These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Suggestions for new interface

Author
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2012-01-12 03:09:52 UTC
1) Well, you'd think they'd catch the people who mine 23.5/7 then, wouldn't you? People dicking about with client source code to win everything ever will be a real problem if you suddenly give them the ability. Why take something from the server side, where it is relativley secure, and place it client side, with a giant 'hack here to win eve' sign on it?

2) Arenas are bad. If there are arenas, PVP in places that are not arenas will die. We do not want arenas in eve. World of warcraft is over there. -->

3) yeah, I don't like twitch games. Nor do a lot of people. EvE is not and never was intended to be a twitch game. Let's not try to turn it into one. We aren't all thirteen years old. More players is good, if they're coming to actually play eve, not some horrible unresponsive space FPS. Go play dust for that.
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
#22 - 2012-01-12 03:28:11 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
edit: size IS relevant. Look up the terms "inertia" and "mass."

Bigger engines duh... Cool

But on a serious note there are many reasons why FPF (First Person Flying) has been implemented, the biggist being that it would make the game unrecognizable/unplayable.

Though I agree that combat being more skill (player skill, not SP) based would be pretty bad-ass. But I don't have a clue how to do it without creating any more lag, or being completely dependant on how fast your internet connection is.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Sometimes when I post, I look at my sig and wish that I'd follow my own god damned advice.

Orion Kirimitsu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-01-12 03:38:26 UTC
Hardware issues aside, joystick flight control in no way, shape, or form fits Eve doctrine. And I agree, that it shouldnt even be considered for ANY of the current ships. I could see something like this implemented planetside in Dust514. However, if it did come down to ppl wanting joystic flight, and CCP could pull it off, I would like it to be limited to single manned vessels, such as fighters, or ships of that caliber. In essence, you could fly a fighter atached to a carrier wing. But the fighter must act like the current model does, i.e. no jumping, yadda yadda. That would be a cool aspect for those that want to pick up the joystic.
SpawnSupreme
Hardly Mischief
#24 - 2012-01-12 09:54:37 UTC
oh crudd forgotwhat this post was about and what i wantedd too say uuuummmmm.....................
oh yeah this is not a flight simulator and to change eve to a flight simulator will in my oppinion do more damage than good but i have thought this before too and kinda wish you could use a joy stick but it would be no diferent than the mouse other than your limiting your speed to witch you can pan your camera.

but if people want a joystick i say give it to them for emersion reasons
Di Mulle
#25 - 2012-01-12 12:26:38 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
1) Yes, please, push more of the game to the client side. there is no way at all that could go wrong. There is no way when the client is hacked open that this could be abused. No way at all. Nope.




It seems you are talking with "senior software engineer (and a doctor of virtual reality 3D graphics programming and whatever other blah blah), " so watch your tongue Lol
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Chujo Jong
Galactic Empire Corporation
#26 - 2012-01-12 13:39:11 UTC
I've been sent to represent 80% of the Eve Population that isn't typing in the forums right now :)


NO THANKS :)
Zayn Longson
Perkone
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-01-12 17:21:07 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Obviously the OP has never been in a LARGE fleet fight and doesn't realize how much the server "chokes" with the input options we currently have.

Not supported.

edit: size IS relevant. Look up the terms "inertia" and "mass."


Again, firstly your assuming that it would be much more intensive computationally - tell me, how much programming experience have you had? Or are you just guessing and pulling these "facts" out of the air? Myself, I have been programming 12 years.

Secondly, as I have said in an earlier post in this same thread (read up), this could be addresses by either pushing more computations to the user PC's (and before anyone starts about cracking - read up again), or by CCP increasing the size of their server farm - if this approach brings in more users (and judging by the HUGE number of times this has come up apparently, theres a LOT of people who think it would) then it would increase revenues for CCP.

Thirdly, I have ALSO already suggested that this could, if its a problem, be introduced as only feasible in certain solar systems (see explanation of background radiation above) for SMALL SCALE pvp battles.
Zayn Longson
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-01-12 17:24:04 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
1) Yes, please, push more of the game to the client side. there is no way at all that could go wrong. There is no way when the client is hacked open that this could be abused. No way at all. Nope.




It seems you are talking with "senior software engineer (and a doctor of virtual reality 3D graphics programming and whatever other blah blah), " so watch your tongue Lol


Im going to take that the way it reads, in which case thank you :) I did my PhD at Sheffield Univesity, and the majority of my senior software engineering work for Accenture, so yes, I know what I am talking about lol.
Di Mulle
#29 - 2012-01-12 19:07:04 UTC
Zayn Longson wrote:
Di Mulle wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
1) Yes, please, push more of the game to the client side. there is no way at all that could go wrong. There is no way when the client is hacked open that this could be abused. No way at all. Nope.




It seems you are talking with "senior software engineer (and a doctor of virtual reality 3D graphics programming and whatever other blah blah), " so watch your tongue Lol


Im going to take that the way it reads, in which case thank you :) I did my PhD at Sheffield Univesity, and the majority of my senior software engineering work for Accenture, so yes, I know what I am talking about lol.


Will be not a first time when a degree does not guarantee anything.

"Solution" to give calculations to a client is too indicative, mate...
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Zayn Longson
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-01-12 20:13:02 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
Zayn Longson wrote:
Di Mulle wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
1) Yes, please, push more of the game to the client side. there is no way at all that could go wrong. There is no way when the client is hacked open that this could be abused. No way at all. Nope.




It seems you are talking with "senior software engineer (and a doctor of virtual reality 3D graphics programming and whatever other blah blah), " so watch your tongue Lol


Im going to take that the way it reads, in which case thank you :) I did my PhD at Sheffield Univesity, and the majority of my senior software engineering work for Accenture, so yes, I know what I am talking about lol.


Will be not a first time when a degree does not guarantee anything.

"Solution" to give calculations to a client is too indicative, mate...


Actually PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) means you are a world expert on your field and that you have discovered / created something which is a world first, as a requirement to simply get it - its not like a Bachelors or Masters lol, so yes, to get a world first discovery, it does guarentee a lot ;)
Previous page12