| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gunship
Amarr
FATAL REVELATIONS
Lotka Volterra
   |
Posted - 2006.09.06 12:19:00 -
[31]
Would favor long range sniping BS, but apart from that there is some nice ideas, just don't think we will see it anytime soon.
So you want to join us? |
eLLioTT wave
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:13:00 -
[32]
i like it
needs a lot of balance ect, i would like to see a lot more travel (not warp), more escorts (introduce formations for gangs), and chances for eve to be more like the awesome wing commander videos (out of the games) that were so cool. |
Krist Valentine
Amarr
Bad Omen Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:31:00 -
[33]
Seems like a good idea to me.
/signed
- - - - -
Krist Valentine > Anti Pirate [An-tee-py-rut] - NOUN - Miner who got podded and trained for a Ferox. |
Laythun
Euphoria Released
Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:42:00 -
[34]
Ok ok wait for it Nanobotter..wait wait..
/signed.
I 'actually' agree with this plan as a raw template, and with the hopefully upcoming 'rebalance' of sniping, this could be a reshaping of combat.
See You In Space Cowboy |
Saria Mysdrial
Amarr
Research Associates
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 15:03:00 -
[35]
 Originally by: Gunship
Would favor long range sniping BS, but apart from that there is some nice ideas, just don't think we will see it anytime soon.
Maybe add different clouds (those tactical environments) that limit locking range. So some areas of the zone favour short-range weapons, and some favour the long-range snipers.
Could also make maneuvering in the cloud more interesting...something big with massive range has you locked, move into a sensor-dampening cloud, and they'll need to get close to find you/lock you.
Also, perhaps instead of eliminating warp-out entirely...just have the area require a much larger amount of energy to warp out...say 50% of cap to just engage the warp drive, then a 400% increase in warp cost/au.
This way, if you're completely unmolested in the belt, and you sit & let your cap recharge, you can still warp out...but if you're doing ANYTHING but just flying around w/o AB/MWD, you'll either have to take fire until the cap regens enough (and hope there's no heavy nos on your foes), or fight.
|
Ozawi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 15:20:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Bad idea. You assume an alliance only controls 1 system?
Lets say we have an alliance with 10 systems that are worth ratting/mining in. An attacker can choose any of those 10 systems to attack in, and all a defender can do is either spread out and be destroyed in piecemeal fashion, or bunch up and abandon half the systems. Unless of course you leave the current gate system in as well, but then people would still camp gates.
0.0 Alliances are like nations. Nations have borders, its a defining feature, so as to being able to defend its citizens against attack before the enemies actually reach the citizens.
On the contrary - it would force Alliances to actually put thought into their expansion.
Instead of just a blind clueless landgrab - forethought into the logistics of not expanding beyond their ability to defend would then factor into it. It would add another much more cerebral layer to the game.
Anyone who's worth their weight in donkeysh*t at strategy games understands well the concept of not over-expanding. Stretch yourself too thin, and you suffer for it. It would separate the actual leaders/strategists from the mindless hoards.
Rewarding a wise and well executed plan for expansion isn't a bad thing.
|
Sha'blach
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 15:33:00 -
[37]
Homeworld meets EvE. I like it.
/signed
------------
Peregrinus Amarria
|
Raider Zero
Minmatar
Federation
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 15:50:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kitchi
Edited by: Kitchi on 05/09/2006 22:22:25
Analysis: Post contains idea that takes away I-WIN button piracy.
Suggested action for OP: Get on your flame-retardant suit fast.
Probabilities:
Multi-page flame-fest of I-WIN button pirates vs. statistically correct novel writers: 42%
Single page, limited approval and heavy flame from Maya: 54%
Multi-page, inteligent discussion of concept viability: 3%
CCP implimentation factor: 0.023%
Overall quality of idea: 73%
QFT
|
Nanobotter Mk2
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 16:02:00 -
[39]
"Maybe add different clouds (those tactical environments) that limit locking range. So some areas of the zone favour short-range weapons, and some favour the long-range snipers.
Could also make maneuvering in the cloud more interesting...something big with massive range has you locked, move into a sensor-dampening cloud, and they'll need to get close to find you/lock you.
Also, perhaps instead of eliminating warp-out entirely...just have the area require a much larger amount of energy to warp out...say 50% of cap to just engage the warp drive, then a 400% increase in warp cost/au.
This way, if you're completely unmolested in the belt, and you sit & let your cap recharge, you can still warp out...but if you're doing ANYTHING but just flying around w/o AB/MWD, you'll either have to take fire until the cap regens enough (and hope there's no heavy nos on your foes), or fight."
Ya Nice idea about trying to help limit long range locking to get smaller ships into the battle, it can be RP'd off the same way the delayed warp drive time is, say the cloud or magnetic field prevents locking from xxx distance, However for your warping idea I really am looking for something that really limits the ability to just align an warp off, so that the need to completely overwhelm somoene to kill them isnt needed, so we can get more sustained engagements of gangs of similar size.
PS, for the person who thinks people will NOT want to fly 300km at 100km speeds... I think you're wrong, as i said the "juice simply needs to be worth the squeeze" So that the extra time flying is accounted for when the rewards are figured out. I think alot of people like the idea of flying there ship, it is part of what i find missing in eve, the other aspect you might have missed is, this type of tactical enviroment then allows for a bit more support for gangs with modules like gang AB mods to help the slow ships travels through at a bit more pleasant pace.
Also last note because someone was concerned about defending turf... well I never said remove gates camping (though i think it should be the ultimate goal), I just disagree, that an alliance can defend immense amoutns of "turf" by camping 1 choke point. EVE is a small place with the number of players we got and I think alot of alliances claim ownership over far more territory than they were ment to simply by locking down a gate you control ~50 systems? You should be defending the resources in a systems you want to claim onwership of not the gate. Since really that is the only thing of value in your systems. 
Will move the OP to the features idea forum.
|
Metis AT
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 16:07:00 -
[40]
Great idea /signed
Maybe when they move to system belts they should make all belts in low sec and 0.0 this way. Just need to increase the rewards for operating in those areas and i think it would be okay.
Greater reward = more risk. I like the idea.
|
|
|
eLLioTT wave
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 16:08:00 -
[41]
are you proposing this space is deadspace? (no mwd)
also i like the cloud idea limiting lock range, make it 30k or something :D up close and personal ftw
also perhaps some small clouds amongst (or just one ) which effectively cloaks you? (maybe a 5km diamater cloaking cloud)
i really like the overall idea, and make the roids REALLY juicy and the rat loot garunteed good and people will definately come.
I just don't like the idea of being in there and a stabber comes along... :( so maybe the deadspace no mwd might be a good idea. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |