Iam Abanana wrote:

Lana Torrin wrote:

Because its robots and robots walk. If they didn't walk they wouldn't be robots and you would be playing a different game..

Would it help if we had a working autopilot?

Yes it would. But to clarify, maybe the name of the thread is misleading. I should have called it "introduce evelike teleporting/warping", because obviously i don't want to remove walking completely, but the concept of the long walks.

or if you don't like teleporting/warping, see how incredible hulk does it with jumping (first 30sec of the movie):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMCAjnKnnJg

If you did that you would get exactly the same problem you have in eve which is to shrink the universe, and our universe is already small enough.. Also the concept of warping around (or at least moving very fast around) between otherwise isolated locations works fine in space, but how you could possibly implement something like that on the ground, without making it look odd, is beyond me.

There was a devblog with 'spark jumping' described in it a while back (essentially clone jumping seeing as you understand eve terminology) but thats not going to fix the problem you say you are having.

I don't think I get this problem though because for me, walking around IS the game..

This isn't Eve........

It needs to stay that way.....

Annihilator wrote:

Please, remove.
Transport missions: transport capacity, availiable missions

I find this only really affects beta missions. Level 2-3 missions the extension was actually useful. However when I got to level 4, some missions where 50/100u, making it impossible to bennefit from this without a lithus (on beta )

That's a very good post Zoom.

I think the issue stems from specifics. Alf didn't mention it was in the works.. he said what was so far planned. This closes the ability to discuss the change. If it has or has not been decided is beyond the point and honestly you're damned if you do talk about changes and damned if you don't.

Not talking about changes is probably the worse of the two. If you don't talk about changes you not onlyupset the people who would be upset anyway but you also give a royal slap to the face of anyone that, had they been informed, wouldn't have flown off the handle and could have helped shape the idea.

As said the issue is specifics. Don't be so specific. If you have changes in mind then talk about them, then make a decision and then makes minor or major changes as feedback and loopholes are found.

E.g.
Thread:
   Person 1: Do we need attributes? It limits player choice and locks a player inter a career too soon.
   Person 2: [Argument against]
   Person 3: [whining and no content]
   Person 4: [Arguments fore]

Dev meeting: Point discussed, player feedback analysed. Idea supported, rejected or modified.

Back to the thread:
   Person 34: [More whining and nothing more being added]
   Developer: Having reviewed this idea we agree/disagree with this idea and would like to take it further with/without modification.
   Person 1: [More ideas, discussion]
   Person 3: [Threats to leave game forever but never leaves]
   Person 2: [Intelligent argument as possible exploit found]
   Person 1: [Exploit guards thought about without major changes]
   Developer: [Response to possible exploits in system and safeguards]

Result:
Many happy and sad players but everyone is informed. This way only ideas that the developers believe to be supporting to the game (Not the players) will be accepted. Because ideas are not for the players to benefit from, they're for the game to grow and move forwards instead of stagnating.