Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 17:20:00 -
[1]
1. Fix ECM by Removing lottery jamming
2. Markings on Blue prints to Distinguish the difference between BPO and BPC
3. Make Killmails Distinguish the Difference from a bpo and BPC being in the destroyed Items concord evemails.
4. Ability to Remove Neutrels from Overview. For Empire Warriors.
5. Display a Ships Agility Next to Speed in the Attributes
6. Being Able to Lock and Unlock more then 1 bpo down at a time. Say 10 would nice. I try and lock 30 bpo's down and there is a bug where maby 13 will and the rest have to be revoted locked like 2-3 times.
7. Possibly a New Skill reducing the Effect of the war Dec by 4hrs per level. Called Shock and Awe: Fast War Reaction. Once you have war decced someone and the 24hrs has passed for the vote you norm have to wait another 24hrs tll you can legally shoot. Well this skill would reduce the 24hrs till you can legally shoot. @ max skill youd still have 4hrs till you could legally shoot.
8. Wouldnt it be amazing if Devs put in a Vote system? Where when you log on at the character selection where the News is at there would be an option to vote on topics like #2 and each account gets 1 vote but trial accounts dont.
9. Leave stabs Alone
10.People cannot use Warp Disruptors/scramblers and stabs at the same time.
11. or implement number 8 to resolve #9/10 -------------------------------------------
People i dont want a discussion of your ideas just say yes or no. However if you have something l33t to say i have a excact thread like this at my forums where id be happy to read your thoughts on the ideas.
http://www.muffin-factory.com/ Then forums link Then General Forums Then Eve Ideas
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 17:28:00 -
[2]
/signed for 1-5
Never experience 6, never build.
Not so happy with 7-11
|
hangovur
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 17:46:00 -
[3]
Edited by: hangovur on 16/06/2006 17:47:17 1-6 and 8 i like.
the rest i really dont.
#10 would be much better if stabs would reduce RoF or range.
|
Ast3r0iD
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 17:47:00 -
[4]
pretty much /signed. good post.
|
Murukan
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 17:47:00 -
[5]
i agree with most except maybe the war one. Definately agree with no stabs if you have a scram on. If you want to stab***** up to run away atleast they can too then lol
|
Kaeten
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 17:53:00 -
[6]
I have to admit those are soem good ideas, especialy the not allowing scrmas if u fit stabs, however what stops a whole gang not having stabs and 1 just fit for scramlbing (tacklers). I still think more should be done with stabs, cpu increase or soemthing...
High-Sec Piracy Recruitment |
George Soros
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 18:16:00 -
[7]
Nice post Cranberry. I like them all - especially # 10 which is the FIRST viable nerf I've heard for the 'WCS Problem'. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
Kadreal
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 18:38:00 -
[8]
Isn't aglity simply based on the ships mass - ship command & evasive manuevering?
|
cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 19:03:00 -
[9]
for those of you saying good ideas thy but pls use HippoKings format guys like a yay or na
|
Tristan Acoma
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 19:23:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Tristan Acoma on 16/06/2006 19:23:25
Originally by: Kaeten I have to admit those are soem good ideas, especialy the not allowing scrmas if u fit stabs, however what stops a whole gang not having stabs and 1 just fit for scramlbing (tacklers). I still think more should be done with stabs, cpu increase or soemthing...
Nerf Scram OR stab = 4tl.
Poster has an interesting thought in having range effects occur.
|
|
vile56
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 19:32:00 -
[11]
1-5 yay 6dont care 7 yay 8 no 9 hell no 10 yes 11 no
|
cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 21:11:00 -
[12]
pop goes weasel more ideas
12. Make standings from Corp to Individual actually work so they would show up blue on scanner.
13. Allow Corps to see what other corps standings are towards you. Because alot of times 2 corps will set each other +10 and then after a week one corp will change standings of the other one back to neutrel and there is no way to know unless you evemail there ceo and ask. So if you could see what corps actually liked you under liked by it would be helpful
14. Allow corp to alliance standings. If you are in a corp and you want to set an entire alliance +10 you cannot unless you are in an alliance. meaning you have to set standings to each individual corp in that alliance. Then you cannot even see if they set standings back to your corp unless you contact all 50 ceo's.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.06.16 21:14:00 -
[13]
Originally by: cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN 14. Allow corp to alliance standings. If you are in a corp and you want to set an entire alliance +10 you cannot unless you are in an alliance. meaning you have to set standings to each individual corp in that alliance.
Oveur has said this is coming in
Originally by: cRaNbErRy MuFfInMaN Then you cannot even see if they set standings back to your corp unless you contact all 50 ceo's.
errr... what?
|
Geoff C
|
Posted - 2006.06.18 09:29:00 -
[14]
1-9 yes PLS eventually 12-14 YEs god pls
CCP we dont need 900 versions of new frigs stop coming out with new stuff and FIX the current stuff :P basic game mechanics.
|
Bosie
|
Posted - 2006.06.18 14:20:00 -
[15]
Rule 10 has my ♥
Bosie.
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND."
...Winston |
Thnikkaman
|
Posted - 2006.06.18 14:27:00 -
[16]
I agree with No.1 (the rest i didn't read... i just got up!!). Jamming is absolutely daft, it was much better before, you either Target Jam, or you don't simple as that. _____________________________________________/ *Here comes the Thnikkaman!*
Yeah! Shut up kid! |
Roscoe Rhoads
|
Posted - 2006.06.18 17:47:00 -
[17]
Regarding #2 only morons fall for it. Working as intended.
|
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2006.06.18 18:05:00 -
[18]
actually, and tbh, unless there is a complete rewrite of ECM and a significant nerf to nos, then #9 needs to happen and in fact I'd go a step further and get WCSII's on the boards. Then we can find out what Eve is like with overpowered ECM and Nos driving people to stab it up and run, run, run!
|
Awox
|
Posted - 2006.06.18 20:40:00 -
[19]
all changed I would not object to
|
cHeRrY MuFfInMan
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:52:00 -
[20]
I agree to all... very nice cran
|
|
Res Tance
Caldari British Legion The Core Collective
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 10:09:00 -
[21]
1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes 4. Not applicable for me. 5. Yes 6. Yes 7. Yes, but maybe not as much of a reduction. Something like 12 hrs maximum reduction would sit better with me 8. Oh god, hell yes. As long as it's one vote per account (and if it was at all possible one per person, although this is difficult to implement unless you track customer name and credit card details) 9. Yes 10. Yeah, I like this one 11. N/A 12. Yes 13. This would be incredibly useful. 14. Yes
Blimey, complete agreement (near enough) :) ------
I may be ambidextrous, but this just means I'm crap with both hands |
Noluck Ned
FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 10:33:00 -
[22]
Yes or no.
Dont look at me.. The OP told me that was the only thing we are allowed to say.
Originally by: Posidrive So technically being a pirate is't quite as easy as I thought after reading this guide.
|
Rina Shanu
Peace Loving Criminals
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 13:02:00 -
[23]
13. yes
RECRUITMENT this ok dear? |
Greavus
Minmatar House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 13:09:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Greavus on 07/09/2006 13:11:33 Some great ideas
Yes.
13 and 14 especially. With alliances recruiting and corps leaving, its near impossible to get standings set and updated constantly, the change to allow individual corps to set alliance standings would reduce the amount of work/research needed by a hell of alot.
|
Midnighter
Minmatar Liberal Trading Co Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 13:23:00 -
[25]
1. NO 2. NO 3. YES 4. YES 5. NO 6. Whatever 7. NO 8. NO 9. NO 10.NO 11.NO 12.YES 13.NO 14.YES
|
Caleb Paine
Infinite Technologies
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 13:28:00 -
[26]
I am unable to read stuff that has about 70% of the words capitalized...
Sorry.
Death smiles at us all, all a man can do is smile back. |
Lache Malaxoru
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 14:00:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Midnighter 1. NO 2. NO 3. YES 4. YES 5. NO 6. Whatever 7. NO 8. NO 9. NO 10.NO 11.NO 12.YES 13.NO 14.YES
I know the OP didn't ask to explain, but on the contrary, a simple response, but I have to ask, why not #13 ?
|
Evil Sulu
Sanguine Legion Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 14:42:00 -
[28]
1-6: yes 7: No 8: No 9: No 10: Maybe 11: No 12: Yes 13: Yes 14: Yes -------------
Public channel #KhanidBlood |
Midnighter
Minmatar Liberal Trading Co Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 14:56:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Lache Malaxoru I know the OP didn't ask to explain, but on the contrary, a simple response, but I have to ask, why not #13 ?
It impedes the ability to covertly set someone up as a KOS target. If i want a corp KOS then I will set them all -10 if a waris not viable. If they can check any time to see if I have set them to -10, then I lose my surprise advantage.
The standings are there as an aid to help you quickly differentiate friend from foe, if people know who you consider friend and foe then they can meta. I don't feel such things should be public, unless someone goes to the length to infiltrate your corp and find out.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |