pos up, doing research/manufacturing, they can now reduce that down to just a single pos. |
Beofryn Sedorak
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.12 01:09:00 -
[37] - Quote
DaReaper wrote:With the kronos buff of losing the slots, and pos' doing a bit better job, you will actually, in theory, see a decrease in pos'. As people who used them because the system they were in had all the slots in use, will pull them down and use stations so as not to risk there bp's. But also, if someone had say more then pos up, doing research/manufacturing, they can now reduce that down to just a single pos.
People will now be using them for improved refining and compression of ores. |
Gabriel Dube
Notorious Legion
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 06:43:00 -
[38] - Quote
Beofryn Sedorak wrote:Zol Interbottom wrote:I have a feeling that small things left in deadspace would slowly drift out of the system or crash into things, which is why so much time is spent blowing them all up Are you familiar with the reasons Pluto is no longer a "Planet"? It's because it's just one a a huge quantity of small planetoid objects in the same orbit as Pluto. They don't all just drift off into space. There's plenty of ways for there to be objects large enough to anchor things at without them drifting out of the star system and still be large enough to anchor on without them being "Planets" So speaking canonically (AKA Game balance and mechanics aside), This wouldn't be a valid reason against it. Great thinking though, Certainly the type of thing I was hoping for. Keep em coming.
Anchoring near celestials would make more sense Lore-wise and physics-wise if it involved putting stuff on the Lagrangian points. [For some info on what Lagrange points are, google is your friend]
I still cannot figure out how most static location bookmarks are even possible if celestials in New Eden have orbits. 
Then again, the EVE universe is soft Sci-Fi, and soft Sci-Fi is fuelled by sheer Rule of Cool and complete disregard for the most basic principles of physics. The main reason why our internet spaceships are in a made-up galaxy is that absolutely none of them make any actual sense and that absolutely none of them could even work in the real world. And I'm not even talking about the magical shields and tractor beams. I mean, the vast majority don't even have their thrusters in line with their center of mass...
This is why thrust vectoring would matter much more than symmetry in EVE |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9806
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 11:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
Is that a Trident SLBM?
Yep, it is.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Oxide Ammar
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:17:00 -
[40] - Quote
More moons for POS's + Destructible stations + The new upcoming building gates feature = Hisec 2003 - 2014 R.I.P. 
|
|
|
Lisa Gentilette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:30:00 -
[41] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What is the big deal about adding more moons? If someone wants to build a home somewhere, why not? It still can be attacked and all. I'm being serious. Why the outrage?
Well, my mains pos got killed by mercs because someone else wanted that spot.
Adding even more moons will make that unnecessary in the future.
Good god, a conflict game thats removing points of conflict, can I have tooltip for that? |
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc.
Dawn of Transcendence
562
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 13:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
Joshua Foiritain wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:In fact, the current number of moons should be decreased. this tbh.
Actually, moons should deplete after a while, and replenish over time - Just like asteroid belts. However, there's one caveat: Moon materials should migrate and not stay on the same moon. Once it's mined dry you have to find another moon which carries this specific material. Replenishment does not start untill the moon is empty, after which a new material may take the place of the old one, to prevent abusing this mechanic.
In return, the amount mined should be raised, to maintain the market balance somewhat. However, this would make for some more wars over territory, making it far more meaningful than it is now.
This also means the number of moons should stay the same - Too many moons means no incentive to attack others, since you can always get your own.
Edit: First time in 11 years i got post #42.
If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all... |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |