| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Audri Fisher
   |
Posted - 2006.07.02 05:16:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Jack Amarr
as any player will tell you, gates are the main focus point of 99% of all pvp encounters. gates are the bottlenecks and without them there would be no clear boundaries. no border lines, no contested areas. it is my belief the whole structure of the alliance wars would fade and evrything would be mangled together in a confused mush, with everyone shooting everyone.
OH HELL YEA! 
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 08:19:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Drizit on 02/07/2006 08:19:57
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Jack Amarr
as any player will tell you, gates are the main focus point of 99% of all pvp encounters. gates are the bottlenecks and without them there would be no clear boundaries. no border lines, no contested areas. it is my belief the whole structure of the alliance wars would fade and evrything would be mangled together in a confused mush, with everyone shooting everyone.
OH HELL YEA!
IMO, even more justification for getting rid of the gates. 
Seriously though, the borders will still be there, your entire system is a border system not just a single spot within it. Saying that this will cause alliance wars to fade away is dumb. It's like saying that Germany and Switzerland can't exist because they have a shared border that exists beyond a single gate. People can get across at any point and not just where a gate can be camped to stop them. America shares a border with Mexico and Canada so they can't exist either. Hell, if it comes to it, even the seperate states in America have their own borders.
Instead of boring gate camps, you will have patrols that fly a route and scan for hostiles. Maybe even incorporate permanent scanners at planets and such that can feed back information. These do not overlap so there will always be "holes" in the defensive scan areas. This allows for recon trips by enemy forces to find them and plan points of entry for an attack or even try to take out the scanners. It actually makes for more active defense rather than the same old boring gate camp all day. Your pilots are actually doing something instead of just getting bored.
Spoon Thumb: I understand your idea but your time frame is a little off. 5 or 10 minutes in hyperdrive maybe but not 10 hours, that's just ridiculous because people want to play the game rather than live it. It's bad enough being run by the clock for skills and getting up at 3am to change a skill. I don't want to see travel being like skill training where you log on to hyperdrive to the next system and then log off again until it arrives. 5 or 10 minutes waiting makes it a turn off enough for people to have good reasons to use it.
--
|
Spoon Thumb
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 14:48:00 -
[33]
It may be more realistic that a couple of thousand people in an alliance own just a couple of systems (as that's all they can realistically defend).
There would have to be an advanced systems for hunting / tracking people and stuff down in deep space with lots of different options, advantages / disadvantages to each.
I think that there would also have to be serious penalties for spending long periods away from stars / systems. Fuel is an obvious one.
Sacrificing slots for Life Support Systems for those long treks into uninhabited deep space is another idea. Might make POS useful as stop off places so as to not need these modules
***
Spoon Thumb - I can scoop ice cream with my thumbs!
orange
|
Snapes
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 17:16:00 -
[34]
how about using fuel at stargates (like heavy water) to be able to pick which gate you wish to jump to as long as you have enough fuel. that way you can skip bottle necks, shorten your travle time significantly, make ice mineing worth harvesting, bypass most gatecamps, and allow the freedom needed at the cost of cargo space, and give fraighters more freedom. in a role playing sense you are utilizing a whormhole and it take alot of energy to make a connection to another gate so if you have the fuel; gate command will help you get to your destination faster.
|
Lord Derik
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 17:32:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Lord Derik on 02/07/2006 17:36:00
No Gates...
-make all ships use fuel to do interstellar jumps, only jump when they really want to.
-limit how far you can jump, and with cap recharge it will still take time to get anywhere.
-at destination, jump to a randon location within 10-20 au of the star.
-warp within system the same as now.
-have ability to follow "targeted" ship in warp, it can loose you if it is a lot faster.
-be able to calculate a general jump destination of a "targeted" ship, maybe within a constellation, or several systems.
Stations now and in the future, Planets, would be the focus areas, instead of gates. |
Jade Ro
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 17:52:00 -
[36]
I like this idea... thats one of the things about EvE that has always irked me... Planets are merely backdrops.. simple decoration. PvP happens only at gates.. or mostly at gates. I always loved games where you could open your navigation map.. plot a course.. enter into hyperspace.. and plot a course for somewhere new and adventerous... a mysterious nebula filled with electrical storms where the ionizing gas wrecks havoc on sensors.. but there is wealth for those who seek it... filled with danger where only the brave will travel.. Or a setting course for a city covered planet that is a major hub for trade and commerce to be able to dock and trade for your hard earned supplies... or a debris filled asteroid filled with floating wrecks from ancient battles.. where hopefull miners dodged in and out of the floating rocks.. hoping to avoid detection of malicious pirate gangs... ahhh see this is the universe EvE should create.. Build on a sense of mystery and rich story line that has already developed in eve.. mostly only in news or backstories.
gates serve a good purpose of making choke points etc.. maybe interstellar interferance in areas that force you to exit hyperspace.. pass a certain area and then continue. Or simply fuel requirements.. etc..
However PvP is essential to EvE something needs to remain the focus where you can hunt and find your prey... and fight your battles over areas of strategic value.
Navy Fleet Director - Catalyst Reaction
|
Prestis
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 18:10:00 -
[37]
It would only work if there was a realistic way to track, intercept and kick people out of warp. Otherwise you've got EVE without PvP. Haulers could just insta from station to station and never be exposed at all.
|
Lord Derik
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 20:35:00 -
[38]
-Remove instas
-warp drops you in a random location within 10 AU of star, not near station
-allow intercept through system scanning
-allow tracking and following of locked targets, unless they outpace significantly |
Aki Yamato
|
Posted - 2006.07.02 23:40:00 -
[39]
Yea gate camping is boring boring and again boring. There is many ways how to replace gates and keep systems and regions defendable.
For example if every ship needs some kind of fuel to make interstellar jump, only what you have to do is place several souces of this fuel (gas giants, nebulas, special refueling stations ) to very system.
Every ship witch wants to make a jump have to visit this source and refuel.
Amount of fuel and range of jump should be linear.
To keep systems defendable siply allow to place player owned defence structures around these sources.
Refueling shoud take some time so if you want to make long jump you mast stay near source for longer time.
You can make as many jumps as you want till have enought fuel.
Simple system easy to ballance, bringing many new strategy elements to game, just try your imagination.. You are planing deep strike mission to enemy terrytory and you have many options, Will you risk a long range jump with knowlage you wont have enought fuel to jump back and you have to acquire fuel from local souce probably well defended, or will you sacrifice some of your firepower and bring some fuel in industrials witch you ?
|
Roddic
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 00:49:00 -
[40]
0.0 is safer than 0.4 - 0.1, but not as safe as 1.0 - 0.5.
the simple answer to the gate question is where do most of the bottle necks occur?
if its in 0.0 claimed space to bad, they have claimed it. its their job to defend it.
if its in 1.0 - 0.5. can't see how this would be a problem.
if its in 0.4 - 0.1(this is where i see the main bottlenecks occuring) put in concord anti pirate patrols and better yet just make it high sec to 1.0 - 0.4, low sec 0.3 - 0.0.
the real problem with this game is they have alot more players, but haven't given us the room to expand accordingly. Id like to see a new star discovered now and then, or one going nova(obviously with warnings to all pilots in the system)
and for god sakes is jovian space open yet. that would remove alot of the over crowding.
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 05:12:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Roddic
if its in 0.4 - 0.1(this is where i see the main bottlenecks occuring) put in concord anti pirate patrols and better yet just make it high sec to 1.0 - 0.4, low sec 0.3 - 0.0.
And reduce their precious PVP play area? Blasphemy!
One of the reasons for this suggestion is that it would allow more expansion without reducing anyone's play area. Alliances would have to defend systems that they actually use instead of vast numbers of unused and probably even unexplored systems, allowing more room for newer players to migrate into the unused systems and maybe even expand the alliance. Realistically, how can you possibly lay claim to 30 systems when you have a POS in only two of them and a mere 150 players in your alliance? The gate system allows this to happen but in turn, stifles the migration of new players.
--
|
WARPIGG
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 05:17:00 -
[42]
I think a compramise would be ok...
if my raven warps to a gate and still has like more than half my cap then why on earth would i stop half way to warp at a gate when im already on my way and have the cap to compleatly pass a system without having to gate till the second or third gate. i think i should be able too!
|
Pedo Fortis
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 12:18:00 -
[43]
> -Remove instas
> -warp drops you in a random location within 10 AU of star, not near station
> -allow intercept through system scanning
> -allow tracking and following of locked targets, unless they outpace significantly
Yes I like it, If you own the system you can setup enough tracking arrays to be able to deal with intruders.
I also like to hyperdrive idea with longer travel times 2-4 mins + fuel usage. So we can get to Systems without gates.
|
James Duar
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 12:36:00 -
[44]
Personally I'd prefer to keep the gates and add a module for Relativistic Velocity - let us toss rocks and clouds of debris at each other at some fraction of the speed of light (factoring in travel times at sub-FTL velocity of course).
---
Encrypted Client Side Bookmarks! Raise YOUR voice to CCP. Let's end slow copy times and bookmark lag for good! |
Stogee
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 12:51:00 -
[45]
A mix of jump drives and gates would appeal to me.
Reading this thread got me thinking of gates being on routes that are main highways leading to other regions, constellations etc. Anything else would have no gates and require jump drives of various sizes. Off the beaten track kind of thing.
I dunno
|
Lord Derik
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 16:48:00 -
[46]
One thing that I have been seeing a lot in the forums is the fact that corps and alliances hold a lot of empty, unused space. I think that removing gates and the expansion of planet interaction a long with system exploration would do a lot to change this. I don't think it should be about how many systems you hold but how good are the resources in the ones you do hold. With the inclusion of fuel usage of all ships it might provide for logistics and logistic bases to move fleets to take someone elses resources. I could go further into to this but I don't have time now.
This would be a big change, and maybe it wouldn't be for this game but a different game to do, but it is worth considering. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 22:31:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Drizit
The main reason is because of the gates
No, the main reason is that very few younger players venture into what they see as being risky space. Players might cause conflict, but unless they can actually find the enemy and hurt them, then they're wasting their time. (Here's a little fact btw: The 0.4 spots on the major routes are considerably MORE risky than 0.0)
Moreover, you know full well that what would happen is that the few big alliancws, free to go where they like at any time would smash the economic bases of the smaller alliances within weeks, and strip 0.0 bare of anything outside their own industry (after all, they're competitors). There CAN'T be any borders in a system where I can turn up at any point. It's an instant-teleport system so I can be in London and 5 minutes later in New York.
There's no point "patrolling", you might want to stick a few alts arround, but anyone can go anywhere so there's no point wandering arround wasting your time. It's not like you'll get anyone before they log or hyperspace off anyway. Permerant scanners? Right, so alliances can better blob people trying to use roids.
5-10 mins is NOTHING compared to the advantage that it brings to the big alliances and cowards.
Spoon Thumb, so we have a whole new bunch of systems with their ores, etc, in which people can't be caught. Right. PLUS all the other disadvantages of a system in which you can't defend anything.
If you're a small corp with no standings and a few frigs, why should you have free reign to go where you like without care and preperation?
Jade Ro, that only works when the universe is largely unexplored. The universe of Eve isn;t, it's a story of social/civilisation rather than a story of exploration/barberism. Both have their points, but unlike E&B this game is predominatly social/civilisation.
Aki Yamato, so basically I have to go to chokepoints to refuel, and if I don't I'm stuck? Better still, automated defences can stop small corps from ever going in at all, since they'll just die to those defences. It's hardly "simple", it's a balance nightmare which would require radical changes to almost every ship and module in Eve.
If you want a MMO without chokepoints, make it yourselves. There are a radically different set of assumptions involved in making a game like that compared to Eve, and the gameflow is very different.
|
NaitSaiht Sabes
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 22:41:00 -
[48]
Has anybody mentioned yet that you change servers/nodes when you go through a stargate? You'll need an alternative in changing sessions cause EvE won't run on one single server.
|
Lord Derik
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 23:08:00 -
[49]
Capital Ships jump around, and they can't use Jump Gates. |
levitron
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 05:10:00 -
[50]
I'm pretty sure that the gates are what the program actually uses to move you to a different node otherwise no gates you would have 20k plus people on the same node and im sure it would crash. Doubt the game would even work without the gates.
|
Smoogle
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 05:22:00 -
[51]
Maybe the addition of new systems unlinked by jump gates?
Instead of gates, the systems would have permanent cyno-beacons and carrier-class ships could jump in 1-10 AU away from the beacon.
Combine that with deep-scanning POSes (jump gates interfere with that module, so it won't work in a system WITH jump gates... unless you have system sovereignty and blah blah blah counteract it.)
Just imagine what a Jove rat could do. XD
|
Zmey
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 06:14:00 -
[52]
Originally by: NaitSaiht Sabes
Has anybody mentioned yet that you change servers/nodes when you go through a stargate? You'll need an alternative in changing sessions cause EvE won't run on one single server.
pfit..
you will auto-change node when You in warp/jump.
This is simple like apple.
|
NaitSaiht Sabes
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 16:18:00 -
[53]
Edited by: NaitSaiht Sabes on 08/07/2006 16:22:56
Then how do you want to intercept a pilot if you don't know to which system (and server) he's gone if he switches the server as soon as he is in warp ("where did he go?" "dunno m8 ... there are a lot of systems in this direction")? You wont be able to find him by scanning cause he/she is on another server (you could have a server which keeps track of all players and spreads this information on all servers... but dunno if that would work)
|
Drizit
|
Posted - 2006.07.08 20:37:00 -
[54]
Originally by: NaitSaiht Sabes
Edited by: NaitSaiht Sabes on 08/07/2006 16:22:56
Then how do you want to intercept a pilot if you don't know to which system (and server) he's gone if he switches the server as soon as he is in warp ("where did he go?" "dunno m8 ... there are a lot of systems in this direction")? You wont be able to find him by scanning cause he/she is on another server (you could have a server which keeps track of all players and spreads this information on all servers... but dunno if that would work)
That's the idea of scanning the exit disturbance (ala Elite) or even using the residue to follow on the same path. All ships hyperdriving would create a temporal disturbance as they entered hyperspace, (call it a temporary gate), this disturbance is scannable to find out where they went or you could use the disturbance to follow on the same vector and would land within 10K of their point of entry.
Your own exit expands that disturbance and makes it last longer before it dissipates so your corp mates could follow too and you all land within 10K of each other. Fleet jumps would be made that way because they would all land in the same grid the same as they do with gates.
Using the point scanners positioned at moons etc as I suggested means that a Covops would need to set a beacon that the fleet would home in on. This would pinpoint their point of entry after the Covops has determined a 'hole' in the scan ranges. So the role of Covops is to find a hole in the fence and call his buddies over to cross the border there. The patrols would know these points and have thier 'border patrols' visit these areas on their route. Since they would be larger than a single grid, the patrol would have to stop and scan using the ship scanners at each hole. A well defended system would know of a fleet invasion almost as soon as it happens and send out an immediate CTA.
These hyperjumps are not intended to be 4 or 5 system jumps at a time, only cap ships can do that. This is a single system-system jump so a fleet would have to by in an adjacent system at some point. A large force in an adjacent system would send up warning flags from anyone in that system the same as it does now. The CTA would already be in operation by the time the fleet actually does come in and the border patrol would only need to scan for the point of entry.
--
|
Craven Waycrest
|
Posted - 2006.07.09 18:13:00 -
[55]
Why not just get rid of gates in 0.0 space? It actually seems kind of strange that there are that many gates in 'uninhabited' space, anyway. It's logical to have gates in space where the empires have soveriegnty, but who would honestly go to all the trouble of putting up gates in systems they'll never move to?
Or do the opposite, and make the gates act only as navigation markers. In empire/high sec space, stations can be used as navigation markers. You jump to a station, then warp to your celestial body/location from there. In 0.0 space, because there are no stations, the empires have left the gates for a reliable means of transportation for possible future colonization.
I think the second option would be the best way to go. Pirates, PvP'ers, and Alliances get to keep their gates for protection/borders/ganking/etc., and everyone gets safe, timely travel throughout Empire space.
Honestly, the lack of safe travel is a huge detractor to this game. I can't keep track of the numbers of players that leave after the Nth gank...it gets old if you're not trying to PvP. This would open 0.0 though. You would no longer have to travel through the retarded, CONCORD-unprotected 0.4-0.1 space, and Alliances/Corps would need to provide real security in their territories if they want reliable transportation lines. Pirates would finally be kicked to 0.0, and empire players would be safe to flourish until they're ready for the step to 0.0.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 02:31:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
Another side effect of this is that it's almost impossible to respond to a system invasion, because once the enemy fleet's in the system, they camp all the gates and lock you out.
Ehhh, if you're trying to DEFEND something, you should ALREADY BE THERE! You can not say: "Oh, now they're in <system>. Let me rush there to 'defend' it..."
If you want to defend a system, you have to keep a fleet there that is ABLE to defend it. If you DON'T have such a fleet there, then the corp/alliance who HAS is the defender, and gets the benefits.
If you're not there, it is not your system, no matter how many times you claim it is.
(as for the original subject, EVE without gates would not be EVE).
|
Eralus
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 04:26:00 -
[57]
People seem to have this illusion that gates promote PvP. They do not. Gates promote pointless ganking. PvP should be about controlling resources - belts, stations, moons and planets. That most 'PvP' happens at gates is just a symptom of a bad game mechanic that allows pansies to selectively beat up only on people that are weaker than they are.
The problem that leads to all this isn't even the existence of gates - the problem that leads to all this is the ability of people to too easily hide in space. The reason pansy gate campers are able to beat up on newbie players is because when anybody bigger than they are shows up they can just warp off to their safe spot. The problem is that the game mechanics let players be in places where they are EASILY ABLE to PvP weaker players but EASILY ABLE to HIDE from stronger players.
So, if we want to encourage GOOD PvP, over RESOURCES, just make it easy to find people in a short period of time. Have a module that puts a homing beacon on a ship. Or have sensor modules that let you see where anyone in a system is.
You can not change gates at all and cut gate ganking and increase real PvP just by making ALL players vulnerable because they can be found. Then gate campers won't be sitting around waiting for weak people to come by because as long as they are sitting there waiting for weak people they are VULNERABLE to stronger people because when the stronger people show up the camper can't just warp off somewhere and be safe.
Here is what I would suggest:
- Create a new technology for stations, a warp scrambler that works on incoming ships and drops ships out of warp before they get within 15 km of the station. If you own the station (POS) or have high standings towards the owner of the station (POS or NPC stations) or maybe even just high sec-status (NPC) then the station lets you warp closer in than 15 km. If not, you get dropped out of warp at the 15 km mark.
- Give people modules that let them quickly find other players within the same system. That way if you warp off, I can quickly follow you. Maybe that module is something that fires homing beacons at ships, or simply a long-range sensor that automatically tracks any ship that recently fired on you and lets you warp to it if it's in the same system.
Coupled with the 15 km warp drop barrier around stations, this gives gate gankers a level of risk similar to the people they are trying to gank. That's why people are getting ganked so eaily now - traveling THROUGH a gate is pretty risky, but camping at a gate is not very risky. In order to get to safety, you can't just warp to the safe spot bookmark you have in your system (since I can just quickly warp there myself), you have to get to a station and get that last 15 km out of warp, or warp directly into a station that you've got good standings at (NPC stations in empire should block out low-sec players from warping straight in. This also gives defenders a bit of an advantage in their home systems since they can warp straight into their stations.)
If you want to spice things up a bit, when using a gate to go from system A to system B, allow people who have a bookmark in system B to jump DIRECTLY to that bookmark. Again, this balences out the defense of systems, since defenders should have bookmarks into their system.
If you do this, you'll find that people can travel in relative safety (thus easier to get out into 0.0) and you'll have more REAL (As in PvPers fighting for control) PvP around actual resources.
People should be fighting over stations and moons and asteroid belts, not gates.
|
Lord Derik
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 04:37:00 -
[58]
Ganking or any other ship destruction drives the markets, more money for me when I supply replacement parts and ships. Let the fools who either rush into things or play AFK pay my way. :) Just like anything else, knowing the danger is half the battle, avoiding it as best as you can is the other. |
Zmey
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 07:04:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Eralus
People seem to have this illusion that gates promote PvP. They do not. Gates promote pointless ganking. PvP should be about controlling resources - belts, stations, moons and planets. That most 'PvP' happens at gates is just a symptom of a bad game mechanic that allows pansies to selectively beat up only on people that are weaker than they are.
The problem that leads to all this isn't even the existence of gates - the problem that leads to all this is the ability of people to too easily hide in space. The reason pansy gate campers are able to beat up on newbie players is because when anybody bigger than they are shows up they can just warp off to their safe spot. The problem is that the game mechanics let players be in places where they are EASILY ABLE to PvP weaker players but EASILY ABLE to HIDE from stronger players.
So, if we want to encourage GOOD PvP, over RESOURCES, just make it easy to find people in a short period of time. Have a module that puts a homing beacon on a ship. Or have sensor modules that let you see where anyone in a system is.
You can not change gates at all and cut gate ganking and increase real PvP just by making ALL players vulnerable because they can be found. Then gate campers won't be sitting around waiting for weak people to come by because as long as they are sitting there waiting for weak people they are VULNERABLE to stronger people because when the stronger people show up the camper can't just warp off somewhere and be safe.
Absolutely right.
|
Aion Amarra
|
Posted - 2006.07.10 12:20:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Aion Amarra on 10/07/2006 12:20:02
I also greatly support the removal of the jumpgates.
However, this ain't exactly the first time that this topic came up, so:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=269329 <- Some really good stuff in there. Just don't bump it.
My thoughts are on the second to fifth post of the third page, though some of it might be redundant by now, due to changes to the leadership system being planned anyways.
Woo.
________
Capitalization is the difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off his horse." and "I helped my uncle jack off his horse."
Help the horses, make proper use of that shift button. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |