These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE Online: Revolution (0.0 THEME FOR WINTER EXPANSION)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Infineon SE
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2013-12-04 09:51:12 UTC
Agree with TSAttention
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#182 - 2013-12-05 17:24:15 UTC
ironic this comes from a person in an alliance that doesnt live in Nullsec

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
Sh0plifter
Underworld Property Accounting Partnership
#183 - 2013-12-05 22:03:11 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
ironic this comes from a person in an alliance that doesnt live in Nullsec

Ironic that you comment as so directed towards one of the largest key-players in Sov warfare.
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms
#184 - 2013-12-06 07:37:43 UTC
Horrific that this should be on the second page....

oh wait...


To address the point above. PL does tend to get involved in major sov conflicts across the cluster so I think their opinion is pretty valid!

If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Omega Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#185 - 2013-12-09 16:11:39 UTC
oh man! that ihub tax thingy would be hilarious, like all carebears warping their ****-fit pve ships to protect their income while you murder them one after one in our glorious linked-snaked sentry OP ishtars of doom.
I believe that not only the corp tax should be stored on the ihubs, instead, make the ratting ticks longer (30' or 1h) store in those ihubs, after this cycle the isk from the bounties goes to their owners, however, if someone decides to hack or attack the structure that fund would go to the attacker fleet.
Malphas Inanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#186 - 2013-12-18 02:37:41 UTC
I like alot of the ideas presented here in this thread and hope that CCP has had a chance to take a look at it!

I don't know how to fix null sec but I hope that as players having these conversations we can give the CCP devs working on the problems a plethora of ideas to draw from and then they can pick the best ones and create a great system!

Thank you all for taking your time to present and comment on these ideas!
Please continue to do so!

This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous – indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#187 - 2014-01-18 22:27:15 UTC
Bringing this back to the top, so it doesnt get buried :)
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#188 - 2014-01-18 23:05:43 UTC
Jack bubu wrote:
Bringing this back to the top, so it doesnt get buried :)

Deserves to be buried. The concept isn't bad but the individual ideas show a terrible lack of understanding.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#189 - 2014-01-19 00:29:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
to make nullsec more attractive to high sec war dwellers ..

the ability for small corps to hold a little space and that space be productive to fund small pvp roams .. making clones cheaper would help encourage more pvp.

improve mechanics for small gangs to have an actual impact .. like hacking and raiding POS cities...
which ofc leads us to fixing POS and to making them into city sprawls well spread out and attack-able at multiple points

ability to defend a system or two against larger attackers if you are active and organised..

being able to get access in the first place is the biggest hurdle all the large alliances hold all the cards and dictate who can hold space or even enter 0.0 and then charge them a ton load of isk for the honour of holding crap space anyway..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#190 - 2014-01-19 02:14:20 UTC
Felsusguy wrote:

Deserves to be buried. The concept isn't bad but the individual ideas show a terrible lack of understanding.


get out

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#191 - 2014-01-19 03:21:43 UTC
Still a *way* better idea than anything we've seen in the last few expansions...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#192 - 2014-01-19 03:48:49 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Felsusguy wrote:

Deserves to be buried. The concept isn't bad but the individual ideas show a terrible lack of understanding.


get out

You don't believe me? Then to quote just one example...

El Digin wrote:
INDUSTRY: (industry buffs)
Build 1 million m3/5 million/10 million/25 million/50 million worth of goods and your manufacturing will require 1/3/5/10/15% less materials

This statement could mean two things. Either the bonus wouldn't reduce the materials needed below the perfect material level, which would either obsolete blueprint research or would be useless if you had researched blueprints, or the bonus would reduce the materials needed below the perfect material level, which would be gamebreakingly bad because it would allow you to create a mineral faucet just by manufacturing and refining multiple times over. Reducing the time it takes to manufacture is fine, reducing the materials required to manufacture is not.

This is just one example. If you want more, I'll give you more, but I don't think it's neccesary.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2014-01-19 04:07:34 UTC
This is a masterpiece.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#194 - 2014-01-19 04:11:12 UTC
Every few weeks I return to this thread and read the OP over again in detail. Why on Earth can we not get something like this implemented as a priority? Instead we get things like 40-second launcher reloads, the Nestor, ESS and Mobile Jump Units (just to name a few). Every day we hear about another massive null fleet battle @ 10% TiDi, mass disconnects, server instability and general discontentment. Meanwhile, high-sec POCOs have been monopolized to the point where it's just another ISK sink for high-sec players, the new warp mechanics have rendered flying anything above a cruiser an effort in futility and the new mobile modules have turned mission running into a shell game.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2014-01-19 04:21:29 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Every few weeks I return to this thread and read the OP over again in detail. Why on Earth can we not get something like this implemented as a priority? Instead we get things like 40-second launcher reloads, the Nestor, ESS and Mobile Jump Units (just to name a few). Every day we hear about another massive null fleet battle @ 10% TiDi, mass disconnects, server instability and general discontentment. Meanwhile, high-sec POCOs have been monopolized to the point where it's just another ISK sink for high-sec players, the new warp mechanics have rendered flying anything above a cruiser an effort in futility and the new mobile modules have turned mission running into a shell game.



I think it's kind of funny that there hasn't been a dev post in this thread yet.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#196 - 2014-01-19 04:37:28 UTC
Rendiff wrote:
I think it's kind of funny that there hasn't been a dev post in this thread yet.

They're probably busy with ESS... Roll

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ace Chet-Chaz Fancyslacks
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2014-01-19 06:22:32 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Rendiff wrote:
I think it's kind of funny that there hasn't been a dev post in this thread yet.

They're probably busy with ESS... Roll


Or responding to petitions about HED.
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#198 - 2014-01-19 08:22:13 UTC
Quote:
Sell 1 billion/5 billion/15 billion/50 billion/400 billion isk worth of goods transfered on the market, recieve an additional 1/3/5/10/15% referral fee from the broker.


flip one trit for a billion... :D

Anyway, very solid Idea. +1
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#199 - 2014-01-19 08:25:03 UTC
Ace Chet-Chaz Fancyslacks wrote:
Or responding to petitions about HED.

You have to give a little HED to get a HED... Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#200 - 2014-01-19 08:47:42 UTC
Felsusguy wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Felsusguy wrote:

Deserves to be buried. The concept isn't bad but the individual ideas show a terrible lack of understanding.


get out

You don't believe me? Then to quote just one example...

El Digin wrote:
INDUSTRY: (industry buffs)
Build 1 million m3/5 million/10 million/25 million/50 million worth of goods and your manufacturing will require 1/3/5/10/15% less materials

This statement could mean two things. Either the bonus wouldn't reduce the materials needed below the perfect material level, which would either obsolete blueprint research or would be useless if you had researched blueprints, or the bonus would reduce the materials needed below the perfect material level, which would be gamebreakingly bad because it would allow you to create a mineral faucet just by manufacturing and refining multiple times over. Reducing the time it takes to manufacture is fine, reducing the materials required to manufacture is not.

This is just one example. If you want more, I'll give you more, but I don't think it's neccesary.

so you found a loophole in one of its many ideas, good job.

Thats exactly what this thread is for, discussing and refining an idea.