| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vechloran
   |
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:19:00 -
[1]
So here's the question, if you could make something in eve more complicated, even to the point where you would have to publish books and teach course's for people to understand how it all would work, what would you create?
My example would be changing how Fitting works. I would love to have more to play with then just "HI/MED/LOW" but instead have all sorts of different ports on the ships, each with different amounts of power available and cpu bandwidth/processing time available. Really get some more nitty-gritty stuff in there I can play with. I never expect it to happen, but one can always dream.
My brother wants to have a better scanner innerface that makes it possible to set up scans for more specific things and thus give more accurate results. Instead of just a range, you could play with things such a Mass, their radar type, detected warp signatures and their paths (would make stalking people just that more interesting). Maybe even have each system have its own background scanner noise that you have to filter out and such. And even allow people to turn off their nav comp/radars to "run silently", though they would have to have bookmarks/manually enter their destinations. Possibly even have sensor decoy's designed to throw people off your course.
|
Frug
Zenithal Harvest
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:28:00 -
[2]
In order to get a T2 BPO you should have to solve an incredibly complicated triple integral. There you go.
- - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - or automatic signatures - - - - - - - -
"186,282 miles per second; It's not just a good idea, it's the law." |
Brep
Gallente
Lode Runners
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:33:00 -
[3]
sorry to ignore the rest of the post, but I really like the idea of shutting down the nav/scanner to run silently!!!
You suddenly disappear off the scanner window and HUD, but in return you can't use any of your HUD & scanners, nor use automated navigation. I think silent mode would also stop your ability to lock someone, or really frustrating battles/ganks would be the result.
it sounds good in theory, very similar to going nose cold in a modern jet... though in eve i think everyone relies heavily on that scanner, it'd be annoying if every single gate camper were to not display until they decide to lock you up. :S
|
Benglada
Infinitus Odium
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:33:00 -
[4]
yea, id have to say customizing my own personnal star ship would be a complete dream, from the shape of the guns to the colour of the walkways to the fuzzy dice in my window.
---------------------------
 Originally by: Arkanor
0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends.
Sig nerfz0r - maximum allowed siz0r is 24000 bytz0r. - Devil ([email protected])
Sig By Ortos |
Fayn Trak
Gallente
Myridian Trading Systems
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:35:00 -
[5]
I'm with your brother on that one, throw in differnet a Range to detection(for overview) that varies based on the scanner employed and you've got some interesting concepts for fleet setup and what could be altered on the E-War front to fit into such a system. You could certainly rid the curse of e-war completely shutting down a ship.
A rudementary damage model might be interesting too, the technology to have an accurate one would be nice, with guns firing physical rounds at a ship and collision detection working out what was damage but a simple list of subsystems and a chance to do/take damage to them might prove intersting though it having your ship disabled and sitign there would be frustrating in a fight and might make the whole thing unworkable. Certainly changing the warp scrambler to something that did damage to warp core might nto be too far off though.
A herd of cattle
A flock of geese
A lot of isk
remember when sigs were text? |
AdmiralNaismith
Gallente
The Black Guards
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:38:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Frug
In order to get a T2 BPO you should have to solve an incredibly complicated triple integral. There you go.
Nearfield E-field from a cylindrical waveguide with a TE mode and non-real reflection coefficent. That's a good one. Got five pages of background out of it for my thesis. Gotta love derivations for taking up space....
|
Vechloran
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:42:00 -
[7]
Oh man, if I had the ability to change the way damage works in EVE, it would be glorious.
First, you would all have to convince a friend to go and buy "EVE: Damage Control" which is a standalone game where they get to work aboard your ship as the maintenance crew. It would require dual screens, a maual about 800 pages long, and atleast a BS in Electronics, Mechanics, and computer science, though probably a Masters in all three.
but oh yes, it would quite awesome that after an intense battle and the repair work is done, to order said friend out in space to finish up the Buffing on the new armour so you look shiny as you come in to dock.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 04:48:00 -
[8]
i too would like to more than just the High / Mid / Low / Rig combination of slots, sadley there are a lot of setups that require you to waste all those usefull midslots on cap rechargers for example.
Something like highs, mid-passive, mid-active, mid-utility etc, just so we could fit some of the rarer used modules like target painters, or have space on a shield tanking ceptor for both a proper tank and mwd, scram and webbers.
Or how about multiple different sizes of gun turrets, you can't really tell me that a ship the size of a BS would only have 6 guns?! how about 6 BIG guns, and 8 medium, and 12 small?  i think stuff like that would be awesome, allthough i'm sure i'll get flamed for it anyway
*puts on asbestos suit and primes the fire extingusher*
-
|
Vechloran
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 07:48:00 -
[9]
I will always vote for more slots if they are for utility mods like tractors and salvagers and such. wouldn't mind seeing some specific slots added for certain systems. Say a group for your radar (maybe then ECCM wouldn't be a joke, seriously, does anyone actively fit this stuff?).
|
Paladineguru
Gallente
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 09:15:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Paladineguru on 01/03/2007 09:15:36
Edited by: Paladineguru on 01/03/2007 09:14:45
1 navigation, i would make it rely entirely on exploration.
probe it or go to it to see it. warp would only be possible in KNOWN space that you have already explored
2 gate warfare. I would put in a jumpgate and or cyno/ deployable missile pod with 5-6 high payload missiles or quite possible single shot high damage fusion bottleneck lasers. also warp and or cyno capable, but NOT capable of individual self targeting ( requires maybe a new mod " the passive target painter,giving cloakers more combat related role.)
in a RL tactical naval maneuver clustering is bad. it opens you up for concentrated fire( titan anyone)
the same is said of defenders or attackers too spread out to cover other unit/individuals flanks, or provide adequate offensive firepower.
That would bring me to
3. Change the way gangs work. Force a more realistic group makeup. squads wings and fleets do not cut it. make frigate , cruiser, command types to fill those roles in a squadron.
an example would be
1 unit requires a frigate command type minimum a unit would work for 1-5 players with relatively low skill level with a command type necessary for the formation of the unit.
2 squadron would consist not of multiple units but of a more focused and purpose built grouping. and perhaps finally giving a use to logistics cruisers in a gang. With a minimum of a cruiser command type as commander. for 5-15 players.
3. Wing would consist not of multiple squadrons but again a purpose built group around a command battlecruiser class at a minimum. for 15-35 players.
4.Fleet would not consist of multiple wings but once more a focused and purpose built group. being the highest this would be for 35-50 players and require a capital class vessel for formation.
limiting fleet size to 50 players, opens the tactical map.and balances fleet makeup.
providing no safety in concentrations or in spread out lines
but only in a mobile and purpose built group will allow implementation of multiple objectives throughout several systems in order to take constellation and regional soveriegnty. and with small ( compared to today) fleets needing to attack Several objectives in Multiple systems
(heres the kicker) Simultaneously it would reduce node stress and allow a more proactive approach to balancing nodes. monitoring the position of where The Miners alliance has placed thier soveriengty objectives and knowing that conflict happens around those specific areas would allow for better all around rescource management imho.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 10:44:00 -
[11]
I'd get rid of gates and find ways to make it one huge system.
-AS |
Maze La'Zie
Caldari
Technology La'Zie
|
Posted - 2007.03.01 10:54:00 -
[12]
I'd make sub-warp navigation at least pseudo-Newtonian.
This would remove the velocity cap and make ships accelerate by firing thrusters. More massive ships would accelerate (including turning) slower.
You would have to match velocities with your target. You could upgrade your thrusters or reduce your mass in a similar way to now - possibly upgrade your navigation computers.
___________________
Chief Scientific Officer
Technology La'Zie
Author of The End |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |