| 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) |
Random27
   |
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:39:00 -
[61]
i can see the idea behind this, but why delete people's ships? Surely it would be just as easy to move such ships closer to the star, on a line between their location and the star, to the new 'edge' of the system? You could even notify the pilots/owner of those ships that they have been moved, and that they should then do their best to move them somewhere safer?
|
teji
Ars ex Discordia
Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:41:00 -
[62]
Edited by: teji on 12/04/2010 21:44:29
Aww, I wanted to be ELITE like those who have T2 BPOs. Selling deep safes that I got for free to those who didn't subscribe to eve at the time.
|
Astro Glide
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:42:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: XoPhyte
Edited by: XoPhyte on 12/04/2010 21:00:10
So what happens to the Titan and SC pilots that are away from game and logged off in a deep safe (it's not like players read dev blogs on a daily basis).
Basically they used a perfectly valid method to insure safety while away from game (vacation, job loss etc.). and when they come back they are going to be in a pod due to a change by CCP? Sounds like crap to me...
Also, trying to create safespots now in a interceptor is going to be crap....
|
Wirrtuell
Caldari
Rennfeuer
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:43:00 -
[64]
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: òYou will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)
|
Laruant
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:44:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Laruant on 12/04/2010 21:44:55
Saw this coming when it no longer worked on Sisi. 
|
Kosa Mosapiel
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:44:00 -
[66]
so on the one hand, space is going to be smaller. And on the other, umm nope, thats it.
oh wait, there might be some excellent tears when bitter vets resub to check out a new expansion and log in their mom alt to a pod in a station |
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:45:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Wirrtuell
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: òYou will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)
I draw a little diagram which I think might be what the devs had in mind.
Linky
|
Ga'len
Hellhounds.
HellFleet
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:46:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Mynxee
Bit heavy-handed, CCP, and taking away potential tears from those of us who like to liberate assets. From that perspective, I'd rather see the "bookmarkable" area of space be anything within deep space probe range of the furthest celestial--250 AU iirc.
Sure, go ahead and destroy non-scannable items like cans and possibly rookie ships and shuttles, but how about simply moving other kinds of ships (with or without pilots) from their deep safes to within 200 AU of the furthest celestial? That way they can be probed and killed/liberated by the opportunistic rest of us. Much more fun!
But, overall, whatever. I've never really used those deep deep safes anyway.
I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.
|
Yafn
Robbing You of Your Space Pixels
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:46:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Ga'len
Originally by: Mynxee
Bit heavy-handed, CCP, and taking away potential tears from those of us who like to liberate assets. From that perspective, I'd rather see the "bookmarkable" area of space be anything within deep space probe range of the furthest celestial--250 AU iirc.
Sure, go ahead and destroy non-scannable items like cans and possibly rookie ships and shuttles, but how about simply moving other kinds of ships (with or without pilots) from their deep safes to within 200 AU of the furthest celestial? That way they can be probed and killed/liberated by the opportunistic rest of us. Much more fun!
But, overall, whatever. I've never really used those deep deep safes anyway.
I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.
:effort:
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:48:00 -
[70]
Solution to "this breaks fight because of lag:"
QUIT EFFIN BLOBBING.
Solution to "I'm no longer safe!!!!"
Why should you be? Its EVE ONLINE, GO BACK TO HELLO KITTY!!!
That is all.
--Isaac
A Paladin Without A Crusade...
"You just can't fix stupid"
Amarr Victor.
|
|
|
TechnoMag
Minmatar
Reikoku
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:49:00 -
[71]
oh dear god ...my safespot at 9900 au in a2-v
spent a night warping and warping the pod 6 years ago .... dont remove it
EULA 7. CONDUCT
A. 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System. |
Paknac Queltel
Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:50:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Wirrtuell
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: òYou will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)
I draw a little diagram which I think might be what the devs had in mind.
Linky
This!!!!
Nice diagram, Mashie. I was this close to drawing it in Paint.
-
Paknac Queltel
|
Vazsholik
Minmatar
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:52:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Vazsholik on 12/04/2010 21:53:07
CCP strikes again
Fix the **** before u expand it imo, or shall i say restricts it+
|
Camios
Minmatar
Insurgent New Eden Tribe
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:54:00 -
[74]
Right now the deep safe cynos are the only way a bridged fleet can mitigate the gridload issues.
The discussion here should be about wheter or not any other mean to achieve this goal exists.
In my opinion, there is no other mean.
If you nerf deep safespot (and it's a good thing) you must either solve the gridlooading issue or give us an alternative not to be slaughtered while jumping in a system.
Since nobody knows when the performance issues will be fixed, only the second option is viable if you want to remove deepspace cynos.
|
Mynxee
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:54:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Ga'len
I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.
Except for the ship types that can't dock in a hangar, for which some other reasonable solution should be found--especially since it sounds like those tend to be the massively expensive ones.
@Mashie Saldana: Great diagram. The lack of reading comprehension in this thread regarding how the walls will be closing in around us is a bit  Your pic hopefully helps the "visual learners."
My Blog: Life In Low Sec |
NightmareX
Dark-Rising
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:54:00 -
[76]
Is it 1. April today or what?. NO WAIT, that was 12 days ago.
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:57:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Paknac Queltel
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Wirrtuell
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: òYou will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)
I draw a little diagram which I think might be what the devs had in mind.
Linky
This!!!!
Nice diagram, Mashie. I was this close to drawing it in Paint.
I did get that close  Excuse the crudity of the model, I didn't have time to paint it, or something 
No, I don't like the implementation either...
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:57:00 -
[78]
Awesome CCP. Is this like some kind of reverse-psychology?
|
Ga'len
Hellhounds.
HellFleet
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:01:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Ga'len
I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.
Except for the ship types that can't dock in a hangar, for which some other reasonable solution should be found--especially since it sounds like those tend to be the massively expensive ones...
@ Mynxee, when a super capital that has been lost is petitioned and replaced under that petition, the replacement ship is placed in a hanger. Any non-dockable ship can be placed in a hanger by a GM or a game process. Back before Dominion was released, we all had titans in our hangers on the test server.
The best example I can point to of a super capital being placed in a hanger is the famous undock scene from the Clear Skies II bloopers real. You see in the beginning a Avatar class Titan being undocked from a station:
Titan undocking from a station
CCP could place these ships in hangers, they just don't want to put forth the effort of cleaning things up. I don't know the real reason why they are not doing it. The bitter side of me would say "It's the difference from providing customer service and providing 'Award Winning' customer service".
The twisted side of me wants to say, "YO! All you scrubs who have abused the game mechanics to put stuff in deep safes! Move yer junk or you loose it!"
|
Killa Bee
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:02:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Serj Darek
I hope you have a system to dock super caps when people take a few month break from Eve....
Or those who are fighting in Afghanistan or where ever for a few months and parked their Cap, Supercap or Titan in a deep safe.
Really good idea CCP, well tought out.
There are huge system several 100 AU in size and there are very very small ones of a few AU, this is just crap.
Get an outer ring of 50 to 100 AU or something, and make it possible to bookmark a spot in space using the Solar System Map.
Buy your GTC here
Animated Avatar |
|
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:04:00 -
[81]
LOL - I don't mind this at all. 10AU seems a bit close though... how about 20AU?
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:05:00 -
[82]
I like the change, but I agree with may folks here - the implementation could be a lot better.
- Why destroy objects that far out? I see little reason why they can't simply be returned to the owner's hanger. Only if there is no owner anymore should they be deleted.
- 10AU from the furthest celestial is a little small, and frankly a bit confusing to a lot of people. Some systems are very small in diameter and this would put the entire system in standard ship-scanner range. Instead this limit a round number, say like 200 AU out? I'm not aware of many systems larger than 200AU in diameter. In addition, it would give those of us that can use Deep Space Probes more of a reason to actually use them.
- Finally, there should be some alternative introduced for the loss of the Deep Safes. A deployable structure (that uses fuel) to reduce the signature strength of ships in it's AoE? Counter-intelligence probes that can jam all scanning in a system for a set amount of time? There's numerous possibilities that could be explored, and in fact should be - both for balance and simply for logic. With the way the scanning system works now, there's no way anything can "realistically" remain hidden, and some body or some empire would find a way around that.
|
Avenger1
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:07:00 -
[83]
Sounds like CCP have gone OTT on politcal blandness, they dont like older players to have something some relative noob hasn't had the time the wit or wisdom to create/obtain themselves,
guess the sand box just got its instructions to conform and not to be to sand boxy after all cos it might be a bit too hard for somebody else.
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:08:00 -
[84]
ARE YOU EXPLETIVE KIDDING ME?
I don't get it, what, exactly are you trying to fix here?
The game is damn near unplayable in anything more that a 200 man gang, go ask atlas, gc & cow. So instead of fixing the damn game you take out one of the workarounds that actually make getting into a system without being bombed to oblivion at a loading screen.
You then take it one step further and threaten to blow up peoples ships that are logged at deep safes.
I mean I've got to hand it to you guys, you must be pretty rich/****y/stupid to keep kicking end/middle content players in the balls repetitively and expect to continue to prosper.
Perhaps you should concentrate on fixing the game as it is, or are you not quite satisfied with how many ships blow up at the loading screen that you thought you blow some more up when there not even logged in.
|
Facepalm
Amarr
Battlestars
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:08:00 -
[85]
LOL "Let's not only NOT fix Dominion lag, let's get rid of the only semi-reliable way to get large numbers into a system to fight each other (as we so fervently advertise is possible)."
|
Pasha Cracken
Caldari
Trust Doesn't Rust
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:09:00 -
[86]
no, just no
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:10:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 12/04/2010 22:10:27
Hm. "Further than 10 AU from the sun than the furthest celestial" is a bit problematic. Take the nice system of Teonusude, where one star gate (Magiko) is 93 AU from the star (horrible system, I hate it, and it's not even the biggest in EVE). Doesn't your metric mean that I can have a 103 AU deep save below the sun?
Maybe the metric needs reworking.
Also, I have a number of "deep safes" (15-16 AU from the closest celestial) from mission running. I didn't check how far they are from the sun, but is it possible that missions spawn outside of that "system boundary" you are defining there?
Edit: Sorry for the general grumpy tone in the post, I actually like the changes :-)
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:11:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Doesn't your metric mean that I can have a 103 AU deep save below the sun?
Yes.
|
Gil Danastre
Amarr
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:21:00 -
[89]
Originally by: TeaDaze
I did get that close Excuse the crudity of the model, I didn't have time to paint it, or something
No, I don't like the implementation either...
And for even a cruder representation, Here you go. Figures after I make it, I get to last page and see that 3 others beat me to the punch :P
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:23:00 -
[90]
CCP Lemur and CCP Greyscale when is the last time time any of you played in 0.0 a bit?
I am seriously concerned about sanity of you guys, if you spent even a 10 minutes of CCP resources on this while letting literaly dozens of other more urgent stuff waiting to get fixed.
Not to mention the complete lack of logic behind this change with current state of your game, but I cant wait to see the rightfull tears of the guys who are on 1+ month break for the game, or just dont give a feck for horrible devblogs like this one, and figure after new patch, they lost their ships and stuff cause of this "CCP Nozh style" change.
Seriously get a clue and stop playing with your customers.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |