Expansion Wishlist
Posted: 2011-07-19 Filed under: industry, market, ships, wormhole 8 Comments1. Undockable Capital Ships (Supercarriers, Titans) Need Upkeep
Consume fuel such Coolant, Enriched Uranium, Racial Isotopes, Mechanical Parts, Oxygen, Robotics.
These ships are huge and don’t dock. How are they so self-sustaining? If you expand this idea, perhaps even require some Water and Foodstuffs for them to run.
I also think it would be neat if they needed to be stocked with crew such as Civilians, Slaves (Amarr), Janitors, and Marines.
2. Subsystem Targeting for Capitals
Creating the ability to disable a specific gun, module, or Jump Drive on capitals would change combat.
3. Supercarrier Fighter and Fighter Bomber Only Bay
4. Anti-Fighter/Bomber Capital Class Ship
Smaller than a Carrier/Dread ship that can go into Siege and get a bonus for taking out Fighter/Bombers.
5. Multistation Nullsec Outposts
We’ve been asking for this one for a while and I can’t imagine the change would be all that hard. Right now if you want to have industry in nullsec, you need to put up a few Stations across the constellation. If you could concentrate services into one system, I feel that you could really create a seance of a “home system” for industrial operations.
6. Player Destructible Outposts
Perhaps an additional timer after you have destroyed all the station services?
7. Reduce % of ABC Ores in Highsec Accessable Wormholes
Having lived in wormhole space for over 6 months I can tell you that getting items in and out is a logistical challenge. I don’t think that ABC ores should be entirely removed from lower class wormholes such as C1-C3s, but rather that their amount reduced.
8. Officer, Deadspace, and Faction Mods on the Market
I loved that Pirate and Navy ships have been added to the Market. I would like to see the other modules added.
9. Tactical Overlay for Optimal and Falloff
There should be a type of indicator added to the Tactical Overlay that shows additional information such as your optimal and falloff.
k162space 
There is an indicator on the tactical overlay about optimal and falloff — you just have to mouse over the weapon in question while the tactical overlay is up.
Yeah, but I was hoping for some neat shaded/gradient wireframe Carbon UI thing…
I 100% agree with the your No. 1 change. It’s just too easy to build either a Supercarrier or a Titan right now and just sit on it.
No.2 – Eh, I think that will just add a bunch of extra lag to the game.
No. 3 – I’m up in the air on this one since I haven’t done much Carrier versus Supercarrier combat.. but I could see this being a good change.
No. 4 – I’d prefer to see either Fighters/Fighter-bombers nerfed in some way so that they are weaker to sub-cap ships.
No. 5 – Loggically I understand this.. but I think for gameplay it will just make things worse.
No. 6 As much as I would like to.. I think destroyable stations will do more harm to null-sec than good. Null-sec is already importing much of its marketing goods from hi-sec. Plus, people would store less PVP ships, less modules.. PVP would go down considerably, the deeper into Null-sec you go.
No. 7 – Don’t know enough about WH environments to comment.
No. 8 & 9 – Would be nice to have.
1. Cap Ship Upkeep: absolutely agree. Eve needs more aliance-level ISK sinks to make supercaps the massive investments they should be, rather than just big disposable Rifters.
2. Subsystem Targeting for Capitals: Would be a good way of moving the balance back to subcap ships. Combine this with manual (joystick) flying, e.g. only a new class of fixed forward-facing weapons (projectile, hybrid, lazor or unguided rockets to cater for all races) can be used against cap modules, and the “I was there” video starts to become reality.
3. Supercarrier Fighter and Fighter Bomber Only Bay: Don’t know enough to comment.
4. Anti-Fighter/Bomber Capital Class Ship: I guess this sounds ok?
5. Multistation Nullsec Outposts: I don’t have an opinion either way, but I suspect that this would conflict with CCP’s nullsec strategy that started with Dominion.
6. Player Destructible Outposts: Not… sure. Hmm. Would definitely be an ISK sink, and curb overexpansion? Tentative support.
7. Reduce % of ABC Ores in Highsec Accessable Wormholes: Why? What metrics is this based on? ABC fields in wormholes dry up, unlike nullsec fields. I’m yet to see any data that supports the notion that hisec daytrippers are flooding the market with “easy” ABC.
8. Officer, Deadspace, and Faction Mods on the Market: Sure, why not.
9. Tactical Overlay for Optimal and Falloff: Nice to have.
1. Cap Ship Upkeep: Would make owning a supercarrier or Titan much more in line with what CCP intended them to be, I would think. Massive investments that require constant care and service
2. Subsystem Targeting for Capitals: I don’t much see the point on this one, tbh. I mean, sure, volleying the Jump Drive is easier than having a hictor keep an infinipoint on it, but still…
3. Supercarrier Fighter and Fighter Bomber Only Bay: I too think it’s ridiculous that you can have nearly two full flights of bombers and 5000m3 of regular drones. This should be done
4. Anti-Fighter/Bomber Capital Class Ship: Shouldn’t be a capital. If anything, it should be a role for another t2 destroyer, or maybe a t2 tier 2 battlecruiser.
5. Multistation Nullsec Outposts: I think this would be great as an IHUB upgrade, but definitely not by default.
6. Player Destructible Outposts: This would create epic amount of lulz… Imagine if, when BoB logged their entire cap fleet off in a station, that it was a destructible player outpost… and goons nuked the fuck out of it and they all lost their ships because of it. Just because of that thought, I want to see this happen.
7. Reduce % of ABC Ores in Highsec Accessable Wormholes: As a former wormhole resident myself, I know that you know that most ABC in the holes goes towards in-hole production… every time we got ABC in the class 4 I used to live in, it would go towards our “Build the corp Dreadnaught/Chimera/Orca/Rorqual” fund
8. Officer, Deadspace, and Faction Mods on the Market: would be nice
9. Tactical Overlay for Optimal and Falloff: I don’t use the tactical overlay, but I can see why this would be useful, especially for missiles since you can’t calculate the exact range of missiles due to the launch speed thing.
Remembering some of the things mentioned by CCP dev’s during their post-monocle gate PR blitz…
3. Supercarrier Fighter and Fighter Bomber Only Bay
That was brought up, whether it will totally replace the current bays, or simply be a minor nerf remains to be seen.
4. Anti-Fighter/Bomber Capital Class Ship. Smaller than a Carrier/Dread ship that can go into Siege and get a bonus for taking out Fighter/Bombers.
Oddly… Destroyer’s seem to be CCP’s hull of choice for the anti-fighter/bomber role. Or perhaps a T2 Dessy hull. It seems a trifle bizarre to me, but who can say. Also BlOps as potential super-charged SB’s with anti-Cap/SCap weapons. Personally I’m all for BlOps as being anti cap weapons. The logistics of using them currently is such that it’d actually require some work to field them vs. a decent sized cap fleet.
Of course, like everything CCP mentions a fair chunk of it will never occur, so take it with a grain of salt.
I love the thought of number 1. I’ve always been an avid space gamer. even back to the days of Arc Elite on my trusted Acorn A5000 and Frontier Elite on my Amiga 1200 🙂
Frontier elite brought a new dynamic. Not only could you buy ships but you couldn’t pilot the ship until you had crew. you could hire and fire and it added a further deapth,
One of the X3 Reunion patches also added this feature. By installing a gunnery system you got improved weapons but at a cost that you had to hire a certain amount of crew which came with a monthly cost.
This would definately give reason for some of the market items. Would it be going to far to add a moral indicator which could be affected by the addition of exotic dancers?………
Regarding number 7, I’d like to say this: Doing this would take ABC out of the hands of the common pilot and put it squarely in the hands of only major alliances… which may or may not be the actual intent of the argument. However, it seems to me that the little guy ought to have a shot as well. The risk of mining in wormholes can be equally high, if not higher, than mining it in nullsec. In null, the entrances and exits are at least already known. In a wormhole, a new exit or entrance can appear at any time and can be opened and closed by players, both friendly and foe. This variable of unpredictability (along with an environment with -1.0 sec) warrants access to ABC. However, I will say that I could see legitimacy in reducing or eliminating ABC in holes that have static hi sec exits. In this case, being 1 jump away from safety is a bit too much of an advantage.