Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Kenji Noguchi
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:16:00 -
[31]
In the " life, the universe and everything" area, are there any plans to make possible political parties or associations for pilots? (for a more exact description of what I'm talking about, please see This forum thread). It something that made sense before, but with the incoming CSM implementation, it's something that's almost a logical step.
------------------------------------- Kenji Noguchi, Caldari State warrior. APEX Unlimited Security Division. |
Kolten
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:49:00 -
[32]
How will the random undock points affect the safety of the pod pilot when undocking in lowsec and/or nullsec? Taking lag into consideration, will undocking at a 0-15 degree angle at full burn possibly have the effect that the pod pilot will be out of undock range by the time the client UI loads?
|
Phryne Tsume
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 17:55:00 -
[33]
Please consider fixing the apparent bug in which faction crystals get damaged just as fast as Tech 2 crystals.
|
Aleisha Liao
Caldari Wild Card Squadron Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 18:02:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Mianna Foreseer
Is there any hope that exploration would become more realistic and interesting in the future? Currently exploration is mainly like this. You found stuff that you need to shoot down and loot the goodies.
I believe that escalation missions are too few now, and we need a lot more, with very different and varied endings. But more than that, there needs to be a singular outside "Oh ****" event, something that shakes up both exploration and PvE at once, all across the EVE universe. Like finding an intact Yan Jung base in Querious, where it has no business being, with living inhabitants in cryosleep, thus waking them up, or finding a Sleeper ship still enroute to its destination. Maybe even running into an isolated group of Takmahl colonies, or something even more dramatic, like a Terran incursion with an artificial exploratory wormhole.
|
Katrina Bekers
Gallente Sudo Magodo Corp
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 18:17:00 -
[35]
Any design decision in the pipe wrt denying insurance payout for the ships killed by Concord?
A clause along the lines of "if one branch of our very organization booms you, we won't pay the insurance" would make a lot of sense. -- Kate |
Sharoom
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 18:20:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Sharoom on 10/03/2008 18:23:47 Nearly all my questions have to do with built in time-sinks in EVE. I understand the need for them, but some seem excessive or un-needed.
A. Autopilot - Why does it stop so far out from the gate as opposed to warping to 0 meters, and then jumping? Instead (even in 1.0 sec's) you are stuck with several minutes of wait time each gate. This one 'issue' means one is forced to pay attention to what is otherwise a very tedious task.
B. The use of certain timers - such as swapping between ships. Why a wait time on that? Some are reasonable, such as launching from somewhere - the timer ensures you can't probe to see if people are waiting outside for you. Others make no sense at all - such as the swapping between ships.
C. Insufficient Power to make this warp. I don't see the point for this at all, other than a vague attempt at realism. The only ingame value I can see from it is if I'm in a small ship, it drops me out of warp before the gate, which means that if someone is chasing me (and not using warp disrupting missiles, or having killed me when I first arrived) I am in the middle of no where and for all intents and purposes unfindable. Beyond that, this combined the autopilot issue means that either way I'm going to take an extended amount of time to travel on a time that is already immensely large without the use of an effective auto-pilot to navigate me around it. So the question, what is the purpose/why was this implemented as it is?
As for a non-time sink question; Regarding the use of one person as a hauler and one person as a miner. This seems rather common, however as my friend put it, it relies on a lot of trust between the partners. While the use of people in-corp etc can be fine, any thoughts towards an implementation of some sort contract or otherwise for this sort of activity? Thanks.
|
Dazzstorm
Minmatar Blake Industries Collective Asylum
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:00:00 -
[37]
I would like to see less repetitiveness on missions and to have more interesting situations pop up, EG hacking areas. Ghost ships being salvageable, capital parts maybe? a few more rarer roids showing up, time limits for missions so there is more of a chance to fail them .
My 2 isk
|
Belmarduk
de Prieure
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:08:00 -
[38]
Skill Training - Queue or Dual training
This could enable players to either queue skills so that when one level finishes the next level in that skill starts training automatically, or another preset skill starts training automatically. Dual training would enable you to have a primary long-term skill in training with a secondary short-term skill sharing the training time. After a level in the secondary skill has trained, the primary skill trains at full speed again.
ETA when this will ever be implemented ??????? CCP Please give us casual players a Skill-Queue !
|
A Sinner
Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:16:00 -
[39]
Hello. I have a few questions for you. 1. I know there are some stations in eve which let you see more landing pads when docked besides your own. Is it possible in the near feature to also see the other guests of the station in their ships landing on those pads ? 2. Is there anything going to be done about the t1 gallente ships, which all have the same colour ? I am talking of course about the cyan colour used for all the t1 gallente ships. The myrmidon and thorax were looking better before in my opinion, colour wise of course. 3. Are you thinking of adding a queue to the training system ? 4. Are there going to be any changes made with the sound of EVE soon ? I find it ok right now, but I feel there can be some improvements made, especially for the turrets. Also I think it would be nice to hear a sound when a ship close to you enters or exits warp. I would also suggest taking the espionage part of eve a little further by giving people the ability to intercept conversations through EVE Voice. Of course this has to be something very hard to accomplish if it will ever be implemented, like adding lots of frequencies and extensive training time. It would be very real life like imo.
That's about it for now, Thanks in advance, Alex ----------------------- "There are no ugly women, just men who didn't have enough to drink" |
SATAN
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:16:00 -
[40]
1) Boost patch, what happened to actually boosting the things you nerfed too much? IE. Recon ships using damps, damps in general, Motherships, etc...
2) Speed, why is it acceptable to have ships that are completely immune to any form of damage as long as they stay 4k+. If it is your plan to let everyone run around doing 10k/sec, then perhaps you should also give people that spent a lot of time training for other things a way to counter them? You nerfed plenty of ships that have been considered over powered in the past, and to be honest they were no where near as over powered as a Vega doing 15k/sec, or a Mach doing 20k/sec. 2a) Maybe a good alternative would be to get rid of the explosion velocity attribute of missiles, or at the very least increase missile explosion velocity by 2x. And at the same time increase tracking for turret ships so they can hit these ships. 2c) Why not give a negative penalty for speed tanked ships, that would make their speed be a penalty as well. For instance increasing damage taken by an exponential number the faster they go.
3) Motherships, what is the point of these ships? They are pointless at this stage, and the chars stuck in them might as well be deactivated. Can you at the very least make them dockable so that we can use the chars to fly ships that actually have a purpose. at the very least give them a massive tank/damage boost so that they can actually defend them selves from heavy dictors than can passively tank then 23/7.
4) Jump portals, far as I see it they are the biggest problem in EvE at the moment. They reduce traffic to nearly nothing in 0.0 except in choke points into empire. They promote blobbing to the point of silly, alliance always use them as a back up tool for combat ships. Can you add some sort of jumping delay? IE. If one ship jumps there is no delay but if multiple ships try jumping in create some sort of cue to jump using portal. At the same time price for using jump portal should be increased 100x, how do you expect 0.0 to be not safe if you can transverse all of it in 1 jump and then insta into empire? There needs to be a price for such movement, and right now that is no where near high enough.
5) Logistics ships/remote repping, something needs to be done about the ability of logistics and to an extent remote repping in general. You say you want to promote small gang warfare, but you force us to bring 10 ships to kill 1 because it is being repped by 2 logistic ships. How does this make sense?
6) Removal of local, is it reality or just pipe dreams? It is long overdue to give pvp'rs some sort of cookie to counter all the countless penalties you have added through out the years.
|
|
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:17:00 -
[41]
A question:
There's no doubt that Sovereignty and POS warfare are under review by devs at the moment as indicated in any of several threads relevant to the topic, chiefly:
Cynosural Field Mechanics Sovereignty and Starbases: The Future!
However a lot of players like myself feel out of the loop on what changes are actually being considered. So in some words:
1. What specific features and mechanics of sovereignty and POS can we expect changes to?
2. What, if any, changes in particular are being considered?
3. On what timeframe can we expect to see these changes implemented? Several months? More than a year?
|
Wigdigster
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:22:00 -
[42]
What plans do you have to reduce blobbing in capital ship combat? --> where is capital combat going? (is it getting bigger, smaller, moving towards more utility? etc.)
Would you consider adding a new ship class designed specificaly for capital ship combat, thats not a capital ship.
|
Sexiest Beast
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:23:00 -
[43]
Question : Will there ever be a reward for gaining +10 to your Faction ? Notes : The onset of FW should have a reason to take such hits to your faction standings and encourage the desire to fight for your race. L5 missions. The unfair balance between negative and positive faction standings.
Question : Will new faction ships be released Notes : With the development of Recons, Destroyers, Battlecruisers, Commands, Exhumers, Freighters, Capitals . . and many more. will the big 4 factions step up their game and have/release Fleet/Navy varieties of the more upto date flavours. this could add to the LP store and also FW etc etc.
Question/Statement : Loyalty Points should be exactly that. i understand the need to create a sink of sorts with tags and items but loyalty should be rewarded. If you have to pay for it . . its not a reward. The LP store has been crying out for improvent and even yourselves have stated that a new improved LP store is on its way. Will this be implemented anytime soon ?
|
aiiaiiaii
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 19:48:00 -
[44]
There are currently around 25 titans in game.
If we assume that the current proliferation not only continues but increases, it's reasonable to think we may in the near future see twenty titans operating in the same timezone and all belonging to the same allied block. If they were than further deployed at a faction fit cyno jammer (as they were able to jump in to the system via jump bridge) what kind of non-capital fleet is expected to reasonably be able to attack the cyno jammer? My own answer is that having double digit amounts of titans operating under a cyno jammer is the equivelant of defensive invincibility with the current mechanics available.
|
Tiberius Nazamir
The International Brotherhood of Asian Descent
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 20:08:00 -
[45]
I'm in favor of the Local Channel being removed, has anyone considered adding a new skill set for Communications? Perhaps one skill that increases the range in jumps that your character can communicate with other ships. This would also effectively nerf the Corp and Alliance channels, as you might be able to receive a communication from someone with "Galactic Communications V", but not be able to send a reply with your "Galactic Communications II". This would also open up a doorway for training Comm skills that would let you, combining with Hacking skills, slice your way into another Corporation's Chat Channel. This skill could also combat Alliances occupying huge areas of space, forcing them to pull back, so that their ships can stay in comm range of each other. You could begin with the ability to communicate with anyone within your solar system or an adjacent system, then each level would add 5 jumps to the radius. Some ships (Logistics, Fleet Command and Covert Ops types, probably) might have a bonus on this range and a new Leadership skill might boost a Fleet's range, allowing for a large, multi-wing attack to communicate with each other. Signal Booster modules could also enhance the range, or signal beacons dropped by means of a Scan Probe Launcher. There are a lot of directions that Communications could take the game.
Some others have mentioned revising the Skill Training system by adding a Queue, dividing your SP with a Dual Skill system, or removing Learning Skills entirely. What do you plan to do with these ideas? What do you think about the idea of adding a new Learning Skill that would give your character the ability to Actively and Passively Train skills by using them. For example, I might be training to fly a Battleship, but I spend all my time in a Mining Barge getting the ISK to buy it. My "Passive Skill Points" are sent to Battleships, while my character studies how Battleships function. My "Active Skill Points" are going to Mining Barges, Mining and Refining skills relevant to the Ore I'm working, Drone Control, and Trade. Each ship or module would have a Skill Point Cap, where use of the item would stop adding to your points after you'd acquired a certain skill level, which promotes using T2 versions of items for this purpose.
Another way to pull of a similar idea would be to incorporate Experience Points in some way with Missions. After completing a Mission, you would be given a number of Skill Points to assign into skills relevant to the Mission you completed. So, a courier Mission might offer you some Navigation or Industrial Ship type Skill Points, while Combat Missions would offer you a wide variety of options.
Another Game Design idea might be to better employ the environment of space for combat purposes. Adding in modifiers to sensors and weapon effectiveness to account for things like fighting in an Asteroid Field full of a multitude of minerals that could scramble your sensors. Similarly, fighting in a nebula would have its own set of unique difficulties. This could offer you a new avenue with Sensor Related skills. Allow characters to train Transponder Skills to better identify targets, or mask their own Transponder to make it more difficult for people to see the bounty on their head.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tiberius Nazamir THe International Brotherhood of Asian Descent |
Saromaru
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:14:00 -
[46]
6) Removal of local, is it reality or just pipe dreams? It is long overdue to give pvp'rs some sort of cookie to counter all the countless penalties you have added through out the years.
i agree to this yet pvprs have had one uncounterable mechanism against newer players... gate camps don't give me that bull about warp stabs... 2 scrambles and any ship is powned before they could even see what was happening pvprs should get comm jammers or lets assume it works like air traffic control and u can turn off you're transponder or removal of local as a whole but having Ewar interference fields around gates now boohoo now people can cruise freely through 0.0 space this is false now youll have more prey lured in by the false sense of security that insta jumps bring but it makes piracy more dynamic and harder to do forcing people to have to be good at it and not lazy enough to sit at a gate XD
|
Pizi
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:23:00 -
[47]
A life, the universe and everything Q:
in the light of the absolute successfully AT5 and EVE TV weekend with a new player record
What are the plans and the future of EVE TV weekly show _______________________________________________ Mining Crystal II BPC Pricelist EVEpedia[Deutsch]
|
FuQue
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 21:43:00 -
[48]
- According to the interview on EveTV, 'many options' have been discussed regarding removing local - the main point being that local should be a chat channel, not an intel channel. What about making players visible in local ONLY IF THEY SPEAK IN LOCAL? How is this NOT a good idea?
Cloaking is becoming a real issue for logistical operations. Are there any plans to allow probing of cloaked ships in the future? What form will this take?
POS warfare is completely boring. What is being done to promote the 'fun-ness factor' of POS warfare? Are POS's the best idea for soveirgnty? Why not remove them from SOV altogether and use "active pilots in space" instead? (meaning - the more active pilots in a system/constellation/region, the more SOV points one would get)
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium STELLAR LEGION
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:21:00 -
[49]
Hauling missions: they need some sort of overhaul... rewards is unbalanced, u could incorporate deadspaces etc.. any plans to do anything for them?
more variety in mission: more than just go in shoot everything that is the exact same every time go to agent repeat. random generator on what enemies appear or smth pls.
BOOSTERS: I've found it very hard to find any info on these. from what I understand u need to harvest gas reproccess it a few times then take it to an agent in a cosmos area to trade for the high quality ones. Any chance of increasing accessability of bpo's / reactions or creating the bpo's for the high quality ones so we can make them ourselves. Any plans to do anything with them at all?
How do u get a job at game design? Do you guys read the F&I board and game dev board much? I very rarely see any dev posts there.
thx for reading and the good work on eve
ccp pls do something about minmatar ew. target painters suck and mauraders can use both our racial ew |
praznimrak
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:26:00 -
[50]
Ok. Im defenitly for change in local chanel.Only player speaking in local chat shoud be visibel. Another good sugestion is dual skill training.Or posibiliti to program your sequenc of skills to train so when one finish another starts automaticli. Stargate r problem to be solved.A lot of pvp is based on them and to much blobing is resault of stargates.Something have to be changed cose it is becoming practicli imposibel to have fun in 0.0.Jumping out of gate and finding 24/7 blob is anoying. Another thing is that pvp is practicli not rentabel at all.There must be some sistem of isk reward for killing ship in pvp fight.Not everybody is pve orientid,and peopel who have fun in pvp find it hard to scrafice 100 millons isk worth ship to gain nothing from pvp fight.So plese think off this for the future. Idea of skills in comunications and being abel to hack other corp chanel is nice.All RL conflicts belic and corporations ones includ comunications war.So do something abouth it. Thx for listening and apologize for my bad english. Praznimrak
|
|
Foot M
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:28:00 -
[51]
Ok here is a Foot M style brain dump!!!
Resists: If I read the post correctly then shield are losing 10% explosive resists and armor are losing 10% shield resists. surely this is just yet another covert caldari nerf, and yet let me explain. (im gonna sound like an idiot if i missunderstood seriously) =) total base resists on armor are 60+10+25+45 = 140 total base resists on shield are 60+40+20+0 = 120 so armor tankers have a resist advantage of 16.6% a bs with a X-Large II booster can boost 120 shield per second. a bs with a LAR II can rep 71.1 per second. Cap usage are as follows. 1 x X-Large II = 72/sec 1 x LAR II = 35.5/sec we can now show that boost per cap Shield = 120 shield costs 72 cap making, 1 shield = 0.6 cap Armor = 71.1 armor costs 35.5 cap making, 1 armor = 0.499 cap (rounded) taking into account the 16.6% higher base resists of armor we can calculate that the actual cap used per armor unit is Armor = (71.1*1.166)=82.9 costing 35.5 cap making 1 armor = 0.428 which is 40.2% (rounded) better than a shield tanker. obviously most armor tanks fit dual rep and shield tankers fit a SBA II. punching these into the calculations gives the following results. Armor Tanking (dual rep) 142.2rep/sec costing, 0.499 (rounded) cap/per armor unit Shield Tanking (X-Large II + SBA II) 163.2rep/sec costing, 0.453 (rounded) cap/per shield unit again calculating the 16.6% boost to armor base resists... Armor 165.8rep/sec costing, 0.428 cap/per armor unit making armor tanking 5.8% more efficient than shield tanking when sheild tankers use a SBA vs dual rep.
now where was I... ohh yes the covert caldari nerf.. well as you can probably tell, this 5.8-40.2% difference between efficiency between shield and armor tanking has led to a armor tanking trend even on some ships that can shield tank perfectly well. the nerf comes in here 120 - 10 = 110 = 9.1% resist nerf 140 - 10 - 130 = 7.7% resist nerf so armor tanking ships are being given an aditional 1.4% advantage over the already 5.8-40.2% which they have... figures were calculated on a maxed out pilot.
well thanks a lot!
maybe it would be worth giving shield resists some base EM resists or to take away some of the explisive resists on armor....
Quic***k Hit Caldari with the Nerf bat!! it hasnt been done this week yet.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day... |
Foot M
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:30:00 -
[52]
Local: You could make it so only the sov owners of the systems have access to see who is in system, and of course high sec factions & concord would be more than willing to share this info for everyone in 0.5+ thinking about dropping local player lists then in low sec and some 0.0 areas, that gives the hunter (cheap gankers) a better chance of finding a ratting ship and killing him/her. would it not then be prudent to take away the ship scanner which allows an experienced pilot to locate someone who is ratting within seconds and instead force them to either fly arround the belts or use probes (which yes may nerf their dps output) or force them to use more covert ops and make the process of hunting more expensive.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day... |
Foot M
FinFleet Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:30:00 -
[53]
Sov and Pos Warfare: I havent put a lot of thought into it but wouldnt it make sence that in a sov 4 constellation the capital and pos's/outposts in there are unable to be attacked, but also when you have sov 1 you get fuel bonus, when you have sov 2 you have cpu and pg bonus to pos's and with sov 3 you get resist bonuses. why should it be as easy to assault a system that has been held and fortified by the owners for months as a system that an alliance has just moved into a few days before. maybe with sov 2 and 3 there should be some module that can be anchored that can give out a POS gang bonus as such.. as far as boring pos warfare goes I dont think we are going to see that change till the whole POS concept is changed. ------------- I was discussing it a few months back with some people and kinda came up with the idea that you anchor a central station (offensive tower) at a planet but you are unable to fit anything to it then only the corp/alliance who has a OT at a planet can anchor towers at moons, these towers at the moons can be used for moon mining etc but you cannot anchor defences at them but at the same point they are unable to be attacked while the OT stands, but each tower at a moon gives bonuses to the OT at the planet in terms of Shield HP, CPU, Power Grid and perhaps even force field size. this would then bring planets with large quantitys of moons to be quite valuable (defenseively) and also allow the OT to pack a bigger punch and actually threaten a larger hostile cap fleets. as you all know by now unless a dread trys to kill a pos on its own the pos really has a hard time killing anything bigger than a bs. developing this further the towers at the moons have a very low hp level and no way to be stronted, but the OT can be stronted maybe locally within the OT itself or maybe dependant on the number of moons held on the planet. ofcourse with most systems having 8-10 planets it would reduce the pos bashing boredom both for the support fleets who camp gates all day and for the capitals who have no excitment and falling asleep (yes i have done this). it also means to get 8-10 good strong OT's you may need to have 10 pos's at each planet to support them and that will cost a lot in fuel and cost a lot to setup with the towers, making it hard to fortify every planet in every system you own due to the pure cost, but at the same point allowing you to make your main/home systems something special indeed. im sure there are loads of reasons why this will be shunned but here are a few good points: 1) more risky & exciting pos warfare 2) less time sitting about waiting for others to kill towers that half of the time have no fittings on and are just there to anoy/slow you down. 3) makes it possible for smaller alliances to hold off larger forces if they have the funding. 4) rewards alliance who have held the system for a long time (cpu/pg, shield resists)
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day... |
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:44:00 -
[54]
Station Undock Traffic Jams;
Why not rotate Jita 4-4 Navy 180 degree's on its Vertical Axis so the undock point faces towards where 99% of the undockers want to go?
While the change coming in this weeks patch will help with this problem in some regards, I feel that my idea(question) would have been far simplier to implement, have far less mechanic changing ramifications, and would have made a lot of sense from an RP stand point.
--
|
Kel Dario
Amarr Blue Sky Inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 23:52:00 -
[55]
My questions is...
1) Will you look at the Blockade Runners and find them a new bonus? I don't know what exactly but agility, signature reduction or simply more speed would be nice. Their current tanking bonus is worthless since if you take fire you are dead anyway if you not got back to gate in time.
1b) The Crane has no grid to fit a mwd, unless you fill your lows for rcu's. It need at least 20+ more grid.
2) Tech 2 armor plates are crap. They cost more, they have to many negatives like more mass and signature over named plates but give nothing better in return. Only a n00b who don't know better fit them because they are "Tech 2".
3) This one has been asked for a lot already and I want to know when we will get it: Klick me Dont be lazy klick on the link please.
4)Will we ever get bounty hunting as a real profession in EVE? As it is now bounties serve no real purpose. Anyone can collect them, that "anyone" is often a friend or an alt who collect the bounty for you when yours are big enough.
Having bounty contracts set by a player on another player should be like killrights are now but transferable to someone who are capable of hunting down and terminating the target for you.
Well that's it for now.
|
TimGascoigne
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 00:19:00 -
[56]
Because of the reduction to the natural armor resistance for EM damage. Do you think there is a chance that people will now harden EM especially with EANM hardeners which could potentially reduce the effect of lasers?
|
coolruningc
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 00:20:00 -
[57]
Edited by: coolruningc on 11/03/2008 00:20:42 sound ui to sound effects on gamer's. Thoes that use sound. I can turn the UI sound effcts but not the sound effects from when a player or rat is hitting me. There for the music off eve is quite and the lser or gun sound is deffing please could you look into a second option for sound effects thanks!
|
TimGascoigne
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 00:26:00 -
[58]
Does CCP Zulupark consider speed tanking to be legitimate/intended aspect of gameplay and does he consider speed tank to have its counter?
Also do you consider the nerfing of speed to be disproportionately effective against minmatar ships as opposed to the other races?
|
InnerDrive
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 00:51:00 -
[59]
Edited by: InnerDrive on 11/03/2008 00:55:41 Are we ever going to see a overal speednerf? Right now its possible for something like a claymore to reach sustainable speeds of 20k/S or more, claymore being a battlecruiser... same thing with some nanofittings on cruisers.. and ceptors going 30k. Can good mwds and snake implants be made more easely available for non trillionairs? (still looking at nerfing the topspeed on most ships going over 7-8k)
And talking about speed, if your going to balance all dictors to fly the same (current sabre) speed. I for one will quit flying normal dictors completely if you will nerf my sabre even more, its fine like it is right now just boost the other races a bit so they reach about the same speed.
As for cloaking... , its allready pretty limited to what you can do and only very few ships can actualy do some damage and fly around cloaked (force recons), while i admit that having a hostile in your system all day you can do nothing against is anoying, it is part of life in 0.0 and nobody is forcing people to stay in a specific system and its allways possible to use logistic support ships and stuff like that to defend your operations. If it became possible to somehow probe etc people that are cloaked some rich people woud max out skills in that stuff and find you in no time with 3 chars etc.
Region warfare: make objectives at different systems in a constellation to break a sov claim or something like that with a limited timeframe. this woud make people move around more and woud probably result in more little fights all over the region.
Flagships: Battleship sized commandships just dont go over the top on the resists and give them all massive new bonus to gangs that woud make them worth having in your fleet (other bonus than the current commandships are giving). And i think allowing them to overload modules better/much longer and give them a booster(drugs) negative effect reduction might also be something nice to look at for people that want to get into the specialized skills related to them.
Ill end this with saying that it be nice to give us 60 mil+ sp or more pvp pilots something to specialize at that woud still be as usefull as a regular t1 fleet bs dps wise (we been flying those for yearrs now:)) but have all those extras available (that require loads of skills to use) on it that makes it worth to field these ships. Or we can just all get into titans from lack of ships to train for :)
Hope that was not to much and hf talking about any and all these questions :)
|
jongalt
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 00:58:00 -
[60]
what are you doing to make the game more fun to play without indulging in sadism or masochism?
-jg.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |