These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Jita 4/4
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie Ned
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
#1 - 2012-07-09 07:24:44 UTC
This is so obvious someone must have already suggested it, but I've never seen it and I can't find it in the list of common subjects.

Why don't those guys at Jita 4/4 build another exit to their station? You could be thrown out randomly or, better, get to choose which exit. If the new one was aligned with the Perimeter gate it would be even better. Of course you would need to ensure that those warping to the station would not end up in a big fur ball with those exiting but space is 3 dimensional (or 4 or 5??!!) so that is straightforward to avoid.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#2 - 2012-07-09 09:05:57 UTC
Newbie Ned wrote:
This is so obvious someone must have already suggested it, but I've never seen it and I can't find it in the list of common subjects.

Why don't those guys at Jita 4/4 build another exit to their station? You could be thrown out randomly or, better, get to choose which exit. If the new one was aligned with the Perimeter gate it would be even better. Of course you would need to ensure that those warping to the station would not end up in a big fur ball with those exiting but space is 3 dimensional (or 4 or 5??!!) so that is straightforward to avoid.


Sorry but why is this desirable?

[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]
VB Sarge
Revenue Retrievers
#3 - 2012-07-09 09:08:07 UTC
I'm fairly certain that the disruption to trade caused by closing the entire station down for remodeling and construction, would cause significantly greater outcry than the demand for a second exit.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-07-09 09:16:55 UTC
Your in space point the station in another direction... No need for a seperate exit.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#5 - 2012-07-09 09:21:42 UTC
Or you could just make an insta-warp point and then the station doesn't need to move.

Try resolving your issues yourself ingame using the tools at your disposal, your imagination and some research rather than trying to get CCP to modify the game to suit your personal requirements.
Reicine Ceer
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-07-09 11:31:00 UTC
As i have suggested before but never got any notice from CCP;

The stations are in DIRE need of a remodelling anyways (imho) and i think we can all agree that Jita 4-4 isn't large enough to hold all the ships it purportedly does. The solution to this issue is simple; dynamic station scaling.

IF a station has >100 *active* pilots docked, docking and undocking constantly, then during the next server DT the station should increase in size, with fancy new modular framework that allows for this to happen.

IF a station has >300 *active* pilots docked, docking and undocking constantly, then during the next server DT the station should increase in size, BUT ALSO ADD a second off-ramp. Perhaps even a size-based one, so that larger ships all leave from the same exit, and all the smaller ones go out of theirs.

....I'm sure you can imagine this idea, fleshed out, in your own heads - i'll not labour the point. However, just on the off chance that CCP reads this;

Dudes. If you follow my dynamic station scaling idea, you CAN take this a step further. Lets say that a station wayyyyyy out in a dead-end corner of nullsec is getting hardly used - start reducing the facilities (clone, repair, etc) bit by bit, and reduce the physical world model to reflect the reduced traffic. This way, a little-used station will LOOK like it is little-used.
Further to this, IF a station is used for, say, mainly holding ores -- make it LOOK like this! Make the dynamic model give the impression of massive ore silos and little actual facilities - just like it would be in real life. Similarly, if a station is mainly used for trade (J 4-4), make it look like this! Glitzy advertising, large lights and a Las Vegas-feel to it.

Please. You know i'm right about this. Stations that dynamically change over the course of time dependant on the overall use of said station would create a REAL sense of centralization at trade hubs, and conversely a sense of abandonment/desolation with the little-used stations that are even within the same system as a trade hub. It would really add a massive level of depth to the visualisation of EVE.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#7 - 2012-07-09 11:56:47 UTC
Reicine Ceer wrote:
As i have suggested before but never got any notice from CCP;

The stations are in DIRE need of a remodelling anyways (imho) and i think we can all agree that Jita 4-4 isn't large enough to hold all the ships it purportedly does. The solution to this issue is simple; dynamic station scaling.

IF a station has >100 *active* pilots docked, docking and undocking constantly, then during the next server DT the station should increase in size, with fancy new modular framework that allows for this to happen.

IF a station has >300 *active* pilots docked, docking and undocking constantly, then during the next server DT the station should increase in size, BUT ALSO ADD a second off-ramp. Perhaps even a size-based one, so that larger ships all leave from the same exit, and all the smaller ones go out of theirs.

....I'm sure you can imagine this idea, fleshed out, in your own heads - i'll not labour the point. However, just on the off chance that CCP reads this;

Dudes. If you follow my dynamic station scaling idea, you CAN take this a step further. Lets say that a station wayyyyyy out in a dead-end corner of nullsec is getting hardly used - start reducing the facilities (clone, repair, etc) bit by bit, and reduce the physical world model to reflect the reduced traffic. This way, a little-used station will LOOK like it is little-used.
Further to this, IF a station is used for, say, mainly holding ores -- make it LOOK like this! Make the dynamic model give the impression of massive ore silos and little actual facilities - just like it would be in real life. Similarly, if a station is mainly used for trade (J 4-4), make it look like this! Glitzy advertising, large lights and a Las Vegas-feel to it.

Please. You know i'm right about this. Stations that dynamically change over the course of time dependant on the overall use of said station would create a REAL sense of centralization at trade hubs, and conversely a sense of abandonment/desolation with the little-used stations that are even within the same system as a trade hub. It would really add a massive level of depth to the visualisation of EVE.

Simi Kusoni wrote:
Sorry but why is this desirable?

[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]
Reicine Ceer
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2012-07-09 12:01:49 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Sorry but why is this desirable?


For precisely the same reason that...

the nebulae got updated...
V3...
miss-animations with gunnery...
newbie ship update...
new missile animation...
new missile explosions...
new turrets...


...need i go on? Your obvious attempt at derailing a thread is obvious. And if this "wasn't a deliberate troll", you clearly didn't read what i'd written.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#9 - 2012-07-09 12:17:07 UTC
Tchulen wrote:
Or you could just make an insta-warp point and then the station doesn't need to move.

Try resolving your issues yourself ingame using the tools at your disposal, your imagination and some research rather than trying to get CCP to modify the game to suit your personal requirements.




The reason you've never had a response from CCP is precisely for this reason. You've never got enough interest from the community to make them even start listening. I expect the main reason is no one considers your proposal to be of any real benefit to them, which I have to agree with.

Whilst you believe in your heart and soul that your proposed change is needed in the game, unless you can get others on board, keep at it and end up getting it onto the CSM agenda you're pretty damned unlikely to get CCP to listen to you.

At the moment, it certainly doesn't look like you have the community behind you. It appears that most of them just don't care one way or the other.

Don't get me wrong, I rather like the idea of NPC stations altering depending on how much use they get although that in itself has issues you've clearly not registered and therefore haven't attempted to mitigate.

Just off the top of my head, it wouldn't work in high sec as a lot of stations would become little more than a docking clamp. As time passed after this being introduced a few stations would become heavily used and have all the facilities and the rest would slowly decline into obsolescence, making them less than useless. This flies in the face of CCP's advertised standpoint of making things more distributed, not less.

Again, in low sec this simply wouldn't work as most stations don't have the usage figures to keep the facilities open meaning that the few that did would be perma camped to doom.

Same can be said for pirate nulsec.

So whilst a nice idea on the surface it certainly needs a great deal of work to make it into anything like a valid proposal. And you need buy-in.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#10 - 2012-07-09 12:41:15 UTC
Reicine Ceer wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Sorry but why is this desirable?


For precisely the same reason that...

the nebulae got updated...
V3...
miss-animations with gunnery...
newbie ship update...
new missile animation...
new missile explosions...
new turrets...


...need i go on? Your obvious attempt at derailing a thread is obvious. And if this "wasn't a deliberate troll", you clearly didn't read what i'd written.

I read it, so why are multiple undocks desirable as a game mechanic? Why should stations change size over the space of an hour, something that is extremely detrimental to consistency and realism? Why should null sec receive yet another nerf to station services?

[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]
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#11 - 2012-07-09 13:06:29 UTC
How does Jita 4-4 work? We may never know... there is a theory though that it was built by the same factory that built the TARDIS and that is how it fits the thousands of ships and pilots. it is bigger on the inside.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.
Daria Meridian Carlile
Necromatic Inc.
#12 - 2012-07-09 15:10:52 UTC
Viktor Fyretracker wrote:
How does Jita 4-4 work? We may never know... there is a theory though that it was built by the same factory that built the TARDIS and that is how it fits the thousands of ships and pilots. it is bigger on the inside.


All the containers in eve (excluding General freight and Station containers) are Planck generator containers, meaning they have a capacity larger than their actual volume, surely jita 4-4 must be one big, special planck generator container, or well, station.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#13 - 2012-07-09 15:33:43 UTC
Post your loss mail.
Newbie Ned
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
#14 - 2012-07-09 16:16:23 UTC
I don't frequent Features & Ideas much and now I know why. Most of the replies on here show what a childish bunch of kids you are. You are clearly either children in RL or have some serious issues (or, quite possibly, both). You don't have to agree but please post sensible, reasoned replies or don't bother - you aren't adding anything either to this game or this thread with your prattlings.

To clarify - I have never lost a ship in Jita, don't go there that much and have an insta for the undock. The game doesn't need this change but it is a sensible and logical step as the game evolves and develops.

Mostly I feel for CCP...................
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#15 - 2012-07-09 16:27:38 UTC
Newbie Ned wrote:
I don't frequent Features & Ideas much and now I know why. Most of the replies on here show what a childish bunch of kids you are. You are clearly either children in RL or have some serious issues (or, quite possibly, both). You don't have to agree but please post sensible, reasoned replies or don't bother - you aren't adding anything either to this game or this thread with your prattlings.

To clarify - I have never lost a ship in Jita, don't go there that much and have an insta for the undock. The game doesn't need this change but it is a sensible and logical step as the game evolves and develops.

Mostly I feel for CCP...................

Multiple undocks and requesting a natural insta-warp is a game changing mechanic request, and was always extremely unlikely to go down well.

Some threads on here are received positively, and can generate interesting discussion. Those threads generally start by giving a detailed justification of their proposal, and also identifying impact on game play and when at all possible identifying ways to diminish or nullify that impact.

[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]
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#16 - 2012-07-09 16:29:13 UTC
Newbie Ned wrote:
I don't frequent Features & Ideas much and now I know why. Most of the replies on here show what a childish bunch of kids you are. You are clearly either children in RL or have some serious issues (or, quite possibly, both). You don't have to agree but please post sensible, reasoned replies or don't bother - you aren't adding anything either to this game or this thread with your prattlings.

To clarify - I have never lost a ship in Jita, don't go there that much and have an insta for the undock. The game doesn't need this change but it is a sensible and logical step as the game evolves and develops.

Mostly I feel for CCP...................


Actually, the replies are just dismissing an idea that doesn't make any sense. They were, for the most part, fairly well worded and reasoned out. There's no need to attack people like that for disagreeing with you and shooting your idea down, it wasn't a good idea.

Simply put, there are many things that would be good for the game that devs should put their time into, this isn't one of them. This might make some RP sense, but 99.99% of players couldn't care less about RP. Most of us are more interested in having a game that works well than having one that perfectly conforms to the scientific principles of conservation of volume; it's just not that important in the game.