These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM Little Things - Jayne's List

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Black Pedro
Mine.
#81 - 2015-09-30 21:44:18 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Arkady Romanov wrote:
Make Damage Control Modules (Tech 1, Meta and Tech 2) passive modules. You run them constantly anyway and having to activate them after every jump is a waste of time.


That would be quite a boost to afk auto-pilot.
Which isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing, but yes, you're correct.
Isn't it? I thought the current trend was to reward active gameplay, like the aborted fleet warp changes? Why should changes be made to reward players for not actually interacting with their game client or remove incentives to pay attention to what is happening around them?

Shouldn't the game scale such that those that actively play and micromanage their ship receive increased performance, as compared to someone who say uses the auto-pilot, or just assigns drones and is fleet warped around?
I was waiting for someone to jump down my throat for this, haha.

There is a slight difference between "rewarding active gameplay" and "active gameplay is rewarding". Whatever the change is, it should be an increase to QoL, because being forced to click a button every 5 minutes or so is not rewarding gameplay, although it is active. In my personal opinion, if DCUs became passive modules, we'd have to look at the hull amounts of various ships, but hey. We're pretty far into theory at this point, as I'm pretty sure it's not on the agenda.

First, I'm pretty sure I didn't jump down your throat.

I think it is debatable whether providing/maintaining mechanism by which active players can secure an advantage is or is not "rewarding". We all benefit if the game has more depth and more ability for players to improve their performance by active or learned play. But I agree with you that clicking a button after each jump is not the most challenging of active or learned play and perhaps the damage control unit as an active module should be revisited.

But you are wrong that it is not on the agenda. Well, I shouldn't be telling you what is on or not the agenda, but CCP Fozzie did mention that they wanted to make the module passive a few years back. Therefore, it is not out of the realm of possibility that CCP would revisit the mechanic.

But you would know better than me.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#82 - 2015-10-01 12:06:01 UTC
Is there any chance of an option that allows us to reduce the glare from suns at some point, fighting at the sun is an uncomfortable experience.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Jayne Fillon
#83 - 2015-10-01 19:21:55 UTC
Samillian wrote:
Is there any chance of an option that allows us to reduce the glare from suns at some point, fighting at the sun is an uncomfortable experience.
Big smile

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#84 - 2015-10-02 03:00:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkady Romanov
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Arkady Romanov wrote:
Make Damage Control Modules (Tech 1, Meta and Tech 2) passive modules. You run them constantly anyway and having to activate them after every jump is a waste of time.


That would be quite a boost to afk auto-pilot.


You are correct and I totally didn't even think of the consequences for things like that. Which is kind of embarrassing considering how obvious it is.


Having said that, given the number of max expanded freighters there seem to be out there, perhaps it wouldn't have as much of an effect as you might think. Lol


Also while I naturally can't speak for everyone, I'd still rather have it a passive module even if it does result in a tacit buff to afkers who bother to fit a DC module. (I say this as a Miniluv supporter and Burn Jita participant).

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#85 - 2015-10-02 09:02:10 UTC
Samillian wrote:
Is there any chance of an option that allows us to reduce the glare from suns at some point, fighting at the sun is an uncomfortable experience.


I would posit the idea of removing the sun as a warpable target outright.
motie one
Secret Passage
#86 - 2015-10-02 21:54:20 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Overheating state remembered between jumps OR be able to overheat under cloak. Whichever is mechanically easier.

We need to be able to make a lot more internal decisions under cloak. One should be able to preset overheat, set modules to auto-activate as soon as cloak drops, change ammo or scripts, move cargo between bays. All of that should be doable while cloaked or during gate cloak. Maybe some of it is already doable, but I'm pretty sure most of it isn't and all of it should be.

On the other hand, I'm on the fence about being able to d-scan while cloaked. Of course from a lore standpoint we don't have the technology to allow cloaked vessels to receive passive scan data as far as I'm aware, furthermore even from a game balance perspective it kind of makes sense that being invisible makes you a little bit blind. I'm not saying we should definitely remove this ability, only that we should consider it.


Re dscan whilst cloaked. Removing this ability, would be catastrophic for wormhole space.
It eliminates the reality of a cloaky hunter.
So apart from being horrifically destructive, I really cannot concur with the premise that it is a little change.
It is as significant for your gameplay as delete local would be.
motie one
Secret Passage
#87 - 2015-10-02 21:56:03 UTC
Samillian wrote:
Is there any chance of an option that allows us to reduce the glare from suns at some point, fighting at the sun is an uncomfortable experience.


And gas clouds, and Amarr, and........