| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SirMille
Sigma Kid Protection Services
Goonswarm Federation
13
   |
Posted - 2012.04.02 04:30:00 -
[31] - Quote
1. Remove the plane. Space has no up or down, EVE having one is just silly. Hello EVEspace 2. |
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 04:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Serena Wilde wrote:I can understand that. But the problem is a scout requires a second account or information from someone else that you need to obtain. the others are specific ships that are made to ignore gate camps, and none are combat viable (barring T3's). As well, all of those ships are made to "avoid" combat anyway.
Thus the only "fights" you generally see are those that essentially dog-pile the first ship they see that pokes their nose across that they can catch. Heh, that is often the case, but not always. Quite a few times I've surprised a gate camp when they realize they can't break my maelstroms tank, and that suddenly they are exploding left right and center. Similarly a lot of other ships are capable of breaking up a small gate camp solo, like vagas/cynabals/machariels/vindicators. As for larger gate camps, hot dropping/baiting them is always fun :) But the last few days I've mostly just been watching them cloaked, then attacking them when they get in a fight. Managed to kill a large camp's rapier with my two bombers earlier which amused me. Serena Wilde wrote:That's why I say to remove "mining" ships in general, and enable swapping of modules. The point is to give an existence to playing beyond "mob mentality" If you had a chance to survive fights alone or to win fights alone, you wouldn't have this incessant need to fight in a pack. Of course the mob fighting would still happen, but I think you would find more people willing to take risks and go it alone if they weren't tied to a specific ship for every different thing they wanted to do... You mean make all ships modular in design, akin to T3s? I'm not entirely sure how that would fix the mob mentality to be honest, it would certainly make logistics easier but beyond that I'm not certain it would have any impact at all. If anything, it would probably make people blob more, if there's a chance that mining fleet could actually be some crazy spider tanking PvP bait fleet... why risk it by attacking with a small force?
Yeah, but that's what happens now? So wouldn't any change that has the chance to introduce more tactics be better?
The modularity would only be for modules specifically, and would take something in return, like time, that could be altered by a skill. For example, what if it took X seconds to change out a module, lowered by an amount per skill level (sort of like changing ammo currently is)? You would need to carry those modules in your hold, which means that if you were destroyed, they would be destroyed, but it would allow you to gas mine if you found a cloud. Hack if you found an exploration site. Mine if you found a belt. Fight if you found a target. Make it so you couldn't change modules while cloaked, to limit abuse. You'd probably have to up cargo space some, or add another bay to account for modules, but I think it would be do-able.
The point would be to make whatever ship you were flying more useful for any activity. That's one thing that I found interesting about the early game of EVE: You had your rookie ship and you used it for everything. The only bad thing was being tied to a station to do anything different. Once you got your specialized ships, the game became more "boring" First you go find the thing that you want to do with your "exploring" ship, then you get your "other ship that does the thing you want to do ", and sometimes you need another ship on top of that for combat just to take out the baddies first! That's a lot of swapping at stations just to do something!
Why not make it so your one ship can do all of it? That would be more risk vs. more reward to me? |
Steel Wraith
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 04:43:00 -
[33] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:
Except that now a person can jump into a lowsec system with his ship in the hopes of performing some activity (either mining, exploration, ratting, etc.) without the thought of immediately dieing. However it doesn't stop him from being scanned down while doing said activity. Now you are allowing more ships into the system. More targets = more fun. Hunting said target = fun. Or do you just want "easy" targets?
I think that gate camps in low-sec are fairly ineffectual against players who have prepared for the possibility. It is still possible to scan/probe down ships mining or exploring, sure, but that is an entirely different topic than that of just entering the system to which gate camps apply. The ability to gate camp does not by any means shut down everyone's ability to enter the system. The idea that you are powerless to save yourself if there is a camp is wrong. You always have a choice, and the more choices we have to make, the more fun it is, imho.
And no, I don't just want "easy" targets. The thought if sitting on a gate for hours waiting for targets seems really damn boring to me but it should be a viable play-choice if someone wants to do it. Random-location entry would completely remove that play-choice. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
206
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 04:47:00 -
[34] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.
Yep I hate it when those guys hide behind NPC Corps |
Shian Yang
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 04:59:00 -
[35] - Quote
Steel Wraith wrote:I think that gate camps in low-sec are fairly ineffectual against players who have prepared for the possibility.
Capsuleer Wraith,
I agree with your suggestion. Travelling through regions of known lawlessness and low security can be readily handled by any capsuleer who takes the time to prepare. Recall the starmap and filter out the needless information - distill it until you are only visualising the capsuleers passing through each gate and into a system, so you can gauge the level of activity. This is time bound so even more useful. You can also verify ship destruction as this is recorded and available from any gate interface through your starmap system.
Apart from that, the right type of ship or even an assembled shuttle to be used as a quick scout can be useful. A prepared capsuleer is a safe capsuleer.
Shian Yang
|
Spy 21
Lonetrek Exploration and Salvage
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
Removing gates makes it impossible to defend space. Enough suggestions have been put forward to negate any perceived need for that already in this thread.
The other easy mode idea of fitting ships in space is a no go also... what is the point unless you are again looking for an easy button against being caught in a mission ship where you should have brought a pvp ship. Don't bring non-combat fits into space you're like to be attacked in.
Forcing all of eve to accept these kinds of changes so some players don't need to learn how to fully play the game would cost more subscriptions that it would save.
If NPC alts can't post, does that also mean they cannot vote?
My only suggestion would be to eliminate neut remote rep in high sec. RR someone is actually an attack on the guy that he is fighting. If you agree with that then you have to agree that Neut reppers in high sec should get concorded.
S
The proper use of dual monitors with the eve client.
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/2821/img0275jr.jpg |
Sang-in Tiers
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
* Remove local.
* make highsec 80% smaller (pretty much just some ground for newbies to try out the game in).
* Make minmatar less winmatar. |
Rory Orlenard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
Your number two idea i disagree with..the "no more role specific ships" . that smacks all to much of a uni-ship. when you get a uni-ship everyone flys the uniship, using the same setup, which is not good for the Eve economy, fun gaming,or anything else.
I don't want to be cruel here but i suggest you put more research and thought into game mechanichs..or however you spell it before sounding off on what seems like an idea.
As for an idea of my own i came up with only one - less time differential between what the Eve map info shows and what is real.
While screwing with nullsec alliances I relie heavy on the Eve map and the time lag between reported info and real conditions can get you killed. |
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Rory Orlenard wrote: Your number two idea i disagree with..the "no more role specific ships" . that smacks all to much of a uni-ship. when you get a uni-ship everyone flys the uniship, using the same setup, which is not good for the Eve economy, fun gaming,or anything else.
I don't want to be cruel here but i suggest you put more research and thought into game mechanichs..or however you spell it before sounding off on what seems like an idea.
As for an idea of my own i came up with only one - less time differential between what the Eve map info shows and what is real.
While screwing with nullsec alliances I relie heavy on the Eve map and the time lag between reported info and real conditions can get you killed.
So if every ship is a uni-ship, everyone flies...every ship? How is this bad?
I don't think you're thinking deep enough, sorry.
I do agree with your idea in theory, but I don't think any intel should be "instant" unless there is a body on site physically reporting it. |
Full Impact
Kador Systems
TriMark Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 05:54:00 -
[40] - Quote
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
2. High-Sec not always "safe": We're in Space. So why can't our technology and communication systems fail, at times? Have entire solar systems drop their security for a set period of time, at random. Concord can't respond and stations are locked "until further notice."
Lol really?? I wouldn't mind aslong as any of their systems and player systems could fail at any time in any system inc targetting of random players regardless of any wrong doing |
Rory Orlenard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:05:00 -
[41] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:Rory Orlenard wrote: Your number two idea i disagree with..the "no more role specific ships" . that smacks all to much of a uni-ship. when you get a uni-ship everyone flys the uniship, using the same setup, which is not good for the Eve economy, fun gaming,or anything else.
I don't want to be cruel here but i suggest you put more research and thought into game mechanichs..or however you spell it before sounding off on what seems like an idea.
As for an idea of my own i came up with only one - less time differential between what the Eve map info shows and what is real.
While screwing with nullsec alliances I relie heavy on the Eve map and the time lag between reported info and real conditions can get you killed. So if every ship is a uni-ship, everyone flies...every ship? How is this bad? I don't think you're thinking deep enough, sorry. I do agree with your idea in theory, but I don't think any intel should be "instant" unless there is a body on site physically reporting it.
Hmmmm..i see what you mean although i don't like admitting it. Real time info should be protected as valuable and not given to any one for free ...maybe just less time differential for a comprimise |
Gunther Nhilathok
Warsmiths
Warsmiths.
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:13:00 -
[42] - Quote
I would reduce all ships' tank capacity and add various countermeasure modules/cm ammo and add slots to most ships to accomodate cm modules. (kind of like rig slots but only for CM mods) Examples would be adding a defender missle launcher to the category or adding the good old decoy beacon method to confuse tracking systems. Or rather instead of defender missle launcher, perhaps a system that sends out pulses that disrupt missle tracking. Could have it run on some kind of charge so that it's not something cap dependent and still consumes ammo.
I would remove ECM alltogether as it's little more than a bastardization of the meaning of my number one change.
I would replace ECM with a module set that reduced the effectiveness of Counter-Measure charges. A tracking system disruptor for defender missle launchers and a decoy beacon dampener for the decoy beacon launcher. Or if the missle tracking disruption pulse is used, could have a module that directly tweaks the magnitude of it's broadcast. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
220
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:What would they be?
Just a simple question, but try to offer reasoning why and what you would change it to.
1) No more "Inbound" gates to systems
[...]
3) No more local as an "Intel source"
Those are two good ones, Local certainly would be on my list, and the gates might very well make third place.
It's really tough to put what change I wanted in a simple statement about a single mechanic, as it would be made with the goal of making all gameplay either player Sandbox driven or Lore driven, or both, but no more Themepark rides. If there was a single mechanic to change toward that goal it would have to be....
1) Remove CONCORD and Crimewatch. CONCORD could stay on as a Faction and have ships slightly better than Sleepers/Sansha but the days of stifling the Sandbox would be at an end. Faction Navy could stay on, albeit also somewhat weakened and who's reaction are based off character relations to them rather than CCP trying to police player behavior in order to handhold Themepark players.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:28:00 -
[44] - Quote
Remove local
Remove missions/incursions
Remove CONCORD |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
971
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
1- make high sec really high sec: you couldn't even target another player if you wouldn't be a logi in the same fleet.
2- player corporations wallet and income: minimum 5 to 10% tax mandatory for any positive transaction in corporations wallet
More NPC stations in null sec and services but stations destructible like player owned ones with just triple hp points for reinforcement and kill, respawn delay 29D
3- after leaving high sec once you can't return any more. Your assets are all automatically transferred to the closest NPC station in low sec |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:42:00 -
[46] - Quote
Change mining
Change belts
Change ores
We really need a industrial overhaul and mining is the place to start. |
Rory Orlenard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:46:00 -
[47] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:What would they be?
Just a simple question, but try to offer reasoning why and what you would change it to.
1) No more "Inbound" gates to systems - I don't find it right that jumping into the next system could lead to your death with no real way to circumvent it -
.... my reply to your point ...if someone has Sov they deserve the right to have inbound - asking them to cover the system is not reasonable and as someone who screws with all the null alliances gatecamps and bubbles don't mean much to an experienced scout. the number of guys who can catch you is small. the current eve setup allows owners some rights and is only a threat to people leeching off them - if you want to screw with them it is no problem
3) No more local as an "Intel source" -
my reply.... totally agree, make it like wormholes and some alt sitting in a station never actually flown or doing anything can't protect the frontiers and the the Nidhogger can't blitz anomolies with immunity - that will fly like the Hindenberg with Nullsec guys so good luck on that.
Those are my ideas. How about yours? |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
971
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 06:52:00 -
[48] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Change mining
Change belts
Change ores
We really need a industrial overhaul and mining is the place to start.
This can be changed but as long as ships related to this activity are the joke they are there is no interest on doing this activity because ganking is more profitable than mining and meta game wouldn't make null or low sec more interesting for this.
As long as mining is interesting as it is and KM's farming goes, my Hulk and my Mack are there only to fill my hangar of useless ships collection.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
109
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 07:18:00 -
[49] - Quote
- The distribution of all blueprints should go through NPC-corp specific LP stores with all an unique assortment of wares (still possible to resell on market though).
- Titans should be mobile stations with full docking, logging off and various other (inefficient) station services.
- The empire Factions should be split up by low-sec borders and made more diverse in terms of resources and NPC-corps (less blobbing in a single hub and more opportunities to make money.)
- NPC Pirates are their own faction and you can't use their NPC stations unless you and your corp have good standings so no farming sanctums while squatting in their stations!)
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Tobiaz/sig_complaints.gif
How about fixing image-linking on the forums, CCP? I want to see signatures! |
Danfen Fenix
Vita Aequitas Veritas
The Paganism Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 07:42:00 -
[50] - Quote
1) Something that makes fights take place in more places in a system than the usual gate or station 
How about makign it so warp bubbles drop out anyone in warp if they hit it/hit near it, no matter where the bubble is on the spacelane (i.e., so it can be put in the middle of nowhere between two gates).
2) Someway of decloaking or detecting cloaked ships, apart from flying within 2km of them.
Seriosuly. If local were to be removed, then cloakies would be completely OP just due to the fact that there is currently never any way of knowing they're there until you're most likely going to die! |
Kiandoshia
Gnampf Inc.
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 08:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
1. Remove the forums.
2. Make everyone forget the forum existed.
3. Why am I even here =/ |
voetius
Starwinders
The Unwilling.
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 08:36:00 -
[52] - Quote
KrakizBad wrote:1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.
+1
|
Soldarius
United Highsec Front
The 99 Percent
195
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 09:09:00 -
[53] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:Most certainly not. I just want fights to not be determined blindly.
My point was that if you are using a scout of some kind, whether by multi-boxing or with friends, the fight is not blind. A fast scout can easily escape gate-camps in losec. Your scout can be anything from a noob ship to a covert T3. I recommend such things as covert frigates, bombers, Dramiels, or other fast frigates, so long as it has a microwarp drive
Quote:I can see that, which is why I said to have them warp in at a spot X AU from the nearest object (sun/planet/moon/station etc.) or simply at the outer edge of the system. There are many ways to work around that idea. The point is now hunters will actually have to "hunt" rather than just wait for someone to pop their head in.
If the spot were random, it would be impossible to catch anyone ever. A person jumping in would be in warp long before any pirate could scan them down, arrive on grid, lock, and tackle. Once in warp, the ship is of course unstoppable. It would arrive at gate, and repeat the process. Gate to gate travel in losec would be 100% safe for all but the slowest aligning ships. Additionally, this would break fleet warping as every ship would arrive at a different location
If the spot is not random, but simply a spot in space that is predetermined, the campers can simply jump one of their own through and camp the arrival location just the same as the current gate location
Quote:So your solution is to use only one type of ship when flying through low sec? ECM could work, if you could change your modules out in space later so you aren't tied to stations to do any other activities.
Of course not. Certain ships are better suited to solo travel. I noted those above. You can also travel in a decent-sized fleet. In that case you can fly whatever you want and have a reasonable chance of getting to your destination
ECM, like every other module in game, has its pros and cons. I cringe every time I see an ECM module fit to a nonbonuse
hull. The odds of jamming someone with a single ECM mod on an unbonused hull are not good. Even if you do, unless you bounce around the system while waiting for your aggression counter to expire, you will not be able to jump out of system when you arrive at the out gate
"How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 09:59:00 -
[54] - Quote
1) Fix the bounty system.
2)Create more security options to POS structures, such as personal tabs idea suggested at fanfest.
3) Even More Ships! |
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 10:21:00 -
[55] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:
1) No more "Inbound" gates to systems
2) No more "role specific" ships
3) No more local as an "Intel source"
1 - Use an alt\have friends\you're missing the point of eve
2 - you're realy missing the point of eve.
3 - only smart thing you've said. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy
Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 10:43:00 -
[56] - Quote
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:Serena Wilde wrote:KrakizBad wrote:1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post. Well, that's one idea. It's a good start I guess. Any others? And any reasons why? It would be great if all NPC corp characters had one single forum section all to their selves. Then they could talk among themselves and not bother anyone else.
So people that choose to play in NPC like noobs would have no say.
Also your idea is so ******** anyway.
Create alt , create 1 man corp and now you can post.
|
Savage Creampuff
Ion Corp.
Citex Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 10:59:00 -
[57] - Quote
3 things that will never happen but i wouldn't object to if they did
1 - replace all chance based mechanics with mechanics that aren't chance based
2 - allow npc corp characters to pilot any ship in the game except for supercaps, caps, and tech 2 and 3 ships. it would be easy to rp why they wouldn't be allowed in cap ships and restricting tech 2 and 3 ship access removes no functionality or gameplay from the character.
3 - allow npc corp characters to post in the trial citizens forum and new citizens forums only |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
473
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 11:19:00 -
[58] - Quote
1) Get rid of gates - plenty of ways to do it and still have non-consensual PVP with out the cheap mechanics of choke points.
2) Scaning and probing more like submarines and sonar - goes with number 1
3) Sec status mechanics |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
473
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 11:22:00 -
[59] - Quote
Serena Wilde wrote:Ghoest wrote:Remove gates.
The entire concept of outer space being 95% about going through gates is horrible game design. The crux is how do you fix that? Especially with EVE's "everybody plays in the same world" mentality?
There are many ideas out there, below is one of them,
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/AdunhSlavy/RSIV611.htm |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
473
|
Posted - 2012.04.02 11:24:00 -
[60] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Basically, bottle necks are a necessity for combat to occur frequently :)
No, the ability to find one another is what is needed. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |