I removed an inappropriate post.
Ideas are always shot down by those who see the idea as somehow taking an advantage away from their style of play.
If CCP made it harder for them to play, they would cry about those using the unfair advantage against them.
If CCP made it easier for them to play, they would ridicule those crying about the unfair advantage being used.
What a load of bullcrap.
Please hide my posts as well, you fascists.
2 Likes
“Thanks for helping to keep our community civil!”…?
Apparently this forum comes with player made trigger warnings.
I’m amazed that EvE could have such a thing on its official forums.
1 Like
Generally, this sheet looks nice, it has good but also bad ideas
about nebulas(asthetic 5): Better would be to bring back the old skybox we had before Crucible with updated graphics. If you check out the ship preview window on SISI you can see some of them and ship icons are still based on the old skybox. Back then when CCP introduced them they wanted the universe to look more realistic and dynamic, but the opposite was the case. The positioning of the nebulas sometimes makes no sense at all(for example the region Providence/Catch). Also, even after 6 1/2 years, the quality is as mentioned horrible, already when enabling dynamic camera you can see the pixels of some nebulas, especially the smaller ones like in Essence/The citadel.
What also surprised me is the incapability of CCP to actually make COMPLETELY new nebulas, compare the skybox from C5 wormholes with the region Sinq Laisson, it is the same and identical nebula, just retextured and a bit smaller, or check out the C4 nebula and the Kor-Azor region, it also was made out of an existing nebula. And some Abyss Nebulas look familar
And they are also not looking so good in general, when I’m in caldari space, I always have the feeling of beeing in an ice cave or when I enter Sinq Laisson, it reminds me of Atlantis or any other ancient city. And Metropolis looks like a firedragon with two heads.
The old wormhole nebulas weren’t made out of the K-space nebulas, they were different. Thats why I still prefer the old skyboxes, they had better quality(even when they were made in 2003), it was more dynamic as it changed each constellation and it was a little more space like.
About PVE:
there I would rather suggest reduce damage of all rats by about 40-50%, but massively buff optimal range and tracking. The problem with VNI’s is that they can speedtank the site and not the damage. The dps of the last wave in a Haven would then be reduced to 500-700, but gets fully applied on cruisers. Also, it would make the sites easier to run in bigger ships, this has always been the problem that cruisers could run harder sites easier than battleships due to weak application of rats. Also, all forms of Ewar except warpscram/webbing should be removed from rats as that makes almost anything but droneboats useless.(Serpentis damp to hell - VNI/Ishtar is only choice, Blood/Sansha weapondistrupt to hell - VNI/Ishtar is only choice, Guristas jam to hell - VNI/Ishtar is only choice, other ships are only viable against angel and drones except capitals and marauders)
Also, the DED sites need a balance pass, some 5/10’s are harder than 6/10’s and all DED sites should have at least one additional NPC that can drop factionloot. A Sansha 7/10 has two factionspawns, while in the 10/10 the Station ultima is the only source of shiny loot.
About ethnics, I agree with anything there except the limitation of alts and the visible list of alts
what should happen with someone like me who has 30+accounts? And alts as spys etc, that no one knows are an integral part of the game…
Honest evaluations: I see a lot of high-end graphical catering, I neither agree nor disagree with these items, but I offer this caveat, low-end rigs can’t benefit from them and even if higher-end graphical UI were created it would draw resources away from other, meatier game features. I could agree to a general long-run graphical enhancement initiative if it were run with spare manpower during downtime hours between actual gameplay generation projects or while Dept B is waiting for Dept A to run their end of the project through the pipeline.
In regards to all the QoL suggestions that speed things up, I’m actually of the opinion that lower speeds need to be made more relevant, greater spans of time over distance provide larger margins for smaller players to make advantages for themselves. IIRC, jump fatigue was an attempt to do that. Mind you, I’m also keenly aware that realistic travel times is what killed Star Wars Galaxies, so there’s a median to balance the gameplay around. Regardless, I’m aesthetically and otherwise personally against faster travel and similar QoL “improvements”.
- Ships should not be confined to a level default angle in space: Flying ships upside-down, and on their side is epic, and in a fleet engagement seeing a Wyverns carve sideways or an Avatar spiraling or a Naglfar spiraling would be awesome.
Agreed, not even sure why the pitch and roll angles are as limited as they are. True 3-d grids are way more fun, as any homeworld veteran can tell you.
- Planetary Interaction Improvements: Planetary Interaction should be improved into a dust 2.0 style environment where a player accesses a feed…
I made a suggestion a while back about turning PI into a more expansive minigame via cargo/shuttle drones, shuttle bays, and using those Survivor and Scientist items to fill staffing requirements on each facility; additionally, bringing a bird’s-eye-view version of Dust into play by including dropships, drop pods, and soldier/security staff warfare (“ground-based drones”) as well as reviving orbital ammo to capture/control/eliminate PI assets on planets/systems that find themselves contested. It was not taken at all well.
8.a Space Mines!
Probe Launcher-based, spread-based, either smaller area or very large numbers of probes in the spread over multiple vollies (options for arc/“belt”, dome/‘shield’, and ring-shaped spreads?)- each probe is actually a single-shot missile-type weapon or bomb-pumped laser, would give explorers double-duty in blob warfare (I assume), splitting their holds between scanners and mines, sounds neat. Would probably work best like anchorables and decay on a reinforce timer or something
- Adding in some new Stargates to create new focal points and bring life to dead areas:
15.a Increase the number of WHs within WHs to increase connections there.
IIRC, aren’t player-built stargates supposed to be coming… eventually?
22.a The ability to salvage corpses:
22. The ability to remove Implants intact with Biology skill level
Neat, but with a caveat, salvaging implants kills the clone in all cases, so you’d burn a jump-clone, but potentially save yourself the hassle of reacquiring particularly rare implants. New Skillset based off biology sounds best:
-Cybernetics IV, Biology III, Science V unlocks “Cybernetic Recovery” [+1% per level chance of recovering or scanning cybernetics; Lvl1: unlocks Cybernetic Scanning; Lvl2: unlocks Cybersurgery and Low-Grade Implant Recovery; Lvl3: unlocks Cyberhacking and Mid-Grade Implant Recovery; Lvl4: unlocks Field Repossession; Lvl5: unlocks High-Grade Implant Recovery
-“Cybernetic Scanning” [15% per level chance per scan cycle to successfully identify an implant for removal in a jumpclone or corpse, Upwell structure rigs or faction facilities may enhance this; Lvl3: unlocks Cyberscan Technician]
-Cloning Facility Operation IV unlocks “Cyberscan Technician” [reduces duration of a Cybernetic Scan by 2% per level, Upwell structure rigs or faction facilities may enhance this]
-“Cybersurgery” [10% per level chance of recovering implants intact from a jumpclone]
-Hacking IV unlocks “Cyberhacking” [5% per level chance of recovering implants intact from a jumpclone or corpse]
-“Field Repossession” [2% per level chance of recovering implants from a corpse]
So, you’d have a ship-based cybernetic salvaging module that allows basic scanning and skill-based recovery (possibly with penalties depending on the module’s size; i.e. L or XL corpse salvaging is the most efficient, S-modules are just quick, compact, and sloppy), Upwell rigsets that grant scan accuracy and scan duration bonuses as well as recovery, and a few specialized factions with similar bonuses to the best Upwell rigsets.
24.b Inroduce the ability to put folders inside of folders (nested folders) for bookmarks:
YES.
- Solution to Cloaky Camping and pressure on Cloaky doctrines: Cloaks should be made into a rotating module that requires Liquid Ozone to run one.
I love logistics attrition systems, so this gets my generic vote, but since I don’t PvP, I’ll refrain- it just sounds interesting since we have things like jump drive and station fuel.
4, A WH mapping system in-game on a sub menu of the system map:
Useful.
- Relating to Doctrines: "Doctrines" and other cancers of EVE,
My take on the issue: M-sized point-defence turret modules, a combination of S-sized weapons with an automated targeting system and, lore-wise, a drone fire-control, with all the powergrid and cpu needs that entails, set for a user-customised range, speed, mass rating when fitted- while less effective if manually targeted to anything outside its firecon parameters, the system will independently lock, using your lock limit, and engage a single target that fits inside its given metrics, possibly with bonuses for a very narrow set of targeting parameters on all axes (or just use some less calc-intense method of assigning a targeting profile, I really don’t know what). Uses drone bonuses, if possible code-wise, instead of related gunnery bonuses (this type of system isn’t applicable to use with missiles given the existence of the Rapid-style launchers) and is otherwise a far less-efficient version of having a fleetmate(s) providing anti-smallboat overwatch. L and XL-versions either do more damage or a faster cycle time and are otherwise comparable to multiples of the same S-sized module it would be based on. In Blob v. Blob engagements the rule of large numbers should kick in and provide a dissuasion to such engagements, but then I know nothing of PvP and just like the thought of the pretty light-show of mixed-weight fire this kind of module would provide to war correspondents. As for anyone who would detract this idea on server load concerns, the module ought to (ought to) be about as much of a drain as an extra [NPC] drone on the grid.
- Enact various measures to put pressure on mega alliances or blue doughnuts with the intention of breaking up large content denial power blocks and creating more pressure for them to fight each other and themselves:
(partial response) 5a. CCP employees should be encouraged to play anonymously as a part of the EVE community especially to keep watch for exploits in each of the mega alliances:
NPC war-fleets trying to reclaim their national sovereignty from those it deems enemies and an imminent threat to their security- it pays to keep all your members up on their security status to avoid such incursions into you corner of nullsec. Would let CCP test out AI and balance passes actively as well. Smaller raids separate from or part of a main incursion are also in the question and would give more reasons to get the line members out and fighting. NPC payouts to corps in good status for targeting corps selected by their ‘incursion threat algorithm’.
- Health Impact assessment:
8.b Anti harassment mechanism:
8.d EULA modifications:
This is not a nursery, manage your life better and don’t let the game own you, this is the same as gambling addiction, sufferers should seek help, not rely on the Devs and GMs to nanny them. This is not daycare, this is a game, walk away, laugh it off with lolcats, or blow off steam in a murder simulator, like your pirate alt.
8.c All someone’s Alts should be listed on their profile page info:
“Those would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve none and receive neither.”
You might as well ask for a ban on griefing pirate corps. I disagree, both ethically and morally on the benefit of such measures.
My own personal addition: better pathfinding.
1 Like
Also, after looking up old articles on the blobbing problem, I found this little gem from '08
To Blob or Not to Blob
Yay some constructive posts :DDDDD Thankyou nicer elements of the EVE community. 
Hopefully CCP reads some of the ideas, mhm there are some wild ideas but all the basic ones are nice. :))))
CCP knows what players want, we arent exactly mute.
CCP is in 100% better position to know what it can and should do with its resources. That some QoL things might not be in EVE doesnt mean they warrant being put into the game, same goes for core game mechanics.
Also, wall’s of text suck 100% of the time.
…
What???
I wasn’t even going to respond to it.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.