These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Interstellar travel, Capital RR, and Triage discussions
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-05-19 03:30:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Masterofone wrote:
Andy,

I like the clarity you are adding with the last post and the creative way you are slipping capitols into hi sec space.



Great ideas, Master1. And if by "slipping into high sec" you mean allowing them to feel the wrath of Concord, then yes, of course, you are right on that one.
Also, I feel great, Pete. Not contributing to the OP should make anyone feel bad, including Pete, et all. After all, if you don't like the OP's ideas, move along and find a post that you do like. Otherwise, engage in intelligent discussion.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-07-02 23:19:23 UTC
Extending the concept of capital jump drives to hyperspace drives for sub-caps and caps too with a new module proposal:

Hyperdrive - medium slot - puts the ship into hyperspace headed to a system within 15.5 ly (with JDC to 5). The module must be set to a target solar system or target cyno field via right-click menu. While activated, the ship will automatically align to the solar system set and enter hyperspace as soon as it reached sufficient speed. Same skill requirements are required as for using a capital ship jump drive. The ship would travel at 0.038 ly per second. And since it would be travelling into hyperdrive space, it would be immune to bubbles, warp disruptors, and scrams, but other ships could follow it through the hyperspace tunnel until it jumped out of hyperspace and closed the tunnel entrance. As soon as the module deactivated, it would stop consuming cap (which could be neuted by other ships traveling near it in hyperspace) and a 2 hour countdown timer would begin before the module could be activated again, leaving it potentially stranded between systems for a very long time.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#43 - 2012-07-02 23:25:39 UTC
Oh look, its this terrible thread again.

[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]
Bobo Cindekela
Doomheim
#44 - 2012-07-03 05:15:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bobo Cindekela
have to point out that ships in Battlestar Galctica had FTL drive that works pretty much same as jump drives in eve except the didnt need a destination cyno/beacon, and it had an "spin up" time, while comparable to cap need for jumping its not quite the same thing when you can often dock/undock and have no delay

You are about to engage in an arguement with a forum alt,  this is your final warning.
PhantomTrojan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-07-03 09:19:13 UTC
Masterofone wrote:
First let me apologize for the length of this reply, I tend to over think and over explain things.

I think what you are trying to do is change Jump Drives into some sort of super FTL drive that still travels in the same physical space.

Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction:


So by these definitions,
  • Jump Drive = Instant travel between two points which would only be detectable on arrival or generation of the destination portal (cyno field in EVE).
  • Hyper Drive = Faster than light travel using a dimensional space other than our own, depending on which lore you follow most likely not detectable until entering normal space.
  • Warp Drive = Faster than light travel using some method to warp space (think warp field of Star Trek) in which the ship can still interact with objects in normal space and be detected with the correct equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive_(Star_Trek)


The problem in EVE is single speed warp drive. They vary by ship, as in a ship with a max warp of 3 always does 3 except when accelerating and decelerating. If you wanted to use warp drive to cover 10 ly distances it would take a very long time. (I tried to find EVE definition how fast warps are but didn’t have any luck and I’m not home to log in and do rough calculations). Figure most of the solar systems are under 100 au. 1 au=approx 150 million kilometers and a light year is around 9.5 trillion kilometers. So 1 ly = 63,241 au. Now take any cap or supercap in the game, warp it 100 au and multiply that time by 632 and that’s how long the current tech would take to go 1 ly. (100 au @ 30 seconds = 1 ly @ 5.25 hours). If you allowed the current tech to go any faster you would have ships traveling from one side of a solar system to another instantly.

A standard freighter has a warp of 0.75 I think. Some null space can be something like 20 ly to the edge of low going to Jita. It takes over a minute move a freighter 100 au. This means it now takes you over a week to make the one way trip to Jita. Actual time would be even longer unless you are there right after DT to restart your warp. And since you’re in warp, you might get unlucky and trip over a warp jammer in a system and drop out.

Implementation anything like that would require a near complete re-write of the way we travel in EVE. Currently we have sub-light, warp and jump tech. Your proposal requires replacing jump tech with some sort of super warp useable only for galactic travel not solar, none of the other forms of travel would allow for the tracking or detection you desire. Even then you would need deep space scanning arrays to detect ships traveling that fast before it passed you.

Jump drives or super gates are the only logical way to travel large distances across the EVE universe in large ships.

Also the comment
Quote:
This is also how every popular sci-fi movie/series regards inter-system space travel
in the opening post is inaccurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_drive, there are plenty of examples of instant interstellar travel.

On a side note, if you can't defend the space you are in, hot drops or not, it will soon be someone elses. Consider joining an alliance capable of defending it's space or finding a nice quiet corner some place and keep a low profile.

I am enjoying the intellectual exercise of this discussion, thank you.




This would remove choke points like stargates, because carebears in shiny ships would prefer that kind of warp and ignore stargates for safety reasons. Also this would make it possible to get in a hauler using normal warp and stargates to haul something from jita to 0.0 making carriers and jump freighters useless for transporting stuff, sometimes you need 3 max range jumps just to get to certain regions of 0.0. I agree with you that capital ships should have a delay before jumping to a cyno but you idea is not a good answer. Maybe adding a 30 seconds animation to capital jumps and a limit in the amount of capital jumps per cyno would fix it.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-07-03 12:18:07 UTC
PhantomTrojan wrote:

This would remove choke points like stargates, because carebears in shiny ships would prefer that kind of warp and ignore stargates for safety reasons. Also this would make it possible to get in a hauler using normal warp and stargates to haul something from jita to 0.0 making carriers and jump freighters useless for transporting stuff, sometimes you need 3 max range jumps just to get to certain regions of 0.0. I agree with you that capital ships should have a delay before jumping to a cyno but you idea is not a good answer. Maybe adding a 30 seconds animation to capital jumps and a limit in the amount of capital jumps per cyno would fix it.

It would not remove choke points. The hyperdrive would require 2 hours between deactivation or coming out of hyperspace, and reactivation. Stargates would not have that limitation. Hyperdrive would require x cap per module cycle time per ship mass, while stargates would not. Carriers and freighter can haul ships/drones and large m3 of stuff while normal ships cannot. Hyperdrive allows cloaked ships to follow in hyperspace and fight in the middle of nowhere with little chance of escape... unless there was a 2nd hyperdrive module.

PS: Carebears tend to lose their ships, shiny or not. It is usually just a matter of time. Don't think for a moment that an FTL drive like Stargate Universe or a hyperdrive, or any other mode of transportation can prevent a carebear from ratting in a belt and getting caught. And if they don't get caught, I guess you just need to sharpen your skills and think a little smarter.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#47 - 2012-07-03 16:13:02 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Oh look, its this terrible thread again.


As I read the OP, I knew it sounded familiar.

Unironically enough, still a hilariously bad idea months later.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-07-03 22:16:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Let's add long establish sci-fi principles to enhance Eve gameplay and increase the fun and the possibilities. I personally love the idea of travelling between systems using an FTL drive or hyperdrive, just like in Stargate or Star Trek, or numerous other well-accepted and well-loved sci-fi franchises. Just wait until we get wh generator technologies. Stargates do not have to be choke points. Does the hunter always have the luxury of waiting at choke points for his prey? Not usually. Typically, he has to set a trap (bubble) somewhere random or track (scan) his prey.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#49 - 2012-07-03 22:32:16 UTC
It would be nice if, on occasion, people just accepted after a page or two of arguments from multiple different more experienced players that their idea was bad.

Maybe then they could use the time they waste fencing and rewording the same bad arguments to genuinely improve their ideas.

Ahh, we can but dream.

[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]
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#50 - 2012-07-04 00:44:40 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:


I guess the judge has spoken and all discussion must stop. Who are we to consider ideas which do not fall in line with the omniscience and wisdom of these two players. Or we can just ignore them and add long establish sci-fi principles to enhance Eve gameplay and increase the fun and the possibilities. I personally love the idea of travelling between systems using an FTL drive or hyperdrive, just like in Stargate or Star Trek, or numerous other well-accepted and well-loved sci-fi franchises. Just wait until we get wh generator technologies. Gate campers will be really stumped. I can hear them now, "Uhh geee, Georgie. I only know how to camp things with my mindlessly endless orbits on objects. What do we do now?" Just wait til it takes strategy and tactics to win, and Eve will change big time. Where stargates are no longer choke points, and people actually have to scan, collect intel, and think to win.


What is this post?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-07-04 16:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Simi Kusoni wrote:
It would be nice if, on occasion, people just accepted after a page or two of arguments from multiple different more experienced players that their idea was bad.

Maybe then they could use the time they waste fencing and rewording the same bad arguments to genuinely improve their ideas.

Ahh, we can but dream.


Simi's and Emperor's words fly in the face of every popular sci-fi franchise and story ever written. Is everyone just supposed to ignore how great those ideas have been in the sci-fi world just because you (Simi) and Emperor merely proclaim multiple times that the idea is bad? Is your purpose merely an attempt to kill an idea or block it from the Eve universe? Or can you dream about offering productivity discussion that extends beyond the judgement that the "idea is bad"?

It is possible that you would rather not see a particular mechanic take longer to complete or offer more possibilities, or change our beloved Eve, and yet still be a good idea. You might not like to wait for a jump to execute if you are the one jumping, but if you are being cyno blobbed, the travel time would likely be a welcomed opportunity to get at range or to escape. You might not like seeing a ship escape through hyperspace and skip your poorly concealed gatecamp, but the shortcut would likely be welcomed if you were traveling to a fleet form-up system in the presence of a strong occupation/siege. The idea is well-tried and popular already. The idea is good. Let productive discussion about what is liked and what might be improved follow.

PS, Simi, I have been around since June of 2009, so if you are more experienced than me, then please, let us hear your great wisdom, rather than stale judgements of "bad ideas." Let's have meaningful discussion.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#52 - 2012-07-04 16:53:12 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
It would be nice if, on occasion, people just accepted after a page or two of arguments from multiple different more experienced players that their idea was bad.

Maybe then they could use the time they waste fencing and rewording the same bad arguments to genuinely improve their ideas.

Ahh, we can but dream.


Simi's and Emperor's words fly in the face of every popular sci-fi franchise and story ever written. Is everyone just supposed to ignore how great those ideas have been in the sci-fi world just because you (Simi) and Emperor merely proclaim multiple times that the idea is bad? Is your purpose merely an attempt to kill an idea or block it from the Eve universe? Or can you dream about offering productivity discussion that extends beyond the judgement that the "idea is bad"?

It is possible that you would rather not see a particular mechanic take longer to complete or offer more possibilities, or change our beloved Eve, and yet still be a good idea. You might not like to wait for a jump to execute if you are the one jumping, but if you are being cyno blobbed, the travel time would likely be a welcomed opportunity to get at range or to escape. You might not like seeing a ship escape through hyperspace and skip your poorly concealed gatecamp, but the shortcut would likely be welcomed if you were traveling to a fleet form-up system in the presence of a strong occupation/siege. The idea is well-tried and popular already. The idea is good. Let productive discussion about what is liked and what might be improved follow.

PS, Simi, I have been around since June of 2009, so if you are more experienced than me, then please, let us hear great wisdom, than merely "bad idea." Do you have any further meaningful contributions to this topic or are you just trolling?

I've been around since ~2007, and I've been eleet pee vee peeing the entire time. And for what its worth, I've made threads on nerfing jump capable ships (primarily due to their use in logistics), my ideas were just a little more fleshed out.

As a rule making major mechanics changes simply isn't going to happen at this point in the game, especially not when the mechanics are replaced with badly thought through "home brew" style game play mechanics.

If you want sound reasoning for why your ideas are bad, read the thread from the beginning. But at this point there is little point in constructive criticism because you are incapable of adapting or improving your 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]
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#53 - 2012-07-04 16:57:17 UTC
I would also like to point out that I am perfectly fine getting hot dropped, and I've also made a "nerf JFs" thread despite owning a JF.

Your post seems to insinuate that people argue only in favour of things that benefit them in game, personally I find those people rather annoying and try to remain objective.

[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]
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-07-04 19:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Simi Kusoni wrote:

I've been around since ~2007, and I've been eleet pee vee peeing the entire time. And for what its worth, I've made threads on nerfing jump capable ships (primarily due to their use in logistics), my ideas were just a little more fleshed out.

As a rule making major mechanics changes simply isn't going to happen at this point in the game, especially not when the mechanics are replaced with badly thought through "home brew" style game play mechanics.

If you want sound reasoning for why your ideas are bad, read the thread from the beginning. But at this point there is little point in constructive criticism because you are incapable of adapting or improving your idea.

Look, Simi, I have experience and your eleet pvp'ness only matters when your help develop ideas with useful ideas. My ideas come straight from well-developed sci-fi franchises, whose popularity trumps all eliteness.

I have no problem with ships escaping with hyper and FTL drives. Could even add in a mechanic to incur module damage if it is used before the cool-down timer expires.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#55 - 2012-07-04 19:41:42 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:

I've been around since ~2007, and I've been eleet pee vee peeing the entire time. And for what its worth, I've made threads on nerfing jump capable ships (primarily due to their use in logistics), my ideas were just a little more fleshed out.

As a rule making major mechanics changes simply isn't going to happen at this point in the game, especially not when the mechanics are replaced with badly thought through "home brew" style game play mechanics.

If you want sound reasoning for why your ideas are bad, read the thread from the beginning. But at this point there is little point in constructive criticism because you are incapable of adapting or improving your idea.

Look, Simi, I know you want to think that I don't have experience and that your eleet pvp'ness makes your ideas the best, but since my ideas come straight from well-developed sci-fi, you are really only placing yourself as the authority over all sci-fi and condemning the rest of the world as simply defining sci-fi with the worst ideas. I accept that mainstream sci-fi allows instant travel. I accept that ships can escape with hyper and FTL drives even if it damages them by engaging them before a timer has elapsed since the ship last engaged them. These are the world's ideas and yet curiously, you condemn them as my own ill-thought ideas. Just keep in mind that not all Eve pilots hold all of Sci-Fi travel technology in such poor regard as you do.

And Eve does make major mechanics changes all the time. Remember the Titans. The MOMs. The log-off timers. The new ORE ships. The Incursions. need I go on. Perhaps you could benefit from a more open mind and more realizing that how much these ideas have in come with your ideas. My bet is that you love sci-fi and probably love the travel technologies used in many different sci-fi venues. When you see that my ideas are not just my own ideas but descriptions of those well-developed ideas, you will probably have a more productive interest developing them into a form which agrees well with the Eve universe. This is my invitation to every player on these forums.
ok, I'm going to spell this out:

Science fiction conventions, whilst often useful for creating suspense, plot twists and advances in a television show or work of literature, are not automatically good mechanics for a computer game.

[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]
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#56 - 2012-07-04 19:45:16 UTC
Also none of the "major mechanics changes" are major mechanics changes, they are tweaks. Iterations.

You proposal is completely gutting an existing mechanic for no apparent gain. That isn't iterating, its stupidity.

[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]
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-07-05 21:30:12 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Also none of the "major mechanics changes" are major mechanics changes, they are tweaks. Iterations.

You proposal is completely gutting an existing mechanic for no apparent gain. That isn't iterating, its stupidity.

Not true.

My proposal is adding hyperspace for the gain of arriving in systems without using stargates. My proposal is increasing the time between when the cyno threat is realized and the hotdrop fleet can actually point and pop. My proposal is increasing the benefits of sovereignty by increasing security against hotdrops deep behind enemy lines.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#58 - 2012-07-05 21:51:11 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Also none of the "major mechanics changes" are major mechanics changes, they are tweaks. Iterations.

You proposal is completely gutting an existing mechanic for no apparent gain. That isn't iterating, its stupidity.

Not true.

My proposal is adding hyperspace for the gain of arriving in systems without using stargates. My proposal is increasing the time between when the cyno threat is realized and the hotdrop fleet can actually point and pop. My proposal is increasing the benefits of sovereignty by increasing security against hotdrops deep behind enemy lines.

Your proposal suggests displaying super locations on the star map, which is unprecedented and constitutes a major mechanics change. You then fail to explore exploits, downsides or the ramifications for super pilots which is always the sign of a bad and poorly thought through proposal.

You then go on to suggest allowing modules for some kind of hyperspace travel, allowing all players to bypass camps and choke points in any ship. Again, unprecedented and proposed with no consideration of the role gate camps play in system defence or generating combat.

Then there's the cyno changes, presumably designed because you dislike getting hot dropped. Which is fair enough, but you yet again fail to consider the roles hot drops play in Eve. Properly set up gate camps and systems* are unassailable by conventional means, hot drops are often the only mechanic they are vulnerable to.

Your proposal is fragmented, poorly thought out and covers multiple aspects of the game from changing cyno mechanics, nullifying gate camps right the way to painting a target on all super capitals. It needs serious work and you should have spent more time writing it, as it stands your proposal will never be implemented, it is too major a change for little to no benefit and highly questionable long term effects on Eve as a game.

*E.g a gate camp with scouts out for a few jumps in every direction, and systems with all the in-gates covered in bubbles. Local is bad enough in the latter systems, remove hot drops too and most ships become invulnerable.

[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]
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#59 - 2012-07-05 21:54:41 UTC
Why are you still posting?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-07-05 22:24:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Simi Kusoni wrote:

Your proposal suggests displaying super locations on the star map, which is unprecedented and constitutes a major mechanics change. You then fail to explore exploits, downsides or the ramifications for super pilots which is always the sign of a bad and poorly thought through proposal.

You then go on to suggest allowing modules for some kind of hyperspace travel, allowing all players to bypass camps and choke points in any ship. Again, unprecedented and proposed with no consideration of the role gate camps play in system defence or generating combat.

Then there's the cyno changes, presumably designed because you dislike getting hot dropped. Which is fair enough, but you yet again fail to consider the roles hot drops play in Eve. Properly set up gate camps and systems* are unassailable by conventional means, hot drops are often the only mechanic they are vulnerable to.

SC broadcast is one proposal. The world knows the location of every US supercarrier due to their large size and power, so it has merits in Eve. Since they were supposed to be owned by alliances and flown in large fleets, to avoid being blobbed alone.

Everything has roles and roles change. We need to develop smarter mechanics to defend a system or generate combat than just with gate camps.

Hotdrops would not be the only mechanic to break into a gate camped system. The hyperdrive allows ships in without cynos and yes, that generates combat without improving the defender's position.

I have hotdropped far more than I have been hotdropped (those were major alliance conflicts). Just because I have always benefited from hotdropping others doesn't mean that I must worship the hotdrop Gods. Changing hotdrops can bring much benefit in allowing normal activities. The generation of combat on the aggressor's terms is not an unassailable justification in itself. There are many reasons to fight, and many more reasons can be created in the form of things to fight for. We are not desperate to force conflict by any means available on the aggressor's terms. Using sov based defenses and mechanics, the odds can be stacked in the defender's favor too. Some of the things proposed will improve the defender's position (which is historically the stronger position anyway).

.. and to emperor, because we have something meaningful to say. How about you?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein