Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I've been thinking and I think that would be a great idea...

I would play every day through my cell phone.
it would be awesome to have every option on a android device :)

That it is true, but not profitable...from a programmer standpoint it's a gigantic task to do.
PI is a mini game and i think it's possible to do.
But I would probably added an additional fee for remote changes

Aside from the above if you increase the volume of pi produced you depress the market.

... put windows on an s6 and it works. Did that with my old phone

Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google. It is used by several smartphones and tablets. Examples include the Sony Xperia, the Samsung Galaxy, and the Google Nexus One.

The Android operating system (OS) is based on the Linux kernel. Unlike Apple's iOS, Android is open source, meaning developers can modify and customize the OS for each phone. Therefore, different Android-based phones often have different graphical user interfaces GUIs even though they use the same OS.

Therefore if u know how you can install any OS on a android device

Do you mean to say I could flash win7 onto my galaxy S7 or are you saying I can install and run winE or something similar?

While this is true, CCP has never ever ever used "well its annoying and that's why it is profitable" as a balance metric. I hear this sort of argument a lot in response to any suggestion to make thing X suck less.

Anyone who wants any system to remain obtuse and irritating as a balance measure is ignoring the fact that annoying, ****** systems are not intentionally made annoying and ****** for balance reasons. Insinuating they are is probably the worst game design philosophy imaginable.

PI isn't balanced by annoyance any more than producing faction drone BPCs or t2 ammo other annoying things. It's balanced by time, taxes, and the spaceship risk of picking things up. The fact that it commands an "annoyance premium" is an unintended quirk of economics that can easily be replicated with actual systemic numbers adjustments WHILE making those kinds of systems less ****** and annoying.

Or, basically, arguing against usability and UI upgrades on an economic basis is not a sound balance argument. If extra adopters have a disastrous effect on the market, you adjust the real systemic balance levers, not the meta-balance of player interest by purposely creating a shittier game.

I am as always not sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The snapdragon cpu will not be fast enough to compute that amount of data necessary to compute EvE the way a regular CPU can.

You may have fallen for some marketing thing and assume 2GHz = 2GHz. And no snapdragon supports SSE4, SSE4.1, MMX, SSE2, SSE3 and some other things.

While the OpenGL ES thing appears to be "fast", it can not compute the dx9 or dx11 api. The end.

I like the PI citadel idea. Every level of the base upgrade skill could increase the slots you can install structures. Like having 10/12/18/24/32 slots for example, I don't think we need rigs, more like additional structures to provide extra PG or CPU if needed. I guess this would also remove the routes between the structures, as they are built in?

How do you "play" PI exactly by the way? Checking every hour if you have to replace the extractors?
I don't think a mobile platform for this would make significant difference in PI, you could use a notebook with mobile net to do the same thing currently.

The thing is, it changes literally nothing in regards to the current balance or design of PI. This is the point I was alluding to earlier. You're relying on meta-balance to control something already firmly controlled by actual balance.

It only democratizes that ability because now, theoretically, people with job that leave their houses can set those yields just like the retiree that has a laptop strapped to his wheelchair.

Adding additional means of accessing the simulation does not in fact change the balance of the simulation, and relying on denial of access is also ****** game design, just as much as relying on annoyance to control markets, and is also something that CCP (and, really, no developer ever) relies on.

Adding an access method to alternate devices is still simply an interface change. Arguing against an interface improvement (and adding an alternate access path as an additional method is an interface improvement in an objective, rather than a subjective sense, as it is non-destructive.) in an appeal to balance is still flawed design and flawed reasoning.