These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Where do YOU want to take EVE?

First post
Author
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#21 - 2014-06-19 15:31:28 UTC
[continued]

  • I'd have Incursion a greater effect on the areas they are happening. Penalties will be linked directly to sites in the system instead of a vague loading bar and every type of site has a chance for loot unique to that site's type to motivate people to remove those locations from influence. Sites and associated penalties could be taken from the same pool as the displayed in the DeCo section of the sovereignty and population thread.

  • Agents in the incursion area will respond to the situation dynamically, changing the mission seed to focus on Sansha and incursion themed missions.

    The longer a incursion is allowed to last, the more severe the penalties will be and the longer and stronger after effects of the incursion will be. These after effects influence taxes, mission payout, industry efficiency and PI, as the systems need to recover from the loss of manpower and infrastructure.

    Also I'd run a story line to have the Sansha be usurped by Equilibrium of Mankind, freeing Sansha as a pirate faction to participate in Pirate incursions and/or factional warfare.


  • I'd change the mechanics of factional warfare to be more similar to sov warfare just with the players doing the destabilization of a system while the big structure conquest and destruction would be done by the NPC navies and probably off-screen. System bonuses would be limited to FW corporations and similar, though somewhat reduced in magnitude to sov improvements.

  • To destroy modules you will no longer be just orbiting, you will either need to destroy it manually or anchor a deployable to conquer it, thus reducing farming by requiring more interactivity and only a reward when the target was successfully destroyed/conquered.


  • I'd add pirate factions to factional warfare with some incursion mechanics mixed in. They stage a incursion into low-sec FW area to where pirate players can then do missions and conquests to attain influence for their pirate faction and gain valuable pirate LPs in another way than missions with the few agents available in NPC null.


  • I'd make Sleepers more active in wormholes. They would stage eradication campaigns against player owned structures in wormholes, i.e. siege POSes and POCOs. The more dangerous the wormhole, the stronger and more frequent those sieges are. Inactive or unprepared corporations will find themselves expelled from their wormhole. Unoccupied wormholes will be turned back into a empty and pristine Sleeper only territory. Being in a wormhole should put you under constant and immediate threat. No permanent settlement intended.


  • I'd dedicate a team to finding and wrapping up all loose end of story lines left from the past. Still relevant events can be continued to provide a more living and dynamic background for the players, improving immersion and involvement. Story lines may even influence mission seeds, permanently or for a time.

  • A team dedicated to live events will create opportunities to participate in a running story line. These events will surround peripheral incidents and circumstantial fallout of the main EVE storyline, allowing players to change details in some parts of the story without blocking main story progress. No one player or group should be allowed to get into a position of significance to prevent accusations or opportunities of favouritism. Being a delicate matter, the live event team would be supervised by internal affairs at all times.


  • I'd probably do a whole lot more but that's all I can think of right now. EVE has so much potential for greatness. It just takes so long to get it all done.
Elusive Panda
Public Enemies CO
The Initiative.
#22 - 2014-06-19 17:06:12 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Long stuff.


I keep pressing the like button, but it refuses to up more!

Especially separating the four empire with low-sec and removing common chokepoints.
Ranzabar
Doomheim
#23 - 2014-06-23 03:48:53 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
1. Station Lock-out mechanics would be removed from Faction Warfare. Completely.

2a. All empire high-sec would be separated by low-sec.
2b. More low-sec systems and high-to-low stargates would be added... preventing too many chokepoints from forming.

3. Supercapitals would be banned from low-sec.

4. Cynos can only be used by "specialty" ships (see: ships with a bonus towards cynos).

5. War declaration mechanics would be revamped.
--- a. It would be cheaper to declare war on a corporation/alliance bigger than yours.
--- b. Defending corp/alliances can add an infinite amount allies to the war at no additional cost/penalty.
--- c. No one may join or drop from either the offending or defending corporation during the duration of the war. edit: You cannot disband the corp/alliance either.

6. The New Player Experience will be revamped.
--- a. Less expositories and detailed mechanical information... more "guidelines to live by."
--- b. Optional voice tutorial. Keep things brief so they can be easily cycled through.
--- c. Create missions that more or less simulate what happens in EVE and have a pop-up explaining what happened right after it happens. (example: one mission gives the newbie a cheap ship and, upon undocking, have NPCs "suicide gank" the newbie... then a pop-up appears and explains what suicide ganking is and some tips to avoid it).

7a. Priority would be given to overcoming to technical hurdles on making Warfare Links on-grid only.
7b. A new destroyer-sized command ship will be introduced to appease the skirmishers, small gangs, and poor people. This ship can only fit 1 link though.

8a. If Walking in Station is introduced, the security mechanics will emulate that of high, low, and null security. That means that people can indeed be ganked and lose all their implants in a station... and no, it will not be "griefing" (unless the gankers focus all their efforts on one person over and over again).
8b. You will only be truly safe in the Captains Quarters.
8c. No, you cannot bring people into your Captains Quarters. You want to be social? Go out and risk getting stabbed.

9. Space will have some random localized effects here and there... which will mostly be slight and largely ignoreable.
Example 1: Stars deal omni-damage to anyone close by... enough damage to make small ships panic but not enough to kill them outright.
Example 2: Being near a planet reduces agility/max speed by 2% or something.
Example 3: Being in an asteroid belt deals 1% damage (based on raw HP, not EHP) to a ship regardless of size... ore ships will be exempt from this.


I got nothing. I just wanted to quote all of that

Abide

Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#24 - 2014-06-23 04:12:39 UTC
Remove highsec and lowsec, remove ~1/2 the jump gates in the game (islands and bottlenecks). No more concord or security standings. Let alliances set penalties for attacking fellow alliance pilots, as well as treaties with other alliances which could hold penalties to their choosing if they wish. I'd rather see it function in a more true sandbox environment where players write the rules.

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#25 - 2014-06-23 16:48:49 UTC
Quote:
Where do YOU want to take EVE?


Really?
Tweek Etimua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-06-24 03:31:29 UTC
It would be fantastic to see fleet tactics diversified. I my self have quite blatantly been mocked by people who say. It will never work.


Currently fleets work like so. One person, the FC, calls out targets and every one shoots it. One target at a time. I don't see how any one can pay money for this game and spend hours upon hours simply hitting F1.


So I started a corp. hoping to diversify the game. The strategy is to break up the current fleet style. Instead of the whole blob taking out one target at a time. Have predetermined squads all with ships types they are specialized to take out. Like so. there's a bit more to it that would make this work but this is the gist.


Now game play wise this allows a lot more people to get in on the action. It also give people a chance to fly what they want, hopefully less time sitting waiting for form up and what not.

But before that can happen Eve players need to be more open minded. Most comments I get are because no one wants to try any thing new. 99% of eve players I talk to treat eve like WOW. You play like X. X is the only thing that works....It's the only thing we've tried but it works. This attitude is my pet peeve with eve. Seriously if CCP could give us an update to fix that I would never leave.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#27 - 2014-07-22 19:00:30 UTC
Remove all archaic mechanics which affect systems that could easily be controlled by players.
Eliminate the disparity between PvP and PvE. Perhaps removing NPC rats completely, allowing PvE activities to be completed in PvP ships.
S'Way
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2014-07-22 19:07:50 UTC
Back to it's original vision of a cold, harsh universe.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-07-22 19:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
If were king?

* Polish recent implementations (deployables, ships, modules)
* Finish whatever then have in the pipe line (mysterious new space, ship balance)
* Have one half of the development team working on big new features
* Have the other half working to improve game content and mechanics

I would continue development on avatar based gameplay, as i think it would do the most to improve the lifespan of eve and bring/retain new players.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#30 - 2014-07-22 19:42:01 UTC
Title Query wrote:
Where do YOU want to take EVE?


I want to take EVE to work and not get fired for it. Plenty of you seem to have the secret for that. Do tell.

Mr Epeen Cool
Doomsdale Little
Doom and Gloom Corp
#31 - 2014-07-22 21:36:16 UTC
Where do I want to take Eve? As far away from the nullsec cartels as possible.

Sky is falling, damage estimate to follow. Proof that CCP is out to get me personally.

Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#32 - 2014-07-22 22:20:06 UTC
Webvan wrote:
Remove highsec and lowsec, remove ~1/2 the jump gates in the game (islands and bottlenecks). No more concord or security standings. Let alliances set penalties for attacking fellow alliance pilots, as well as treaties with other alliances which could hold penalties to their choosing if they wish. I'd rather see it function in a more true sandbox environment where players write the rules.


This post has some serious merit +1

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#33 - 2014-07-22 22:28:32 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
Yeah, I saw this other thread - where is EVE going to go? Pok says EVE goes where WE take it. So, I'm asking YOU:

Where do you want to take EVE?


Now, this isn't your immediate plans as a player. This is more like, "If I was KING, EVE would be..."

There's a lot of talk about the present circumstance of huge tracts of null sec held by one interest and rented out to smaller ones. Some don't like this. Some do. Some don't care either way. There WAS the legendary era of Band of Brothers (BoB, maybe you've heard) holding a HUGE chunk of null sec, and squeezing everybody else into a measly corner. What other castles can we build in this sandbox?

For ME? I'd like to get an alliance rolling that manufactures and markets, does incursions and participates in faction warfare. We'd mind our own business and get good at what we do. Should someone come along and try to interfere with that, we'd do what has to be done. Does it call for growth, or expansion. It might. And, we'd certainly need to be up to the challenge.

Maybe your idea doesn't involve null sec at all. Maybe it's a low sec Shangra-La you want. Maybe high sec is your hometown.

What's your idea?


In the opposite direction to the devs. That's where I would take eve. I'd ask them what their plans are then do the opposite, I'd be unique though in promising nothing but delivering great things in start contrast to...

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#34 - 2014-07-22 22:31:11 UTC
After all of the rainbows and ponies of the current MMO market, I decided to give Eve a shot. It blew my mind that this game has survived and I've just been soaking in the glory since, just being glad that I've finally found an MMO that remembers it's roots. So where would I take it?

Tactical FCing so that we can see some real geniuses pull off some real fights, instead of a grinding numbers game like we can get out of any other MMO.

More ships, and more variety in their roles. More choices means more variations in combat which means less iWin doctrines. Eve is more interesting as a whole as a result.

Less arbitrary restrictions, like the current Sov mechanics, and more flavor restrictions, that don't really have a significant impact on the gameplay of Eve but make the world and how players interact with it more interesting.

A more defined Karma system. Eve already has a Karma system, believe it or not, otherwise using alts to do your dirty deeds wouldn't be nearly as popular and API checks for corp applications wouldn't exist. What I mean by more defined is that people have a better understanding of the long-term impacts of their actions without any intrusive/blunt explanations. And no, this doesn't discourage negative behavior. It encourages it by allowing the player to develop a more interesting and detailed path of development for their character, and to take consequences into account and prepare for them ahead of time instead of being surprised by their sudden and ugly arrival. More long-tail gameplay ensues for both the bad guys and the good guys.

Murderdeath AI: I want AI that is so inconceivably evil that it drives players to try PvP as a means of escape from the insanity. People say that better AI will just drive carebears further into their caves, but I think if they were actually challenged in their gameplay on a regular basis in PvP quality fights and lost ships regularly thanks to this, the gap between PvP and PvE wouldn't seem so large to them, and might reduce the skill gap between the two groups. I want to see AI that refits in their nearby stations for more E-war and tackle, bounces for better range control and warps out if you don't have it pointed when you start dealing hull damage. RR, spider tanking, wrecking balls, cloaky tackle with drones, deployables, bumping, you name it I want to see it in PvE. I don't think I've shot a rat in 4 or 5 months for the same reason I don't play zombie games. It is mind-numbingly pointless.

More story and background in the areas of gameplay where people go looking for it, like Epic Arcs, COSMOS, and exploration, given to the player in ways that they don't feel it is being forced on them if they are not there looking for the story. Random datachips in the loot with background fluff on the factions, flavor items with descriptions that allude to historic events that can be further researched elsewhere or fill in small gaps in other pieces of lore. Etc... I would also like to see breadcrumb trails laid out for new players to follow filled with the propaganda of their race, so that players are given an investment to go along with activities like FW. Dozens of things can be done to hide story just behind the corner for people who don't want it interfering with their gameplay, and just within reach of those looking for it. A lot of it already is, I just think there are a bucketload of missed opportunities for every one that CCP uses.

More encouragement for PvP support roles like escorting, recon, rear guard, harassment and attrition, etc..

Less support for lazy gameplay styles and more for active participation within Eve and it's inhabitants.

So many things to do...

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#35 - 2014-07-22 23:12:50 UTC
Some spam and off-topic posts have been removed. Please follow the forum rules when posting, thank you!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2014-07-23 00:06:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Paynus Maiassus
1 - There would be a remote repair nullification module. Doctrines dependent on huge blobs and their alpha strikes resulting in one-sided battles and complete routes be changed to wars of attrition involving multiple squads and wings employing varying tactics and roles in the same battle. Victory must cost you. Sure you can defeat a force half your size, but it might just cost you half your fleet to do it.

2 - T2 BPOs would be removed. Invention overhauled.

3 - Low sec and NPC null sec mining would be extraordinarily difficult to impede. Invulnerable Rorqual.

4 - Remove sentry drones from the game. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Do not alter. Do not nerf. Just remove them with one punch of the delete key.

5 - Rebalance carriers so a workable triage fit is as useful for repping as a boot carrier and has a workable capacitor situation without cap modules dominating the fit.

6 - Player built star gates would be implemented in such a way that no matter who you are, CFC or anybody, smaller groups would be able to enjoy space that you won't be able to get to and ruin under any circumstances. Totally variable shaped sandbox where whole groups of players can enjoy eve with absolutely no chance of being forced to interact with other groups of players. Multiple Eve player bases. Such gates would come in many forms, with some being breakable, others not, some being super jump bridges to other parts of known space and others not, some leading to small constellations usable as group safe areas, and some leading to entirely new galaxies where whole new and independent player bases can exist without all the psychopaths currently ruining new eden. Some can transport caps and super caps, others not. Make these various stargates upgradable with a variety of modules giving them unique effects.

7 - More avatar based play, open the door to the damned captain's quarters. Create interaction in Eve with the new Project Legion. Give Legionaires and DUSTies roles in sov flipping, such as invading player owned stations. Eve is a gorgeous game. Create more models and locations to view. Elite: Dangerous plans for people to walk around planets and fly through atmosphere. Eve should not neglect this.

8 - Launch Valkyrie style player operated fighters out of player operated carriers and super carriers. Remove AI controlled fighters and fighter bombers. If you don't have a dozen friends willing and able to fly your fighter bombers, you don't get to launch fighter bombers.

9 - totally ban ISBoxer.
Xi Ling
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-07-23 03:53:10 UTC
I love the idea of player built jump/hyper-gates. In particular how about giving the bitter vets something new to try rather than just sitting around waiting for the phone to ring. Imagine if these gates only allowed a certain type of ship/a few classes of ship through. With greater risk shall come greater reward. Have those at end game reach up to the heavens. The lesser folk like me might be able to have a peak in occasionally via fleet hanger dynamics.

I'd also like to see FW style mechanics brought into high sec just a bit around the edges to encourage more people to pew pew. The faction war element could effect refinery percentages, PI, these new 'teams' you've put together. Like the incursion stuff.

I also think this is how null-sec sovereignty mechanics should work, or at least be similar to. I believe that in order to take a system an alliance must set up several infrastructure hubs around the system based around player constructed DED space complexes and acceleration gates. These gates much like mission/FW gates should have differing ship requirements for entry forcing an attacking alliance to use a full spectrum of fleet compositions. Also some hubs would have to scouted out first using probes; larger hubs would appear as Overview Christmas trees.

So for example you have a DED site for your cyno jammer, inside the site you might have two rooms (so a second gate). In each room you have a mini-control tower with CPU and Power for defensive structures similar to a POS.

When enough infrastructure has been taken out the system becomes vulnerable and others can start putting down SCU in DED space areas of their own.

Subspace frequency generators - capture wormholes. Stick them in a plex. Can't grab them all and they degrade as per.

Imagine -

Alliance held Hyper-gate to a three system galactic exo-cluster (Muchos iskies) protected by a six room DED complex. Its destruction will mean sole access to that cluster for a newly formed worm-hole/low sec alliance who access the system through a deep safe anchored subspace frequency generator that pulls in a wormhole. The pilots stream through and clear the first three rooms using a BS fleet while smaller ships create chaos in other areas of the system. Then they pull there dreads through to complete the next three rooms and take out the hyper-gate before anyone realises what is happening.

TL:DR

Pipe dreams. 07
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#38 - 2014-07-23 03:57:28 UTC
Paynus Maiassus wrote:
9 - totally ban ISBoxer.

Yeah, forgot to mention this one. Ban all alts.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#39 - 2014-07-23 04:04:09 UTC
Me?

I want EVE the movie.

EVE the game is in need of imagination, not math and it isn't something CCP can program in to the game.
Tao Dolcino
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2014-07-23 11:53:00 UTC
I'd make big coalitions impossible. I'd make null space more wild, more dynamic and open to adventurers, instead of open to boot-lickers only. Null space a bit like Worm Space, that's what i'd do.
I also would multiplicate the gates between high/low/null, again to bring more dynamic in the game.
Previous page123Next page