EVE Search - New Dev Blog: The Great Deep Safe Nerf of 2010

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: The Great Deep Safe Nerf of 2010

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 28 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Infinion Caldari Endless Destruction Legiunea ROmana	Posted - 2010.04.14 05:40:00 - [571] Edited by: Infinion on 14/04/2010 05:45:57 Everyone, to arms! We must make deep safes to Jove space, rat in ccp's systems, loot Mega OP GM mods and claim their space. We MUST stop the hit1er of CCP, and pod him.
ElanMorin6	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:12:00 - [572] Originally by: Yodabunny 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. This statement is wrong in every possible way. A solarsystem is not a chess board evenly divided up into neet little grids. Warping 10AU or 10000AU outside the system causes exactly the same number of "extra" grids to be formed - one.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:24:00 - [573] 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.
BeanBagKing Ch3mic4l Warfare	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:26:00 - [574] Edited by: BeanBagKing on 14/04/2010 06:27:36 Originally by: Yodabunny 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. Wrong. 1) You can easily get bookmarks this far out, and farther, using mission bookmarks. 2) Bookmarks still exist from scanning down fighters. This was a game mechanic. Fighters were ment to warp off and be found with the scanning mechanism, again, easily past 1au from a planet. Deep safes were an unintended side effect, but the method was not an exploit. 3) Same with the scanning method. Valid game mechanic, unintended side effect. 4) Current method is an "exploit" (in the loosest sense of the word, I call it creative), fixing it is one thing, but deep safes have been being made since 2004, most of the time without using an "exploit" or "bug". 5) As ElanMorin6 pointed out, this will not create or destroy any extra grids. Grids are created "on the fly". And finally, just because the players found something creative does not mean KILL IT AS HARD AS WE CAN! This should be added into the game in the form of content. Sure, fix the posidon method, but -create- content. Create a skill/special ship for creating deep safes and probes to find them. There's no reason to use the nerf bat of doom or limit us to a (radius+10au) bubble.
Tarhim Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:27:00 - [575] Originally by: BeanBagKing Really most of my grip comes from why I started playing. I was looking for a Freelancer replacement, in that game you can fly anywhere manually, between planets if you have a few hours iirc. Eve isn't quite the same, but it still had that massive "I can go anywhere!" feeling. Putting hard walls and removing methods of going places kills that feeling. You still can go anywhere and as far as you like, just point the ship away from farthest celestial and go. You just can't warp out using exploit of game mechanic involving logging off. And there are myriad of ways that this warp limitation can be explained ingame. Now, two more things: 1) it would be nice to have some way to go beyond thuis boundary - something like explorer ships. Make them slow, using up fuel, whatever. 2) One of the flaws with 10 AU limit coupled with e-warp fixing is creating precisely this have and have-nots situation that CCP says it wants to avoid. I imagine everyone will be pretty busy making safespots as close to new limit as possible and after Tyrannis there will be no more - just derivatives of surviving BMs.
Benri Konpaku	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:31:00 - [576] Confirming I'm not liking where the "new" EVE is going, and sadly this one actually affects me directly (just finished making the inventory of things I'll have to move.) Still giving CCP the benefit of the doubt but patience is wearing thin nowadays. __________ "Welcome, to city 17. It's safer here."
BeanBagKing Ch3mic4l Warfare	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:32:00 - [577] Originally by: Tarhim You still can go anywhere and as far as you like, just point the ship away from farthest celestial and go. You just can't warp out using exploit of game mechanic involving logging off. True, but this isn't really very far away, not in the vast scale of things. Even if you manage to get very far away, you still know deep down that you are confined to a bubble. I like it the way it is, there may be no point in going out very far, but I know it's there!
Tarhim Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.14 06:59:00 - [578] Originally by: BeanBagKing True, but this isn't really very far away, not in the vast scale of things. Well, tough. Why would anyone in the universe bothered with expensive stuff like stargates and jump drives, if you could travel between systems using ordinary warp drive? Quote: Even if you manage to get very far away, you still know deep down that you are confined to a bubble. I like it the way it is, there may be no point in going out very far, but I know it's there! How exactly are you confined? You can go as far as you like, only slowly. Since we use stargates, I'd like to see something like explorer ships from Babylon 5. But I have no idea how to implement and balance it so it will be good addition and not new space to be gobbled by nullsec alliances. And another thing: all this whining about "no new content, no other fixes, just remove lag" is pretty much worthless in any way possible. Its not like they're not aware of it, ffs. And I do agree that devblog itself is not written very well, esp. comparing to one about the insurance and loot changes. It just gives very little useful info about reasons for making change this way.
Boxless	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:24:00 - [579] SC and NC should cut the 0.0 warfare for a few weeks, completely wardec eachother, and bring the massive fleet fights to Jita 4-4 or other parts of highsec in epic t1 frig/cruiser/bc wars. Once CCP gets the message and fixes grid loading we can then continue our fun.
Kerfira Audaces Fortuna Iuvat	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:44:00 - [580] Originally by: Tonto Auri There's no technical reasons to put walls in space. If one had unlimited resources, unlimited time, unlimited computer hardware, unlimited CPU speed, unlimited network speed, and so on, you would be right! As it is, you're displaying your incredible lack of knowledge about what you're trying to pass yourself off as an expert of! In other words, what you're saying is just INCREDIBLY stupid! Every person who works with large legacy software systems KNOWS that there are quite often some very strict limitations to what you can actually do! For EVE, the major bottlenecks seem to be: 1. The CPU power of each node 2. The database It is QUITE plausible that there are complex internal systems that does things in a way that is not optimal, and which effectively can not be changed without a massive rewrite. I've seen that often enough myself. That makes the reasons I referenced here VERY possible. Also, if you had had the ability to read longer sentences, you would also have noted that I was simply transcribing another post into another more readable form You should stop talking about things you know absolutely ZILCH about! Any discussion about technical things are clearly beyond your abilities! Basically, you're emo-raging at CCP and screaming out "Fix it! I want my spacegame!", and not having the sense to realise that CCP doesn't have a magic 'fix it' button... Grow up! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.

Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:15:00 - [581] finally a way to kill macro ravens and keep inflation at bay. buuuut... i haven't played for a month - is the jump-in-lag/timeout fixed yet? - putting the gist back into logistics
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:19:00 - [582] Edited by: Camios on 14/04/2010 08:22:35 Edited by: Camios on 14/04/2010 08:18:54 I am against a DSSP nerf because DSSPs cynos are the only way an incoming fleet can try to attack without being slaughtered while waiting for the grid to load. moreover: As a spaceship pilot, I should be able to warp towards whatever direction I want So the log off while warping bug can be fixed but you must give us another way to have DSSPs. Either you give us the ability to warp wherever we want Or you give us some very distant object to probe with Deep space scanner probes (Comets or Kuiper belt objects at 500 au for example) and even increase the scan radius of those probes. DSSPs cynos are strongly needed for fleet fights to happen.
Karak Terrel	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:31:00 - [583] Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: Tonto Auri There's no technical reasons to put walls in space. bla... In other words, what you're saying is just INCREDIBLY stupid! more bla... And you are the one that has read the server code?? Or is it a general ability you have to "guess" how a system works? As long as there is no statement from CCP that the problem has something to do with negative effects on the load of the server there is absolutly no point why this should be a valid explanation. Do to the fact that the amount of possible explanations is infinite as long as you have no f* clue why it is a problem it is perfect fine to say: THERE'S NO TECHNICAL REASON TO PUT WALLS IN SPACE! I recomend you try to read the blog post again: "This will place us firmly into a situation where the only way to access locations outside the system proper will be via "legacy" bookmarks. This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player." This is the reason behind the change as far as we know mr. expert and there is no point in shouting at other ppl because you think you are such a genius.
Hertford Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:40:00 - [584] If any point your technical reasoning behind this change involves 'loading grids', 'checking grids', 'creating grids' or anything treating a grid as an actual instanced database object, you're wrong. There's a grid-fu manual out there. Go read it. Then come back. People talking about directional scanner back-end code taking up more time for distant objects: again, you're wrong. If Fred is sat at the sun in his ship, or at 1000AU from the sun in the same ship, directional scanning will take, in the worst-case scenario of :CCP: coding, the same about of processing. I can totally understand where CCP are coming from with this change. They want to put a 'wall' around each solar system, so that the sandpit is of a known size. Nothing wrong with that. Deleting stuff in the 'forbidden zone' is utterly laughable as a solution. Especially when you consider that someone logged out that far out can only do one thing: warp to or cyno to within the 'walls' of a solar system. You don't need to do anything to them, CCP. Let them sit there. No one can warp to them. (Poseidon - And that's the document that CCP are reacting to. I've still got my first draft of that locally just as a text file.)

CCP Lemur	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:48:00 - [585] 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.

Marlona Sky D00M. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:55:00 - [586] 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. Cool. Also in before even more emo rage tears regardless.
Malakai Draevyn Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:55:00 - [587] Originally by: Boxless SC and NC should cut the 0.0 warfare for a few weeks, completely wardec eachother, and bring the massive fleet fights to Jita 4-4 or other parts of highsec in epic t1 frig/cruiser/bc wars. Once CCP gets the message and fixes grid loading we can then continue our fun. Oh absolutely... Let's see what happens when the most 'popular' systems in eve are suddenly slammed with an additional 500-v-500 fleet battle. Jita. Amarr. Dodixie. Oursulaert. Hell - don't limit it to the trade hubs. Try the mission hubs too ! Lock them down, and see what happens. HACK THE CLUSTERRRRRRRRRRR etc etc ..:: MD ::..
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:59:00 - [588] Originally by: CCP Lemur ...concerns that you all voiced here in a reasonable manner I read most of the thread, but I must have missed this part. All I saw was gnashing of teeth, whining, nerd rage, calling CCP names, and many tears being shed.
Malakai Draevyn Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:07:00 - [589] Edited by: Malakai Draevyn on 14/04/2010 09:07:33 Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: CCP Lemur ...concerns that you all voiced here in a reasonable manner I read most of the thread, but I must have missed this part. All I saw was gnashing of teeth, whining, nerd rage, calling CCP names, and many tears being shed. Erm - let me correct reword it then. Originally by: CCP Lemur.... probably. We have altered our original plan, taking your concerns into consideration, and hopefully they will be addressed in a reasonable manner. There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow. ..:: MD ::..
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:13:00 - [590] 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)

Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:15:00 - [591] Quote: After Tyrannis, for any point more than 10AU outside the furthest celestial in the system Why just 10? It's really some close range. Why not use (half of the radius of the maximum probe range) - (max spawned deadspace distance)? So, anyone putting a probe near the furthest celestial can still fetch everyone trying to hide even if they used plexes or missions to go further away. Quote: This will place us firmly into a situation where the only way to access locations outside the system proper will be via "legacy" bookmarks. This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": Isn't this exactly what happens with T2 BPOs? It's normal that older players got advantages... if they should not, then you have to level everyone down including removing legacy perks like T2 BPOs and the other stuff like that . Quote: If you have characters in ships outside this distance, the ship will be destroyed and your capsule will be returned to the station that your clone is set to. If you have things parked at "deep safe" spots that you'd like to keep after Tyrannis, or characters parked out there, we strongly recommend that you move them prior to May 18th. What about those in the army and thus unable to log on in time? What about those who took a vacation or just a pause and don't happen to read the forums ATM? Wouldn't it be better to just move everything that can be docked like this: - If stuff <= battleship or is a container move it where the capsule will end - If stuff stuff = dockable capital and there's a station in the system, move it there. Then send an EvE-notice mail to tell the guy what the hell happened (ie "we moved your stuff due to patch". - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Karak Terrel	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:17:00 - [592] Originally by: Kyra Felann I read most of the thread, but I must have missed this part. All I saw was gnashing of teeth, whining, nerd rage, calling CCP names, and many tears being shed. You should really offline the module in your head that increases "reallity resistance" to over 90%... this may not be good for your health.
Daxel Magmalloy Caldari UK Corp	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:19:00 - [593] Edited by: Daxel Magmalloy on 14/04/2010 09:22:34 This is just a guess but was this a decision made by some out-of-touch office middle management type who is not familiar with how the game works in 0.0 these days. The reader must admit it's a pretty unhelpful move to take away the only remaining working method of jumping large fleets into already laggy systems for absolutely no reason. Sounds like it's part of a 'plan' agreed around a table a year or two ago and no-one has got the balls to tell whoever the out-of-touch middle management guy is that things are not going as planned, Dominion was a catastrophe as far as game performance is concerned, and this is simply not going to work. In fact it is going to have a very negative impact and is showing CCP up as a company that seems to have some serious management issues. EDIT: just saw this '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.' so maybe someone did have the balls then, if this isn't just bull____.
Marchocias Silent Ninja's	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:25:00 - [594] Originally by: CCP Lemur voiced here in a reasonable manner This wins the thread. ---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it).
Daxel Magmalloy Caldari UK Corp	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:25:00 - [595] 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.
Melor Rend	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:38:00 - [596] IMO this change is ****ed and shows that the devs haven't been playing EVE in 0.0 since Dominion hit. Otherwise they'd know that deep safe spots are the only option to cyno into a system without being d by the defender during the 15+ minute grid load. What problem are you trying to solve with this idiotic change? Forcing the attacker to jump into a grid that the defender is already set up on? Or did you simply not know what to nerf so you thought you'd simply nerf the next best thing you found? This sucks and makes EVE feel like a much smaller and **tier place. The knowledge that I can fly anywhere I want without hitting a invisible wall is (or was) one of the better aspects of EVE (and set it apart from all these crappy over-instanced MMOs that were released in the past few years).
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:42:00 - [597] Originally by: Melor Rend IRabblerabblerabble Earth to Melor, Earth calling Melor rend. 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.
Malakai Draevyn Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:44:00 - [598] It may be a plan at this point in time to hold back on the commentary, abusive language, namecalling, and general dissing of the plan - until the revised devblog is released "later today or tomorrow". The Devs : may have already covered these concerns about the 10au bubble / fleet warpin lag / moving instead of deleting / expanding the sandbox through a technique that CCP didnt come up with... may have completely revised the plan. may have completely ignored our concerns and flipped us the finger. Until that DevBlog comes out - we won't know... Sit back. Be patient. Go kill some ships... and wait for what they come back to us with. ..:: MD ::..
dischordia Gallente wiggle Tech.	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:51:00 - [599] Originally by: Malakai Draevyn It may be a plan at this point in time to hold back on the commentary, abusive language, namecalling, and general dissing of the plan - until the revised devblog is released "later today or tomorrow". The Devs : may have already covered these concerns about the 10au bubble / fleet warpin lag / moving instead of deleting / expanding the sandbox through a technique that CCP didnt come up with... may have completely revised the plan. may have completely ignored our concerns and flipped us the finger. Until that DevBlog comes out - we won't know... Sit back. Be patient. Go kill some ships... and wait for what they come back to us with. Killing kittens in the way forward i here :)
Ethan Hawk Intergalactic Serenity Ev0ke	Posted - 2010.04.14 09:57:00 - [600] we get our walls back... this is how germanz like it! thx CCP for yet another useless change instead of focusing on real problems. I would really like to know which school your project manager visited... in Germany we call it Baumschule! Get your **** together and start working on problems your community, your CUSTOMER, is asking for as of the start of Dominion. _______________________________ joined another dead alliance :(



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 28 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.