These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What 3 things would you change about eve?

First post
Author
Laken Starr
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2015-11-28 15:21:05 UTC
1. WiS - Polish, expand, integrate. WiS has the potential to add so much to the game, but it's being completely ignored at the moment.

2. On-grid boosting - This is apparently coming, so huzzah. This should have been done a long time ago, but better late than never.

3. Manufacturing revamp - I've never particularly liked the BPO/BPC system. I want manufacturing to be about what my character knows, not what my character owns.
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#42 - 2015-11-28 15:45:56 UTC
I'd remove any ship that requires adv spaceship command and everything associated with them

I'd implement my Star Jump Drive idea

I'd change sovereignty back to a modified version of my Sovereignty 2.0 plan, this time centered on Citadels.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide

Alea
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2015-11-28 16:48:33 UTC
So us older players with crappy eyesight could actually play the game again make the tiny, too numerous space icons an option from the old space icons we had in the past, allot of us old bastards really do miss playing this game.

Kill fozziesov with extreme prejudice, in real life when we go to war we shoot at sh1t for crying out loud.

Make caps useful again and drastically reduce jump fatigue so I can use my space suitcase to move crap like I so easily could in the past.

Whomever is making the last few years decisions on what changes are to be implemented in this game, must hate Eve with all their being.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-11-28 17:33:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

My solution? Remote logi should require "ammo" of some kind, and innately generate heat when cycling on player ships(this so we don't wreck structure repping as a concept). This forces the logi player to have some resource management element in their gameplay. You can pour on rep after rep in an emergency, but if you do you will have to cool down eventually, or you can be more judicious with your reps.

This has the side effect of also improving the viability of local reps.


Hrm.... The one issue with that, not a bad issue but still an issue is that while management of resources and heat would make for a more involved put more skill on the logi, I don't think it will end the N+1. It would probably end up (N+1)*2. If I was an FC, logistics doctrine would probably split into teams where the logi FC would split them into two team, Run them with a timer to switch teams to cover cool down. If ammo was excessively oversized, or more likely cap boosters, it is a potential in a longer fight but even then, not a difficult strategy to work.

Either way, anything that promotes more active play on the side of the player is a win if it is a skill and not just a minigame.

On the good news, we know CCP is aware and concerned about N+1 play. We have new logi ships coming, but they also are working with RR mechanics. During the CCP honorable duels the other day, they were discussing that other stuff is being pondered. The most notable is the stuff they said when they introduced the concept of logi capitals which would need to really run in a triage mode to give reps. This means that the logis themselves become vulnerable at least. Problem then is that most combat larger scale will consist of shoot logi only. :-(

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2015-11-28 17:39:31 UTC
Yang Aurilen wrote:
Hilti Enaka wrote:
The game has become very risk averse making it dull, boring and predictable. As much as that makes this sound like a rant, it's far from it. The question is what 3 things would you change of eve pvp?

I am PVP orientated so my three things are all aimed at trying to get people out of their comfort zones and away from being risk averse and get people looking for the GF's rather than the safe fights.

1. EWAR - needs a complete rethink, this contributes the biggest factor of risk aversion and is an "I WIN" button.

2. Logi ships - another contribution to the "I WIN" button, they tend to be the decision to go out and roam or not to go out and roam, as well as the decision to engage or not to engage, it always comes down to if your bringing 10 logi ships i am bringing 15.

3. Neutral repping ships in wars; another contribution to the massive risk aversion.

I now wait the forum trolls to try to frame the my 3 points as fail. Before you do I want you to consider what the game used to be like before EWAR and Logi came into the game, that period of the game was the most enjoyable for me and many of the friends I made who unsubbed for the reasons of trying to make content but always competing against the game plays that roll out with the points above.


1. Whiny people
2. Whiny people who refuse to GIT GUD
3. Whiny people who can't think their way out of a problem even if the solution is in their hands with instruction sheets on how to use the said solution


Just to clarify, does "GIT GUD" equal "buy more alts" or are we actually talking about ingame decisions and skills of specific players here?

I must admit I generally find some confusion surrounding this topic because I've never understood what paying CCP more $/month has to do with skill.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#46 - 2015-11-29 03:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Cold
1. Rebalance ECM, including cap warfare. The only way to completely take someone out of the fight should be to destroy their ship. ECM doesn't really have a meaningful counter-play. ECCM is ineffective and even if it were, no module should completely prevent your ship from being able to lock at least one other, even if it's chance based.

Neuts are in a similar state. Cap boosters aren't really an effective defense, as they don't provide enough cap to offset the strength of neuts and cap batteries are next to worthless. For cap based tanks, which aren't very strong to begin with without links, any ship with enough neuting power is a hard counter, and bonused hulls spell instant death. Utility highs should be made into a slot which players need to make a choice, and for offensive options, there needs to be an effective defense.

2. Battleship PVP performance needs to be decoupled from neuts, drones, and RHMLs. Part of the problem is power-creep from smaller hulls, which isn't really an issue of buffing battleships. T3 cruisers (and destroyers) are long overdue for another nerf to EHP, and a fresh one to DPS and application. That said, battleships could sorely stand to see a balance pass, and I think that a round of buffs similar to those that CBCs enjoyed to mobility, EHP, and cap, wouldn't be game breaking, especially with links going on grid in the future. Instead of a role bonus to range, a bonus to scan resolution, sensor strength or warp speed would be welcome; a 2.4 au/sec warp speed would be reasonable to offset with a few rigs.

3. More support, ships, modules, and mechanics designed for solo PVP. Solo PVP is the lifeblood of EVE, it's far from dead, even if it isn't as visible as the big fleet battles featured in the trailers. It's accessable, high risk-high reward, and generates content.

I'm a bit apprehensive about the direction that a few of the latest changes could take. 36k+ scrams from HICs, command destroyers, and on grid only links have the potential to buff low skill, low risk, blobby gameplay while functionally adding much less to small scale gameplay. A bigger, more well organized group deserves to have some advantages, but stack the deck in their favor too much, and the game will lose something special; the ability for a player to jump in a ship and get content anytime is vital to the game's health.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#47 - 2015-11-29 04:57:21 UTC
1. improve ewar's ship overall capabilities (at least tanking) to increase it's demand and become a necessity in fleets just like logi
2. on grid boosting
3. neutrals to gain "suspect" flag when entering FW plexes

Just Add Water

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#48 - 2015-11-29 05:12:39 UTC
Markus Reese wrote:

Hrm.... The one issue with that, not a bad issue but still an issue is that while management of resources and heat would make for a more involved put more skill on the logi, I don't think it will end the N+1.


It is absolutely not intended to.

Numbers are, in my opinion anyway, by far the most fair force multiplier available. Since this is a flight sim, individual skill will never be a serious factor, which only really leaves us with numbers and pricetag as available options for primary force multipliers in the game.

And we all know that pricetag is absolutely unacceptable. Thus, I accept that numbers are and will remain a primary force multiplier. The onus is on game design to create an interesting environment within the framework we have. But trying to rail against numbers as a force multiplier, trying to attack it or deny the reality of the game is just folly.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-11-30 11:19:50 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
1. Rebalance ECM, including cap warfare. The only way to completely take someone out of the fight should be to destroy their ship. ECM doesn't really have a meaningful counter-play. ECCM is ineffective and even if it were, no module should completely prevent your ship from being able to lock at least one other, even if it's chance based.

Neuts are in a similar state. Cap boosters aren't really an effective defense, as they don't provide enough cap to offset the strength of neuts and cap batteries are next to worthless. For cap based tanks, which aren't very strong to begin with without links, any ship with enough neuting power is a hard counter, and bonused hulls spell instant death. Utility highs should be made into a slot which players need to make a choice, and for offensive options, there needs to be an effective defense.

2. Battleship PVP performance needs to be decoupled from neuts, drones, and RHMLs. Part of the problem is power-creep from smaller hulls, which isn't really an issue of buffing battleships. T3 cruisers (and destroyers) are long overdue for another nerf to EHP, and a fresh one to DPS and application. That said, battleships could sorely stand to see a balance pass, and I think that a round of buffs similar to those that CBCs enjoyed to mobility, EHP, and cap, wouldn't be game breaking, especially with links going on grid in the future. Instead of a role bonus to range, a bonus to scan resolution, sensor strength or warp speed would be welcome; a 2.4 au/sec warp speed would be reasonable to offset with a few rigs.

3. More support, ships, modules, and mechanics designed for solo PVP. Solo PVP is the lifeblood of EVE, it's far from dead, even if it isn't as visible as the big fleet battles featured in the trailers. It's accessable, high risk-high reward, and generates content.

I'm a bit apprehensive about the direction that a few of the latest changes could take. 36k+ scrams from HICs, command destroyers, and on grid only links have the potential to buff low skill, low risk, blobby gameplay while functionally adding much less to small scale gameplay. A bigger, more well organized group deserves to have some advantages, but stack the deck in their favor too much, and the game will lose something special; the ability for a player to jump in a ship and get content anytime is vital to the game's health.


Capless guns and tank available through quite a few fits are a pretty effective counter to neuts. Neuts aren't broken in the way ECM is.

I worry about the 36k scram. Instalock gate camps with domination scram-fit HICs are going to suck.
Hilti Enaka
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#50 - 2015-11-30 12:39:19 UTC
Thanks for posts pretty good ideas so far.

I was having a think over the weekend and was thinking to myself how easy it is for Frigates to stop a big ship like a BS from entering warp. It feels wrong somehow that.
Malbona Pomon
Petulant Luddite GmbH
#51 - 2015-11-30 19:05:24 UTC
1. FW pilots in hostile empire space should be RED, as should low empire standings pilots (if the local crap security people can shoot you, so should other people).

2. Bounty / Kill Right Marketplace.

3. Better UI display so we can de-clutter that beautiful view.
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#52 - 2015-11-30 20:40:57 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
1. Rebalance ECM, including cap warfare. The only way to completely take someone out of the fight should be to destroy their ship. ECM doesn't really have a meaningful counter-play. ECCM is ineffective and even if it were, no module should completely prevent your ship from being able to lock at least one other, even if it's chance based.

Neuts are in a similar state. Cap boosters aren't really an effective defense, as they don't provide enough cap to offset the strength of neuts and cap batteries are next to worthless. For cap based tanks, which aren't very strong to begin with without links, any ship with enough neuting power is a hard counter, and bonused hulls spell instant death. Utility highs should be made into a slot which players need to make a choice, and for offensive options, there needs to be an effective defense.

2. Battleship PVP performance needs to be decoupled from neuts, drones, and RHMLs. Part of the problem is power-creep from smaller hulls, which isn't really an issue of buffing battleships. T3 cruisers (and destroyers) are long overdue for another nerf to EHP, and a fresh one to DPS and application. That said, battleships could sorely stand to see a balance pass, and I think that a round of buffs similar to those that CBCs enjoyed to mobility, EHP, and cap, wouldn't be game breaking, especially with links going on grid in the future. Instead of a role bonus to range, a bonus to scan resolution, sensor strength or warp speed would be welcome; a 2.4 au/sec warp speed would be reasonable to offset with a few rigs.

3. More support, ships, modules, and mechanics designed for solo PVP. Solo PVP is the lifeblood of EVE, it's far from dead, even if it isn't as visible as the big fleet battles featured in the trailers. It's accessable, high risk-high reward, and generates content.

I'm a bit apprehensive about the direction that a few of the latest changes could take. 36k+ scrams from HICs, command destroyers, and on grid only links have the potential to buff low skill, low risk, blobby gameplay while functionally adding much less to small scale gameplay. A bigger, more well organized group deserves to have some advantages, but stack the deck in their favor too much, and the game will lose something special; the ability for a player to jump in a ship and get content anytime is vital to the game's health.


Capless guns and tank available through quite a few fits are a pretty effective counter to neuts. Neuts aren't broken in the way ECM is.

I worry about the 36k scram. Instalock gate camps with domination scram-fit HICs are going to suck.


No, neuts aren't broken in the same way that ECM is. I'm not trying to argue that aren't some ways of countering neuts, only that neuts are too strong, hard counter too many fits, don't have good highslot alternatives, and don't have enough effective counters. There's basically no reason not to fit them if you can. I'm not interested in a flame war so I'll leave it at that.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#53 - 2015-11-30 20:53:52 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
1. Rebalance ECM, including cap warfare. The only way to completely take someone out of the fight should be to destroy their ship. ECM doesn't really have a meaningful counter-play. ECCM is ineffective and even if it were, no module should completely prevent your ship from being able to lock at least one other, even if it's chance based.


Hrm, I just had an idea on that. One thing I wish to push for is more value on applied damage. One of these concepts is making use of signature resolution. Perhaps a solution to this would be to remove the chance based permajam, and make it heavily effect a ships target resolution of it's turrets. This effectively makes for less good hits, as well as more misses without the dull cycle jammy. I must post this in features and idea!

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Valacus
Streets of Fire
#54 - 2015-11-30 21:29:59 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
1. Rebalance ECM, including cap warfare. The only way to completely take someone out of the fight should be to destroy their ship. ECM doesn't really have a meaningful counter-play. ECCM is ineffective and even if it were, no module should completely prevent your ship from being able to lock at least one other, even if it's chance based.

Neuts are in a similar state. Cap boosters aren't really an effective defense, as they don't provide enough cap to offset the strength of neuts and cap batteries are next to worthless. For cap based tanks, which aren't very strong to begin with without links, any ship with enough neuting power is a hard counter, and bonused hulls spell instant death. Utility highs should be made into a slot which players need to make a choice, and for offensive options, there needs to be an effective defense.

2. Battleship PVP performance needs to be decoupled from neuts, drones, and RHMLs. Part of the problem is power-creep from smaller hulls, which isn't really an issue of buffing battleships. T3 cruisers (and destroyers) are long overdue for another nerf to EHP, and a fresh one to DPS and application. That said, battleships could sorely stand to see a balance pass, and I think that a round of buffs similar to those that CBCs enjoyed to mobility, EHP, and cap, wouldn't be game breaking, especially with links going on grid in the future. Instead of a role bonus to range, a bonus to scan resolution, sensor strength or warp speed would be welcome; a 2.4 au/sec warp speed would be reasonable to offset with a few rigs.

3. More support, ships, modules, and mechanics designed for solo PVP. Solo PVP is the lifeblood of EVE, it's far from dead, even if it isn't as visible as the big fleet battles featured in the trailers. It's accessable, high risk-high reward, and generates content.

I'm a bit apprehensive about the direction that a few of the latest changes could take. 36k+ scrams from HICs, command destroyers, and on grid only links have the potential to buff low skill, low risk, blobby gameplay while functionally adding much less to small scale gameplay. A bigger, more well organized group deserves to have some advantages, but stack the deck in their favor too much, and the game will lose something special; the ability for a player to jump in a ship and get content anytime is vital to the game's health.


Add the removal of off grid boosting and this would be my wet dream patch. Yes, there needs to be more solo oriented modules. Right now soloing is just based on ancil reps, with a few cancer EWAR fits here and there. Soloing by "who can tank the best" is really boring. ECM has always been a really stupid mechanic. "Hahaha, you can no longer play the game except to die!" Who thought up that idea? Every other form of EWAR requires a situational mechanic to be made effective, like transversal for tracking disruptors or range for sensor damps. Jamming simply requires the jam to land. Not to mention ECCM is a wasted module slot if you don't run into jammers, but sensor boosters and tracking computers are never wasted. Battleships suck balls right now. Too big, too slow, too easy to negate DPS, and too easily countered by simple things like neuts. The one and only exception is the one battleship that is relatively small, relatively fast, has a warp speed AND acceleration bonus, uses capless weapons, and uses a weapon type that can be extremely effective at distances where tracking isn't as big of an issue. 3 guesses which one that is.
Ginnie
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#55 - 2015-11-30 22:38:10 UTC
I like PVE not PVP, don't hate, its just what I find fun.

1) LP - faction level instead of an individual corp level.
2) Salvage Drones - each target a different wreck.
3) New Players - need to have much better tutorials. Lots of questions in SAK about how to access inventory, use blueprints, train skills, etc., etc. Career Level 1 agents dont really provide a tutorial for how to use a blueprint, for example.

It sounds plausible enough tonight, but wait until tomorrow. Wait for the common sense of the morning.

Paladin Genghis Khanid
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2015-12-01 03:01:24 UTC
Reinventing ECM:

ECM should reduce the number of max targets vs. completely shutting down targeting (although if max targets are low it could still have that affect). When it lands the priority of what targets are lost at the time of jamming is based on sig radius or proximity. Perhaps there could be scripts to shift between making target loss priority be smaller sigs vs. larger sigs. One makes it where the sensors strength isn't enough to track smaller ships and the other limits the system buffer so that it has a hard time holding the info on larger ships. This could also be applied to closer ships vs. farther ships if that route was taken instead.

With this mechanic smaller ships would be less effective vs. larger ships with more max targets. Larger ships ECM would be more effective against smaller ships when it lands. Due to this mechanic there would have to be specific ECM modules for different hull sizes.


OR


ECCM (within the current ECM mechanics):

Another concept is that ECCM reduce the effectiveness of ECM, lowering the time the effects of jamming last. So if jam cycle was 20s, an ECCM with 50% resist would reduce that jammed time to 10s. The aggressor would then have to wait out the remaining 10s before the next cycle could land. When resisted all jams are ended. So if you're being jammed by 3 ships they all are resisted no matter where they are in their cycle when 1 of the jams has reaching its time limit.

If Ship One's jam is currently at 2s and Ship Two's at 6s, once Ship Three hits 10s the target ship gains immunity.
Ship 1 loses 18s of jam time.
Ship 2 loses 14s of jam time.
Ship 3 loses 10s of jam time.

During this immunity no jams can be landed. So if you apply jams during the immunity it is an automatic fail. This will give a quantifiable bonus to ECCM and make the fitting of ECCM quantifiably worthwhile. ECM pilots will also have to manage their ECM to ensure they don't waste cap on pointless cycles. Having more than one jam will still give you better odds of landing jams, but there would be no more ECM stacking. So for all intents and purposes only 1 ECM module on 1 ship can jam a given target at one time.

Paladin Genghis Khanid
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2015-12-01 03:11:59 UTC
Ginnie wrote:
2) Salvage Drones - each target a different wreck.
3) New Players - need to have much better tutorials. Lots of questions in SAK about how to access inventory, use blueprints, train skills, etc., etc. Career Level 1 agents dont really provide a tutorial for how to use a blueprint, for example.


2.) Manual control and faster vs. automatic and lower. I don't think they'll ever make them that great where you literal get the best results by hitting a single command and then go eat dinner. What I'd like to see is a utility drone bay on all non-droneboat ships (at least destroyer and up) that only fit salvage drones. No one should have to go without salvage drones.

3.) They are making a new tutorial. Their past record isn't very good though...


I'd also like a area of the cargo bay segmented so that ammo or things you want to keep in the bay can be separate from random loot so it doesn't have to be sifted through when dumbing stuff in stations. I hate picking up ammo and having stuff I don't want clustering up the reload window.
RuleoftheBone
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2015-12-01 11:14:33 UTC
Remove......
Remove local.....
Remove local everywhere forever and ever amen........
MrsKaye
Doomheim
#59 - 2015-12-01 19:00:33 UTC  |  Edited by: MrsKaye
I can only add why I don't PVP much as a casual solo player.

IT'S FAR TOO EASY TO GANK SOLO'S.

I've played off and on since 2011 and just dislike PVP in this game due to the one sided nature of the PVP staging that is a hard barrier to cross as a solo player. I get that small gangs are a thing, but it gets old very quickly. It's rather like going in a level 4 mission with a frigate, sure you can do it, but nothing to keep doing to build long term game value.

Create barriers for gangs in LOW SEC, so they are forced to separate and solo PVP. Let fleets bundle in NULL.
Merovee
Gorthaur Legion
Imperium Mordor
#60 - 2015-12-01 21:28:59 UTC
1. Have FW be able to conquer null sec and raise its sec to 0.5 over time.
2. Make planets part of the game play of EVE. (RTS)(Content for dust)(hover tanks for EVE)
3. Multi-player Super Capital ships that can't log off.

Empire, the next new world order.