These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Why no weapons of mass destruction in eve online? - a brainstorm.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#1 - 2015-08-29 23:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Raith Crimson
Why no weapons of mass destruction in eve online? - a brainstorm. - Chime in.




In the game Sins of a Solar Emipre. Which im sure many of you are familiar with. There was the posiblity to build a giant gun that could shoot enemy systems from the other side of the galaxy.


So is it not time we has such ability in eve online. The collective efforts of individuals working together we could build superweapons.

Super long range weapons that you have to work together to build.


Perhaps each missle would take more than a ten titans to build but when built and ready to fire could destroy an entire constellation of TCU/IHUBS (even citadels ?)

in short lets add some new dynamics to sov warfare that have not existed so far.


discuss

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2 - 2015-08-29 23:13:45 UTC
Because they proved to create bad gameplay.
solrac lara
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-08-29 23:14:00 UTC
Raith Crimson wrote:
Why no weapons of mass destruction in eve online? - a brainstorm. - Chime in.




In the game Sins of a Solar Emipre. Which im sure many of you are familiar with. There wars the posiblity to build a giant gun that could shoot enemy systems from the other side of the galaxy.


So is it not time we has such ability in eve online. The collective efforts of individuals working toether we could build superweapons.

Super long range weapons that you have to work together to build.


Perhaps each missle would take more than a ten titans to build but when built and ready to fire could destroy an entire constellation of TCU/IHUBS (even citadels ?)


discuss


That would be cool if planets were more relevant in game, anyway you dont need a super expensive missile to do the job lorewise a titan was capable of wiping a planet clean of life with its DD-
Athryn Bellee
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#4 - 2015-08-29 23:18:30 UTC
Nova missiles are nukes, as are Nuclear projectiles.

We had a weapon like what you mentioned when Titan doomsdays were AoE and you could shoot it through a cyno field. Everyone decided this was no fun.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#5 - 2015-08-29 23:28:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Because they proved to create bad gameplay.
Yup.
Even Red Alert multiplayer had "Super weapons off" option and that is what we did after the first few games.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#6 - 2015-08-29 23:30:49 UTC
looks like someone needs to brush up on their eve history.

titans doomsday weapons were exactly what you are asking about.

whilst this was well before my time, one could doomsday through a cyno, effectively nuking from across the map .

as tippia (all hail) correctly pointed out , this proved to create bad gameplay, it isnt hard to see why.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-08-29 23:30:50 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because they proved to create bad gameplay.
Yup.
Even Red Alert multiplayer had "Super weapons off" option and that is what we did after the first few games.



but to have the choice.

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#8 - 2015-08-29 23:33:54 UTC
Raith Crimson wrote:
but to have the choice.

…would still make it bad gameplay, meaning it would be a pointless waste of development resources since it would have to be removed again.

It is only fun for the one guy who pushes the red button. For everyone else, it is miserable. That one guy's fun is irrelevant in relation to everyone else's misery.
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#9 - 2015-08-29 23:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Raith Crimson
In the current meta of "Zerg Gameplay" *cough cfc* doesnt the smaller coalition deserve some kind of "leveller against the Zerg alliances. So that ballance is maintained. Like in SC2 for instance.

Being able to deal a blow to an opponent who has more members (wether or not said opponent has superior quality members or not)


Surley wMD has a place in a game that is effectivly a strategical military simulator.

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Leila Meurtrier
Why Am I Not Surprised
#10 - 2015-08-29 23:36:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Leila Meurtrier
Raith Crimson wrote:

but to have the choice.

It doesn't work this way in multiplayer.

Is there something that terribly OP? Cool, now all the cool kids are using it. That's how competitive games work. OP option is not an option. It's eliminating of any other options.
Leila Meurtrier
Why Am I Not Surprised
#11 - 2015-08-29 23:38:47 UTC
Raith Crimson wrote:
In the current meta of "Zerg Gameplay" *cough cfc* dousnt the smaller coalition deserve some kind of "leveller against the Zerg alliances. So that ballance is maintained. Like in SC2 for instance.

Being able to deal a blow to an opponent who has more members (wether or not said opponent has superior quality members or not)


Surley wMD has a place in a game that is effectivly a strategical military simulator.


Except that goons will utilise this thing first and will use it en masse. It's been quite a while since the time when they used to field ships that cost cheaper than ammo you need to take them down.
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#12 - 2015-08-29 23:40:04 UTC
Leila Meurtrier wrote:
Raith Crimson wrote:
In the current meta of "Zerg Gameplay" *cough cfc* dousnt the smaller coalition deserve some kind of "leveller against the Zerg alliances. So that ballance is maintained. Like in SC2 for instance.

Being able to deal a blow to an opponent who has more members (wether or not said opponent has superior quality members or not)


Surley wMD has a place in a game that is effectivly a strategical military simulator.


Except that goons will utilise this thing first and will use it en masse. It's been quite a while since the time when they used to field ships that cost cheaper than ammo you need to take them down.



this meta has certainly been the idea behind the reason i have a 99% kb eff

e.g. fly cheap kill expensive.

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#13 - 2015-08-29 23:42:23 UTC
People will always be resistant to change.

If eve never changes we have nothing new to look at.


Fozzie sov is effectivly Lowsec FW without the LP that are worth billions.


But if we are to accept this change then why not accept changes like (not necesarrially exactly) the tone i suggested ? thay promote groupl play and make people play together speak to eachtoehr and peiople they never spoke to before.

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#14 - 2015-08-29 23:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Raith Crimson wrote:
In the current meta of "Zerg Gameplay" *cough cfc* doesnt the smaller coalition deserve some kind of "leveller against the Zerg alliances.
That's part of why WMDs create bad gameplay: because they are used by the zerg to kill anything smaller than them with impunity. It doesn't work as a leveller when it just gives those with a numerical advantage and even bigger advantage.

Quote:
Surley wMD has a place in a game that is effectivly a strategical military simulator.
Maybe, but EVE isn't that kind of game. The reason it works in such games is because both the lives and the weapons are finite and thus costly.

Quote:
People will always be resistant to change.
No. They will just be resistant to bad change, and for good reason.
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#15 - 2015-08-29 23:45:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Raith Crimson
REgaurding Fozzie sov :


if im going to be forces to orbit a flag in space for hours on end riskin my peronal assets just for a flag in the sand so that other people who have more power than me in my current political group might profit from my actions (by keeping thier moons / taxes)

then where is my motivation to continue doing this rather than go do it for NPC's in exchange for billions of isk worth of LP's ?


in short Fozzie sov is killing nullsec. but we can make it work by furthering the idea to incluide group activitys like , but no necesarrially exactly that, the one i outlined in OP.

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#16 - 2015-08-29 23:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Raith Crimson wrote:

Fozzie sov is effectivly Lowsec FW without the LP that are worth billions.


Hey, you have sov, that is worth something I suppose.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#17 - 2015-08-29 23:48:15 UTC
Raith Crimson wrote:
In the current meta of "Zerg Gameplay" *cough cfc* doesnt the smaller coalition deserve some kind of "leveller against the Zerg alliances. So that ballance is maintained. Like in SC2 for instance.

Being able to deal a blow to an opponent who has more members (wether or not said opponent has superior quality members or not)


Surley wMD has a place in a game that is effectivly a strategical military simulator.


I see no reason that a well organized, large group of individuals shouldn't crush a well organized, small group of individuals.

People keep characterizing large nullsec coalitions as "blobs" and "zerg" and have no idea how shockingly organized and well-structured they are, nor how much more quickly and decisively they can react than most of the groups making the criticism.
Raith Crimson
Doomheim
#18 - 2015-08-29 23:50:03 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Raith Crimson wrote:
In the current meta of "Zerg Gameplay" *cough cfc* doesnt the smaller coalition deserve some kind of "leveller against the Zerg alliances. So that ballance is maintained. Like in SC2 for instance.

Being able to deal a blow to an opponent who has more members (wether or not said opponent has superior quality members or not)


Surley wMD has a place in a game that is effectivly a strategical military simulator.


I see no reason that a well organized, large group of individuals shouldn't crush a well organized, small group of individuals.

People keep characterizing large nullsec coalitions as "blobs" and "zerg" and have no idea how shockingly organized and well-structured they are, nor how much more quickly and decisively they can react than most of the groups making the criticism.



Weapons of mass destruction remain a real and legitimate answer to your problem.

my ideas are my own and have no reflection on the ideas of my current corp / alliance.

excuse my terrible typing.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#19 - 2015-08-29 23:50:26 UTC
Raith Crimson wrote:
REgaurding Fozzie sov :


if im going to be forces to orbit a flag in space for hours on end risking my personal assets just for a flag in the sand so that other people who have more power than me in my current political group might profit from my actions (by keeping thier moons / taxes)

then where is my motivation to continue doing this rather than go do it for NPC's in exchange for billions of isk worth of LP's ?


in short Fozzie sov is killing nullsec. but we can make it work by furthering the idea to include group activity's like , but no necesarrially exactly that, the one i outlined in OP.

Or maybe make the guys who profit actually share said profits.... Just a stray thought. If you let yourself be used....
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#20 - 2015-08-29 23:51:48 UTC
Raith Crimson wrote:



Weapons of mass destruction remain a real and legitimate answer to your problem.


What you fail to realize is the larger groups will have access to MORE of those weapons, and will be able to utilize them far more effectively.
123Next pageLast page