|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
   |
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:50:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Gnulpie on 13/04/2010 06:53:10
1) 10 AU are not enough. Mission bookmarks, directional scanner, avoiding getting slaughtered at jump-ins in lag-heavy systems just because of lag. All that needs more than 10 AU.
2) Deleting ships, especially supercapitals for players who aren't logged in is ... uhm ... totally idiotic? ****ing off people in such a way who are away from the game for a while (because of RL for example) gains you NO benefits at all but gives you really bad reputation.
3) Bad approach in general. You are - again - destroying potential and limit your game. You say the deep safe spots are a problem because noobs can't create them any more and they are difficult to scan down? Then give us the tools to scan them down! Give us ways to create those bookmarks. Expand your game and your game functionality! But you make the exact opposite, you limit your game functionality and destroy possibilites and specialization. That is a bad approach.
4) Oh, before I forget it ... sandbox approach? 
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:55:00 -
[2]
I am just sad to see in which direction Eve goes.
Isn't there really nothing more important than removing deep safe spots which no one ever complained about but which actually HELPED a lot of people to get some fun fights in 0.0 because otherwise they couldn't enter the system?
And even if deep safe spots are really that game breaking, unfair and totally bad, isn't there really a better approach than 10 AU hard limit and deleting everything beyond it?!
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 06:24:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Yodabunny
Originally by: NeoShocker
Edited by: NeoShocker on 14/04/2010 04:22:32
I'm all for this nerf, however ... 10 AU is far too short for the restriction. Personally, I think at least 50 AU will be the ideal limit because there are systems bigger than 150 AU and it doesn't make sense if you can't make SS further than 10 AU in those systems... I beg CCP to reconsider the limit.
People still aren't getting it. You can't warp even 1 AU past the farthest celestial object in a given system without an exploit. The current method for making deep safes is not a game mechanic, it requires you to break normal warping mechanics with timed logoffs. We were never intended to be there to begin with, this isn't so much a nerf as a fix. It will allow them, at the very least, to load the proper number of grids in a system instead of additional grids to hold the extrasolar locations that you were never supposed to be able to get to.
You know, a good game design team would add those "shady" game mechanics which all the players already use to the game and make them valid game mechanics. A good design team would analyse what the players want, what they are already doing, if the game can support it and if not how new game mechanics can be invented so that the needs of the players are met.
A bad design team totally ignores everything what ALL the relevant players say, they totally ignore that workarounds must be found or otherwise the game would be unplayable because of lag and they just alienate old and long-term players with just deleting (without compensation in any form!) their stuff.
And a very bad design team would claim that their solution which breaks the game then even more is inevitable and the only solution and they do not even remotely think of the players and what they need and want and why they use this odd and shady game mechanics in the first place.
But that is just me and I am obviously not qualified. |
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 09:13:00 -
[4]
Originally by: CCP Lemur
We've altered our plan addressing various concerns that you all voiced here in a reasonable manner. There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow.
Hurray!
\o/
CCP devs are the best devs (when they are listening to their players which they do) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:25:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Jenina Hawke
Originally by: CCP Lemur
We've altered our plan addressing various concerns that you all voiced here in a reasonable manner. There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow.
The today referred to would be April 14th. Hence tomorrow would be today, April 15th.
Update????
Give them time!!!
Better they take their time, even if it is a couple of weeks, and come up with a really good solution instead of rushing something together that will be just crap with many flaws and not working at all.
No one need a half-baked solution appearing in Tyrannis. They have all the time they want to move it to Tyrannis 1.5 or whatever the next half-expansion will be called if they cannot find a good solution working that quickly.
|
|
|
| |
|