EVE Search - What feature would you want to see in Eve 2?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What feature would you want to see in Eve 2?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tanis Kvanz	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:16:00 - [31] Edited by: Tanis Kvanz on 03/08/2007 16:21:43 Couple new races to choose from: Jove and BoB
Maxpie Cross Roads	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:26:00 - [32] No alts. 1 character per account. He put... creatures... in our bodies... to control our minds. He made us... say lies... do things.
Fuglife Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:34:00 - [33] Nightelf's
Ishmael Hansen No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:38:00 - [34] Exotic Dancers tech 2
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:43:00 - [35] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Death Kill Originally by: MotherMoon sure, but one question, in that game do tanks pawn all units? No, not really. but its very complex. Light tanks cant kill a heavy tank because they simply dont have enough firepower, while a heavy tank pwns light and medium ones. Infantry are deadmeat when faced with a tank as tanks have both machine guns and a gun turret. Theres no logic behind a tank not being able to kill infantry. Yes there is - a tank can't hit infantry with it's primary weapon because it's designed for firing at vehicles from long range, and it's visibility in close quarters is very poor. The only way that gun is effective is if there's someone on top of the tank manning it, which is about the same as having infantry anyway. Infantry may be dead mean if they're running across a football field toward a tank without any cover, but that's beside the point. right like the drones on a battleship. they can hit the smaller ships but the smaller units can try to fire back. and by the way I'll check out the game for sure, I'm an RTS fan. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP Quote: CCP posted a new dev blog, they are going to bring Nos in line with.....well....logic
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:44:00 - [36] now my real what eve needs. I want to play as a bloodraider... badly. and not work for them, but BE a bloodraider. start off in bloodraider space. that would be awesome. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP Quote: CCP posted a new dev blog, they are going to bring Nos in line with.....well....logic
Suyai Valsinjaos Minmatar Sirius Stealth Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.03 16:56:00 - [37] Player Housing! oh wait... nvm... Coming from E&B long ago... I'd like to see support for the aforementioned joystick/rudder control. Planetfall with unpodded missions would be nice.. would give more enjoyment for what is a decently detailed character creation system. Oh.. and Aliens. c'mon.. we need some Aliens.. As far as it being an "Eve II", I don't know as that would be a good idea.. maybe just a massive addon. -------------------------------------------------------- ponders Do I have an avatar yet? facepalm
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.08.03 17:03:00 - [38] Originally by: MotherMoon [and by the way I'll check out the game for sure, I'm an RTS fan. C&C 3 has a good solo campaign, but for multiplayer SupCom pwn them all. Now can we please stop derailing the thread? ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Draekas Darkwater Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:06:00 - [39] Allowing each person to control squadrons of ships would only add to the lag in a game. Think, a 50v50 player battle in interceptors, would turn into a 1400 ship battle. Can you say server go boom? =D Not that I don't like the idea, but its implementation is perhaps not possible with current computer technology. Unless of course these squadrons are basically just a graphical effect and can't operate independantly. In that case, they would always fly in formation, and die as damage is done. IE, the squadron might have 14k hps total. When 1k damage is done to it, one of the fighters pops. Going the other way might be better, however. For instance, larger ships might have more than one player operating it. To start, maybe something like the Apache helicopter. One to pilot and one gunner. Even larger ships might have even more people. Subsystem targeting on the larger ships could effectively be used to "take out" these extra players from the fight, without having to blow the ship up completely.
Kwint Sommer Incoherent Inc Otaku Invasion	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:13:00 - [40] 1) A stable server without lag or desync. 2) Drones that work properly. 3) Less pointless time sinks 4) Fixing Tactical Shield Manipulation -see my sig for details on just how screwed up this skill is Devs take note, nothing in that list is new. Fix those things and I will be here for at least another year even if nothing new is added and other cool games come out. EVE is f***ing awesome when it works, please make more of it work and work more often.... ---------------------------------------- This Thread needs some Dev lovin but it will take a bump from anyone
Guilliman R Gallente PRO Space Hunters Federation Of united Corps	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:13:00 - [41] I cant think of anything that cant be added here anyway. there's the new streamlined update of the curent game come, including sound and grafic code (to make full use of the new hardware these days) There's walking in stations (that will eventualy trigger walking in motherships (like titans, if you dock) There is planetary interaction, that will eventualy lead to planet excevation of minerals/mass/producs.Aswell as planetary walking It's all stuff we'll be seeing in the (near) future (some of it atleast) I'm most looking forward to the streamlined codes, and the grafic update. I'm really cureus and hoping that it wont just be a tecture update but a whole model-texture-lightning-FX update ---sig--- Carebear for life (unless I am in the advantage and have 99% chance of winning(, hey 1% chance to lose, thats risk right, good!)!*
Death Kill Caldari direkte	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:17:00 - [42] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: MotherMoon [and by the way I'll check out the game for sure, I'm an RTS fan. C&C 3 has a good solo campaign, but for multiplayer SupCom pwn them all. Now can we please stop derailing the thread? C&C3 is utter rubbish, its plain crap. Caldari and proud
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:19:00 - [43] Originally by: Shadowsword - First, each ship would be controled by mouse or joystick, first-person view. The day EVE becomes a first-person, twitch based game, is the day I leave EVE. Iknow more than a few people who feel the same way. It's not a whine or a threat. It is just not the game we signed up for. I am happy to leave the amped up kiddies who want a spaz fest at the door (see Angry German Kid for an example of what I mean).
SFShootme The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:22:00 - [44] Quote: - Second, About the balance between ships of different classes: don't try to keep each powerfull with artificial unrealist limits like locking time. A battleship is SUPPOSED to kill a lone frigate in seconds. Try hitting a f16 jetfighter with a tank.... Tho shall give Life, for Life.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:36:00 - [45] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Shadowsword - First, each ship would be controled by mouse or joystick, first-person view. The day EVE becomes a first-person, twitch based game, is the day I leave EVE. Iknow more than a few people who feel the same way. It's not a whine or a threat. It is just not the game we signed up for. I am happy to leave the amped up kiddies who want a spaz fest at the door (see Angry German Kid for an example of what I mean). how said twitch based? joystick control with a compass in the lower corner so you can manualy set your ships X,Y,and Z AXIS. then your ship (shown by a blue dot on the compass) moves to the new dot you have set as the direction to move, and moves to it as fast as that ships agility modifier will allow. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP Quote: CCP posted a new dev blog, they are going to bring Nos in line with.....well....logic
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:38:00 - [46] Originally by: Shadowsword - Second, About the balance between ships of different classes: don't try to keep each powerfull with artificial unrealist limits like locking time. A battleship is SUPPOSED to kill a lone frigate in seconds. It's a frigging battleship ! litterally bristling with guns! I disagree here as well. EVE was "better" when pilots would fly various ship classes to do various things. Now, barring cap ships and a handful of specialty ships, why fly anything else than a battleship? I do not think EVE has been improved by this trend. In real life (and yes I know drawing real life parallels is not always useful but it illustrates the idea) battleships sailed with large formations around them. They needed cruisers and destroyers to round out their defense. No ONE ship type did it all. The naval metaphor fails some for a space game but the idea that one ship generally beats all stinks. Of course a lone frigate should not be able to kill a battleship but it should be able to hamper it enough to be useful while other ships get on with the killing. Hopefully the changes to NOS will to some extent address this.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:40:00 - [47] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Shadowsword - First, each ship would be controled by mouse or joystick, first-person view. The day EVE becomes a first-person, twitch based game, is the day I leave EVE. Iknow more than a few people who feel the same way. It's not a whine or a threat. It is just not the game we signed up for. I am happy to leave the amped up kiddies who want a spaz fest at the door (see Angry German Kid for an example of what I mean). how said twitch based? joystick control with a compass in the lower corner so you can manualy set your ships X,Y,and Z AXIS. then your ship (shown by a blue dot on the compass) moves to the new dot you have set as the direction to move, and moves to it as fast as that ships agility modifier will allow. Why use a joystick then? Just do as you do now and click on a direction in space and go that way. I cannot see how a joystick improves anytyhing in your example and even sounds more complicated for no benefit.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:41:00 - [48] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Shadowsword - First, each ship would be controled by mouse or joystick, first-person view. The day EVE becomes a first-person, twitch based game, is the day I leave EVE. Iknow more than a few people who feel the same way. It's not a whine or a threat. It is just not the game we signed up for. I am happy to leave the amped up kiddies who want a spaz fest at the door (see Angry German Kid for an example of what I mean). how said twitch based? joystick control with a compass in the lower corner so you can manualy set your ships X,Y,and Z AXIS. then your ship (shown by a blue dot on the compass) moves to the new dot you have set as the direction to move, and moves to it as fast as that ships agility modifier will allow. Why use a joystick then? Just do as you do now and click on a direction in space and go that way. I cannot see how a joystick improves anytyhing in your example and even sounds more complicated for no benefit. ok there is a titan or a planet, or a ship or a station or an asteriod or cool object thing. You have to click in open space to move. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP Quote: CCP posted a new dev blog, they are going to bring Nos in line with.....well....logic
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:46:00 - [49] Originally by: MotherMoon ok there is a titan or a planet, or a ship or a station or an asteriod or cool object thing. You have to click in open space to move. Sorry...I have a feeling we are just missing what the other is meaning here. I am still not getting where a joystick fits into this though. And if it does how it is in any way better or even preferrable to some. Unless you are flying your ship with a joystick ala a flight sim type deal I just cannot see how a joystick helps.
Brelen	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:51:00 - [50] I'd like to see shards tbh. It gives the server farm some room to breath so we all don't get lagged to hell every time a blob shows up. Also.. allows people to move servers to get a fresh perspective on the political climate. Sooooooo sick of the coalition/alliance politics. (yes this is an alt) I'd like the ability to truly customize the UI. That's one area where other games out there solidly kick CCP's rear end. Take the hand cuffs off, and let us fix it.. (drones + fleet + broadcast spam = unholy mess) I'd like it to be much more difficult to hold and "own" space. If a system hasn't had one of your pilots in it for a week, it's no longer yours.. and I don't care how much expensive shiny crap you've piled up in it. Speaking of piling up expensive shiny crap.. I don't know what the solution to POS warfare is but it's needs to be found. Remote facility in space to store/make/repair ships, mine/refine/manufacture? Absolutely. Staring at one of them for hour after hour in an attempt to take 1 of 30 down just to change "ownership".. gods of fate help us all... that's not fun. I'd like to be able to make X number of jumps in a particular direction with a mining barge, a hauler and a couple of escorts and not see anyone else the entire trip until we get back to the homeworld areas... I want it to really feel as big as space actually is. I'd like to be able to get into a battle with an opposing force and know for a fact that their buddies are a half hour away, not 2 jumps. No Concord, no empire, no security ratings, no PvE. Just some starter systems where if you aren't from that area you are shot end of story.
Mari Onette Amarr	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:52:00 - [51] Sound. ------ I am in blood! Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more, it would be as tedious as going over. -MacBeth
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.08.03 19:57:00 - [52] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: MotherMoon ok there is a titan or a planet, or a ship or a station or an asteriod or cool object thing. You have to click in open space to move. Sorry...I have a feeling we are just missing what the other is meaning here. I am still not getting where a joystick fits into this though. And if it does how it is in any way better or even preferrable to some. Unless you are flying your ship with a joystick ala a flight sim type deal I just cannot see how a joystick helps. because if you want to fly toward an object like a planet you can't. you have to click outside it. you have to click next to an object to align with it. the joystick or wasd, would be a why to manual set your destination. when you somewhere with a lot of asteroids and you want to manuals fly you have to spin the camera, find open space, click in open space, move the camera around again, repeat. why can't I just tell my computer to go 30X20y? The point is point and click would still be there, and in many ways better, but sometimes yuo just want to manual set your direction without having to find empty space. I want to fly straight up in between the stations bars and things, I want to fly up to a titan, move up and then skim across it's surface. if anything I can't see how making it optional would hurt anyone. how about a drag and dorp counter on compass to set your heading? manual control, click somewhere is empty space is clunky, because sometime syou want to move in a direction where is is no empty space. that said if it ever become s twitch fighter I would leave too. but it won't it's eve. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP Quote: CCP posted a new dev blog, they are going to bring Nos in line with.....well....logic
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.08.03 20:09:00 - [53] Edited by: Shadowsword on 03/08/2007 20:10:39 Originally by: SFShootme Quote: - Second, About the balance between ships of different classes: don't try to keep each powerfull with artificial unrealist limits like locking time. A battleship is SUPPOSED to kill a lone frigate in seconds. Try hitting a f16 jetfighter with a tank.... Not as impossible as you imply, a Leclerc tank can hit a target 3 meters large, at 2km, while moving hitself at 50km/hour. It's all a matter of gyrostabilized turret, laser targeting, windmeter and a powerfull computer to adjust the aiming. If the F16 wasn't doing evasive maneuvers, a Leclerc could probably hit it. About the lag issue: The squadron would be considered as only one entity by the server (and it would be the server that compute compture battle calculations, to prevent cheating), the multi-ships would be only client-side. With all graphic options it might cause a FPS loss, but not more lag than single ships. The only things that would be different lag-wise, compared to Eve, would be those: - Because of joystick piloting, the heading and speed would be refreshed several times per second (3 to 5 times/sec would be more than enough to have no signifiant, perceptible effect for the players compared to real-time client computations). - The ships wouldn't be a point in space anymore, but real 3D objects, as such they'd need 7 data refreshed (3 for position, 1 for axis orientation, 3 for heading), about 5 times/second. Compared to the point in space, only the axis orientation is added, and that wouldn't be a value changed very often. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Gabriel Karade Quam Singulari M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.08.03 20:15:00 - [54] 1. True line of sight for all weapons. 2. True collisions between all ships, including when something is trying to warp out (collision preventing the warp). Collisions and collision damage based on the mass and structure HP's of the ships involved 3. Revised missiles, no explosion velocity or radius - if you get hit by a torpedo in a frigate you're dead - end of story, except that, that torpedo has a minimum arming distance and poor manoeuvrability. Oh and splash damage on the big warheads. 4. A revised warping system, basically taking longer to get into warp, particularly larger ships, regardless of alignment (up to 60 seconds in a Battleship). At the same time no warp scramblers. 5. Warping changed so as to prevent gang warps forming 'powerballs' - true formations introduced, warp inaccuracies once hundreds of ships are warping/already on grid. 6. Suppression/temporary damage to discourage all-out focused fire. 7. 'Micro warp drives' being just that - lets you perform a short, several hundred km warp, afterburners boosted to be the tool for closing the range normally. 8. Large 'Short range turrets' meaning 10's of km range not 10's of metres... ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.08.03 20:23:00 - [55] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h I disagree here as well. EVE was "better" when pilots would fly various ship classes to do various things. Now, barring cap ships and a handful of specialty ships, why fly anything else than a battleship? I do not think EVE has been improved by this trend. Because a bomber squadron (controled by a single player) would kill you? Not without losing some bombers in the process, but he would have them to lose, while there would be only a single BS of you. Originally by: Imperator Jora'h In real life (and yes I know drawing real life parallels is not always useful but it illustrates the idea) battleships sailed with large formations around them. They needed cruisers and destroyers to round out their defense. No ONE ship type did it all. The naval metaphor fails some for a space game but the idea that one ship generally beats all stinks. Oh, I get what you mean: how to differenciate a destroyer from a cruiser, if both fitted for the same role? Easy, give them different bonuses. For example, a battleship woudl have a bonus for anti-ship weapons, while a destroyer, would have a bonus for defender missiles, to protect neaby ships... Again, just as many possibilities than in Eve. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Alexander Mikailovich Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence Acheron Federation	Posted - 2007.08.03 20:43:00 - [56] Edited by: Alexander Mikailovich on 03/08/2007 20:43:40 1. I agree with a true LoS 2. I also agree with this, make people think twice about spending 20min smacking their ship against you so you can't warp. 3. The first part about no explosion velocity or radius is a bad idea, you would be undermining the whole logic behind an explosion. Minimum arming distance and manuverability sound good, but to keep them effective enough you'd have to increase the damage yield, explosion velocity or radius again conflicting with the first part of this statement. 4. Longer warping times and no disruptors sounds okay, but do you want to increase the time to travel distances by that much time? Normally I could make 10 jumps in about 10 minutes, that's a minute a jump, if you have to sit revving up the warp drive in a battleship for a minute minimum, you've effectively doubled the trip time, I know to many people who whine about how long it takes to get around, this Idea will just increase whines. 5. I don't really have a responce for this one, traditionally, as far as I'm concerned anyway, any inaccurate information when making something as precise as a warp would leave you in an incredible amount of trouble, ie warp core destruction or other major problems. I have no problems with jump accuracy regardless of numbers. 6. Erm... not quite sure how this makes sense, you'd be removing a realistic system and replacing it with a fallicy. 7. Makes sense, but they would be rendered useless since most people already use safe spots to achieve a similar result. 8. Basically you're saying you want something in between railgun and blaster?
Zhaine Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.03 20:46:00 - [57] Beards - - - - - - - - - -
ZeeWolf Asguard Security Service Angels Of Discord	Posted - 2007.08.03 21:00:00 - [58] Originally by: Iyanah i'd like that in eve as it is now. what would i want in eve 2? nothing. the beauty of this game is that they don't need to release a sequel, they can just upgrade the current game. OMG nooooooooo! I'll be stuck as Caldari forver!
Glengrant Minmatar TOHA Heavy Industries OPUS Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.04 00:01:00 - [59] 1. We already have Eve 2. A lot of stuff changed and got added since 4 years ago. The 2.x version number is also a nice hint. :-) 2. There would also be no point as Eve can and will simply be upgraded - it's just a matter of time until we have Eve 3 with stuff like ambulation and planetary interaction. Improvements that I'd like to see with coming upgrades: * Yes to dynamic load balancing * Appropriate missions for scientists * a login screen that doesn't consume insane amounts of cpu for no apparent good reason * Linux client (already announced) * There's a bunch of small stuff where I'd like to see improvements - but most of the stuff I have been waiting for long time has been implemented with recent expansions (sectional wallets, corp asset search, member tacking - managing a non-trivial corp needed all that) * improved mission scripts
NeoShocker Caldari Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.04 00:06:00 - [60] Eve-Online doesn't need a sequel. In fact, the patches are the sequel. :) It'd be Eve-Online 3 already. ----------------------------------- Peace through power!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.