These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why Dont....

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#81 - 2013-01-20 13:09:44 UTC
There is man who doesn't think it's impossible, and so he will make impossible happen.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#82 - 2013-01-20 13:57:54 UTC
Earth moves with relative speed of several thousand km/s.
You will land on a station anchored around a planet and in 10 seconds that station would be in warp range again.
Spurty
#83 - 2013-01-20 14:05:23 UTC
I demand pos's hurtling around their moons in geostationary orbit doing so many 1000s of m/s

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
#84 - 2013-01-20 14:23:27 UTC
" To expand on that, what would be the gain? "

Quite simply, unpredictability. Something the game is sorely lacking at the moment.

With the exception of a few gates which were re-aligned, and a handful of new celestial's seeded, bookmarks from 10 years ago are still valid today.

While the ships and mods we use have undergone significant transformations since beta, the environment we interact with hasn't.

This in many ways has made the game static and predictable and reduced rather than enhanced the quality and type of decisions and choices we as players make in game.

The argument against change is that it's overly complex and gives back little. Why however, is it necessary to change everything at once ? A random number generator picking 15 systems a week to be shuffled in the deck would after 6 months have effected @ 360 systems. A '' crap '' system that previously only had 3 belts could be shuffled to have 11 and see it's popularity and utility rise greatly. Reshuffling gate connections would alter traffic flows and potentially create new conflict generators in the process. Once the dev's had some practice with it, it should become a simple cut and paste process that could be expanded to include moon minerals, asteroids, gate connections, and even the faction of rats.

You would never again be able to log off and know for certain that the EVE you left was the exact same predictable one you logged into.

If once a week we needed to tolerate a single 60 min downtime in order to shake 10 years of dust off of EVE then i'd say it's a small price to pay to bring a gust of fresh air to a tired and overly familiar environment. Familiarity breeds contempt, or in our case complacency.

Wake up Explorer, it's time for a change.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#85 - 2013-01-20 14:36:56 UTC
Aston Martin DB5 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.



Spoken like a true dev alt.

And your opinion regarding animated turrets?


Cool turrets don't break bookmarks.
Pandora Barzane
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2013-01-20 19:25:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aston Martin DB5 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.



Spoken like a true dev alt.

And your opinion regarding animated turrets?


Cool turrets don't break bookmarks.



how about adding some complexity to the game? oh I know you want easymode so you dont have to scan your safes each time. well HTFU and all that.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#87 - 2013-01-20 19:35:11 UTC
I want completely realistic newtonian physics. Ships should travel non stop until acted upon by another force, trajectories should be effected by the gravity of surrounding planets, ships should be pulled towards the sun towards impending doom if they stray to close, projectiles should have unlimited range, planets should orbit their sun, solar systems should orbit around their galaxy. That would be awesome, and was also originally the intention of eve. Unfortunately this will never happen now though in the Eve universe. We wIll have to wait for another game which implements this level of realism.
Pandora Barzane
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#88 - 2013-01-20 19:57:52 UTC
I think true newtonian physics would be a bit too much. Ive played evochron mercenary, and combat is horrible in this game. But orbiting planets/moons would at least add the notion youre in a dynamic galaxy instead of the static backdrop it is now.
Whitehound
#89 - 2013-01-20 21:06:40 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
I want completely realistic newtonian physics. Ships should travel non stop until acted upon by another force, trajectories should be effected by the gravity of surrounding planets, ships should be pulled towards the sun towards impending doom if they stray to close, projectiles should have unlimited range, planets should orbit their sun, solar systems should orbit around their galaxy. That would be awesome, and was also originally the intention of eve. Unfortunately this will never happen now though in the Eve universe. We wIll have to wait for another game which implements this level of realism.

This is possibly where Star Citizen will shine over EVE Online. If or when it is being released can we see how much it adds to a game, or if it is just another complication like CCP Explorer says.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#90 - 2013-01-20 21:14:36 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.
To expand on that, what would be the gain?


EVE is real, but not real enough.


When I was a humble noob, I was really disappointed that the planets and moons didn't move. Quite a few of the planets should have done a few orbits by now.

PS you can make it much easier by moving the grid (and any bookmarks on it) along with the planet

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016