These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Advanced autopilot

Author
Woxanne
ORE Ltd.
#1 - 2016-09-23 21:29:56 UTC
Hi there!

I'd like CCP to offer an 'Advanced autopilot' that is licensed by Concord to capsuleers at the low low price of $5 a month or one plex a quarter.

This autopilot would be different in one way - it would warp to zero.

Thanks for listening!
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-09-23 21:37:21 UTC
Please explain why autopilot should have no risks or drawbacks at all.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2016-09-23 21:48:20 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Please explain why autopilot should have no risks or drawbacks at all.


because its just another way for CCP to milk $ from players
Merchant Rova
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2016-09-23 21:53:15 UTC
Woxanne
ORE Ltd.
#5 - 2016-09-23 22:14:43 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Please explain why autopilot should have no risks or drawbacks at all.


Manual piloting does the same job now. People would be paying for convenience. Also even with warp to zero there is still plenty of risk, hell you can die in a warp to zero double web alt freighter right now.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2016-09-23 22:16:54 UTC
Woxanne wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Please explain why autopilot should have no risks or drawbacks at all.


Manual piloting does the same job now. People would be paying for convenience. Also even with warp to zero there is still plenty of risk, hell you can die in a warp to zero double web alt freighter right now.



Manual piloting involves manual piloting.

Autopilot doesn't. Autopilot has drawbacks you want to see removed. Why is this?
Woxanne
ORE Ltd.
#7 - 2016-09-23 22:30:00 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Woxanne wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Please explain why autopilot should have no risks or drawbacks at all.


Manual piloting does the same job now. People would be paying for convenience. Also even with warp to zero there is still plenty of risk, hell you can die in a warp to zero double web alt freighter right now.



Manual piloting involves manual piloting.

Autopilot doesn't. Autopilot has drawbacks you want to see removed. Why is this?


Two reasons

1) more money for CCP = less money needed for subs = less restrictions on the ftp side of game = more people = more targets

2) a LOT of this game involves paying for conveniance (through injectors / plex). With such an adult game playing audience its a good business model. What are the drawbacks really and are they any different than the other convenience aspects of the game?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2016-09-23 22:42:25 UTC
Neither of those are a good gameplay reason at all.

Point one is literally pay to win, which is a terrible idea and you should feel terrible for posting it.

Point two is an outright lie. The closest thing in the game to paying cash for convenience is buying plex for cash to sell for isk if you don't have time to make it. That is not required, the way an autopilot to zero would be.

Just think about it: instaceptors would be utterly invulnerable even while controlled by an empty chair. Why is that a good thing?
Sammy Fischer
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2016-09-23 22:45:06 UTC
travelceptor is perfectly safe in HS on autopilot now? If a ship is instawarp and lands at zero on autopilot, these instawarp ships have no reason to manual pilot around at all. Plus a major drawback of autopilot is the added time involved in the burn to the gate, and this would get rid of that. I really think the time penalty is important for balance on this feature.

-1
Woxanne
ORE Ltd.
#10 - 2016-09-23 22:46:32 UTC
You guys sound like the same naysayers who hated warp to zero instead of bookmarks
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#11 - 2016-09-23 23:03:41 UTC
Woxanne wrote:
You guys sound like the same naysayers who hated warp to zero instead of bookmarks


Just an FYI, that was done to save the server. Not because it made ccp more money or convenience.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#12 - 2016-09-23 23:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Woxanne wrote:
2) a LOT of this game involves paying for conveniance (through injectors / plex). With such an adult game playing audience its a good business model. What are the drawbacks really and are they any different than the other convenience aspects of the game?
Paying PLEX to directly bypass a game mechanic because you can't be arsed to be at the keyboard is a terrible idea.

Lets take a look at the uses of PLEX as they currently stand and what they all have in common.

  • Exchanging for game time, doesn't bypass a game mechanic.
  • Selling on the market for Isk or exchanging for AUR, in short a currency exchange mechanism that doesn't bypass a game mechanic.
  • Dual character training, not bypassing a game mechanic as it's mechanically the same as subbing a second account for the purposes of SP acquisition, the downside being that you can only have one character logged in per account.
  • Vanity features such as the NEX store and resculpts, not bypassing a game mechanic because those items have no direct effect on game play.
  • Fanfest tickets and the like, doesn't bypass a game mechanic because those events take place outside of the game.


Convenience features they may be, mechanical bypasses they are not.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#13 - 2016-09-23 23:52:15 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#14 - 2016-09-23 23:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Damn, that looks like what you'd get if you watched a pirate VHS tape via a 4K TV

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#15 - 2016-09-24 00:20:58 UTC
Woxanne wrote:
1) more money for CCP = less money needed for subs = less restrictions on the ftp side of game = more people = more targets

As players we know nothing about how CCP might want to manage their finances. It shouldn't even be a consideration for game change, and certainly shouldn't be a justification for a proposal.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#16 - 2016-09-24 00:45:01 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Damn, that looks like what you'd get if you watched a pirate VHS tape via a 4K TV


You wouldn't steal a pixel.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#17 - 2016-09-24 00:52:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Damn, that looks like what you'd get if you watched a pirate VHS tape via a 4K TV


You wouldn't steal a pixel.

that just reminded me of the single most hilariously ironic thing

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#18 - 2016-09-24 01:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Damn, that looks like what you'd get if you watched a pirate VHS tape via a 4K TV


You wouldn't steal a pixel.

that just reminded me of the single most hilariously ironic thing

Not shocked tbh, the anti piracy mob are quite adept at using or monetising other peoples intellectual property without permission or recompense.

The IT crowd spoof was better than the official piracy ads anyway.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#19 - 2016-09-24 02:37:07 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Woxanne wrote:
You guys sound like the same naysayers who hated warp to zero instead of bookmarks


Just an FYI, that was done to save the server. Not because it made ccp more money or convenience.


Citation needed.
As far as I'm aware they did it because everyone was making bookmarks to warp to zero. I still find some systems from my early years where there are gate bookmarks. It was perhaps the dumbest nonfeature the game had for a long time.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#20 - 2016-09-24 03:34:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Woxanne wrote:
You guys sound like the same naysayers who hated warp to zero instead of bookmarks


Just an FYI, that was done to save the server. Not because it made ccp more money or convenience.


Citation needed.
As far as I'm aware they did it because everyone was making bookmarks to warp to zero. I still find some systems from my early years where there are gate bookmarks. It was perhaps the dumbest nonfeature the game had for a long time.

I can confirm that what Daichi said is true.

Because people were making so many bookmarks around gates to warp to zero, it was causing massive amounts of lag (don't ask me why... there more than a few things about EVE's base architecture that doesn't make sense).


Anyways...

The warp-to-15 thing was originally intended to force players to interact with each other. Buuuuuuuut seeing how frustrated players were (and how much they wanted an auto-pilot feature) they made a compromise of sorts;

- Ships can warp to gates "more or less" at 0 km (there will always be a variance to everything you warp to).
- Auto-pilot will warp in at 15km and burn to the gate... giving people the automation they wanted, but with a stiff penalty.

Basically... the DEVs gave active players an advantage over inactive ones.

I do not see why this has to change.
12Next page