EVE Search - The Wishlist, 8 Years on

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The Wishlist, 8 Years on

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction 503	Posted - 2014.05.26 17:56:00 - [1] - Quote Back in 2006 I posted the Wishlist Omnibus, which at the time was a series of ideas I and others had that we'd have liked to see in game (this was before the commonly proposed ideas sticky thread). I thought it would be interesting to look back and see what had been done, and what was yet to be achieved. 1) Line of Sight: Sadly, line of sight combat has yet to appear in the game. Which is sad, as it's actually not hard to implement in a non-server melting way. (I mean, hell, if a bunch of drunk belorussians can do it for World of Tanks, which has even higher server concurrency than Eve....) 2) Firing Arcs: Sort of tied to LOS. We'll likely never see this, as the level of whining alone from PvPers who now have to 'manuver' their ships rather than just camp someplace and spam one button is staggering. 3) Multipurpose drones: This is something I'd still like to see. The idea was not really broken (one med basically gave you the abilities of various lights) and would make the small drone bays that a lot of ships have more generally useful. 4) Boarding Actions: See latest fanfest video. They might be coming. Sometime. 5) Ramming: Probably not going to happen. Much as I'd like it. Doing damage to both ships based on mass and relative velocities seems like a good idea, and bumping games would be brought to a halt via concord, but undocking in Jita would become a nightmare. 6) Self Destruct as a weapon: I still like this feature, and still think it should be introduced. This would make this somewhat useless feature a little more viable. I would suggest the formula of damage = (remaining HP/Total HP) * (ship size factor10) across an area of (ship size factor2)km which deals equal parts Thermal, Explosive, and Kinetic damage. 7) Removal of gate ganks/blob warfare: Which has been more or less replaced by hot drop cap fleets as major alliances tactic of choice. 8) Flack: The idea of an active high slot module that acted as a automated way to shoot down drones and missiles (basically CWIS for EvE) just seems logical to me. I can't imagine however far in the future this is that they would not be as advanced as a 20th century battleship. Ship Improvements and Ideas: 1) Escort Carrier: See Myrmidon. 2) Ship Crews: Sadly, my original proposal for this was utilized by Star Trek Online. It does, surprisingly, work. 3) NPC Pilots: I still like the idea of hireing npcs to create system traffic. The npv haulers we all see at station have no real function in game, and this would bring them into the sphere of 'player activity' by being able to hire them to move goods. 4) The Q-ship: I still like the idea of a ship that sensors say is another type of ship. It opens up all sorts of combat possibilities. 5) Capitol Mining Vessel: We now have this. Station, POS, Deployable Alterations and ideas: 1) Biosphere: This ended up being more or less filled by PI. It was a POS deployable that produced organic stuff like livestock, etc. 2) Solar Power Plant: Changes to POS fuel made this unneeded. An alternative idea might be it lets you trade CPU for Power. 3) Modular POS: Yes, I thought of it first, but others did it better. It still needs implemented, and has been brought up almost every CSM at some point. 4) Command Bunker: This one is clearly no longer needed. The idea was a deployable that let you control POS guns. 5) Long Range Sensor Array: This one ended up being an alliance toy and then got removed from game just as fast. It's not a bad idea, but with changes to scanning etc, really is no longer something that's needed. 6) Deployable Super Computers: This was something to increase CPU for POS. In all honesty I'd still like to see it implemented, as it would make all faction POS equally viable for industry, instead of some favoring it and some not. 7) Minefield - Still like the idea of this as a combat deployable. Deploy it, it uses X of the old mines as ammo, based on size, and decays after 24 hours. Once active, it looks like an asteroid, but the deploying corp can see the 'mine field' as a bubble. 8) Repair Deployable: Unneeded with the advent of repair drones. 9) Drone Hive: A drone POS weapon makes logical sense. It's really the only weapon that POS don't have, and is a good counter for the tactic of spamming frigs to distract POS guns. 10) Docking at POS and walking inside stations: WiS. We all saw how that turned out, but frankly I think that it should still be fully implimented. 11) Mining Stations: Mining cap ships made this idea unneeded. 12) Outposts Outside 0.0: The idea was that corps with sufficient standing could build outposts in locations outside 0.0 as long as they had the standings and there was no station in system. I still like this idea.
Karen Avioras Unsung Heroes Spaceship Samurai 705	Posted - 2014.05.26 17:59:00 - [2] - Quote Many of these are horrible ideas..
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 0	Posted - 2014.05.26 18:03:00 - [3] - Quote The line of sight thing... Well things do not pop op on overview beyond 350 km. Crew on your ship? Well if you want to die faster then sure... The whole point with capsuleers is that you control the ship faster than a normal crew would.
Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction 503	Posted - 2014.05.26 18:08:00 - [4] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: The line of sight thing... Well things do not pop op on overview beyond 350 km. Crew on your ship? Well if you want to die faster then sure... The whole point with capsuleers is that you control the ship faster than a normal crew would. Incorrect. Even capsule ships still use regular crews (go see the ship crew thread that's stickied in commonly proposed ideas for a lengthy explanation.) There even used to be a crew stat for each ship, though that's fallen by the wayside. Effectively the Capsuleer reduces the crew required, but they still are actively involved in the running of your ship. The line of sight thing however was not meant to pass beyond the limits of your immediate area. The idea was that things like asteroid belts could provide cover for smaller ships against larger ones.
Xenovenom X-up Fleet 0	Posted - 2014.05.26 18:42:00 - [5] - Quote I'm going to throw my two cents in on this one. Firing arcs......we are in space there is no gravity to act on objects. Newton's First law says and object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by ANOTHER force. Without another force to act on ammo that is fired you will not have an arc to compensate for. LoS....meh, this sounds good on paper but it has no place in eve itself. Also, small ships already have ways to avoid big ships using sigradius, transversal, quick align time, making distance quickly. Eve isn't about getting away ALL the time without a scratch, its about destroying ships and objects. Crew....Celthric is right, capsuleer pilots control their entire ship we have no crew that is part of what makes capsuleers gods, aside from being able to live after death, read the lore its all in there. As for the rest of the ideas, you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink things. On top of that don't add an idea and for the description say "nevermind it's useless now", it makes for a long and boring read.
Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction 503	Posted - 2014.05.26 18:52:00 - [6] - Quote Xenovenom wrote: I'm going to throw my two cents in on this one. Firing arcs......we are in space there is no gravity to act on objects. Newton's First law says and object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by ANOTHER force. Without another force to act on ammo that is fired you will not have an arc to compensate for. In this case a firing arc is talking about a weapon not being able to fire THROUGH the ship it's mounted on. Weapons on the port side can only fire to port, etc. Xenovenom wrote: LoS....meh, this sounds good on paper but it has no place in eve itself. Also, small ships already have ways to avoid big ships using sigradius, transversal, quick align time, making distance quickly. I might point out that at least a few of those were put in there to compensate for lack of the sort of protections provided by LOS, though transversal plays into it. Xenovenom wrote: Crew....Celthric is right, capsuleer pilots control their entire ship we have no crew that is part of what makes capsuleers gods, aside from being able to live after death, read the lore its all in there. Please read the lore yourself. Particularly 'Forsaken Ruins' and 'Jovian Wetgrave' for an actual look at how the capsule ship works. Frigates are the only ships with just one person aboard. From the Jovian Wetgrave: "This is a capsule," Anu said to the Caldari. "It is used to control a ship. With it a ship a big as this one can be controlled with only a handful of crew and smaller ships, like your frigates, can even be controlled by a single person." "As I said, the captain acts as the central unit in a highly advanced computer. This role allows him to access and evaluate data at extreme pace. He can easily handle the jobs it takes 5 or 10 people to do normally." The 'only one person aboard ship' is fanon, not canon, unless it's a frigate. Xenovenom wrote: As for the rest of the ideas, you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink things. On top of that don't add an idea and for the description say "nevermind it's useless now", it makes for a long and boring read. Well, the point was to look back at the ideas I posted in 2006 and see if they had been implemented, or if they were still relevant.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci Umbrarum Paradisi 377	Posted - 2014.05.26 19:00:00 - [7] - Quote Even Capsuleer ships have crews. Seriously, do even one google search or read lore. "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven." -Jovian Proverb-á
SurrenderMonkey Space Llama Industries 710	Posted - 2014.05.26 19:18:00 - [8] - Quote Most of these ideas are not only bad, but entirely unfeasible. "Help, I'm bored with missions!" http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Xenovenom X-up Fleet 0	Posted - 2014.05.26 19:43:00 - [9] - Quote First off, the link provided by Uriel. That whole page is updated by players and has no relevance except for the opinion provided by players. Which is also wrong considering no battleship could hold that number of people unless they were 1/3-1/4 the size they are now. Secondly, the Jovian Wet Grave takes place close to the beginning of the cal-gal war which is a very long time ago. You don't think things have changed since then? Find me an up-to-date reference, NOT created or changed by the players, or a post made by a currently employed dev saying there are crews to ships, otherwise we should not change the game to use them. On the very slight chance that CCP says "Hey crews are in capsuleer ships." I want to hire and train crews to be better than the rest of those around me not just meatbags who press buttons just as fast as every other meatbag and have no differentiating factors.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci Umbrarum Paradisi 377	Posted - 2014.05.26 19:55:00 - [10] - Quote @Xenovenom, that page is locked (meaning no, players cannot edit it), and was written by a CCP member and an ISD. I'd say it's pretty acceptable as truth. And as for the amount of people, do you not think there'd be a large amount of automation on ships that advanced? Just because the Battleships are huge doesn't mean they NEED a huge amount of people- they have a huge maximum capacity, but the MINIMUM crew really isn't that much due to automation. "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven." -Jovian Proverb-á

Xenovenom X-up Fleet 0	Posted - 2014.05.26 20:12:00 - [11] - Quote A CCP dev that has long since left CCP and an ISD is a player......point? These are no longer credible sources.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci Umbrarum Paradisi 377	Posted - 2014.05.26 20:20:00 - [12] - Quote Point is, I have a source, albeit an old one, and you have guesswork and assumption- I'll stick with mine for now, unless you manage to get CCP Falcon to answer you or something "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven." -Jovian Proverb-á
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 377	Posted - 2014.05.26 20:37:00 - [13] - Quote Why people say 'most of these are bad' without saying which ones they like is beyond me. OP, most of these ideas are bad, imho. But at a first glance I do like: - Boarding actions - Self-destruct as a weapon - Q-Ships (as a module only fittable on a new class of ships, probably cruiser hulls would work best) - Minefield, or rather a deployable smartbomb that does show up on dscan and grid - Drone Hive
Meandering Milieu House Aratus Fatal Ascension 60	Posted - 2014.05.26 20:50:00 - [14] - Quote Cygnet Lythanea wrote: 5) Capitol Mining Vessel: We now have this. We do? We have capital boosting ships, capital tractor beam ships, capital logi ships, capital hauling ships, capital compression ships... I can't think of a capital mining ship.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 377	Posted - 2014.05.26 20:51:00 - [15] - Quote Meandering Milieu wrote: Cygnet Lythanea wrote: 5) Capitol Mining Vessel: We now have this. We do? We have capital boosting ships, capital tractor beam ships, capital logi ships, capital hauling ships, capital compression ships... I can't think of a capital mining ship. The Veldnaught.
Kaerakh Surprisingly Deep Hole 225	Posted - 2014.05.26 21:03:00 - [16] - Quote Cygnet Lythanea wrote: 7) Minefield - Still like the idea of this as a combat deployable. Deploy it, it uses X of the old mines as ammo, based on size, and decays after 24 hours. Once active, it looks like an asteroid, but the deploying corp can see the 'mine field' as a bubble. Mines have already been in the game. It was bad. It doesn't need to be again.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet 6456	Posted - 2014.05.26 21:07:00 - [17] - Quote Xenovenom wrote: A CCP dev that has long since left CCP and an ISD is a player......point? These are no longer credible sources. It's common knowledge capsuleer ships have reduced crews. It's in the chronicles, it's in the official lore portal on many pages, it's in the books and CCP has confirmed it on multiple occasions. It's not something being debated. It's just people who don't know the lore bringing it up from time to time.
Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction 507	Posted - 2014.05.26 21:54:00 - [18] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Why people say 'most of these are bad' without saying which ones they like is beyond me. OP, most of these ideas are bad, imho. But at a first glance I do like: - Boarding actions - Self-destruct as a weapon - Q-Ships (as a module only fittable on a new class of ships, probably cruiser hulls would work best) - Minefield, or rather a deployable smartbomb that does show up on dscan and grid - Drone Hive That would require them to read the whole thing, or to stop and think of a reason beyond 'it does nothing for how I play the game'. The T2 cruiser idea has been batted around where it's a special mod on a certain type of T2. Personally I like the idea of it being a T3 component. The issue with being able to see it is that no one would ever fly toward it. Sort of a common sense thing there. How about if it cloaks? It would be visible for a few secs if hit, but otherwise invisible. Meandering Milieu wrote: We do? We have capital boosting ships, capital tractor beam ships, capital logi ships, capital hauling ships, capital compression ships... I can't think of a capital mining ship. In this case we were looking at what is now basically the Narwhal. Not a mining barge itself per se, but a cap ship to support mining operations. Kaerakh wrote: Mines have already been in the game. It was bad. It doesn't need to be again. Previously you could put a mine anywhere and they didn't go away until downtime. This led to players putting them along the exit points around space stations. By limiting them via a deployable, it's possible to control where they're being put.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 380	Posted - 2014.05.26 22:31:00 - [19] - Quote Cygnet Lythanea wrote: The issue with being able to see it is that no one would ever fly toward it. Sort of a common sense thing there. How about if it cloaks? It would be visible for a few secs if hit, but otherwise invisible. If you're referring to the mine aka deployable smartbomb, I was thinking of an FC tactically placing them to 'shape' the grid. For example, around his logi to protect them from short-range dps. Everyone can see them, but everyone (including those who deployed them) have to work around them or take the damage. Currently, combat space is practically infinite except on choke points. And stations are the only thing big enough to make a difference. So battlefield-shaping seemed like an interesting concept. TBH, no idea if/how it could work, but the idea seems to have some potential, at least.
HiddenPorpoise Under Dark 217	Posted - 2014.05.26 23:46:00 - [20] - Quote Cygnet Lythanea wrote: 1) Line of Sight: Sadly, line of sight combat has yet to appear in the game. Which is sad, as it's actually not hard to implement in a non-server melting way. (I mean, hell, if a bunch of drunk belorussians can do it for World of Tanks, which has even higher server concurrency than Eve....) Why would high concurrency make that hard? 30 people in a 25km2 area is way easier than 3000 in a 62500 km3 area.

Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction 510	Posted - 2014.05.27 01:05:00 - [21] - Quote HiddenPorpoise wrote: Why would high concurrency make that hard? 30 people in a 25km2 area is way easier than 3000 in a 62500 km3 area. Because more people shooting leads to more ballistic calculations. Even if you instance them like WoT does, you're looking at thousands and thousands of shots being calculated every second. Before time dialation, you'd have had a point, but now Eve has an automatic mechanism that slows down time to help lighten the load on the server when dealign with large scale engagements. Further, big fleet fights with several thousand people are really an outlier. They happen, don't get me wrong, but are fairly unusual. It would all have to be tested, of course, but I think it's doable now with time dilation.
Ren Coursa Rapid Withdrawal 18	Posted - 2014.05.27 07:04:00 - [22] - Quote Line of Sight & Firing Arcs. Not sure i understand what the point of this would be, what would it bring to the table that warrants the dev time? Multipurpose anything eve is designed to be a trade of, if you want ecm drones you sacrifice your drone bays ability to hold damage. What would the trade of be if drones could do alittle bit of everything without making then useless? Seems like a nightmare to balance suitable for all different bay sizes and drone bonuses. Boarding Actions Don't hold your breath, most likely this was just an example of a legion map. Ramming No, this would not work and/or be a nightmare to code. The added content vs dev time and cost is way out of whack. Self Destruct as a weapon Would be kind of cool and shouldn't be too hard to code since smart bombs already exists. Removal of gate ganks/blob warfare Not removal, but if you spend the time to be safe i think you should be able to avoid them. My thoughts about this would be something like sending a probe through the gate and waiting for it to return with a readout of what's on grid on the other side. Flack Overlap with smart bombs and defender missiles. Ship Crews Always wanted this as well, question is what it would bring to the table that rigs and modules doesn't already bring. Runs the risk of being redundant. Thus making it wasteful to spend dev resources on it. NPC Pilots Much prefer people doing as much as possible in eve. And they already haul things. The Q-ship The concept is cool but it would break FW pvp. You scan a plex and make a decision to jump based on that. You don't know if they are inside or outside so scanning a novice and that returns an atron you jump in only to find a "Q" cruiser on the jump. Would make it unplayable. Minefield Coding something to appear differently for some people sounds hard and costly. Also seems like fleet fights would become a cluster ****.
Shivanthar Ace's and Eight's Brothers of Tangra 90	Posted - 2014.05.27 07:40:00 - [23] - Quote Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote: Point is, I have a source, albeit an old one, and you have guesswork and assumption- I'll stick with mine for now, unless you manage to get CCP Falcon to answer you or something This! (=^.^=) What do they say? "One bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" Bird: That link talking about crews. Bush: Xenovenom's thoughts about crews. This: Uriel's post. O.o Edit: I would like to see crew role behaving as a minor mechanic at least. Like if your ship doesn't explode and enemy chance of survival is low, your crew can be veterans, reloading your weapons in 9.5 seconds instead of 10 ^^ Half the lies they tell about me aren't true.
Cygnet Lythanea World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction 511	Posted - 2014.05.27 07:42:00 - [24] - Quote Ren Coursa wrote: Line of Sight & Firing Arcs. Not sure i understand what the point of this would be, what would it bring to the table that warrants the dev time? The ability to use terrain creatively to gain an advantage in PvP beyond having your battles at a station? Immersion? Plain ordinary logic that you can't shoot someone through a small veldspar moon? Ren Coursa wrote: Multipurpose anything eve is designed to be a trade of, if you want ecm drones you sacrifice your drone bays ability to hold damage. What would the trade of be if drones could do alittle bit of everything without making then useless? Seems like a nightmare to balance suitable for all different bay sizes and drone bonuses. In this case the trade off is drone bay space and bandwidth for versatility. These only work as well as the next size smaller drone, with all the space and bandwidth requirements of a larger one. Ren Coursa wrote: Flack Overlap with smart bombs and defender missiles. Tends to kill your own drones, plus all the issues using smart bombs anyplace but 0.0 Ren Coursa wrote: Ship Crews Always wanted this as well, question is what it would bring to the table that rigs and modules doesn't already bring. Runs the risk of being redundant. Thus making it wasteful to spend dev resources on it. Depends on how you implement it. Base stats should be worse than a module, but crews should have the ability to improve over time. Ren Coursa wrote: The Q-ship The concept is cool but it would break FW pvp. You scan a plex and make a decision to jump based on that. You don't know if they are inside or outside so scanning a novice and that returns an atron you jump in only to find a "Q" cruiser on the jump. Would make it unplayable. You're basically saying that it''s a bad idea because it would require players to come up with new strategies? I wish to god we had that sort of reasoning around in the old days. We'd still have guns inside POS sheilds and no cap ships whatsoever.
Luwc Biohazard. WINMATAR. 135	Posted - 2014.05.27 08:06:00 - [25] - Quote Quote: 8) Flack: The idea of an active high slot module that acted as a automated way to shoot down drones and missiles (basically CWIS for EvE) just seems logical to me. I can't imagine however far in the future this is that they would not be as advanced as a 20th century battleship. +1 limit to one module per ship. 5km radius. needs charges. Kinda like a smart bomb but without cap usage, 1k Alpha , 5s circle time http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif
Ren Coursa Rapid Withdrawal 18	Posted - 2014.05.27 10:04:00 - [26] - Quote Ok i see what you're going for with the LoS, i really don't think it is realistic from a coding perspective. Imagine the vectors that would have to be calculated in large fleet fights to make sure nothing is covering your shoot. Insane. You would tidi fights of 50v50 in a heartbeat. The price you pay for versatility in every other instance in eve is worse stats for many things instead of good stats for one thing. This drone would be useful for only a handful of ships since most ships that use drones in a meaningful way can just field different flights for different things. The ships that can't do that often has such a small bay that you can't fit a larger drone in there anyways. While i enjoy the concept of versatility, i just feel that this is impossible to balance in a way that both this drone and the normal drones stay viable. Regarding crews you would have to have a ceiling on bonuses, that ceiling has to be high enough to warrant the dev time but low enough to not discourage pvp. If the ceiling is to high people would start to be hesitant to bring their highly leveled ships to the field, like implanted clones today. And it would be a mechanic only pve people would use. And if the bonuses is to small.. Why bother? Seems like this sort of addition would be best suited for new mechanics all together, not as another rig slot that adds 2% shield boost. If for instance boarding ever becomes a thing or PI becomes more involved this could serve a purpose. I'm saying that it breaks it based on how plexes work. The tactic this would force would be to warp at a distance. Giving legitimate targets a 100% chance to run and preventing the Qship from killing anything. Solo and small gang Pvp would die since you would have to roam with enough people to guarantee that you could overcome whatever class this ship would be. Would create a horrible dynamic.
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 385	Posted - 2014.05.27 10:45:00 - [27] - Quote Ren Coursa wrote: Would create a horrible dynamic. Not necessarily, imo. Regarding FW complexes, if a cruiser posing as a frig on dscan sits outside a novice or small, you can just gate slide. In other cases, the Q module could maybe be balanced with a scan res penalty: if the guy is alone, you'd have time to say 'wtf?' and warp off. If he has a fast tackle friend, you'll have to deal just with the fast tackle at first, etc. Needs careful thought and balancing, but it could be fun.
Ren Coursa Rapid Withdrawal 18	Posted - 2014.05.27 10:58:00 - [28] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Ren Coursa wrote: Would create a horrible dynamic. Not necessarily, imo. Regarding FW complexes, if a cruiser posing as a frig on dscan sits outside a novice or small, you can just gate slide. In other cases, the Q module could maybe be balanced with a scan res penalty: if the guy is alone, you'd have time to say 'wtf?' and warp off. If he has a fast tackle friend, you'll have to deal just with the fast tackle at first, etc. Needs careful thought and balancing, but it could be fun. Depending on what ship you're in and size of the plex, sure. As a whole i don't see it adding much. Sliding is 100% sure fire to escape so still just adds more escaping. FW is designed to encourage even fights. No matter how you look at it this breaks that design either by enabling easier ganking or discouraging more fighting. I can't speak for other areas of space but do we really need more ways to encourage asymmetrical fights?
Gully Alex Foyle Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders 385	Posted - 2014.05.27 11:08:00 - [29] - Quote Ren Coursa wrote: I can't speak for other areas of space but do we really need more ways to encourage asymmetrical fights? YNOT? It's all about the metagame anyway. Example: known Q-cruiser flying guy is sitting inside a medium posing as a frig. You warp in, grab point and call-in your corpmates waiting on gate in the system next door. \o/ Q-cruiser kill! Again, not saying I'm 100% sure it would be great, but having more tools often leads to fun gameplay. You may disagree, but you also cannot honestly be 100% sure that it would be bad!
Ren Coursa Rapid Withdrawal 18	Posted - 2014.05.27 11:25:00 - [30] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Ren Coursa wrote: I can't speak for other areas of space but do we really need more ways to encourage asymmetrical fights? YNOT? It's all about the metagame anyway. Example: known Q-cruiser flying guy is sitting inside a medium posing as a frig. You warp in, grab point and call-in your corpmates waiting on gate in the system next door. \o/ Q-cruiser kill! Again, not saying I'm 100% sure it would be great, but having more tools often leads to fun gameplay. You may disagree, but you also cannot honestly be 100% sure that it would be bad! Nono, i like the concept. Not sure it would translate well across all the different areas of play. While i agree with your point regarding meta the example is again about flying in numbers large enough to just straight turn the tables and again giving incentive to the gank or be ganked playstyle of eve. Personally i think we have enough of incentives to give eve the flavor but still have it be possible to roam solo. But its seriously close to only being about linked gangs jumping only on targets they are 100% going to wreck and running from everything else. At the larger scale of things, even if those isolated situations occur the major impact this would have would be more caution, more gangs/ganks and more running away. Personally, as a general rule, i want mechanics that gives more incentives for more fights and for even fights.



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.