These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
impli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2012-04-02 11:25:31 UTC
All changes to the game mechanics posted by the OP are bubi, barbi, carebaer changes .. I strongly disagree to them.

And yes, If you can not afford to lose what you name your own stuff . then don't f*** go in f*** lowsec / null.null. Stay in HS and grind lvlIVs .. ffs..

End of transmission.
Spy 21
Doomheim
#62 - 2012-04-02 11:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Spy 21
Tanya Powers wrote:
1- make high sec really high sec: you couldn't even target another player \

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


I don't want to be a forum meanie...

but,

How about the next time you log out, you can never log back in and all your stuff gets transferred to me.

Seriously though...

This thread is either the biggest collective troll I have ever witnessed or there are people in this game that really hate it altogether....

:)


On second thought, extend that to everyone who ever logs out.

Eventually I have everyone's stuff and can go anywhere I want.

***

April 1st...
Got me.

Obfuscation for the WIN on page 3...
Adunh Slavy
#63 - 2012-04-02 11:27:07 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

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.



it's not risk free, it depends on how things are implemented. Blind session changes are just plain poor design. Might as well join an fps and camp a spawn point, that is until FPS makers figured out "this is stupid"

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Adunh Slavy
#64 - 2012-04-02 11:30:16 UTC
Steel Wraith wrote:
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.



LOL, BS. Removing a game play mechanic that requires sitting there for an hour to maybe get one bit of action is not an evil thing. If you want that play choice, camp a station.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Dark EvE1
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-04-02 11:30:48 UTC
Serena Wilde wrote:


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."




So by this i could make a doomsday fitting frig or a titan black ops ship? AWESOME

Gaming site for the lastest reviews and news http://www.gamers-relic.co.uk/

Gaming magazine: http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/364936
Qen Tye
In Between
#66 - 2012-04-02 11:53:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Qen Tye
Serena Wilde wrote:
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.

/signed

Serena Wilde wrote:
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.

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.

So you want single hand be able to carry heavy turrets that is the size of an SUV or larger and reattach not just one but 5-9 of them? just like that right on the spot? And go from cargo space to shield tanking? or armor tanking? I know that one of the trailers tells us we are immortals and we can have the boldest of dreams - this must be one of them. There is a reason you need a station to make those changes.

No offense but if you want 1clickies - go wow please!

I understand your argument that it would make it more interesting, but there is a reason we have tankers, warships, yachts, speedboats, submarines and the works in real life. Each ship serves a purpose.

Serena Wilde wrote:
3) No more local as an "Intel source"[/b] - 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.

Total /signed

Two possibilities exists: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

  • Arthur C. Clarke
Enuen Ravenseye
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2012-04-02 12:01:14 UTC
1. Move all asteroids to anoms - they have to be scanned out to be mined. (They already have mining anoms - they would just have to greatly increase the number that spawn to compensate for the asteroids they remove from the normal belts.) And move all cruiser and BS rats to those scan-required belts too. They can leave the normal belts in as flavor (just no minable roids), with frig-sized rats for the noobs to practice on. Oh, poor little bots - what will you do now?

2. Remove all gates - you can now warp to any celestial within a system. (We have the technology to warp across the vast boundries of space, but it has to be through a particular point? Really?) They can keep the pathways that currently exist, due to distance or some such, but now you can, for example, jump from p3m4 to a new system p1m2. FAR more strategy and coordination involved, but also much more fun.

3. Remove local from null and lowsec. In fact, remove lowsec while you're at it and just make it conquerable null too. Greatly increase the amount of space that people actually care about.

Bonus: make moon goo degenerate/regenerate on a, for example, biweekly basis. Take how resources were handled in SWG and just apply to Eve . Much more work for those who chase moon goo, but it removes the ability to run moon goo ATM machines.

E
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
#68 - 2012-04-02 13:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dragon Outlaw
I like new ideas.

If local chat and the g8s are to one day disappear from the game, CCP will need to come up with new ways to catch ships. Maybe it would be fun to be able to instantly know if a ship that you get on d-scan is friend or foe and also be able to warp to him instantly, and when I say warp to him, your ship actually follows the other ship in the same warp. And why not, if you have a special module fitted on your ship, you can take him out of warp when you get inside a certain distance. Or you just land at the same place as the targetted ship. Ceptors could be champions in this

Anyways, there are a lot of things in this game that could be changed to make the game more mysterious without removing the fun of capturing ships and blow them up.

Keep posting ideas...it is what improves the game. People that want to keep the game as it is are just morons that cannot adapt to change.
Opertone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-04-02 13:25:44 UTC
No more local intel source - as said before

No more warp drive - game of thousand doors, no more warp away in combat.

No more warping as I said... Burn it or lose it

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-04-02 13:36:10 UTC
Qen Tye wrote:

Serena Wilde wrote:
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.

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.

So you want single hand be able to carry heavy turrets that is the size of an SUV or larger and reattach not just one but 5-9 of them? just like that right on the spot? And go from cargo space to shield tanking? or armor tanking? I know that one of the trailers tells us we are immortals and we can have the boldest of dreams - this must be one of them. There is a reason you need a station to make those changes.

No offense but if you want 1clickies - go wow please!

I understand your argument that it would make it more interesting, but there is a reason we have tankers, warships, yachts, speedboats, submarines and the works in real life. Each ship serves a purpose.


A single hand? Pardon? Sometimes "real life" should take a back seat to playability and fun...you know, why we play this game of internet spaceships in the first place...

But as far as individual modules, well, why not? If it makes the game more interesting to play I say do it!
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#71 - 2012-04-02 13:48:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitcher
Incursions seriously need a tweak, so...

1: Either Vanguard sites need to pay less, or the other two need to pay more. VGs should be for pick-up fleets, not for shiny mach fleets that blitz around the place finishing 20 sites per hour. There should be a place for the shiny fleets, and it should be running the bigger, tougher sites where that kind of gear and teamwork is actually necessary to succeed, rather than merely a way of getting an edge over all the other people who are running VGs.

2: once the mothership has been found, all sites in the incursion except for the Mothership should pay out only 1%. People should break the incursion, blow up the mothership the instant it becomes available, and move on.

3: With the above in mind, the bar should turn blue MUCH less quickly. I've seen Incursions go from new and 100% red to 100% blue in the space of one afternoon. Maybe have the rate at which the bar is filled stay as is up until 50%, then half speed up to 75%, then half again up to 87.5%, then half again until 100%

oh, and because I'm greedy:

4: Sites should pay out to every ship in the site that has either shot an enemy vessel or assisted one that did and which is also in its gang (by providing remote rep or gang bonuses), not to the fleet that did the most damage. this payout should be subject to the usual graph for site population, so if you gatecrash somebody else's site in a fleet of equal size but with better DPS, both fleets get paid, but not very much. each ship can only count as being in one site at a time - no razzing around, firing a single shot at an NPC then zipping off to the next site so that you count as being in all of them at once - you get precisely ONE.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#72 - 2012-04-02 19:53:53 UTC
uhum...

CCP SOUNDWAVE, ARE YOU READING THIS THREAD ?! YOU DAMN WELL SHOULD!!!

Thank you.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2012-04-02 19:57:35 UTC
Combat- i would make it twitch based, but i understand its impossible to do with the code and the lag it would make. im ok with point and click eve, but 1000 man fleet fights in the chaos of having to do more then target and press a button would be fun and hectic

smuggling- not sure how but being a smuggler would be a fun and easy way to make money

bounty hunters- not sure how but would have the jobs to prevent smugglers from smuggling and be able to kill them once identified for a excellent reward

of course none of these could happen but its a dream.
Hauling Hal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-04-02 20:04:45 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
1. Remove the ability of NPC corp alts to post.



CAOD is ---> that way.
Qen Tye
In Between
#75 - 2012-04-03 03:23:45 UTC
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 todo

1clicky - WOW is that way ->>

Two possibilities exists: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.

  • Arthur C. Clarke
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#76 - 2012-04-03 03:31:59 UTC
Qen Tye wrote:
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 todo

1clicky - WOW is that way ->>


And you are free to go there if you want. Myself, I would rather play EVE, and make EVE a better game. Thanks for your input. :)
Serena Wilde
State War Academy
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-04-03 03:33:32 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.

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.


I like your EDIT. I'm pretty sure that there would be no chance of that ever happening, but it would be nice. Although how do you prevent multiboxing/multiple accounts to bypass said restriction?
Ai Shun
#78 - 2012-04-03 03:39:51 UTC
Serena Wilde wrote:
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.


Having died to several gate-camps (Here is looking at you Aunenen) I don't like this idea. There are mechanisms to circumvent gate-camps. You could scout using an alt or one of the intelligence channels. If it is a frequently travelled route for you, keep a shuttle or similar close by for a quick scout before you fly something expensive through. Or, better yet, fly something that can cloak if it meets your goals. Then, you also have the statistics available on the star-map which should be your first stop before deciding if you are going to drop into a low-sec system.

Blockading a choke-point is a perfectly acceptable mechanism for a pirate to try and make a living. From my perspective, you basically die in a low-sec gate-camp only if you are on auto-pilot or too stupid / lazy to scout / check the intel. And in that case, congratulations, you've just been EVE'd.

Serena Wilde wrote:
2) No more "role specific" ships - "I would like to see less ships that are for specific roles, and more that can be used for many roles.


I both like and dislike this idea.

Like it because the idea of taking any hull and using it for a purpose would make fitting more of an art-form as you would not rely on the inherent bonuses anymore (They wouldn't exist, right?) It would be difficult to balance the ships that are built for a specific purpose though; not sure how you intend to solve that as you've not linked your full formed idea. At the same time, this can act as an enabler for having a bounty hunter hiding in a Mackinaw or a miner hiding in a Hurricane or similar.

I dislike it because there is a certain New Eden flavour to having different types of ships built by different corporations. I know what I'm getting when I pick up a design from Lai Dai or from Ishukone or others. There is a certain level of immersion in that.

Have you considered the idea of cloaking a bit further and having some form of sensory fooling / jamming module instead that would make another pilot see something the ship is not really? E.g. an Iteron can project the sensor / visual output of a Hurricane or similar? Then you could still ... rambling. Sorry.


Serena Wilde wrote:
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.


I would like this too. Passive / Active sensors and the support skills for those arrays would be a great addition and open up a whole profession in-game. It would be a learning curve though.

As to my idea:

I want to see CONCORD replaced with realistic ships (E.g. available to players as well), open up null, low and high-sec so they are all the same with players able to hold their territory anywhere in New Eden. Empires and Corporations would have massive resources to fit a battle fleet and to protect their sovereign space, but enterprising players should be able to take over Jita, for example. Or New Caldari. Or any of the others if they can bring sufficient resources to overwhelm the Empire or Corporation that owns it. But that would need such a significant investment in resources that it will be nigh on impossible for the core areas, including the new player hubs.

But, in general, I am all for removing NPCs from the core services in the game and leaving them in the hands of players.
Zircon Dasher
#79 - 2012-04-03 03:40:39 UTC
1) Remove the ability to engage in all passive/semi-passive ISK,material, or product generation.
2) Remove character bazaar.



Twisted

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Ai Shun
#80 - 2012-04-03 03:42:48 UTC
Serena Wilde wrote:
I like your EDIT. I'm pretty sure that there would be no chance of that ever happening, but it would be nice. Although how do you prevent multiboxing/multiple accounts to bypass said restriction?


You pretty much cannot. With the move to virtualisation it is nigh on impossible to block this. Perhaps when the whole word is running IPv6 you may have a snowballs' hope in hell. But until then?

That aside - why? I have an Industrial pilot that I sometimes escort with my combat pilot. Meantime I have a trade alt on a different account that sits in Jita and runs my business empire. That is 3 accounts (Well, was 3 accounts until recent events) that provide CCP with revenue.

I liked giving them money Lol