These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

If you could change 3 mechanics in EVE...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-04-02 02:19:01 UTC
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. You can't "see" what's on the other side until you go across, and often that means you are dead if there is a gate camp there. Instead, what if you arrived at a random location in the system? Or a random location X AU from the nearest object? Or a random spot on the "outer sphere" of the system itself? I think this would make lower secs "seem" safer, in that you are less likely to die as soon as you cross the gate. It would mean that low sec would be more of a "track your enemy down" kind of state which would be neat. As well, it would make protecting your interests in 0.0 much more difficult, as someone could come in anywhere.



2) No more "role specific" ships - I posted this in the "Ideas for ships" thread, but I will repost it here:

"I would like to see less ships that are for specific roles, and more that can be used for many roles.

What I mean is, right now, if you scan down mining ship, you know that it is defenceless, more or less. But what if you didn't know that? I scan down a Hurricane and it could be a salvage boat, or an explorer or a gas miner or a PvE fitted ship or a PvP one. I think the now knowing would make EVE more exciting.

I wish they would remove all dedicated mining ships in my mind. If you had to mine using one of the existing "war" ships, wouldn't that make things more interesting?

Hell, I would like to be able to change out modules on the fly, so that I can use one ship for multiple things without having to refit at a station. That way I can go out exploring and if I find a great mining area, I can switch to mining lasers and grab some, and if I get jumped by a pirate that happens by, I can switch back to my guns and have a chance at fighting back. Base it on your "Jury Rigging" skill or some such.

This would also be condusive to more modules getting destroyed as ships get blowed up, and I think it would just add to the feel of EVE more."



3) No more local as an "Intel source" - I would like to see local changed to be more like wormholes. It would mean less instant intel about who is in your system at any given time, which for 0.0 would make things more interesting, as well as inviting more fighting. It would mean that intel providers (scout ships and such) would be much more valuable, as well as scanners in general. You would probably have to change the basic "spam scanner" to make it less "user controlled" and more automated, or maybe you would need a module to make it more active? Or introduce modules that could let you link ships for "radio" purposes? Or introduce POS modules that could give limited warning of somesort. In essence you are making space more "dangerous unknown" which would be a great thing in my opinion.

Those are my ideas. How about yours?
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#2 - 2012-04-02 02:48:49 UTC
1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-04-02 02:54:45 UTC
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?
Ildryn
IDLE INTENTIONS
#4 - 2012-04-02 02:56:05 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.

+1
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#5 - 2012-04-02 03:00:38 UTC
When you scan down a hurricane and its sitting in a gas cloud, harvetsing gas, its probably not a PvP hurricane...

Also your dislike of gate camps amuses me, this game is easy enough as it is, changing mechanics to make it even easier is a stupid idea.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-04-02 03:08:28 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
When you scan down a hurricane and its sitting in a gas cloud, harvetsing gas, its probably not a PvP hurricane...

Also your dislike of gate camps amuses me, this game is easy enough as it is, changing mechanics to make it even easier is a stupid idea.


My only problem with gate camps is that they are essentially "save or die" mechanics. If you go through the gate and there is a camp there, you are dead. If there is not, you have a chance at living. Barring going through with a ship designed to run of course. It's just silly. Low sec has problems because no one comes to visit it. Why? Because people "could" die simply poking their noses across. However, if they could get across and have a reasonable chance of running around there, more people would visit, which means more targets, which means more fights. I don't see how that's bad.

The scanning thing is more of a if you see a [insert specific non-combat ship] you essentially know you have an easy target. Why not have more of a chance for the unknown, where the fight could go either way? I would much rather have an exciting battle that I "almost" won than a battle that was lost as soon as someone showed up on grid.
Shian Yang
#7 - 2012-04-02 03:09:19 UTC
Greetings noble capsuleer,

I want to see more power in the hands of ordinary capsuleers. The Ammarian Empire has a mighty fleet, driven by religious fervour to hold their sovereign space. The Caldari State sees several mega corporations owning large swathes of space. In our modern society there is no room for this form of control and CONCORD has no place within this Empire.

If an Empire or a Corporation wishes to hold onto their space, it should be within their power to claim, hold and police their own space. Naturally some Caldari Corporations or Ammar Temples will do so and this will provide a reasonable safe harbour for capsuleers that wish to follow them like dogs on a leash.

All in all however, I believe the security of a system should be in the hands of the corporation or group that owns it. They should purchase such vessels as are available on the market, their capital allowing, to defend their space against Incursions, capsuleers and other corporations.

In favour,

Shian Yang
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#8 - 2012-04-02 03:15:04 UTC
1. Remove local entirely: I never understood how local makes that much sense, in a scifi-space opera setting. In movies and other scifi games, one ship commander usually has to initiate direct contact with someone in order to hold any sort of conversation.

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."

3. Less brightness: I enjoy a lot of the visuals in EVE, but I also think that Space should be, mostly, dark.
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#9 - 2012-04-02 03:20:42 UTC
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.

Intelligence shouldn't be free.   Mining, reloaded.   ADDICTED.

Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#10 - 2012-04-02 03:21:40 UTC
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-04-02 03:31:46 UTC
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
1. Remove local entirely: I never understood how local makes that much sense, in a scifi-space opera setting. In movies and other scifi games, one ship commander usually has to initiate direct contact with someone in order to hold any sort of conversation.

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."

3. Less brightness: I enjoy a lot of the visuals in EVE, but I also think that Space should be, mostly, dark.


I like your randomness idea. I do think that EVE needs more of that. Right now, you do a mission, it is essentially the same every time you run it. What if you didn't know what you were going to face, or if there was a chance you would face stronger or weaker enemies?

What if there were cosmic dust storms that could affect your firing rate, or your shields? Or interference affecting your warp drive? Random malfunctions if you don't "take care"" of your modules and such?
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#12 - 2012-04-02 03:33:50 UTC
Serena Wilde wrote:
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
1. Remove local entirely: I never understood how local makes that much sense, in a scifi-space opera setting. In movies and other scifi games, one ship commander usually has to initiate direct contact with someone in order to hold any sort of conversation.

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."

3. Less brightness: I enjoy a lot of the visuals in EVE, but I also think that Space should be, mostly, dark.


I like your randomness idea. I do think that EVE needs more of that. Right now, you do a mission, it is essentially the same every time you run it. What if you didn't know what you were going to face, or if there was a chance you would face stronger or weaker enemies?

What if there were cosmic dust storms that could affect your firing rate, or your shields? Or interference affecting your warp drive? Random malfunctions if you don't "take care"" of your modules and such?


That too. I don't see why ship integrity should always be 100% outside of being attacked.

edit: Especially with a Minmatar ship
Bootleg Jack
ACME Mineral and Gas
#13 - 2012-04-02 03:36:21 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.


lol

I'm an American, English is my second language...
Ghoest
#14 - 2012-04-02 03:39:16 UTC
Remove gates.

The entire concept of outer space being 95% about going through gates is horrible game design.

Wherever You Went - Here You Are
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#15 - 2012-04-02 03:50:08 UTC
1) retexture Amarr stations so they don't blind me on the sunny side of them (only a problem since the new brighter sun upgrade).

2) make the report bot feature more usable. Allow us to add information, specifically what lead us to reporting them.

3) I can't think of anything else...
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-04-02 03:54:06 UTC
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?
Selinate
#17 - 2012-04-02 03:56:09 UTC
1) I would manually aim my guns and manually pilot my ship. I hate point and click with a fiery passion.


2) Remove local in null (and possibly even low sec). In some ways, the entire purpose of cov ops and T3 cloaky's are pretty much pointless with something that broadcasts the fact that you've entered the system to the entire population in said system.


3) I dunno about other people, but I think it would be pretty cool to be able to build my own little space outpost that I could dock in and layout the floor plan of. Not like POS's or outposts which are expensive, but just a space of my own. In some ways, I would like to have it where we have these stations as our "house" like in SWG, and then have actual stations be like major cities.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#18 - 2012-04-02 04:00:47 UTC
Serena Wilde wrote:
My only problem with gate camps is that they are essentially "save or die" mechanics. If you go through the gate and there is a camp there, you are dead. If there is not, you have a chance at living. Barring going through with a ship designed to run of course. It's just silly. Low sec has problems because no one comes to visit it. Why? Because people "could" die simply poking their noses across. However, if they could get across and have a reasonable chance of running around there, more people would visit, which means more targets, which means more fights. I don't see how that's bad.

Hmm, well you see I would contend that gate camps are already very easily avoided. Even completely ignoring the use of a scout T2 transports, T3s, carriers, jump freighters... all these ships bypass gate camps perfectly.

And gates also act as a hot spot for fights, most of the decent small gang fights I've seen happen when someone tries to crash a gate camp. Without gates all we'd have to fall back on is blue balling, sniper gangs warping to the sun at range and bait cyno drakes sitting in anoms all day.

Basically, bottle necks are a necessity for combat to occur frequently :)

Serena Wilde wrote:
The scanning thing is more of a if you see a [insert specific non-combat ship] you essentially know you have an easy target. Why not have more of a chance for the unknown, where the fight could go either way? I would much rather have an exciting battle that I "almost" won than a battle that was lost as soon as someone showed up on grid.

Hmm, well you see the challenge with the example you used isn't in fighting the mining ship, it is in catching the mining ship. There's also the fact that if mining ships could refit in space and fight back, people would just use bigger/more ships to kill them.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-04-02 04:02:59 UTC
Selinate wrote:
1) I would manually aim my guns and manually pilot my ship. I hate point and click with a fiery passion.


2) Remove local in null (and possibly even low sec). In some ways, the entire purpose of cov ops and T3 cloaky's are pretty much pointless with something that broadcasts the fact that you've entered the system to the entire population in said system.


3) I dunno about other people, but I think it would be pretty cool to be able to build my own little space outpost that I could dock in and layout the floor plan of. Not like POS's or outposts which are expensive, but just a space of my own. In some ways, I would like to have it where we have these stations as our "house" like in SWG, and then have actual stations be like major cities.



Mmmm...Freelancer reborn...I would give my left breasticle for EVE Online married with Freelancer gameplay...

I would also love to see little outpost idea as well, something that is attainable by a single player or small gang and is also defensible in some way, and that would be the tough part to balance. Maybe have them only online when your character is? I don't know, but it would be nice. I'd like to not have to be tied to stations...
Selinate
#20 - 2012-04-02 04:03:08 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:

And gates also act as a hot spot for fights, most of the decent small gang fights I've seen happen when someone tries to crash a gate camp. Without gates all we'd have to fall back on is blue balling, sniper gangs warping to the sun at range and bait cyno drakes sitting in anoms all day.


Every single good small gang fight that I've ever had has been nowhere near the gates. In fact, nearly all of them have been in a belt, at a station, or at some other anomaly.

I hate gate camps too, and I think there should be a better way to blockade systems rather than just having everyone wait at one spot for someone to come through, personally. Probably won't change any time soon though.
123Next pageLast page