These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The worst ideal ever
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#21 - 2016-10-06 19:51:31 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
I don't understand why people bother posting 'ideas' with absolutely no chance of happening.


Because they figure at some point, with enough of them, they will convince CCP it's a good idea even if we are not. People also tend to post BS (and I don't mean battleships) before a second thought, so that never really helps.



People put forth stuff good and bad, if we all had perfect ideals the games landscape would be different, but again it's not a matter of 1 ideal being perfect nor throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks, one ideal could lead to another unexpected path as it gets others thinking, this is what I believe many forget, lose this and you get stifling.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#22 - 2016-10-06 22:04:25 UTC
Well, I will point out that I wouldn't necessarily call this the worst idea.

Still, even you have to admit, most "ideas" as of late have largely been instances that fall into what I described. Some ideas have shown good merit and are genuinely constructive in nature, even when serious question related to their affects on Eve as a whole are brought into question. Most, however, tend to be what the OP wants and works for them without consideration to how it fits for the rest of Eve, or even without considering why something is the way it is in the first place. Worse yet is that quite a few of these ideas are constantly resubmitted by people who seem to almost on intention refuse to dig a little to see if it has already been suggested and, if so, what various issues and counterpoints have already been raised in the past. You are right that no idea can be perfect in every way, but many have been laughably ignorant ones.

To clarify, this is the first instance of this idea I've seen, so it's new territory in some respects. It also does sound like you have given this some thought, which is more than I can say I tend to see at least. I disagree that this idea, however, is worth it's weight, if you will: too many ways to break or invalidate its function, I believe it's contrary to why MTU's are how they are already, and I still don't see the benefit of them cloaking.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#23 - 2016-10-06 23:58:32 UTC
I would rather have a Citadel module that cost fuel and sends out NPCs to loot and salvage for me then a cloaky MTU. And be able to charge an ISK value to people who use it.
Could be something tied to asset safety. So it works for everyone in system if they don't loot/salvage in the two hour window but would then charge them for if they want it. After say 30 days it would be offered to the citadel owner.

Don't know how it would work for multiple citadels in system. Maybe auto pick the closest/cheapest.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
FT Cold
FT Cold Corporation
#24 - 2016-10-07 01:28:27 UTC
What will buble kill if he can't find MTUs anymore? I'm not willing to risk it. -1
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#25 - 2016-10-07 04:12:19 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
I don't understand why people bother posting 'ideas' with absolutely no chance of happening.

This idea does have a chance though. As an item CCP gives out for April Fools.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#26 - 2016-10-07 12:48:58 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
The issue with trying to stop it tractoring early is the server tick. When you try to open a container you will travel to it but not open it the moment you reach 2.5km because the server only checks whether you're within reach is once a second. This will happen when the wreck approaches the mtu as well.

And yet the server can calculate when and how to vector my ship to enter and maintain a 2.500 meter orbit around an object in space and the server ticks do not cause any problems with that.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2016-10-07 13:26:47 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
No I'm not trying to be clever,
I'm stating the obvious issue here and I was trying to encourage the op to see it too.
The first thing these do is take all of the crap in space that they're able to move and surround themselves with it,
even if you prevent it decloaking itself and l have it stop at 2600 you're still left with a big sphere of crap centered on its exact location.

There is one thing tho. When garbage is collected around MTU and it still got cloaked you won't see it on d-scan. And you won't pin it down with probes.

Need to say implemented this way MTUs will be nice thing for me to have Lol
Usually when i rat i drop MTUs at the end of anomaly so it only can be found through scanning. And one day went to CTA i left some MTUs in space. And got one guy scanned and killed one of them (was able to get back in time to force him out and scoop other MTUs). Having cloakable MTUs such conflict would have lesser chances to happen.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#28 - 2016-10-07 17:22:52 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Having cloakable MTUs such conflict would have lesser chances to happen.


Exactly.

Ever wonder why you only get a suspect timer for splashing one?

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Previous page12