These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drop or raise Celestial objects on Z axis by several million KM

Author
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2016-04-26 03:14:06 UTC
I loved the citadel videos. It's too bad that in 99% of Eve, we are warping around solar systems pretty much stuck at the equator of everything. Those are great cinematics of the citadels being literally on top of the world....but all we really get is the equator. Having a battle 'on top of the world'....wow that would look awesome.

It would be great if CCP could start randomizing the Z axis position of celestial objects. And if you do this with the Stars, being the primary lightsource, it would allow CCP to show off many great art assets in the game better. It's called 5 o'clock shadow for a reason.

o7
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2 - 2016-04-26 04:15:11 UTC
???

Planets are round...You're always on top. Even when you're beside them. The other thing is, players place citadels. So you can fly above a planet and poop a Citadel if you want

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Iain Cariaba
#3 - 2016-04-26 04:40:03 UTC
You really need to get out of whatever corner of New Eden you've isolated yourself if you think everything is on the same plane.

Oh, and the term "five o'clock shadow" has nothing at all to do with positioning of the sun, rather it refers to the darkening of a man's face as his beard grows long enough to be noticed after being shaven off that morning.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#4 - 2016-04-26 09:26:47 UTC
... this is already a thing. Hell we wanted to be able to adjust the z plane of citadels so we could better align their undocks (a feature ccp has ignored)
Reiisha
#5 - 2016-04-26 11:57:48 UTC
The entire in-space coordinate system needs an overhaul. Planets need to revolve around their star, moons around their planets, and all of them need to be resized. All of the celestials in EVE need a data overhaul as well (yellow dwarves of 100b years old?).

Grids need to be relative to their nearest celestial, rather than be fixed absolute points within the system (which makes scanning more interesting as well, as you're going to be tracking actual signatures instead of locations, technically). It could add another layer of tactical depth as well if POS/stations/etc were revolving around their parent celestials as well.

I'm heavily in favour of CCP borrowing some technical ideas from Frontier tbh - Actual 3D nebulas and stars instead of fixed backgrounds, body exclusion zones so you can't fly into celestials....

Varying the z-axis is in principle a nice idea, but it sucks in the long term as it's just a hackjob which is hiding the actual problems.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2016-04-26 12:01:16 UTC
Uhm... you know you can fly towards planets and around them, right?

However, I agree that some planets should/could be moved around on their orbital path. There are some systems with near polar planet orbits around the sun but the planets are still placed exactly at the equator level of the solar system.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2016-04-26 12:42:39 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
You really need to get out of whatever corner of New Eden you've isolated yourself if you think everything is on the same plane.

Oh, and the term "five o'clock shadow" has nothing at all to do with positioning of the sun, rather it refers to the darkening of a man's face as his beard grows long enough to be noticed after being shaven off that morning.



I'm pretty sure 99% of all solar system travel is occurring in essentially the same 'plane', give or take a few measly hundred kilometers. When you warp around a system, and pass by a celestial object such as a planet, you are almost always traveling along its equatorial axis. The same goes for the Star in each system. I'm just saying Eve would look a lot prettier if CCP changed it up and moved those celestial objects a significant distance up or down. The ships in Eve always look so much better when the light source is either above or below you. And if they did the same to planets, that means you would warp to a planet, and land somewhere above its polar cap, which would certainly provide for lots of interesting visuals, instead of always landing at the equator.

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-04-27 02:37:37 UTC
I'm actually bugged by just how far anomalies drift on the z-axis. It makes sense for the majority of the content to be found near the "plane of the ecliptic" or the system's interplanetary debris disk, which for most systems is pretty well aligned with the galactic debris plane. Now it would be nice to have the occasional outlier, but I'd also like to see the majority of anomalies follow the trend.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#9 - 2016-04-27 16:43:24 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'm actually bugged by just how far anomalies drift on the z-axis. It makes sense for the majority of the content to be found near the "plane of the ecliptic" or the system's interplanetary debris disk, which for most systems is pretty well aligned with the galactic debris plane. Now it would be nice to have the occasional outlier, but I'd also like to see the majority of anomalies follow the trend.



This would make using d-scan in an upgraded bear system a nightmare. Null pve is already risk averse enough. I will however go along with your 'all on the plane' idea if you will go along w/ my 'no local in null' idea. It would be a balanced trade.