These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#201 - 2014-01-19 09:18:11 UTC
Jack bubu wrote:
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.

My issue isn't just with a specific issue. It's also with the lack of understanding that the specific issue illustrates. The author of this suggestion clearly does not understand the nuances of industry and yet he or she suggests things that would affect industry regardless. If it was the other way around, with industrialists suggesting things that would affect non-industrial aspects of the game that they are not knowledgeable about, there would be a lot of scornful criticism against said industrialists. Not that I think they don't deserve it, but I'm getting a little tired of no one taking issue with these particular problems.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#202 - 2014-01-19 09:28:54 UTC
Felsusguy wrote:

My issue isn't just with a specific issue. It's also with the lack of understanding that the specific issue illustrates. The author of this suggestion clearly does not understand the nuances of industry and yet he or she suggests things that would affect industry regardless. If it was the other way around, with industrialists suggesting things that would affect non-industrial aspects of the game that they are not knowledgeable about, there would be a lot of scornful criticism against said industrialists. Not that I think they don't deserve it, but I'm getting a little tired of no one taking issue with these particular problems.


So make improvements to his ideas regarding industry instead of calling the whole feature garbage, because thats really just a very minor part of this revamp and the one least people care about.
Electrified Circuits
Predator Ewoks
#203 - 2014-01-19 11:41:18 UTC
I apporve i used to live in null but i got tired of it because i like to do a lot of industry. There should be more options to industrialists out in null like improved stations ore etc. Some of this has happened but there is still a lot of work to do
Ordo Malus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#204 - 2014-01-19 12:02:53 UTC
Waiting for CCP to comment.... This may yet be the best answer to Sov I've heard proposed.
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2014-01-19 15:31:46 UTC
Ordo Malus wrote:
Waiting for CCP to comment.... This may yet be the best answer to Sov I've heard proposed.



They really should, this post has been around long enough now. I'm really surprised they haven't yet.
JD No7
V I R I I
#206 - 2014-01-19 18:49:49 UTC
Some really nice ideas.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#207 - 2014-01-19 22:20:10 UTC
Jack bubu wrote:
Felsusguy wrote:

My issue isn't just with a specific issue. It's also with the lack of understanding that the specific issue illustrates. The author of this suggestion clearly does not understand the nuances of industry and yet he or she suggests things that would affect industry regardless. If it was the other way around, with industrialists suggesting things that would affect non-industrial aspects of the game that they are not knowledgeable about, there would be a lot of scornful criticism against said industrialists. Not that I think they don't deserve it, but I'm getting a little tired of no one taking issue with these particular problems.


So make improvements to his ideas regarding industry instead of calling the whole feature garbage, because thats really just a very minor part of this revamp and the one least people care about.


what he said.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#208 - 2014-01-19 22:45:43 UTC
Jack bubu wrote:
Felsusguy wrote:

My issue isn't just with a specific issue. It's also with the lack of understanding that the specific issue illustrates. The author of this suggestion clearly does not understand the nuances of industry and yet he or she suggests things that would affect industry regardless. If it was the other way around, with industrialists suggesting things that would affect non-industrial aspects of the game that they are not knowledgeable about, there would be a lot of scornful criticism against said industrialists. Not that I think they don't deserve it, but I'm getting a little tired of no one taking issue with these particular problems.


So make improvements to his ideas regarding industry instead of calling the whole feature garbage

I didn't say it was garbage. "Deserves to be buried", yes, but all threads eventually are buried.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.
trader joes Ichinumi
Doomheim
#209 - 2014-01-23 01:14:08 UTC  |  Edited by: trader joes Ichinumi
Ordo Malus wrote:
Waiting for CCP to comment.... This may yet be the best answer to Sov I've heard proposed.


Completely agree. CCPs current behavior gives the impression they have no plans to overhaul sov, which is really disappointing.

In fact, there recent patch notes(which address symptoms of the sov system) suggest they aren't working on changing it. If they had a big overhaul being worked on, they wouldn't spend resources on the current system.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#210 - 2014-01-23 01:36:37 UTC
OP has literally read my mind on nearly every topic that I've ranted about endlessly on TS for the last few years.

Things I don't like in the OP's proposals:

  • Faction TCU - no get out, just have an npc ihub like in fw spacefor npc null sec fw. no real big changes needed.
  • Capital/Super/Titan anom escalation: no, just get mooring sorted for pos's so you can swap into a ship whose role is more meaningful for npc'ing. I mean good lord next thing you're going to want is supers in w-space with an attitude like that.
  • Instead of making high level anoms more difficult introduce more rare varieties that only appear in sov space...extrapolating from the ghost site model. So not only is it timed but a group would be required to run it and be gated to prevent capitals and supers from being used. A few of the highest end should allow limited capital use having a mass limitation on the acceleration gate (carriers but no dreads etc.)
  • Supers and Titans are useless: nope you're wrong - supers and titans have very niche roles and are not solopwn mobiles any more. And that is perfect. They are nigh on indestructible the way you currently deploy them. In-fact you guys do occasionally do something reckless with them....and *still revenant* becomes a thing. To encourage that type of play more it just requires you all to be less risk averse...which probably means paying little or no heed to killboard stats.

    • Things I really really love from OP
  • Pirate FW
  • Constellation sov and capital systems
  • Reduce EHP grind - especially in lowering station service hp massively.

    • Things I like but would modify from OP
  • Moon Iteration: reduce moons? you must be joking...increase moon supply to encourage the lowering of prices. Moon mining in 0.4 systems! Right now most alliances are making a ton off of rental income. I would like to see a chart of rental income vs moon goo income over time. Moon good mind you doesn't generate isk...it merely concentrates it. All isk in game comes from CONCORD or other NPC organizations.
  • Moon probing: yeah lets alter that and make it a function of sov (right click on iHub and have a moon resources tab) k thx bye. Hostiles should still have to probe to find out of the system is worth taking.


#2cents
Veng3ance
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#211 - 2014-01-23 02:27:30 UTC
I loved the whole thing. Honestly I was getting excited while reading it; like it was actually going to happen. I sincerely hope this gets some attention.
Marte Rotineque
DoughBois
Stay Puft Marshmallow Bois
#212 - 2014-01-26 20:47:04 UTC
This should be on the front page again i think!
Mr Edwards
Perkone
Caldari State
#213 - 2014-01-31 10:07:23 UTC
this would fix/make eve so much more interesting.
Capitol One
Blue Canary
Watch This
#214 - 2014-01-31 10:09:29 UTC
CCP plz, this is amazing.
Jordan Foxer
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#215 - 2014-01-31 11:12:04 UTC
I approve.... ALOT
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2014-01-31 11:35:02 UTC
Holy crap is this a great post. It would fix so many problems... CCP seriously consider some if not all of these ideas.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#217 - 2014-01-31 11:51:45 UTC
I don't like the moon solution, but the rest looks pretty decent. I think spreading and thinning moons out allows for smaller groups to take control of them. Sure, there will be more effort for less reward, but I think that's part of the charm.
KaRa DaVuT
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2014-01-31 14:21:46 UTC
Approved

Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What God desires is in your heart and on your mind... And what you decide to do every day, makes you - not your race - a good man - or not.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#219 - 2014-01-31 14:25:30 UTC
Supported.

In my opinion, you haven't gotten a CCP answer yet because part, or all of, your stuff is under NDA. Which means that they are working on it. They are just not ready to announce it.

It may not be exactly what you offered. It may be far far away from what you offered (although these ideas are GOOD imo), but there is certainly something on the topic down the pipe currently.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Bum Shadow
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#220 - 2014-01-31 14:42:23 UTC
pretty much spot on.