These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If you could change 3 mechanics in EVE...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-04-02 04:03:57 UTC
1. All ships now cause loss of experience when they blow up. Gankers shoots a hulk; Hulk pilot loses SP, CONCORD causes ganker to lose SP. Not just against hulks as well, includes anything in highsec.

2. CONCORD pods all parties involved, nullifying clone updates. First the Ganker pod, then Hulk Pod, then for good measure CONCORD blows up all wrecks involved. EVERYONE loses a significan't amount of SP Twisted

3. Remove Destroyers from game, no cheap half ass to manipulate the first two mechanics and grief people.

Why the first two are good? Cause it would put all players are equal terms, now everyone is risking something of value. You can't spout "highsec needs more risk, so I am going to play the Big Bad Wolf which means FFS that you need to put on the Red Ridding Costume NAO!" since you too are in highsec benifiting from the same things the players you despise are hiding behind (CONCORD is protecting a TEARS pilot just as much as the Hulk or Mission Runner) .

Hey, nothing says I can't watch everyone whine how unfair they are treated while someone else benifits and this system would make everyone whine so no one benifits unless you don't mind commiting "virtual suicide" to ruin someone else's day Lol
Vyl Vit
#22 - 2012-04-02 04:05:15 UTC
Remove the right for NPC corps to post...if you can't find a good corp to join, lose your freedom to speak...OR, if someone doesn't like what you said, get war decced...why do these suggestions smack of such generosity?

I'd make criminal activity in Empire Space, actual criminal activity against the Empire, not the victim. In court it's The State of "fill in blank" AGAINST "so and so"...not the name of the victim against so and so. You guys understand this yet? The crime is against the state, not the person. A crime against the one is a crime against us all.

I'd leave an out. Ransom your freedom to travel out of the system where you commited the crime; everything you have minus 1 million ISK and a starter ship.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#23 - 2012-04-02 04:09:05 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.

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.


OP wants risk-free low sec. I don't get it.

From a lore view-point, why would you have random jump-in spots? That is an unreliable gate mechanic that no one would use on a regular basis. No one would want to take the chance of rematerializing inside the sun or a planet, or whatever, unless sorely pressed. Makes no sense.

May as well just have the jump in beacon on an already existing structure.

Also, your view of gatecamps is rather narrow. tbh, the last time I died in losec on a gate was because I was followed through the gate, not because of a camp on the other unseen side. If you are flying around alone in losec and get killed by jumping into a gate camp, you did it wrong.

Solution: use (cloaky or fast) scouts.

I'm shocked that ECM hasn't been brought up yet. Guess its not so broken after all.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#24 - 2012-04-02 04:11:45 UTC
Selinate wrote:
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.

Hehe, only stuff I ever seem to kill in belts or anoms is ratters. Even bait ships seem quite rare nowadays, although I did fall for a belt ratting sleipnir a few days back.

I also detest station camping, I hate short fights and I find on station one side almost always stops firing the moment they realize engaging was a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that on station logi is invulnerable to everything except alpha gangs.

I hear CCP are thinking about changing station aggression mechanics though, that should be interesting.

[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
#25 - 2012-04-02 04:12:09 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
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 :)


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.

As far as the cyno/jump gangs problem, yes that would have to be solved in some way too, but forcing everyone to jump blindly isn't the way to do it.

Quote:
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.
[/quote]

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...
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#26 - 2012-04-02 04:15:41 UTC
ECM: Stun-lock is and has always been a dubious mechanic in SP games, why it is in a MP/MMO game is down to extreme laziness on Dev part.
Links: Being able to double the effectiveness of up 250 people with one ship without even being there .. Where do I sign up!
EHP grinds: Doesn't matter if its a defender spamming MWD boss rat, a FW bunker or an outpost .. lazy-ass game design.
Steel Wraith
#27 - 2012-04-02 04:17:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Steel Wraith
Serena Wilde wrote:


1) No more "Inbound" gates to systems


Removing the ability to camp a gate would make for safer travel, sure, which might open up some parts of the game to those afraid of losing a ship, but it cuts down on the complexity in the game. When you know you might land in a camped system there are a couple ways to deal with it:

A) Assume there is a camp. This is the safest option. Either avoid low-sec altogether (boring) and avoid this risk or only take ships/fits that have a reasonable risk/cost for what you are trying to do. This forces you to consider what you are flying, how it's fit, what your trying to accomplish, whether it's worth the risk, and what to do in case there is a camp.

B) Cross your fingers and hope there isn't a camp. Do whatever cuz you don't give a ****.

If ships jumped into random location, all these options would be reduced to: Jump into the system with whatever you want because there's no risk of immediate pvp on the other side.

- This reduces all the scenarios to a single boring one. How droll.

Edit: The one mechanic I'd remove: ability to run multiple accounts. I think the game would be better if everyone had a single character to play. Instead of using your 2-15 accounts to "solo" whatever you'd have to rely on other players. But that is unrealistic, I know.
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-04-02 04:22:27 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
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.

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.


OP wants risk-free low sec. I don't get it.


Most certainly not. I just want fights to not be determined blindly.

Quote:
From a lore view-point, why would you have random jump-in spots? That is an unreliable gate mechanic that no one would use on a regular basis. No one would want to take the chance of rematerializing inside the sun or a planet, or whatever, unless sorely pressed. Makes no sense.

May as well just have the jump in beacon on an already existing structure.


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.

Lore-wise, you can change any lore to fit anything you wanted mechanically. Lore doesn't matter in that respect.

Quote:
Also, your view of gatecamps is rather narrow. tbh, the last time I died in losec on a gate was because I was followed through the gate, not because of a camp on the other unseen side. If you are flying around alone in losec and get killed by jumping into a gate camp, you did it wrong.

Solution: use (cloaky or fast) scouts.

I'm shocked that ECM hasn't been brought up yet. Guess its not so broken after all.
[/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.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#29 - 2012-04-02 04:23:08 UTC
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?

[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
#30 - 2012-04-02 04:26:57 UTC
Steel Wraith wrote:
Serena Wilde wrote:


1) No more "Inbound" gates to systems


Removing the ability to camp a gate would make for safer travel, sure, which might open up some parts of the game to those afraid of losing a ship, but it cuts down on the complexity in the game. When you know you might land in a camped system there are a couple ways to deal with it:

A) Assume there is a camp. This is the safest option. Either avoid low-sec altogether (boring) and avoid this risk or only take ships/fits that have a reasonable risk/cost for what you are trying to do. This forces you to consider what you are flying, how it's fit, what your trying to accomplish, whether it's worth the risk, and what to do in case there is a camp.

B) Cross your fingers and hope there isn't a camp. Do whatever cuz you don't give a ****.

If ships jumped into random location, all these options would be reduced to: Jump into the system with whatever you want because there's no risk of immediate pvp on the other side.

- This reduces all the scenarios to a single boring one. How droll.


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?
SirMille
Sigma Kid Protection Services
#31 - 2012-04-02 04:30:33 UTC  |  Edited by: SirMille
1. Remove the plane. Space has no up or down, EVE having one is just silly. Hello EVEspace 2.

2. Remove NPC Corp alts' ability to post.

3. Remove NPC Corp alts' ability to post.
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2012-04-02 04:37:11 UTC
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
#33 - 2012-04-02 04:43:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Steel Wraith
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
#34 - 2012-04-02 04:47:58 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.


Yep I hate it when those guys hide behind NPC Corps

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-
Shian Yang
#35 - 2012-04-02 04:59:38 UTC
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
Doomheim
#36 - 2012-04-02 05:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Spy 21
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 likely 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

Obfuscation for the WIN on page 3...
Sang-in Tiers
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-04-02 05:23:31 UTC
* 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
Eve Pilots Revolutionary Army
#38 - 2012-04-02 05:42:02 UTC
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
#39 - 2012-04-02 05:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Serena Wilde
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
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-04-02 05:54:06 UTC
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