| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
   |
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:37:00 -
[1]
Some of you may think that this is crazy, but I sincerely think it would be a fun ingredient.
Implementation:
*All ships get a fuel tank, much like a cargo bay, but you can only stick fuel in it.
*Each unit of cap spent will consume fuel
*Moving your ship in space will consume fuel
*The passive recharge of your shields will consume fuel
*Fuels would either be existing materials ingame or completely new, prefferably existing materials.
*Running completely empty of fuel would not leave you stranded. But you would get a sewere penalty to cap recharge, shield recharge and to maximum speed. (RP explanation, the ship can harness some solar energy hence why you are not completely stranded)
*Fuel tanks should be balanced so that you can use the ship at max cap recharge, shield recharge and max velocity combined for about 12-24 hours. That would mean that a casual player would have to refuel about once a week or every two weeks on most normal ships.
*Give the logistic ships several HUGE fuel tanks so that they get the capacity to act as a logistics ship by bringing fuel to the fleet.
*Fuel should come in several different tiers, where the lowest are more space consuming and give penalties to the output of the ship and the highest tiers (or even T2 fuels if that is wanted) would only be usable by T2 ships and would be less space consuming and give bonuses to the output of the ship. Most T2 ships would require much better fuel then their T1 counterparts to operate at todays standards thus running T2 ships is also more expensive then T1 ships.
What would this add to gameplay?
*There is finally an incentive to be energy efficient.
*This would promote small ships and small ship warfare instead of only battleships all over the place.
*People who dont want to use alot of money on running their ships would pick a lower grade of fuel and would thus recieve a small penalty to cap recharge, shield recharge and max velocity.
*People who want maximum performance out of their ship would choose a more expensive fuel and would recieve a small bonus to cap recharge, shield recharge and max velocity.
*This would add alot of logistics to a large fleet that moves around in hostile territory for extended periods of time.
*More interesting modules, how about a low slot module "Extra fuel tanks"
How to balance amongst the races:
To ensure that Amarr (or other would be overconsumers of fuel) are not getting a negative impact from this I propose that their ships would be able to use all fuels more efficiently and thus be able to use fuels as if they were a tier higher, or a set percentage bonus or something else that prevents them from being at a disadvantage from using more cap.
I think that this would add alot of interesting things to the game and I also think the extra isk sink would promote alot of good things!
What do you think?
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:42:00 -
[2]
And nerf solo players even more? I don't think that is a very good idea.
-[23] Member-
Awesome new space games site, from the editor of E-ON! |
Dagda Dia
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:43:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Dagda Dia on 29/10/2006 18:44:06
nice idea but please not at this time. CCP needs to fix the old issues before coming up with new stuff. And with Kali coming, old issued not addressed, leaves no time to implenment this type of thing.
I would think it would come with skills to train, new slots(fuel cell)to aicraft not to mention the balancing.
Maybe add it to EVE2.
thanks DS, they are already nerfing the heck out of us solo players. 
Move along nothing to see here, yes I am a ALT
Just portecting my main.
|
Slab Drinklots
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:44:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Dark Shikari
And nerf solo players even more? I don't think that is a very good idea.
How do you mean? Just becouse you are solo does that mean that you do not visit a station once a week or every two weeks?
Regards
/Doxs
|
Sonos SAGD
Minmatar
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:44:00 -
[5]
they are tryingto get people to go to 0.0 space, this will just tie players to empire more
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:46:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sonos SAGD
they are tryingto get people to go to 0.0 space, this will just tie players to empire more
How about if all higher end fuels are made in 0.0 only, or from something that is only available there?
The only thing that should be readily bought from NPCs in empire would be the absolutely worst fuels.
Thus it would be cheaper and more readily available in 0.0 compared to in high sec. Unless your in hostile territory that is.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Pestillence
Chav-Scum
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:46:00 -
[7]
This is the second time today this has been brought up.
I think it fits in poorly with EvE as it currently works.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Pestillence
This is the second time today this has been brought up.
I think it fits in poorly with EvE as it currently works.
I think I missed that, thanks for the pointer. But I must ask, why dont you think it fits with EvE in its current shape?
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
SurfinSeaOtter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:48:00 -
[9]
And how about we give all the big carebear ships external fuel tanks you can blow up in 2 hits destroying the carebear 
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:49:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 29/10/2006 18:49:50
Originally by: SurfinSeaOtter
And how about we give all the big carebear ships external fuel tanks you can blow up in 2 hits destroying the carebear
Technically this would actually allow you to ransom someone for his fuel (and money) and then leave him there crippled
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Sovy Kurosei
Amarr
Therianthropic Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:49:00 -
[11]
I would rather we got rid of the gates and instead zipped around in our own personal jump drives without needing somebody to put up a cyno field.
Just my two cents. 
___________________
|
Abye
Caldari
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:50:00 -
[12]
It's already in the game, especially for high damage ships.
Called Ammo and Cap Booster Charges
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 18:52:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Abye
It's already in the game, especially for high damage ships.
Called Ammo and Cap Booster Charges
Indeed, but this would add alot of options that you dont get with the current system.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Tek'a Rain
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:03:00 -
[14]
current system is simple
ships run off a premade fusion reactor or somesuch internal system that is rated to provide a constant flow of juice for a few dozen years, so long we dont have to worry about it.
this is cosntantly trickle charging the bulk capaciter units onboard which allow this otherwise useless flow of power to be stored, tapped, hoarded or burned off.
Foiritan Is Our Man |
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:06:00 -
[15]
I dont really agree about the "fun" part.. just sounds boring to me. Sorry. :)
---
Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
Rotag
Amarr
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:22:00 -
[16]
And what happens if I move through hostile territory when I cannot dock at a station due to who controls it? Do I just get stuck there? Then of course my pod is gonna have to have fuel too, and due to it's size, I don't think it would hold enough fuel to make a jump to a station.. so with my ship and pod being stuck in space, in hostile territory, and the system abandoned, you either sit the rest of your eve life there, or pk yourself.. and if you have implants.. that'd be out of the question.
And plus, you would have to have new resources to make the fuel.. now I can get that ships and all the modules and ammo can be made out of the same base ingredients, but I don't see how you'll make x amount of fuel from throwing some zyd, mega, etc. togeather..
|
Parsava Dei
Caldari
Pegasus Industries LTD
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:38:00 -
[17]
I personally would discourage fuel usage in EVE.
Things are fine as they are.
Let the players fly about in their ships while worrying about the already present risks and game effects.
Adding fuel tanks can make things a little tedious to some imo.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 19:50:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 29/10/2006 19:53:11
Originally by: Rotag
And what happens if I move through hostile territory when I cannot dock at a station due to who controls it? Do I just get stuck there?
No you do not get stuck, but running out of fuel gives a fairly large penalty to shield recharge, cap recharge and maximum velocity. (in the area of 70-95%) However, that should not be a problem if you ensure that you leave on your trip with full fuel tanks, or perhaps spend some extra isk for a more expensive but efficient fuel that lasts longer.
Please bear in mind that the 24 hours I mentioned in my first post was at maximum recharge, so your fuel should last much longer unless you are constantly at full speed, 30-40% cap and shields. During normal use I would say it needs to be balanced to last 1-2 weeks.
Originally by: Rotag
Then of course my pod is gonna have to have fuel too, and due to it's size, I don't think it would hold enough fuel to make a jump to a station.. so with my ship and pod being stuck in space, in hostile territory, and the system abandoned, you either sit the rest of your eve life there, or pk yourself.. and if you have implants.. that'd be out of the question.
Apart from the fact that it could not happen to any ship since you would still have some cap recharge I still think that noob ships, pods and shuttles should be excluded from needing fuel.
Originally by: Rotag
And plus, you would have to have new resources to make the fuel.. now I can get that ships and all the modules and ammo can be made out of the same base ingredients, but I don't see how you'll make x amount of fuel from throwing some zyd, mega, etc. togeather..
Why not? Take Uranium for example, its a mineral(actually, technically not, but you get the point) and yet it is a fuel.
But to be honest I would like to see the materials for high end fuels to be located in 0.0 to encourage people to get out there.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
PKlavins
Caldari
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 20:17:00 -
[19]
i like the idea...but i wouldnt like it if suddenly fuel became the primary concern of every pilot...as in...fuel should last minimum a week or something, so if ur not near a refuel area (whatever that may be) in deep 0.0, you dont find urself defenceless...
and i agree, 'no fuel' shoudlnt give you max 0m/s...just nerf ur stats a bit, ok, well maybe 50-80% nerf to shield, cap and speed if you run out of fuel...
and as for acquiring it, make it a mineral that you can mine, so you can be self-sufficient in 0.0 and dont need a station selling it or anything...(come to think of it, would this herald an age of combat-fitted ships wielding one basic miner to supply itself with fuel occasionaly?  ...)
anyway...i think the idea can work, just needs careful balancing...
COOKIES FOR MODS IN TEH UBAR SIGZ0R!
first -eris |
Risien Drogonne
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 20:42:00 -
[20]
No. This adds absolutely nothing worthwhile to the game other than more tedious details.
|
Ash Vincetti
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 20:45:00 -
[21]
I think we should also add thirst, hunger and bathroom time. I mean, the pod runs off of some sort of bio-fluid that needs to be constantly re-freshed or we die.
And while we are at it, we also need to add window washing fluid to the list of supplies in constant need of resupply.
Please also add crews to our ships that die every so often, and have different qualities, so a quality engineer (purchasable at engineering schools) will give me a better boost to capacitor and engineering modules than a cheap engineer in low-sec.
Or, how about we leave the system as-is. I don't see where adding more micromanagement = more fun.
-----
|
Auron Shadowbane
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 20:54:00 -
[22]
as you outlined it, it is pointless.
If a ship can run 24 hours at max efficiency without refueling it just generates another two clicks for a pilot to make his ship ready again.
On the other hand I can see some potential in your idea.
You could make fuel an important issue if ships would run out of fuel within half an hour or so but then there are booster charges.
Last but not least we could give ships a big (10 - 100times) capa boost while crippling capacitor regain to oblivion (like 1/10 or so of current c/s) while reducing cap boosters m¦-need.
This would make fights last longer as ships have more cap to tank with (if they want to spend it fast) but on the other hand make every unit of capacitor more important as you have to kill your enemy before you run out.
|
Hellwasp
Amarr
Constructive Influence
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:13:00 -
[23]
what a great way of messing over caldari who are shield tankers, now they have no shield rechare rate, because they have no fuel, and they can't shield boost because they have no cap. And they don't have cap because they have no fuel.
|
marioman
Caldari
Eye of God
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:17:00 -
[24]
Ships reactors are powered by a never ending source of "fuel" if i remember my back story correctly.
For instance one race has Antimatter Reactors, one have Graviton, and so forth. All of which is never ending, recyclable fuel source.
Remember we are in the 25,000 or 30,000 or somewhere around there, fuel sources have advanced along way since 2006 ;)
Also gotta remember even if none of this hold true, the ships could be solar powered....definately plenty of sun to go around for everyone
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:17:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Hellwasp
what a great way of messing over caldari who are shield tankers, now they have no shield rechare rate, because they have no fuel, and they can't shield boost because they have no cap. And they don't have cap because they have no fuel.
I dont know where you got those ideas from, suffice to say nerfing a particular race is not part of this idea. I can only reccomend you to read it again.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Auron Shadowbane
as you outlined it, it is pointless.
If a ship can run 24 hours at max efficiency without refueling it just generates another two clicks for a pilot to make his ship ready again.
One of the key benefits of the system I proposed here is that you get another ISK sink to slow down inflation a bit. And the most important part is that you add an incentive for people do fly other ships then battleships. The cost to operate a ship is what I am trying introduce.
Personally I also like the logistical problems this can add to a large force, bringing fuel for a couple of hundred battleships if the fights get drawn out etc.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:28:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ash Vincetti
I think we should also add thirst, hunger and bathroom time. I mean, the pod runs off of some sort of bio-fluid that needs to be constantly re-freshed or we die.
And while we are at it, we also need to add window washing fluid to the list of supplies in constant need of resupply.
Please also add crews to our ships that die every so often, and have different qualities, so a quality engineer (purchasable at engineering schools) will give me a better boost to capacitor and engineering modules than a cheap engineer in low-sec.
Nice sarcasm, but I would actually love to see crews added to EvE.
Originally by: Ash Vincetti
Or, how about we leave the system as-is. I don't see where adding more micromanagement = more fun.
I can assure you this would be much less micromanagement then loading ammo into your guns, then again, maybe you think thats to much micro management as well?
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: marioman
Ships reactors are powered by a never ending source of "fuel" if i remember my back story correctly.
For instance one race has Antimatter Reactors, one have Graviton, and so forth. All of which is never ending, recyclable fuel source.
Remember we are in the 25,000 or 30,000 or somewhere around there, fuel sources have advanced along way since 2006 ;)
Also gotta remember even if none of this hold true, the ships could be solar powered....definately plenty of sun to go around for everyone
Actually, the plan is for them to be solar powered, but only when out of fuel since they cannot get enough from fuel alone.
I didnt know the rest of the backstory, interesting information indeed.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:42:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 29/10/2006 21:42:38
Originally by: marioman
Ships reactors are powered by a never ending source of "fuel" if i remember my back story correctly.
For instance one race has Antimatter Reactors, one have Graviton, and so forth. All of which is never ending, recyclable fuel source.
Remember we are in the 25,000 or 30,000 or somewhere around there, fuel sources have advanced along way since 2006 ;)
Also gotta remember even if none of this hold true, the ships could be solar powered....definately plenty of sun to go around for everyone
Actually, the plan is for them to be solar powered, but only when out of fuel since they cannot get enough from the sun alone.
I didnt know the rest of the backstory, interesting information indeed.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Yumi Katanawe
Caldari
Demon Womb
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:52:00 -
[30]
God no.
|
Taram Caldar
Caldari
Acheron Vanguard Armada
The Shadow Ascension
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 21:57:00 -
[31]
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No
|
Corovus
Gallente
THeOThErs
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 22:01:00 -
[32]
I don't think the OP has ever run a POS. Now fueling those up is really "fun"... 
|
Risien Drogonne
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 22:50:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Risien Drogonne on 29/10/2006 22:51:20
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Auron Shadowbane
as you outlined it, it is pointless.
If a ship can run 24 hours at max efficiency without refueling it just generates another two clicks for a pilot to make his ship ready again.
One of the key benefits of the system I proposed here is that you get another ISK sink to slow down inflation a bit. And the most important part is that you add an incentive for people do fly other ships then battleships. The cost to operate a ship is what I am trying introduce.
Personally I also like the logistical problems this can add to a large force, bringing fuel for a couple of hundred battleships if the fights get drawn out etc.
Regards
/Doxs
And now I see that you have no idea what a money sink is. Having to give money to other players to run your ship has absolutely zero effect on inflation.
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 22:51:00 -
[34]
No.
|
Sevenius Kaul
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 23:36:00 -
[35]
Maybe limited fuel - fuel required for 'insta warps' to 0km for example...
C.
|
Ironnight
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 23:54:00 -
[36]
NO! Why would you want to bring that into the game?
 |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 00:47:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Risien Drogonne
No. This adds absolutely nothing worthwhile to the game other than more tedious details.
Sure it does, imagine outrunning a fleet in persuit till their core or support vessels for that matter run low on fuel and then turn the table. Adds heeps I'd say.
Looking For Ventrilo Hosting |
Mortol Strike
Evisceration.
EVE Alliance9673
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 00:54:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Auron Shadowbane
as you outlined it, it is pointless.
If a ship can run 24 hours at max efficiency without refueling it just generates another two clicks for a pilot to make his ship ready again.
One of the key benefits of the system I proposed here is that you get another ISK sink to slow down inflation a bit. And the most important part is that you add an incentive for people do fly other ships then battleships. The cost to operate a ship is what I am trying introduce.
Personally I also like the logistical problems this can add to a large force, bringing fuel for a couple of hundred battleships if the fights get drawn out etc.
Regards
/Doxs
null
There is already a huge difference in running a Frig vs a BS the cost of the ship it's ammo, mods, and insurance.
Overall the idea sounds a little to "real". Thats not always good for games as alot of people play the game to escape reality. |
R3dSh1ft
Caldari
FIRMA
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 00:54:00 -
[39]
This would be a great immersive feature, but TBH it isnt the time yet, there are soooooooooooo many things that need fixing first.
But 10/10 for the concept, hopefully at some point in the future it won't be out of the question anymore.
______________________________________
|
Kusotarre
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 01:05:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
What do you think?
Regards
/Doxs
I think you should die.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 01:08:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
I think I missed that, thanks for the pointer. But I must ask, why dont you think it fits with EvE in its current shape?
Becuase the engines used on ships in EVE do not burn fuel in any way you seem to think.
Except minmatar, but atleast their bigger ships use Diesel.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Kimotoro Directive
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 01:15:00 -
[42]
Originally by: marioman
Remember we are in the 25,000 or 30,000 or somewhere around there, fuel sources have advanced along way since 2006 ;)
23341 to be exact.
Originally by: kieron
The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
War Bear
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 01:24:00 -
[43]
Originally by: marioman
Ships reactors are powered by a never ending source of "fuel" if i remember my back story correctly.
For instance one race has Antimatter Reactors, one have Graviton, and so forth. All of which is never ending, recyclable fuel source.
Lucky bastards. We're still burning coal.
No matter where you go, there you are. |
Lygos
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 01:33:00 -
[44]
I support fuel simply on the grounds that it makes skirmishes, and patrols something to plan.
POS fuel would not be such a royal pain if it were not tied to something as retrograde as ice mining. Mining sucks. The only reason it keeps coming up is because it wasn't removed before people got 1M sp in it. POS should have more intra-POS markets.
Making POS responsible for fuel would create a MAJOR market for POS to service. POS themselves need overhaul in terms of defense and fleet focus, but the basic nature of what their role in the economy should be seems clear to me, simple, and non-controversial. They can pick up where BPO and similar concepts went awry. Note: Corrupting the profitability and utility of a POS should be easier than blowing it up.
For example, gas mining could be done by mini-POS with really weak, small, and simple POS that sit at SS (in the cloud.) Gas mining in addition to something common like atmospheric gases (most common moon mineral) could replace much of the fuel need of POS instead of just ice. (Honestly, we should have all collectively said "No, fark that" when Ice was first mentioned. CCP kindof snuck it on us though and made it sound like something good as a replacement or alternative to mining. Ebil Bastards.)
Fuel could be used for the following:
-For warping without a prep timer. (easy mode)
-For determining the amount of AU a ship can cover between fillups. (hard mode)
Easy mode could make tackling interesting again with some modifications here and there.
Hard mode would make Xenophon fall silent and would make every alliance and future alliance take a very hard look at current friends and enemies. It would make the hauler the main instrument of war and statecraft in many cases. Good supply preparation and forward bases would be essential to warfare and skirmishes. Those also become prime targets for heading off major invasions. Meanwhile anchored cans are able to supply very light forces, and cannot be pulled down with scan probes. Light strike craft could become reliant on larger ships that have the ability to travel further on their oversize tanks and more efficient engines in order to wander off the beaten path.
I know which one I favor.
---
Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
Reiisha
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 02:00:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Blah blah blah.
Capacitor.
Anti-matter reactors.
Nuclear reactors.
Fusion reactors.
Dunno the 4th one...
In any case, none of them use fuel at any large capacity, even in dreads. The energy output can be in quite a lot of gigawatts with not a lot of reaction matter, which is especially the case for the AM and fusion reactors. AM reactors could actually power entire countries with just a few grams...
In other words, fuel is pretty much non-existant in the EVE universe. Capacitor energy is the rough equivalent to fuel in terms of gameplay. No need to fix something that ain't broke.
EVE History Wiki - Help us fill it!
|
GeekWarrior
Gallente
FISKL GUARDS
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 02:02:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
What would this add to gameplay?
*There is finally an incentive to be energy efficient.
Tree-hugging hippies!
-----------------------------
EVE Addict, creator of the EVE Online Forms Greasemonkey Script \o/ |
Skaz
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 02:31:00 -
[47]
I have nothing but dislike for a limiting factor such as this, firstly our ships already run on some kindof fusion clean efficient energy thingies
But this would not enrich gameplay, sure another way to make money but do you really wan't to make this a RL simulation extreme? EVE is already approaching work like levels for some, want to add another factor?
sorry but this one idea as well meant as it is, is a no no.
Also it reminds me of another game where fuel was a factor and it wasn't a pleasant one.
But to leave on a positive note you clearly thought about this and all and keep up the suggestions. We just don't need THIS particular ingredient.
-
-
PINK PINK PINK PINK |
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 02:55:00 -
[48]
personally I like the idea, provided refuelling is easily done and not like POS refuelling which, quite simply, should be buried forever.
refuelling should not be there just to make travelling cost over time, it should have a purpose.
theres a lot of things fuelled ships could add to the game:
- Refuelling Ships
- Scooping Fuel from Stars/Planets *cough*Elite*cough* using a module or whatever
- Fuel Siphons/Transferrers (like NOS/etc, but for fuel)
- The reduction in the sheer number of solo Force Recons cruising through alliance space hunting npcers and miners
- More skills
id also like to see fuel run out faster on smaller ships, such as interceptors, and last a lot longer on the bigger ships, especially BC and up
fuelled ships isnt always a bad thing, it was implemented well in games like Elite and Homeworld, i dont see why - with a bit of thought - it couldnt be in EVE
|
Lygos
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 03:03:00 -
[49]
The capacity to go anywhere you wish contributes directly to the express need to go nowhere.
---
Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
Cipher7
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 03:16:00 -
[50]
Yeah and for added "fun" we can add in a requirement that pilots eat, sleep, and take a schit once every 24 hours.
Please, spare us the stupid ideas.
The only thing Eve needs is less lag.
It doesn't need player cantinas to sit around and have netsex, it doesn't need space gas stations, it just need to take what is already implemented and make it so it doesn't take 12 seconds to turn on an armor repper.
Every patch we get the same boneheaded patch notes :
"Well players, the nodes still crash every 2 hours, but the stations all have new graphics. By the way, we nerfed XXX skills, but you can train it back to its former strength with by training the following dozen rank 8 skills. We also implemented elite learning skills to help you train those rank 8 skills, the whole thing should take you until next patch to train until we can manage to nerf something else."
We don't need new features, we need the server backend to be able to support what is already implemented.
|
crazybstard
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 09:28:00 -
[51]
Hmmm sounds like somebody is trying to turn EvE into Elite or Frontier, NO it's too retro.
Don't mention the thargoids 
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:04:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Risien Drogonne
And now I see that you have no idea what a money sink is. Having to give money to other players to run your ship has absolutely zero effect on inflation.
And where do you think those players get the materials from then? The core point is that we are taking something out of the economy since fuel is consumed.
Compare that to the current state of insurances where money is injected into the economy from nowhere, that causes inflation. This is the opposite and thus helps slow down inflation.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty confident that I am right on this point.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:17:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Edited by: Taram Caldar on 29/10/2006 22:19:28
Edited by: Taram Caldar on 29/10/2006 22:18:20
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No
As someone once said:
We fly around in eggs with tubes up our rear... if I want reality I'll go outside.
There are already enough boring and tedious pointless tasks in EVE lets not go adding any more... mmmmmkay? The last thing I want to have to worry about, on top of everything else going on in the game, is whether I fueled up recently or not.
Of course you are entitled to your wery own opinion on the matter, however, along those lines I guess you would want us to remove all ammo for all weapons as well?
Different fuels add tactics and possibilities, why do you see it as something horrible?
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Tip: How often do you think an Aircraft Carrier today refules?
That's right: Once every oh.... 20 years.... why? Cuz they are fission powered nuclear reactors.
Somehow I think the ships we fly are a bit more advanced than a fission nuke generator.
Perhaps, but if you want to pull the reality card, how much fuel do you think an EvE sized ship needs to move around and manuever the way it does compared to moving a floating boat around on the ocean?
I am fairly confident that using current physics it is probably impossible to fit the neccessary amount of fuel in the ship, even if you have a powerplant/engine working at 100% efficiency. Then again, who knows what the future holds for us?
Its a game, but I personally think the EvE economy could use this and I also think it would add alot of tactics to the game, then again thats just my personal view on the matter.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Marine HK4861
Caldari
Seoltachd
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:19:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Risien Drogonne
And now I see that you have no idea what a money sink is. Having to give money to other players to run your ship has absolutely zero effect on inflation.
And where do you think those players get the materials from then? The core point is that we are taking something out of the economy since fuel is consumed.
Not really.
Supplier goes mines some raw materials. ISK into the system.
Supplier refines and puts fuel up for sale. <1% ISK out for broker fees.
Pilot buys fuel from supplier. ISK transferred to supplier. <1% ISK out for sales tax.
Pilot burns fuel. No ISK transfer.
If NPCs supplied fuel, then yes it would be an ISK sink, but if players can also supply fuel, it wouldn't.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:19:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Kusotarre
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
What do you think?
Regards
/Doxs
I think you should die.
Are you dumb? What has threats got to do with this?
If thats all you got to say dont bother posting at all.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Malus NalJa'ka
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:35:00 -
[56]
Originally by: War Bear
Originally by: marioman
Ships reactors are powered by a never ending source of "fuel" if i remember my back story correctly.
For instance one race has Antimatter Reactors, one have Graviton, and so forth. All of which is never ending, recyclable fuel source.
Lucky bastards. We're still burning coal.
I lol'ed
Disclaimer: Any spelling or grammatical errors are none of your business and/or made on purpose |
Thor Xian
Vertigo One
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:38:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
And nerf solo players even more? I don't think that is a very good idea.
I'm a solo player most of the time and I've been saying all ships should have fuel since April 2004.
Its a buff to solo players who arent helpless twits.
~Thor Xian, Material Defender |
Fracking Beach
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 11:11:00 -
[58]
No. Just no to this fuel idea. Why? Well, here's why:
Why not also add Oxygen to be a consumable item that you need to stock into your ship. If you run out of oxygen, you will die and wake up in a clone palace, but your ship is left stranded in space. Cool!
Make it mandatory for pod pilots to use lavatories at stations when they are docked. If you fly too long without using these facilities, your pod will die of constipation. Same effect as running out of oxygen.
Bottom line: There's allready enough things to be micro/macromanaged in EVE. I honestly don't want to be worrying if my frigate is going to run out of GAS while I'm flying in space. Really.
|
ildra
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 11:21:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Some of you may think that this is crazy, but I sincerely think it would be a fun ingredient.
Implementation:
*All ships get a fuel tank, much like a cargo bay, but you can only stick fuel in it.
*Each unit of cap spent will consume fuel
*Moving your ship in space will consume fuel
*The passive recharge of your shields will consume fuel
*Fuels would either be existing materials ingame or completely new, prefferably existing materials.
*Running completely empty of fuel would not leave you stranded. But you would get a sewere penalty to cap recharge, shield recharge and to maximum speed. (RP explanation, the ship can harness some solar energy hence why you are not completely stranded)
*Fuel tanks should be balanced so that you can use the ship at max cap recharge, shield recharge and max velocity combined for about 12-24 hours. That would mean that a casual player would have to refuel about once a week or every two weeks on most normal ships.
*Give the logistic ships several HUGE fuel tanks so that they get the capacity to act as a logistics ship by bringing fuel to the fleet.
*Fuel should come in several different tiers, where the lowest are more space consuming and give penalties to the output of the ship and the highest tiers (or even T2 fuels if that is wanted) would only be usable by T2 ships and would be less space consuming and give bonuses to the output of the ship. Most T2 ships would require much better fuel then their T1 counterparts to operate at todays standards thus running T2 ships is also more expensive then T1 ships.
What would this add to gameplay?
*There is finally an incentive to be energy efficient.
*This would promote small ships and small ship warfare instead of only battleships all over the place.
*People who dont want to use alot of money on running their ships would pick a lower grade of fuel and would thus recieve a small penalty to cap recharge, shield recharge and max velocity.
*People who want maximum performance out of their ship would choose a more expensive fuel and would recieve a small bonus to cap recharge, shield recharge and max velocity.
*This would add alot of logistics to a large fleet that moves around in hostile territory for extended periods of time.
*More interesting modules, how about a low slot module "Extra fuel tanks"
How to balance amongst the races:
To ensure that Amarr (or other would be overconsumers of fuel) are not getting a negative impact from this I propose that their ships would be able to use all fuels more efficiently and thus be able to use fuels as if they were a tier higher, or a set percentage bonus or something else that prevents them from being at a disadvantage from using more cap.
I think that this would add alot of interesting things to the game and I also think the extra isk sink would promote alot of good things!
What do you think?
Regards
/Doxs
Have you ever tried doing logistics for dreadnoughts or carriers?
Think about doing logistics in a corp with over 100 players on a daily basis..
this would mean the end of 0.0 combat :P
|
Boratora
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 11:50:00 -
[60]
It's a good effort and solid suggestion, but I don't think it really fits in the universe. I just can't see how a people capable of building stargates, controlling ships with their minds and making perfect copies of themselves wouldn't be able to overcome a simple fuel problem. Even now we are probably 50 years away from self-sustaining fusion reactions that can persist for lifetimes, so I would hope that in 23341 they've come up with a satisfactory solution.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 11:57:00 -
[61]
Originally by: ildra
Have you ever tried doing logistics for dreadnoughts or carriers?
Think about doing logistics in a corp with over 100 players on a daily basis..
this would mean the end of 0.0 combat :P
I think you are being a tad dramatic here, the plan is for it to be produced in 0.0, or atleast made more available in 0.0 so that the prices are lower there.
Come to think of it, one way to accomplish this would be for the ships to run on the current minerals available straight away.
Thus if you have minerals you have fuel, the effect would still be the same on the EvE economy but I think the mineral prices may go up alot. And that might not be entirely desirable. Perhaps a system with it being produced on POS from current minerals might be viable, Im not sure but some sort of nifty idea is needed to ensure that this gives people the incentive to move to 0.0 and to fly smaller ships.
However, this should not present the same problems as fueling cap ships, it would only start to become a problem after a lengthy engagement of several days, or even a week or more. Providing people made sure to fuel up before they left their home base.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Laythun
Undercover Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 11:58:00 -
[62]
I see cans, cans everywhere with feul in 
Undercover Brothers
It's great being Amarr, aint it?Ö |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:01:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Boratora
It's a good effort and solid suggestion, but I don't think it really fits in the universe. I just can't see how a people capable of building stargates, controlling ships with their minds and making perfect copies of themselves wouldn't be able to overcome a simple fuel problem. Even now we are probably 50 years away from self-sustaining fusion reactions that can persist for lifetimes, so I would hope that in 23341 they've come up with a satisfactory solution.
Perhaps, but for as long as the E=mC^2 formula is correct I am afraid that fuel consumption for accellerating huge and heavy objects (such as battleships) will be quite noticable, fusion or not.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:04:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Laythun
I see cans, cans everywhere with feul in
Thats an interesting theory, and I am afraid you might be right, it would need to be solved. The question is if people would add more cans or if they would use the current ammo cans to store fuel as well?
On the can issue I think they should deteriorate at a rate of a month or two if they are just left and no one uses them. But that is an entirely different issue.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:07:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Marine HK4861
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Risien Drogonne
And now I see that you have no idea what a money sink is. Having to give money to other players to run your ship has absolutely zero effect on inflation.
And where do you think those players get the materials from then? The core point is that we are taking something out of the economy since fuel is consumed.
Not really.
Supplier goes mines some raw materials. ISK into the system.
Supplier refines and puts fuel up for sale. <1% ISK out for broker fees.
Pilot buys fuel from supplier. ISK transferred to supplier. <1% ISK out for sales tax.
Pilot burns fuel. No ISK transfer.
If NPCs supplied fuel, then yes it would be an ISK sink, but if players can also supply fuel, it wouldn't.
I disagree, when the pilot burns the fuel it is consumed, and thus removed from the EvE economy, that does not change just becouse the players can supply it.
It is still consumed and removed from the equation. Or to make it easier to see the direct connection. A player spends ISK on fuel that is then consumed. To the player and to the EvE economy the effect will be the same.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Taram Caldar
Caldari
Acheron Vanguard Armada
The Shadow Ascension
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:19:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Edited by: Taram Caldar on 29/10/2006 22:19:28
Edited by: Taram Caldar on 29/10/2006 22:18:20
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
No
As someone once said:
We fly around in eggs with tubes up our rear... if I want reality I'll go outside.
There are already enough boring and tedious pointless tasks in EVE lets not go adding any more... mmmmmkay? The last thing I want to have to worry about, on top of everything else going on in the game, is whether I fueled up recently or not.
Of course you are entitled to your wery own opinion on the matter, however, along those lines I guess you would want us to remove all ammo for all weapons as well?
Different fuels add tactics and possibilities, why do you see it as something horrible?
I don't think it's "horrible" I think it has no place in this game. There are already PLENTY of timesinks in this game. We really really really don't need another one. What you think of as 'adding tactics' just adds tedium to the game.
Just as I am entitled to my 'very own opinion' so are you. I didn't go insulting you I merely stated that I don't like the idea and why. And no I like ammo, it MAKES SENSE. EVE Ships already have a backstory that clearly defines that they have pretty much infinite supply of power but the ammt of power generated per second varies per craft. That power charges the ship's capacitors which run the equipment.
You're talking about a fundamental (very fundamental) change to gameplay. I don't even want to think about the logistical nightmares of managing a combat fleet of 20-30 ships and having to make sure everyone is topped off, etc... There is such a thing as TOO MUCH realism.
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Tip: How often do you think an Aircraft Carrier today refules?
That's right: Once every oh.... 20 years.... why? Cuz they are fission powered nuclear reactors.
Somehow I think the ships we fly are a bit more advanced than a fission nuke generator.
Perhaps, but if you want to pull the reality card, how much fuel do you think an EvE sized ship needs to move around and manuever the way it does compared to moving a floating boat around on the ocean?
I am fairly confident that using current physics it is probably impossible to fit the neccessary amount of fuel in the ship, even if you have a powerplant/engine working at 100% efficiency. Then again, who knows what the future holds for us?
Its a game, but I personally think the EvE economy could use this and I also think it would add alot of tactics to the game, then again thats just my personal view on the matter.
Regards
/Doxs
Your opinion is noted but you're arguing about an Aircraft carrier in 2006 verses an EVE Starship in the year 23341... roughly 21,000 years in the future.... somehow I think their technology has advanced just a tad.
This is just my opinion but in that opinion I feel there are a lot more important things to fix/add than yet another time//money sink.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:26:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
And nerf solo players even more? I don't think that is a very good idea.
There's no such thing as a solo eve player ^^;.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Rick Dentill
Lynx Frontier Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:39:00 -
[68]
Unless its unleaded I must refuse.
_______
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:41:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Taram Caldar
You're talking about a fundamental (very fundamental) change to gameplay. I don't even want to think about the logistical nightmares of managing a combat fleet of 20-30 ships and having to make sure everyone is topped off, etc... There is such a thing as TOO MUCH realism.
Id say that is not much of a problem, do you think managing a combat fleet of 20-30 ships today with regards to ammo is to much? Considering that ships will need ammo much more often then fuel I really dont think it will add that much, in longer conflicts in hostile territory it will be quite noticable, but thats about it.
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Your opinion is noted but you're arguing about an Aircraft carrier in 2006 verses an EVE Starship in the year 23341... roughly 21,000 years in the future.... somehow I think their technology has advanced just a tad.
I did not start that comparison, you did. But I will stand by my standpoint for as long as the formula for energy conversion from matter is correct. (E=mC^2)
Untill that is proven wrong or circumvented by reducing the energy needs and mass of ships I still think fuel will be an issue when accellerating that large ships. Anyway, I dont think that is the core issue, I want to add this for gameplay and for the EvE economy.
Originally by: Taram Caldar
This is just my opinion but in that opinion I feel there are a lot more important things to fix/add than yet another time//money sink.
Money sink yes, time sink, no. I dont think it will be even remotely as bad as you portray it. But I guess that comes down to how it is implemented.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Taram Caldar
Caldari
Acheron Vanguard Armada
The Shadow Ascension
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:47:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Taram Caldar
You're talking about a fundamental (very fundamental) change to gameplay. I don't even want to think about the logistical nightmares of managing a combat fleet of 20-30 ships and having to make sure everyone is topped off, etc... There is such a thing as TOO MUCH realism.
Id say that is not much of a problem, do you think managing a combat fleet of 20-30 ships today with regards to ammo is to much? Considering that ships will need ammo much more often then fuel I really dont think it will add that much, in longer conflicts in hostile territory it will be quite noticable, but thats about it.
Originally by: Taram Caldar
Your opinion is noted but you're arguing about an Aircraft carrier in 2006 verses an EVE Starship in the year 23341... roughly 21,000 years in the future.... somehow I think their technology has advanced just a tad.
I did not start that comparison, you did. But I will stand by my standpoint for as long as the formula for energy conversion from matter is correct. (E=mC^2)
Untill that is proven wrong or circumvented by reducing the energy needs and mass of ships I still think fuel will be an issue when accellerating that large ships. Anyway, I dont think that is the core issue, I want to add this for gameplay and for the EvE economy.
Originally by: Taram Caldar
This is just my opinion but in that opinion I feel there are a lot more important things to fix/add than yet another time//money sink.
Money sink yes, time sink, no. I dont think it will be even remotely as bad as you portray it. But I guess that comes down to how it is implemented.
Regards
/Doxs
How is it not a time sink? Please explain? When I am low on fuel I must get to a station to refuel...
Getting to a station takes time
Getting money to buy the fuel takes time
If I provide my own fuel mining it (because you KNOW that's what they'd do) takes time.
Ipso Facto: Time Sink
|
Raem Civrie
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:51:00 -
[71]
I, ultimately, would like to see more fuel-consuming modules, such as alternative armor repair modules or even rigs.
Having the ships themselves consume fuel is a pretty bad idea though, and adds a frustrating level of logistics to the game, in a game where we already have plenty of logistics to worry about (ammo concerns alone for a caldari/gallente/minmatar pilot in deep space can be severe).
Fuel for special applications only, please, like we're already seeing. Running out of fuel halfway through on my trip back to home base because I got jumped by some rats and had to defend myself is maybe a little cool, but frustrating and definitely not fun or really adding much to the game, and better suited for a TV series or books or movies, rather than an interactive massively multiplayer game.
----
All you do is bark, you never meow. |
Ysolde Xen
Minmatar
Liberal Trading Co
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 13:15:00 -
[72]
Micro(nano?)-management 4tl.
There's already a TON of stuff that needs to be considered before setting out in a ship and if we were to add yet more layers of complications it'd slow things down even further.
There's a ton of easy ways to technobabble the 'lack' of tangible fuel used up by regular engines.
-----
It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong. |
Marine HK4861
Caldari
Seoltachd
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 13:15:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Marine HK4861
Supplier goes mines some raw materials. ISK into the system.
Supplier refines and puts fuel up for sale. <1% ISK out for broker fees.
Pilot buys fuel from supplier. ISK transferred to supplier. <1% ISK out for sales tax.
Pilot burns fuel. No ISK transfer.
If NPCs supplied fuel, then yes it would be an ISK sink, but if players can also supply fuel, it wouldn't.
I disagree, when the pilot burns the fuel it is consumed, and thus removed from the EvE economy, that does not change just becouse the players can supply it.
It is still consumed and removed from the equation. Or to make it easier to see the direct connection. A player spends ISK on fuel that is then consumed.
Follow the ISK transfer again.
When the pilot burns the fuel, where does the ISK go? Nowhere as he has already given it to the supplier.
Where does the supplier get it from? He creates it by mining, ergo he injects ISK into the system.
Yes, the fuel is removed from the EVE economy, but the ISK created by the supplier is still remaining in the system.
If the ISK went to an NPC supplier, it is being taken out of the system, therefore it is a sink.
A player supplier would still have the ISK from the pilot.
Just because the ISK is being shuffled around, doesn't mean it's going into a sink.
I think you're a little unclear on what an ISK sink actually is - payments to NPCs (agent offers, sales tax, broker fees, npc sold modules, etc) are ISK sinks as they take money out of the economy.
Selling and buying goods to other players are not.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 16:08:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Doxs Roxs on 30/10/2006 16:09:09
Originally by: Marine HK4861
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Marine HK4861
Supplier goes mines some raw materials. ISK into the system.
Supplier refines and puts fuel up for sale. <1% ISK out for broker fees.
Pilot buys fuel from supplier. ISK transferred to supplier. <1% ISK out for sales tax.
Pilot burns fuel. No ISK transfer.
If NPCs supplied fuel, then yes it would be an ISK sink, but if players can also supply fuel, it wouldn't.
I disagree, when the pilot burns the fuel it is consumed, and thus removed from the EvE economy, that does not change just becouse the players can supply it.
It is still consumed and removed from the equation. Or to make it easier to see the direct connection. A player spends ISK on fuel that is then consumed.
Follow the ISK transfer again.
When the pilot burns the fuel, where does the ISK go? Nowhere as he has already given it to the supplier.
Where does the supplier get it from? He creates it by mining, ergo he injects ISK into the system.
Yes, the fuel is removed from the EVE economy, but the ISK created by the supplier is still remaining in the system.
If the ISK went to an NPC supplier, it is being taken out of the system, therefore it is a sink.
A player supplier would still have the ISK from the pilot.
Just because the ISK is being shuffled around, doesn't mean it's going into a sink.
I think you're a little unclear on what an ISK sink actually is - payments to NPCs (agent offers, sales tax, broker fees, npc sold modules, etc) are ISK sinks as they take money out of the economy.
Selling and buying goods to other players are not.
I admit to being wrong on removing ISK from the game, but you have to agree that mining does not create ISK either.
Both are examples of something that have indirect effects. Mining huge amounts of ore will not change the toal amount of ISK in circulation in the EvE economy unless you sell it to an NPC.
In a way you are right on the other hand as well, consuming alot of fuel will not affect the amount of money in circulation in the EvE economy, but it will dampen inflation since people will have to spend their money on something that is consumed. Perhaps if the lowest tier fuel is sold by NPC factions a nice isk sink can be made since I can imagine that most people will use the lowest tier fuel if they are just moving around in empire and dont care about the max cap recharge etc.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 16:17:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Raem Civrie
I, ultimately, would like to see more fuel-consuming modules, such as alternative armor repair modules or even rigs.
I am actually more in favour of having the ships consume fuel, but the again, thats me. Fuel consuming modules is my second choice though
Originally by: Raem Civrie
Having the ships themselves consume fuel is a pretty bad idea though, and adds a frustrating level of logistics to the game, in a game where we already have plenty of logistics to worry about (ammo concerns alone for a caldari/gallente/minmatar pilot in deep space can be severe).
I dont think thats to bad, and I never really thought ammo supply was impossible in 0.0 either, it might be worse for others since I build my own ammo from loot. An ammo BPO and a couple of days of industry training is all thats needed really. And if we are talking T1 ammo its not really expensive at all.
Originally by: Raem Civrie
Fuel for special applications only, please, like we're already seeing. Running out of fuel halfway through on my trip back to home base because I got jumped by some rats and had to defend myself is maybe a little cool, but frustrating and definitely not fun or really adding much to the game, and better suited for a TV series or books or movies, rather than an interactive massively multiplayer game.
I think you would have to be pretty careless with fuel to get that low before getting more, the plan was for the ship to need refuels about once a week or every other week during normal use.
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Reiisha
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 16:26:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Blah blah blah.
Capacitor.
Anti-matter reactors.
Nuclear reactors.
Fusion reactors.
Dunno the 4th one...
In any case, none of them use fuel at any large capacity, even in dreads. The energy output can be in quite a lot of gigawatts with not a lot of reaction matter, which is especially the case for the AM and fusion reactors. AM reactors could actually power entire countries with just a few grams...
In other words, fuel is pretty much non-existant in the EVE universe. Capacitor energy is the rough equivalent to fuel in terms of gameplay. No need to fix something that ain't broke.
I hate to quote myself (again), but i think people are ignoring this because it doesn't fit their theory....
EVE History Wiki - Help us fill it!
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league
The OSS
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 16:35:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Blah blah blah.
Capacitor.
Anti-matter reactors.
Nuclear reactors.
Fusion reactors.
Dunno the 4th one...
In any case, none of them use fuel at any large capacity, even in dreads. The energy output can be in quite a lot of gigawatts with not a lot of reaction matter, which is especially the case for the AM and fusion reactors. AM reactors could actually power entire countries with just a few grams...
In other words, fuel is pretty much non-existant in the EVE universe. Capacitor energy is the rough equivalent to fuel in terms of gameplay. No need to fix something that ain't broke.
I hate to quote myself (again), but i think people are ignoring this because it doesn't fit their theory....
Im sorry if you feel ignored, but I thought it was implied that I wanted to change this part of the backstory since I think fuel is needed.
I also believe the formula for energy conversion from matter will show that accellerating an EvE BS, or dread for that matter, will take quite alot of energy and thus fuel.
Just use the E=mC^2 formula and check how much fuel it takes a ship to accellerate even once. Then consider how much is consumed over the course of a year. Even at 100% efficiency the consumption should be quite large.
Untill that is proven wrong or circumvented by reducing the energy needs and mass of ships I still think fuel will be an issue when accellerating that large ships if we are going to be even remotely realistic.
I do realize this is a game, but I dont think the backstory is good enough on this point
Regards
/Doxs
After almost half a year, why is my face just a '!' ? |
Lygos
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 18:53:00 -
[78]
Too many cans around? - Make it impossible to store fuel, ammo, or charges in cans, or find a way to implement cans in such a way that they do not comprise a load on the server, or be anchorable on the same grid as a stargate.
I do not personally favor fuel used in place of capacitor, even though I dislike free things. It would be adequate for more modules to require charges. Armor repair charges, multispectral ECM charges.. that sort of thing. Maybe cloaks could use up something to prevent afk cloaking, or discourage large ships cloaking. Mostly, I would just favor fuel be incorporated as a limiter to long-distance travel, particularly for warships. This could be for warping, or just gates as I've already mentioned.
Ships that should be able to travel the furthest are those which are either 1)Large, or 2)Non-combat oriented. Battleships should be able to travel far further than frigates or cruisers under their own reserves. Industrials and perhaps the other non-combat vessels should have significantly enlarged tanks or efficiency. T2 ships should have constrained tanks because that volume is taken up by enhancement hardware.
If we get rid of cans, we make most travel POS-based in some way. This is good and bad. It means that travel in 0.0 space is cheaper than in empire, which is a good empire tax. However, lack of stations means you can only travel as far as you have friends, enthralled minions or the ability to project advanced logistics through force or guile.
The battleship gang can become the fastest way to travel past a region. However, to not stop and transfer fuel from large ships to escorts means leaving them behind, which makes for very interesting tactical decisions, especially if there were no instas.
Spy alts? In shuttles or slashers? Forget about it. There will be a lot less intel floating about in EVE, except at key nodes, which means that people will leave that little bit more up to chance in some cases.
Favoring the defenders may create blobbing. True. CCP needs to work on POS defense tactics and blobbing. One thing to do with fleets is make fuel consumption rise based on the number of people using the same gate at the same time, or just being in the same grid.
Time sinks - I kindof like the idea of an anchorable device at POS that simply targets and refills fuel at 40km range, and stops when the target is full or it runs out of reserves. This is a bit faster than drag and drop.
---
Private Investment should preceed Public Investment |
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 19:00:00 -
[79]
The gameplay is already slow. Docking every 5 jumps to refill isn't really going to make it better. Tedious, frustrating and really dull, yes.
People don't like that! Eve is everything but lacking detail, i don' know why it should be made bogged down by it.
|
Dreamdancer
Minmatar
Ceryshen Strategic Analysis
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 19:12:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
I dont really agree about the "fun" part.. just sounds boring to me. Sorry. :)
I agree Jim. Lets add more difficulty for new players on top of everything else.
As for the "tied to high sec" comment. He is correct. You would need to get fuel more often then once a week if you are an active player. Plus how would they deal with people who run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere? Not even a pirate to come and pop you?
Sorry, an interesting idea I will grant you, but just won't work in EVE.
We are recruiting! |
Sadistic
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 23:32:00 -
[81]
I am not opposed to the idea, but there are a few holes in it.
If fuel is cheap enough that it does not force part time and new players to fly only frigates, then it will be insignificantly priced for 0.0 players. A part time 3 month old character still considers 1 million isk to be a weeks worth of work. For a 0.0 player, its a small rat spawn.
If it lasts a week (95% of ships dock somewhere every week), then it is simply a time and isk drain from the player. I started as an industrial character, and I am not against having things for the industrialist to do, but this may not be the way to go.
If it last for short periods of time (as an extreme example, lets say 2 hours of combat patrol), then your making it much more difficult for anything other then large force (logistic supported) attacks into hostile areas. Frig/cruiser raids will be a thing of the past.
Its not a bad idea, but I am one of those people that like building games. For the large (probably majority) that prefer combat only, they are not going to go for it
|
Risien Drogonne
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 23:36:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
Originally by: Risien Drogonne
And now I see that you have no idea what a money sink is. Having to give money to other players to run your ship has absolutely zero effect on inflation.
And where do you think those players get the materials from then? The core point is that we are taking something out of the economy since fuel is consumed.
Compare that to the current state of insurances where money is injected into the economy from nowhere, that causes inflation. This is the opposite and thus helps slow down inflation.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty confident that I am right on this point.
Regards
/Doxs
Umm no. Nothing is getting removed from the economy because the money is going from one player to another.
|
Risien Drogonne
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 23:41:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Risien Drogonne on 30/10/2006 23:43:28
Originally by: Doxs Roxs
I disagree, when the pilot burns the fuel it is consumed, and thus removed from the EvE economy, that does not change just becouse the players can supply it.
It is still consumed and removed from the equation. Or to make it easier to see the direct connection. A player spends ISK on fuel that is then consumed. To the player and to the EvE economy the effect will be the same.
You're looking at it wrong. The fuel isn't part of the economy. The money it represents is. You CREATED the fuel when you mined the materials for it. You created those out of nothing but time. That's free ISK as far as the economy is concerned.
You then sell that fuel to another player who burns it and buys some more and gives you more ISK. ISK is trading hands, not leaving the economy. ISK trading hands does nothing at all to curb inflation. The only way to curb inflation is to remove money through a money sink. Money sinks remove money from the game, not just move it around.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |