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) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:17:00 -
[1]
Changes are afoot. CCP Lemur's newest dev blog details the changes that will be made to bookmarking in deep space with Tyrannis. Please be sure to read the blog carefully and closely, as some capsuleers may find themselves affected once Tyrannis is deployed.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Firesh
Etoilles Mortant Ltd. Solyaris Chtonium
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:19:00 -
[2]
Overall a good thing, levels the playing field a bit.
|
Exordium8
Minmatar Stealthfield.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:27:00 -
[3]
Well, it was good while it lasted. --------------------------------- Pillage, then burn. Everything is air-droppable at least once. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload.
|
Atreus Tac
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:30:00 -
[4]
I personally think that 10au is a bit to little. If you are set on doing this I would prefer a 20au limit. This means that it is still quite easy to probe down with combat probes, yet avoids directional scanner so smaller clever gangs can hide from stupid large gangs.
[/left] |
jst tstng
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:35:00 -
[5]
Good stuff, I think.
How about, after Tyrannis is deployed, you guys make public a list of stuff that that got deleted, you know for the funny.
|
Agrilad
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:37:00 -
[6]
I am looking forward to the screams of those who have expensive ships parked at deep safes that aren't paying attention.
|
Morscerta
Gallente Living in the Fridge
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:38:00 -
[7]
I like it although they were quite nice to have
|
demonfurbie
Minmatar The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:38:00 -
[8]
how will this effect missions that are more than 10 au away from anything
most often i ball up my wrecks and bookmark the middle to come back to later to salvage
with the changes i will only be able to do that if its with in 10 au
|
Tover Chris
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:39:00 -
[9]
It's one thing to bring them closer, but within directional scanning range?
Get ready for even more fleets of unprobable T3 and BC's, or cloaks on everything.
|
TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:40:00 -
[10]
Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 12/04/2010 20:40:18 When titan bridging to a safespot now the enemy fleet can kill you instantly instead of waiting a few minutes whilst warping as you can not load thanks to dominion lag...
edit: ironic that i am not loading into a system now becasue of it.
_______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =( |
|
Last Wolf
Rage For Order
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:41:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Last Wolf on 12/04/2010 20:42:06 May 19th: "I logged off for the patch and logged back on today and my supercarrier is GONE and I'm in my POD! WTF CCP why didn't you warn us!?!?!?!"
edit: IBTC Oh no you don't! Incoming witty reply, ETA: 300 seconds! |
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:47:00 -
[12]
This, quite frankly, ****es me off.
I have done a ****load of missions in 0.0. I have saved every one of those bookmarks, taking a lot of time to mark the distance to the nearest warpable object - and some are over 22AU from any object. Quite a lot of them are over 10AU.
Now you are telling me that if I am in a ****ing MISSION when the server dies before patch, my ship will be dead and I will be podded???
CCP dudes, what are you smoking? Please stop, it is hazardous to your health and my sanity. ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
iP0D
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:51:00 -
[13]
So um .. what about people inactive for a couple of months who log in after these changes Can they petition to get moved or something? Or will they have a nice welcome surprise
|
Ix Forres
Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:53:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Ix Forres on 12/04/2010 20:55:38 Why destroy ships and structures? Why not just bookmarks? Makes no sense to me. People will move them eventually. And why 10AU?
(Full disclosure: I have no safespots and barely have time to play, so this doesn't affect me. However, the methodology used here seems suspect.) -- Ix Forres EVE Application Developer EVE Metrics | accVIEW | I Tweet |
Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:55:00 -
[15]
This patch already sounds better than Dominion, good job.
|
Murixo
M. Corp Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:55:00 -
[16]
Crap idea. Crap implementation. CCP sucks.
|
Zhentar
Minmatar The 5th Freedom Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:56:00 -
[17]
More importantly, why are you doing this now, before you fix the fracking loading issues that make deep safe spots necessary for any shred of a fair fight in today's EVE?
|
Fire Eriwerif
Insidious Existence En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:56:00 -
[18]
Well I guess we'll just give up on post-dominion fleet fights as no one will be able to enter system.
|
Dolgu
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:56:00 -
[19]
10 Au? Not cool
I like my 1000AU spot
|
Dacil Arandur
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:56:00 -
[20]
I don't think it's more than 10AU from any object, it's more than 10AU FARTHER out from the star than the farthest celestial object. So a bookmark in the middle of a huge system with nothing around it will not be removed, only bookmarks that are outside the orbit of the farthest celestial object by more than 10AU.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:57:00 -
[21]
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....
|
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 20:58:00 -
[22]
TLDR version of blog: "Titans, get into scannable range, so we can kill you since we suck... oh, and if you happen to be inactive you don't deserve to keep your supercapital anyway..."
BUT! It will also make any and all missions, in high sec, lowsec and 0.0, scannable range. ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
Paknac Queltel
Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:00:00 -
[23]
Okay, to the people who seem to need reading lessons:
Deep safe: Anything that is more than 10 AU farther away from the sun than the farthest celestial is.
A demonstration: Planet Whatever XIV is the farthest planet in System Whatever, and is 145 AU from the sun. Your safespot in Whatever is 154 AU from the sun, and 40 AU from XIV. As your safespot is less than (145 + 10) = 155 AU away from the sun, it is a valid safespot. Your Deep safespot in Whatever is 600 AU deep. As 600 is over (145 + 10) = 155 AU away from the sun, it is no longer a valid safespot, and unreachable.
HTH. HAND. KTHXBYE.
To CCP:
Will the current system loading problems that make deep safespots so popular for large fleets be fixed? Because this seems somewhat unfair otherwise. - Paknac Queltel
|
Peter Powers
FinFleet IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:01:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Peter Powers on 12/04/2010 21:03:24 personally i have some very old very deep spots, but tbh, i can see why those need to be killed.
but i dont see why 10 AU, 10AU is smaller than the range of the directional scanner.
with the modern probing system it is not much of a problem to probe people down at much larger ranges (cover larger area) from a celestial object. And personally i think there should be a bit of a grey zone - meaning some space that you can sit away from for example a gate, without being on the directional scanner, but still being probeable with probes directly dropped there. Personally i have invested alot of time to creat such "16 AU above gate"-spots in lowsec, and even when i dont use 'em much anymore nowadays, i feel that there still is a purpose for those.
Please consider making it more than 10 AU, for example 20 AU - give us some space :)
Edit: offcourse that wont affect all of such bookmarks, but quite often you have one or more of the gates being the object furthest away from the sun.
Northern Crusade - Daily numbers on EVE's largest current conflict |
ihcn
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:02:00 -
[25]
Edited by: ihcn on 12/04/2010 21:02:11 Edited by: ihcn on 12/04/2010 21:01:43 Three questions:
1: Is the boundary defined as anywhere that is further than 10AU from a celestial object, or is it (furthest celestial object from the sun)AU+10AU from the sun? If it's the second one, does it include the huge areas up/down from anything else?
2: If a character has implants and remains outside the boundary, will the game simply behave as if they've been podded, or will they wake up with clone/implants intact?
3: What will you do with players who are currently in a position to be hurt by this, but inactive?
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:02:00 -
[26]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 12/04/2010 21:02:46
Originally by: Paknac Queltel Okay, to the people who seem to need reading lessons:
Deep safe: Anything that is more than 10 AU farther away from the sun than the farthest celestial is.
A demonstration: Planet Whatever XIV is the farthest planet in System Whatever, and is 145 AU from the sun. Your safespot in Whatever is 154 AU from the sun, and 40 AU from XIV. As your safespot is less than (145 + 10) = 155 AU away from the sun, it is a valid safespot. Your Deep safespot in Whatever is 600 AU deep. As 600 is over (145 + 10) = 155 AU away from the sun, it is no longer a valid safespot, and unreachable.
HTH. HAND. KTHXBYE.
To CCP:
Will the current system loading problems that make deep safespots so popular for large fleets be fixed? Because this seems somewhat unfair otherwise.
Oh, I forgot about the loads of systems containing planets that are 145au away from the sun. Thanks Einstein.
Guess those mid safes on the way to that planet wont work anymore either.
|
Paknac Queltel
Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:09:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Paknac Queltel on 12/04/2010 21:12:20 Edited by: Paknac Queltel on 12/04/2010 21:11:23 Edited by: Paknac Queltel on 12/04/2010 21:10:40
Originally by: XoPhyte Oh, I forgot about the loads of systems containing planets that are 145au away from the sun. Thanks Einstein.
Guess those mid safes on the way to that planet wont work anymore either.
145 AU is extreme, yes. It's also hypothetical.
Yes, your mid safes to that hypothetical planet will work. If they're between celestials, they can't possibly be farther from the sun that the celestials they're between. Which is what my post was explaining.
EDIT:
Originally by: XoPhyte Additionally you will still be <=10 au from the closest celestial object. How does that make it a deep safe? (unless you believe people only warp to the Sun to use the scanner/probes?)
It's quite possible to be more than 16 AU away from anything in the system, and be closer to the sun than the farthest celestial.
Edited for spelling - Paknac Queltel
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:09:00 -
[28]
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....
I think its not a problem if you are logged out IN the ship. the way i understand it only empty ships/cans etc get removed
I have a question though. when you say [...] Quote: which is more than 10AU further from the local star than the furthest-out celestial object (planets or stargates)
does this mean when e.g planet x is 50 AU from the SUN, i can make safespots everywhere in the system up to 60AU from the sun and NOT just 10AU from Planet x ? .
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:11:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 12/04/2010 21:11:51
Originally by: Zhentar More importantly, why are you doing this now, before you fix the fracking loading issues that make deep safe spots necessary for any shred of a fair fight in today's EVE?
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....
Way to go CCP; at least it'll help keep the server from melting under huge load since only the stupid or desperate will even try to jump in.
*edit: @Jack bubu: I heard reading comprehension was useful in Eve, especially concerning bolded sentences in a devblog :V
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:13:00 -
[30]
My deep safe backbone!
Also lol @ all those players who depended on those deep safes to play the game.
|
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:14:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Jack bubu
I think its not a problem if you are logged out IN the ship. the way i understand it only empty ships/cans etc get removed
from the devblog.... "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."
|
Jack bubu
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:14:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Jack bubu on 12/04/2010 21:14:51
Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 12/04/2010 21:11:51
Originally by: Zhentar More importantly, why are you doing this now, before you fix the fracking loading issues that make deep safe spots necessary for any shred of a fair fight in today's EVE?
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....
Way to go CCP; at least it'll help keep the server from melting under huge load since only the stupid or desperate will even try to jump in.
*edit: @Jack bubu: I heard reading comprehension was useful in Eve, especially concerning bolded sentences in a devblog :V
English is not my native language, that sentence confused me and i asked for clarification. problem?
@ dude above : my bad
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:17:00 -
[33]
So, i take it jump in lag has been fixed completely?
If not, then this is just another case of screwing up 0.0 warfare.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:17:00 -
[34]
So Deep Space Scanner Probes are now completely useless?
|
Emo TJ
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:18:00 -
[35]
Interesting that this is happening now.
The Northern Coalition will be affected the most. We have spent hard earned time to make these and we will be the ones who are initially affected. Great timing CCP, great timing.
When do we get to have devs tucked away in our back pocket!
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:19:00 -
[36]
Also, In before the NC spin.
|
Kesper North
Caldari Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:20:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Kesper North on 12/04/2010 21:21:36 Edited by: Kesper North on 12/04/2010 21:20:44 NC LEADERSHIP JABBER LEAK INCOMING
edit: in the post below mine ^_^
Seriously, this change is bull****. How do you expect anyone to load system when jumping into a well-blobbed system now?
Epic fail. -- Killed me? Read about it in my blog! Northern Lights: Solo PVP in EVE Online
|
Tomcat
Gallente Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:21:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Tomcat on 12/04/2010 21:21:06 Tomcat: Hi Tomcat: we are CCP Tomcat: our game is a bit broke. And any attempt to get around that Tomcat: will be crushed Tomcat: Thank you and enjoy space
*edit.. ****, beaten. Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Adida |
Paknac Queltel
Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:21:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Emo TJ Interesting that this is happening now.
The Northern Coalition will be affected the most. We have spent hard earned time to make these and we will be the ones who are initially affected. Great timing CCP, great timing.
When do we get to have devs tucked away in our back pocket!
Interesting that devs are implementing a change in an expension, no?
Keep that tinfoil hat fitted snugly or it won't work. - Paknac Queltel
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:23:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jack bubu does this mean when e.g planet x is 50 AU from the SUN, i can make safespots everywhere in the system up to 60AU from the sun and NOT just 10AU from Planet x ? .
I'm pretty sure that is the case so in solar systems with odd planet locations you can still be far away from a directional scanner if you have a deep safe today in the correct direction and get a midpoint inside the border of deletion before the patch.
|
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:23:00 -
[41]
Awesome, so now the only way to cyno in to a system is to have about 4-8 sacrificial ships and pray to god the enemies don't find you quick enough to warp on you, or bomb you before you even load.
Why don't you think about fixing other mechanics before doing this.
Why don't you maybe, change cyno landing spots to a 30km radius rather than a 5km radius.
Fix lag
Provide other defenses for players trying just to load your sorry ass grids.
ETC.
War is going to change to first in wins again. And we all know how fun that was back in the day.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Urxach
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:24:00 -
[42]
This seems somewhat asinine. If your concern was that these items could not be probed because of your "new probing system", you could have fixed that by modifying deep space probes or other minutia related to it. If your concern was that people were in "unreachable spots", the same thing gets solved by modifying probing. I agree with you that the Poseidon bug was a problem, but this solution seems a little draconian in nature.
Have you given any thought whatsoever as to why people were making deep safes, and what legitimate uses they had? Grid loads, turnaround points, temporary staging, etc? If you're going to eliminate them you should think about "fairly balanced" ways (I use the term with amusement since I don't think a single person currently at CCP has any concept of "balance" or if they do you've put them into Torfi's footlocker) to bring some of this functionality back into play (scanning disruption bubbles, dedicated science and/or "FC logistics" ships, etc)
|
Caldari Citizen4714
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:25:00 -
[43]
What about bookmarks that are >10AU from anything, but in line between celestials?
They're essentially harmless since they're all inter system.
Just wondering cause I figure I might some bookmarks that fall into that category seeing as how I'll warp between celestials then make 8-10 safes along the way.
It will be irritating if a chunk of the ones in the middle get removed in this. - Support DISBANDING the Alliance CCP Renamed at the Alliance's Request |
Lucian James
THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:25:00 -
[44]
Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring the problems you've created and do not fix which causes us to use these deep safes to begin with!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring your user community that uses these safes.
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads! "I'm sorry, but our server logs don't point out how badly we've handled our server load capacity and we're not going to refund your loss as a result."
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Thank you SO MUCH for devoting another big game expansion to garbage we don't need instead of fixing all the problems that exist in game.
Thank you SO MUCH for your continued arrogance and cruelty.
I sincerely hope that anyone who loses a SC to your wreckless selfishness will sue you in open court.
|
Den Dugg
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:25:00 -
[45]
i dont live in 0.0 but y not make deep safespot probs instead? why would u stop ppl from navigateing anywhere the want in a solar system? if anythig ccp should be upgradeing ship navigation to warp anywhere u want. an if u warp into the sun,planet, or station u blowup.
|
Emo TJ
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:26:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Yaay Awesome, so now the only way to cyno in to a system is to have about 4-8 sacrificial ships and pray to god the enemies don't find you quick enough to warp on you, or bomb you before you even load.
Why don't you think about fixing other mechanics before doing this.
Why don't you maybe, change cyno landing spots to a 30km radius rather than a 5km radius.
Fix lag
Provide other defenses for players trying just to load your sorry ass grids.
ETC.
War is going to change to first in wins again. And we all know how fun that was back in the day.
Yaay for CCP Dev!!!!
|
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:26:00 -
[47]
Try a system which has only celestrial objects within 4.5AU from the sun. NOTHING will be off scan in such a system after this patch.
And yes, such systems exist. ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
Silverlinings
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:27:00 -
[48]
Good luck on a) adjusting onboard scanner range to make the game playable b) adjusting the probes to make the game fair c) make sure the people still get the chance to cyno in in large fleetbattles, even if the first ship cynoed in is a cynocarrier. d) solving all the other issues with your mission that you have just created that end you away more than 10 AU of any celestrial object.
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:29:00 -
[49]
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.
this is actually a good question that id like to know the answer to as well
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:29:00 -
[50]
Not really that great as far as nerfs go. You could probably leave it as a one line entry in the patch notes and call it a day.
Anyone that whines about it is an idiot. Even though I don't like hard (and arbitrary) limits, the ability to warp out that far has no ingame functionality or use besides supporting various metagaming tricks.
If we're gonna work on hiding fleets and ships in a single system, I'd rather deep safes not be the way to do it.
|
|
Broken Star
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:29:00 -
[51]
http://media.steampowered.com/steamcommunity/public/images/avatars/00/00a25a6757e18110f7d89b01480960320755fcdd_full.jpg --- I'm an alt, I admit it. |
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:30:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Illectroculus Defined on 12/04/2010 21:32:33 So, just checking - pilots outside the limit will have their ships nuked and pods moved to the pilots clone station. This isn't going to be a podding though - clones won't need to be updates and implants will remain intact right?
Oh, and, are we going to test the cleanup script on sisi first since it sounds like it has great potential to screw things up if there's a bug.
|
w0rmy
Destructive Influence
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:30:00 -
[53]
Edited by: w0rmy on 12/04/2010 21:33:53 As per usual, CCP your idea is a good one.
But...
As per usual, CCP your implimentation of your idea is crap.
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Anyone that whines about it is an idiot. Even though I don't like hard (and arbitrary) limits, the ability to warp out that far has no ingame functionality or use besides supporting various metagaming tricks.
Thing is, the game (in particular missions) often requires you to warp past this 10au distance.
Originally by: CCP Oveur I'm very sorry w0rmy, I beg your forgiveness.
|
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:32:00 -
[54]
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.
My Blog: Life In Low Sec |
AgentFruitfly
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:33:00 -
[55]
Confirmed: ccp forcing us to play lageve.
Pretty low, guys.
|
mirel yirrin
Gallente Ore Mongers Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:35:00 -
[56]
Total and utter nonsense once more from CCP. They clearly have absolutely no idea how their own game functions. Making deep-safe bookmarks is a well known and widely disseminated technique, and is not limited to older players. Anybody can do it with a plated frigate and five minutes of reading. As has been stated before - look forward to cloaking, unprobeable everythings. ---------------------------------
|
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:36:00 -
[57]
Heh, so the public release of Poseidon didn't quite work out as intended... |
shantaa
Caldari Chronos Evolution
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:36:00 -
[58]
Big thumbs up for finally leveling the eve playing field. And frankly, this will have absolutely no effect on the vast majority of eve pilots.
An arena that is sun to furthest planet + 10AU in radius should be ample space to play hide and seek.
|
groak
Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:36:00 -
[59]
Edited by: groak on 12/04/2010 21:39:13 So example : system got celestials 200AU away of each other , what happens to stuff in between them ? I know you guys can screw a lot so " for any point more than 10AU outside the furthest celestial in the system" will mean a lot???
Also fix the damm lag to pre-domi level. Improved fleet is guilty FOO FOO !
edit: quoting this for awesomenness
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....
Signature removed. Unsuitable for EVE forums. Navigator |
Serj Darek
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:36:00 -
[60]
I hope you have a system to dock super caps when people take a few month break from Eve....
|
|
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.
|
|
Greg DaimYo
Caldari Biotronics Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:24:00 -
[91]
I am obviously a lucky little bastard since I got the message right away and brought my ships to safety, because for some reason the accounts were still active.
I think the basic idea is good and reasonable. But there are a few problems:
1. It's pretty likely that there are quite a few people logged out in extremely expensive hardware in some distant spot somewhere in Eve, since it is (soon to be "was") the one way to make sure you're safe and virtually untouchable. Deleting the ships of accounts that aren't even subscribed is gonna generate (justified) tears imo.
2. You guys better get your **** together, since bridging into a stuffed system to a deep safe is one of the very few methods to enter the field without getting slaughtered in gridload-nirvana atm. You don't want it to happen anymore, and I said before that I understand the reason behind it, but you need to fix eve to enable the more conventional methods again.
Just saying, Greg
|
maya ibuki2
THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:25:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Lucian James Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring the problems you've created and do not fix which causes us to use these deep safes to begin with!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring your user community that uses these safes.
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads! "I'm sorry, but our server logs don't point out how badly we've handled our server load capacity and we're not going to refund your loss as a result."
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Thank you SO MUCH for devoting another big game expansion to garbage we don't need instead of fixing all the problems that exist in game.
Thank you SO MUCH for your continued arrogance and cruelty.
I sincerely hope that anyone who loses a SC to your wreckless selfishness will sue you in open court.
quoting the truth for great justice.
fix the lag before killing deep safespots.
infact, fix the lag full stop. 0ok! |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:25:00 -
[93]
After May 18th: What happens if someone manages to get outside of that 10AU radius (e.g. by way of MWD over a long, long period of time).
Will they be blown up, or will they be able to create those safes again?
|
x Annelid
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:27:00 -
[94]
Let me get this right, you will no longer be able to 'Warp to' and object outside of 10au?
So if I warp to 9.9au and mwd to 11au, I now am in a super safe spot and cannot be probed out, as no one can 'warp to' the scan result?
Who needs cloaks when mechanics are designed this well!!
|
Braxton Mazimus
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:28:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Vuk Lau 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.
|
Tinker Rage
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:29:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Vuk Lau 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.
|
Jotobar
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:30:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Jotobar on 12/04/2010 22:30:37 Well if it's not coupled with greatly reduced lag in big fleet fights we're all gonna die/not play.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari The Phoenix Enclave G String University
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:32:00 -
[98]
Originally by: x Annelid Let me get this right, you will no longer be able to 'Warp to' and object outside of 10au?
So if I warp to 9.9au and mwd to 11au, I now am in a super safe spot and cannot be probed out, as no one can 'warp to' the scan result?
Who needs cloaks when mechanics are designed this well!!
One astronomical unit is 149,598,000 km. Travelling at 10km/s it would take you 173 days to reach that distance.
Good luck.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:33:00 -
[99]
So, we won't be able to bookmark missions, won't be able to loot missions after completion? What you're smoking there at CCP? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:33:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 12/04/2010 22:35:07 1) I wonder how many people will learn to fit cloaks on their ships for roaming gangs. 2) I wonder how long before people start crying about cloaks.
oh wai... they are crying already.
Anyway, I don't see any reason for destroying the ships, you could just destroy the BMs and force respawn at random spot within system (allowed space). ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa. Nair Al-Zaurak
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:33:00 -
[101]
Edited by: adriaans on 12/04/2010 22:33:49 10 AU limitation is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. Even in small systems you can be over 10 AU from anything WHILE being in between two celestial objects!
There goes thousands of bookmarks, ALL which are within 25 AU from nearest celestial... do you know how much work was spent into making all of those? those are BY NO MEANS ''deep safes''!
Counter proposal: Change range to 25 AU as that is a very average bookmarking range and IS IN NO WAY ''DEEP SAFE''.
--signature-- Support the Field Command ship boost: Here |
Alice Celadon
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:34:00 -
[102]
As I started writing this, people have already begun to catch on why this is a gigantic failure on CCPs part.
For big systems, you can still make up to 150au deep safes. This is more than adequate for SuperCaps (just wait to log at your safe until the system is empty). Not every system has celestials 150au from the sun...but in general SuperCap logoffs are well planned affairs anyway. With the removal of the Ewarp Midwarp Poseidon creation method, this creates the exact have-have not issues CCP wants to avoid.
Let's review.
1. Until May 18th, we can all still create semi-Poseidons ~100-150au off in select systems. Protip to people making them: make them a bit off-axis to the sun, on-axis will be easier to probe, because people align the probes in the plane of the solar system. 2. After May 18th, no more semi-Poseidon creation. 3. After May 18th, the Posiedons as a method for circumventing game lag is gone (except in the aforementioned select systems). 4. A hilarious side-affect: people will sell semi-Poseidons ["never before used! pre-tyrannis certified!] to SuperCap pilots.
Golf. Clap.
|
Achmed TheDead
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:38:00 -
[103]
Way to go CCP, Make the game even less realistic. I know its Sci-Fi and all, but damn, at least it was the most realistic one of all time.
This offically sucks. I think sombody may need to go back to the drawing board and think about how rediculous this is.
|
ElanMorin6
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:39:00 -
[104]
Originally by: CCP Lemur On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created.
Sure you are.
|
Varrakk
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:39:00 -
[105]
And what happens to our supercaps that logged off in deep safes on inactive accounts?
|
John Zorg
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:40:00 -
[106]
lawl to all the Super Cap pilots that have been afk from EVE from now till after your new expansion, they going to come back to a game in their birthday suites?
That is utter fail CCP, get ready for some canceled subscriptions...
Fix the things in EVE that is important... like ummmmm, maybe fixing the Hel? The Lag and everything else that is fail :S
You want to make a limitless possibility game, this is now becoming like WoW...
|
Korvin
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:41:00 -
[107]
*reserved*
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:42:00 -
[108]
This thread is full of people are apparently unable to read at about a fifth-grade level.
|
Alice Celadon
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:45:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Kyra Felann This thread is full of people are apparently unable to read at about a fifth-grade level.
CCP is full of people are apparently unable to extrapolate at a fifh-grade level. See my post for details. [sic hilarious word omission in education chest-beating post]
|
Trox Aeze
MILLITECH
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:46:00 -
[110]
Awww, dont worry about your deep safe spots. Atleast we get to SimCity-Online
|
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:46:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Varrakk And what happens to our supercaps that logged off in deep safes on inactive accounts?
When CCP says "everything", i'm pretty certain it means exactly that. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
x Annelid
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:46:00 -
[112]
Edited by: x Annelid on 12/04/2010 22:46:39
Originally by: Kyra Felann This thread is full of people are apparently unable to read at about a fifth-grade level.
And one who has the ability to form sentences at about the same level
|
Quesa
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:47:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Quesa on 12/04/2010 22:47:19 Thank you for continuing to show your player-base that you are complete idiots.
There is a small segment of players that use these to "exploit" there way outside the normal scanning ability of a probe but they are mostly used to ALLOW PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY ENTER A SYSTEM AND NOT DIE DUE TO NON-LOADING BECAUSE YOUR SERVER PERFORMANCE IS SO ****TY WE CAN'T HAVE 300 PEOPLE IN A SINGLE SYSTEM.
But sure, lets just go ahead and remove that ability so that the winning of a fight is less about ships shooting each other and more about who gets up earlier in the morning to set up in a system.
PS fix your ****ing server lag already, it's been nearly 6 months. Mold grows on dog **** faster than you guys work kinks out of your programming.
Yours truly,
Extremely bitter, long time player.
|
Mirei Jun
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:49:00 -
[114]
GOOD JOB! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:52:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Alice Celadon
Originally by: Kyra Felann This thread is full of people are apparently unable to read at about a fifth-grade level.
CCP is full of people are apparently unable to extrapolate at a fifh-grade level. See my post for details. [sic hilarious word omission in education chest-beating post]
Yes, you caught me accidentally omitting a word. Good job. I fixed it now.
My post was in no way an "education chest-beating post". It was me lamenting over the fact that about half the posts in this thread are people complaining or asking questions about things that, had they actually carefully read the blog, they would realize that there is nothing to complain or ask questions about.
There may still be valid complaints here, but those that think CCP is talking about spots 10 AU from any object, but well within the system's boundaries are not making valid complaints.
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Amicus Morte Shock an Awe
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:53:00 -
[116]
About time
Kind of hoped to see more tears being shed Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenÆt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
|
Sendara Amarri
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:57:00 -
[117]
lol, u mad?
|
Cadde
Gallente 221st Century Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:01:00 -
[118]
First things first...
It seems there is a confusion going on as to where the limit in a system will be. A dev needs to edit the blog post to further explain just what range we are talking about.
If it indeed is: MAX_BOOKMARK_DISTANCE_FROM_SUN = MAX_CELESTIAL_DISTANCE_FROM_SUN + 10 AU
Then i can see how some systems would have a greater value than others just based on this new mechanic. Which is good as it adds another layer to the mix.
Secondly...
The issue with lag will NEVER be entirely resolved. If they make it so you can have 500 vs 500 in fleet battles then i bet one side will bring 501 ships... The other will ofc answer with bringing 511 ships, then 531, then 555..... It goes on until the server lags and dies or one side runs out of pilots.
Jita used to lag with 700 pilots, now it lags with 1,000+. Jita used to have 700+ pilots on sundays, now Jita has 1,200+ on Sundays. In conclusion, Jita ALWAYS lags on Sundays. It's a losing battle!
First in wins? People are crying because another fleet managed to get out and moving before yours did. And true, the first fleet to blob a system would normally win because of the lag they cause. But if you are so great at finding good solutions to the problem then why don't you:
- Apply for CSM and bring your fixes into the pipeline.
- Apply for a job as a developer at CCP.
- Write code that would solve all these issues.
- Start an MSN account...
If that doesn't work for you then maybe you are playing the wrong game. After all, there are a ton of games out there that allows you to bring your 500+ friends onto a single server to fight against 500+ enemies.
In conclusion...
No matter what CCP do. They cannot fix every little bug/performance limitation that we, the players, can find and use to our advantage in winning battles. Yes, it has come to that point. Actually, it's been like this for years! And EvE is still growing. If your enemy is blobbing up 500 pilots that makes a system lag then wouldn't that be the perfect opportunity to flank him and attack his logistics or just attack stuff that isn't blobbed. After all, the enemy is allocating just about every resource they have on blobbing a single system. You can move about freely around that blob instead of jumping in hoping that you can press F1 enough times to see explosions happen.
My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:01:00 -
[119]
I agree, there's a lot of people here that aren't reading the information properly, but as I mentioned in my own earlier post, CCP's current model of implementation is very confusing and could use improvement.
As a side note, I'm rather entertained by all of the people whining like little kids for CCP to fix the lag. These whiners obviously have no comprehension how a system with the complexity of EVE can be to "fix". CCP has been trying to get people on Sisi for a while now to help fix these very issues. I applaud CCP for putting out a "call to arms" to get as many people on Sisi to help track-down these issues. I'm willing to bet most of these whiners that keep complaining don't even bother logging into Sisi to help with these troubleshooting sessions.
|
Mystrin Micro
Gallente Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:04:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Tinker Rage
Originally by: Vuk Lau 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.
|
|
Mr Xanatos
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:05:00 -
[121]
It may be a nice quick cash maker for CCP, how many people are currently inactive at a deep safe, say 1000 players have to come back and activate an account to rescue some deeps safe assets, that's 15k USD right there with people trying to save their stuff.
This is gonna be epic. Its not like the code will work first time out either.
I Predict:
Random bookmarks deleted that were within the 10 AU range
Random ships that were within the 10 AU range exploding
Maybe a POS here and there imploding because somebody put one too many "if" or "else" statements in the code
LOL, I cant wait to see the unforeseen fallout due to poor QA with this mechanic.
|
Al'ar Darkwind
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:09:00 -
[122]
So while I don't really agree with the idea of blowing up a ship that logs into a deep safe after this change goes through, here is why they are doing it:
1) Sit a ship with a TCU in the hold at a soon to be unwarpable deep safe before this new change in a system you have Sovereignty in. 2) Log in the pilot after the change and have your Alliance drop Sov in the system. 3) Deploy the TCU at the now unwarpable safe spot. 4) Win Eve.
Note this is to explain why they are blowing up all ships in these deep safes after the change. This is also assuming that you could not warp to the TCU if it was deployed outside of the 10 AU "ring" detailed in this change.
|
BFish
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:11:00 -
[123]
Wtf is this sh*t.
/emoragequit
|
db T
M. Corp Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:11:00 -
[124]
I remember from a fan fest interview, how some CCP dev (or was it the CEO?) was talking about how they observe the game, notice neat things the players do and add that as an actual function.
What you have done here is see how the players have fixed a problem you caused (lag on bridge in), and chosen to remove it.
You are actually making the game worse, congrats.
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:14:00 -
[125]
So instead of fixing lag, you are removing the only to get in system when there is heavy lag. So if i have a pos coming out of RF i will just camp the system with my 200 dudes and no one can enter the system. Because if they try and get in the system through the gate well they will die in a horrible fire with out ever loading grid. If they open cyno 10 AU away from my bombers they will die in a horrible fire without able to do anything at all(and probally not loaded grid aswel).
Yeah good way to fix lag CCP.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:16:00 -
[126]
So first CCP Lemur unless you are trying to stir up the trolls and flamers you should consider posting your next blog earlier in the day and being available to answer the worst of the misunderstandings immediately. Like CCP Chorontis did in the last blog.
Second, the wording on what distance is safe isn't exactly clear. Can you make a little diagram in MS paint to clear it up. Picture worth a thousand words and all.
Third, any chance for a feature to warp to specific, x y z coordinates in a system to be put in place so that creating good safe spots can be created. Without them having to be way outside the system to be effective. So they can be placed within the new limits but at odd vectors to the other celestial objects. There by giving large fleets safe places to form while still in probe range but not in directional scan range.
|
BAteh
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:18:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Firvain So instead of fixing lag, you are removing the only to get in system when there is heavy lag. So if i have a pos coming out of RF i will just camp the system with my 200 dudes and no one can enter the system. Because if they try and get in the system through the gate well they will die in a horrible fire with out ever loading grid. If they open cyno 10 AU away from my bombers they will die in a horrible fire without able to do anything at all(and probally not loaded grid aswel).
Yeah good way to fix lag CCP.
What he said.
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:20:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Lirinas I agree, there's a lot of people here that aren't reading the information properly, but as I mentioned in my own earlier post, CCP's current model of implementation is very confusing and could use improvement.
As a side note, I'm rather entertained by all of the people whining like little kids for CCP to fix the lag. These whiners obviously have no comprehension how a system with the complexity of EVE can be to "fix". CCP has been trying to get people on Sisi for a while now to help fix these very issues. I applaud CCP for putting out a "call to arms" to get as many people on Sisi to help track-down these issues. I'm willing to bet most of these whiners that keep complaining don't even bother logging into Sisi to help with these troubleshooting sessions.
If that was a troll, then damn it, you got me big time.
1) I pay my money, I expect to receive at least a decent quality of service (even though this is wavered in the EULA), you kind just expect company's to provide at least a hint at what they advertise. 2) I have, and quite a number of 0.0 players have participated in numerous sisi testing days. 3) You obviously have NO idea of what is actually going on concerning these performance issues, we're not talking about lolz my missile transaction is taking a while to complete in jita, we're talking fleets of 100-200 never loading system, entire fleets attempting to fight in conditions, (1000+ playable pre dominion) getting killed without ever seeing the grid. This is beta bug testing stuff, not what you would expect from game that has been in development for 7+ years.
|
Cinori Aluben
Minmatar Gladiators of Rage Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:21:00 -
[129]
GJ, Nothing but good comes from this. Yet another "little thing" solved that improves everyday gameplay.
Get ready for the wtfragequit petitions about capitals/supercapitals/trophy-ships that get deleted out there... Cinori Aluben -- CSM 2010!! "Fix the Little Things First!" ------- www.littlethingsfirst.com |
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:22:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Pellit1 on 12/04/2010 23:22:11 This is bullshit! I am personally going to rally everyone I can to complain about this crap. ------------- Rough Necks Alliance
BOOST FALCONS. Nerf whiners.
|
|
Kell Braugh
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:23:00 -
[131]
Originally by: BFish Wtf is this sh*t.
/emoragequit
Can i have your stuff?
The TCU reason above is valid rationale for removing ships at points that could be unwarpable post change.
For all the people complaining about thier safes, and even ships/assets parked in them, the simple fact is that the only way to create these safes is and has been through exploits of the game mechanics.
- Using the map panel to create bms (old old style deep safes) was fixed after being named an exploit. - Probing fighters: same, called exploit and fixed. - Misusing the e-warp & log in and logout mechanic: obviously now being called an exploit and being fixed.
In legal terms, you are all 'using the fruit of the poisoned tree'.
You can't gain an advantage via an exploit (even it it wasn't officially an exploit at the time it done and say that any action, ability, or current ship location is legit.
Granted, I'd rather see the lag fixed first, but I'm not against cleaning up the artifacts of yesterdays exploits none the less.
The fact of the matter is that there is no valid game mechanic that can produce these 50, 300, 900 au safe spots. The ones made from missions-- fine. I would agree its valid, but that doesn't mean the game can't adapt and change. Just becuase the game ALLOWS you to do something, doesn't mean its how the mechanics were intended.
|
Elsa Nietzsche
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:24:00 -
[132]
So this really doesn't impact me as I have no deep safe spots but my question is, why is CCP wasting time on this issue when they need to be working on the 0.0 lag? Please tell me there's some technical reason for this, and removing this 'feature/bug' will greatly enhance the games performance.
And if you respond with the whole 'we have a team devoted to addressing the 0.0 lag issue' then I will be more than glad to point you to a number of threads detailing other issues you can and should be working on before this trivial matter.
I really like how you guys try and you've done a great job, but y'all's priorities of things that need to be resolved sometimes are more than just out of touch with with the players think need to get resolved.
Let's go look at that pre-dominion 'zomg this is what we're doing folks' dev blog and compare it to what we actually have in game.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:25:00 -
[133]
GARPA strikes again
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:25:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Cinori Aluben GJ, Nothing but good comes from this. Yet another "little thing" solved that improves everyday gameplay.
Get ready for the wtfragequit petitions about capitals/supercapitals/trophy-ships that get deleted out there...
CCP do have a sense of humour though as they reduce the base insurance pay for the supercaps at the same time. So not only do people have their ship destroyed, hey get no ISK back either.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:29:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Kethry Avenger Second, the wording on what distance is safe isn't exactly clear. Can you make a little diagram in MS paint to clear it up. Picture worth a thousand words and all.
Actually, it's very clear. They worded it pretty precisely to avoid the sorts of misunderstandings that this thread is full of. Maybe for people who don't speak English as their native language it's unclear, though, so let me try to clarify it. Let's look at an example:
Let's say you have a system called Example and in this system, there is only one planet, Example I, and that it is 500 AU from the star. The limit they're talking about is 510 AU from the star, not 10 AU from any celestial object. So in our simple example system, you could have a spot 10 AU, 50 AU, or 100 AU from the nearest celestial object with no problems--the only thing you can't have is a spot that is over 510 AU from the star.
So the distance from the nearest celestial object is completely irrelevant--the only thing that matters is the distance from the sun to the further celestial object, to which you add 10 AU to get the deep safe-spot cutoff point.
Hopefully that makes things clear. BTW, there was someone who made a diagram and posted a link to it already in this thread. Here it is.
|
Lord EmBra
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:30:00 -
[136]
I remember a time when CCP looked at what creative players was doing in their sandbox game and then took those ideas and continue to build upon them. Created game mechanics and interfaces etc to further enrich the game.
These days it seems they are simply just deleting all "new" ideas and chaining players to fit into their own little narrowminded box.
|
BABARR
PARABELUM-Project
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:31:00 -
[137]
Edited by: BABARR on 12/04/2010 23:31:49 This change got a name : CLOAK WAR. That the only thing to notice. Moaaar cloak, moaaar lol PVP.
...
"Si vis pacem, parabellum" |
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:33:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Jenina Hawke on 12/04/2010 23:35:11
Originally by: Kell Braugh <snip> the simple fact is that the only way to create these safes is and has been through exploits of the game mechanics. <snip>
NOT true. Mission safespots are frequently outside of the 10AU perimeter.
If the problem is the 50+ AU deepsafes, then remove THOSE - not all offscan safespots. But do not implement a "remove all ships in such spots" - instead move them to a safespot just inside the perimeter. ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
Kestraa
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:35:00 -
[139]
Bleh.... 3 things that are more important to work on:
1.) Perma cloakers - although the players being at work, sleeping, etc. for 8 hours or more, a cloaked enemy in your system is just a pain in the a** as you don't know when he will wake up, and come for you... - it's like macro miners: although not at their computer they do their work in game... So if you (CCP) worry about "Ships in these locations being very difficult to pin down" think about those afk-threats... auto-logoff or outo-decloak after some time are the first two possible solutions that come to my mind... (k, bit off topic here )
2.) Lag 3.) More lag...
Deep safes give the opportunity to circumvent the problems of high lag in large scale battles, when you want to get in to a system through a cyno. By removing Deep Saves, the effect of lag on large scale battles becomes even worse. Locking down a system will be even easier than today... |
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:38:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Jenina Hawke NOT true. Mission safespots are frequently outside of the 10AU perimeter.
How many agents are located at the furthest away celestial object from the sun? Probably none.
|
|
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:42:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Jenina Hawke NOT true. Mission safespots are frequently outside of the 10AU perimeter.
How many agents are located at the furthest away celestial object from the sun? Probably none.
Ok, I will help you with your comprehension problems!
Agents live in stations (well, most of them). Missions are in space. Some missions are in systems where all objects are within 4.5AU or less from the sun. Some missions in such systems are still more than 14.5AU from any warpable object. These are good, valid and not illegal bookmarks which are offscan.
Now they will be invalidated by CCP - who made them. ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
Chienka
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:44:00 -
[142]
CCP,
You're completely bonkers. This change illustrates how much you do not understand the game.
|
Qolthus
Children of Anarchy
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:45:00 -
[143]
Quote: This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game...
This argument is not valid and can not be used without CCP removing T2 BPO's from the game. Shiney ships and loot is fine, people should be rewarded for extremely long servitude but T2 BPO's affect the balance of the economy.
On the rest of the dev blog, its was always going to happen, use the safes while you can.
|
Alar Tangor
Caldari Decadence.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:47:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Alar Tangor on 12/04/2010 23:50:23 if this goes through we will start seeing a whole lot more of this on all sides http://ragealliance.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=6286979
story behind this for the empire dweller is: Atlas tried to get into system while rage/me held the field, never loaded grid while NC forces did clay shooting at the SC ships that were decloaking one by one
|
hepatitisDD
SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:50:00 -
[145]
Ahahaha so tell me, how badly are you going to **** this up? Oops typo, you're 10au from a celestial, DELETED, logs show nothing hope you keep paying :15bux: though.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking Yggdrasill.
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:50:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 12/04/2010 23:52:31
Fail CCP. 10 AU from the star is small enough not to get all planets. Also, this is another brutal nerf for vets (who have a lot of stuff within deep). You shouldn't play with assets like this. ~ OSEF |
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:51:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Vuk Lau 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.
listen to this man for once
|
Banlish
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:52:00 -
[148]
So instead of fixing the lag (the majority of the reason people are using this stupid thing) CCP will instead punish players into the ground.
Let me put this in much clearer terms.
Players are hungry peasants. Lag is a blight on all the crops in the fields. The deep safes are food that grows free in the forest (aka a way to get into a system since bombers and non-working grids screw everyone) So instead of giving people food (aka fixing lag, or making it so players can get into systems) You decide to burn down the forest and tell people eat from the fields!!! We say "we can't it's rotten and we get sick and sh*t all over the kingdom!" You say "I can't hear you, there's all kinds of food there ENJOY!!!" <----- Lag still not fixed.
So we now have battles become who-gets-into-the-system-first-wins. Nice.
|
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:55:00 -
[149]
Does this mean next time the node crashes and my fighters are in warp will they go *poof* and be unprobable since they often end up further than 10 AU.
|
Magnolya
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:59:00 -
[150]
People come on, there is no lag in Jita, I mean, in EVE. what, there is more eve after Jita?
What is this fleet batels you speak of?
Signed for being sad with the Deep safe removal
|
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 23:59:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Kerfira on 13/04/2010 00:00:08 No problem with most of it, but destroying ships parked in deep safes is probably a bit over the top....
Just move them to a random spot in the solar system...
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.
|
Audrea
Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:08:00 -
[152]
Feedback for CCP:
On its own, a very bad idea as many have said already, I will try to focus on reminding you the whys you seems to have forgotten, rather than repeat what others have already pointed out such as lag on jump in:
- EVE so far has been a unique game, where players are not equals: When I started out, I missed on a lot of things the 2003 players didnt miss (such as the 10 Ogres Thorax, highly skilled Eos with 7 blasters+5 ogres etc) - I accepted that and dealt with it - why suddenly this is WOW or some hello kitty? let the new players work hard on discovering new things, while hearing about what the old players have they don't (in this case deep safes etc)
- EVE happens in space, which is boundless - which means there is NO SENSE whatsoever, for space to be sandboxed into abs(X-Star)+10AU LOL... wtf? are we in Need for Speed with closed circuit? with no exploration?
- CCP has stated explicitly, that should you want a break, you can always take one and not fear, as all your assets would still be there when you come back! how can you say this and look into the eyes of a Titan pilots who took a break from EVE?! This would be a slippery road, once you start walking it, there is no way back (for us too, we simply wouldn't trust you anymore.. probably even be CCP customers).
- Even if eventually you still think this ability needs to be removed - your approach is all wrong and too harsh for the above reasons... let the ones who have them, retain the bookmarks - its the way of EVE, the old players always had advantages new players will never have. If you change this concept, THEN REMOVE T2 BPOS! remove the unique ships! make EVE a damn politically correct (TM) sandbox for the self righteous activists or whatever... just don't delude yourself thinking this is for the better change, because it isn't (I am quite sure the old players have MORE accounts together, than the new ones...) so do your thinking again.
We understand not every dev is server side programming expert, but certainly there are better and more important things for you to work on, than mess with a delicately balanced, sensitive game mechanics? IT WORKS, everyone uses it, its not breaking the game, its part of it now.
in conclusion: DON'T FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKEN!!!!
|
Sunbird Huy
Caldari WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:19:00 -
[153]
Edited by: Sunbird Huy on 13/04/2010 00:21:32 Edited by: Sunbird Huy on 13/04/2010 00:20:06 1. LOL. 2. More LOL + facepalms... 3. An extract from the DEV chat channel:
DEV a: Guys, we still haven't fixed 0.0 lag...we've made it worse... DEV b: We need to do something to divert the attention from this matter... DEV c: Players/Customers(read: suckers) have found ways to reduce our fecktardedness, they call it Poseidon, and it seems to allow for 0.0 battles to happen, with at least a chance for players to load grid before they die... DEV a: Wow, good stuff...They actually go around our feck-ups, now we can do something about lagg... DEV b: WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT - MAKES US LOOK, UMMM...INCOMPETENT? NERF IT! DEV c: Ok, so we have an agreement. We're gonna nerf what they did, grief all the players that are AFK from the game, and do nothing about the matters we should dealing with... FAILPROOF PLAN - DEVSTAMP.
4. I have a question : is there a way for us customers to get a few of you mor0ns fired, so the others get a jolt and do something about issues we have at hand.
None of this really affects me - not a cap pilot, I try to stay out of mass blobbing and I sure as hell don't spend entire nights making those Poseidon spots. But the point is, someone in your office really should re-assert your policy and attitude towards customers.
TTFN...
|
Ash2k7
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:20:00 -
[154]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Vuk Lau 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.
listen to this man for once
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Vuk is right.
Your game is broken and the only way to avoid crap like the PL mass titan death is to use deepsafes.
Trying to kill Vuk and friends when they lit 4 2000 AU safes in P2 was hard, and we died instead, but that was a much better option than annihilating the competition thanks to a "CCP feature". There should be benefits for creativity and experience, Eve should be massively unfair for new players, this nerf is an absurd response to your own horrible development issues. |
Ulair Memmet
ORIGIN SYSTEMS Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:31:00 -
[155]
The end of an era.
Those deepsafes really gave you a feeling of being in space. Needing like 5-10 minutes to reach such a spot with a capital ship while watching the solar system go further and further away was very nice to watch.
All this stargate-travelling is so unimpressive. I wish there was a possibility to actually "warp" from one system to another. Though we'd need a new shipclass for that as even very close systems are over a lightyear away from each other. It'd take a covops with unlimited capacitor about 1 hour and 18 minutes to warp 1 light year (As 1LY is about 63240AU if i'm not wrong).
I agree that from a gameplay perspective those bookmarks need to go. I personally never used them to gain any advantage over an opponent. But i'll miss them nonetheless.
|
Graalum
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:32:00 -
[156]
why am i subbed to this game again?
|
IsoMetricanTaliac 2
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:32:00 -
[157]
Edited by: IsoMetricanTaliac 2 on 13/04/2010 00:37:37 With the logic they are using <Old players have them & new ones don't, basically> it has to be asked when the same thing is going to happen to the T2 BPO's because they are the very same, where anyone that wasn't playing when they were around has little chance to take advantage of them <unless you have heaps of ISK & buy one, then again you could do the same with deep safe BM's couldn't you?>
The sad thing about all this is the lag probably won't get fixed, the jumping in bugs probably won't get fixed, & then CCP will scratch their heads & wonder why people are deciding to move on to more well thought out games by developers that have a clue.
Very basically I can't help but wonder if there has been a change in the person that keeps control of where EVE is heading, because it seems to now be on a heading which is going to take it along the road of self destruction. It is a shame that a game that had so much promise has slowly been stuffed up by a development team that seem to have no real care for the older players or the people that are trying to play the game outside of sitting in Highsec whinging about everything.
Where EVE goes after this coming expansion is going to be interesting, then again I guess CCP always has the other things they are doing to fall back on. that way they can do the same to those games & player base.
Also I don't have or use any of those deep safe's, but I know just how important they have been lately to keep the game playable sort of. I know I am not going to be interested in paying to play to always end up being stuffed over when taking part in fleet fights & I think there are going to be a lot of others that will feel the very same...
In a Time When Many Will Seek Death, There Will Always Be Those Like Me Who Won't Mind Helping Them Along Their Way!?! |
X0CIN
Caldari K.T.P
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:34:00 -
[158]
All we want to know is:
HAVE YOU FIXED THE LAG!!
|
rubico1337
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:38:00 -
[159]
10 au from a planet is NOT a deep safe by any means, range needs to be at minimum 20 au. anything within dscan range is by definition not a deep safe
also. nuking people who are away from the game and logged at a deep safe is wrong. someone who logged their supercap in a deep safe and comes back in 3 months to only have it distroyed is not going to be a happy camper, and it is just wrong anyways. id doubt they would renew again after hearing why, would you?
best thing to do is probably just leave them there, only the ships logged off with people in them. nuke everything else. with the inability to warp to them or bookmark them the deep safe will effectively be useless as no one would warp to them and if they warped they could never get back
if there is an issue with invulnerable carriers assigning fighters or something, make all caps warp within 1 au random location of the sun or something on login, or direct to the sun.
i think deep SS nerf is warranted, but this is wayyyyyy to draconian and hurts honest players unnecessarily Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. |
FluorosulfonicAcid
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:39:00 -
[160]
Originally by: x Annelid Let me get this right, you will no longer be able to 'Warp to' and object outside of 10au?
So if I warp to 9.9au and mwd to 11au, I now am in a super safe spot and cannot be probed out, as no one can 'warp to' the scan result?
Who needs cloaks when mechanics are designed this well!!
why not drop a TCU while you are at it :)
|
|
Mya ElleTerego
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:43:00 -
[161]
I think its pretty funny tbh, but if you guys are going to do this, at least nerf stealth bombers bombs. Otherwise we are going to just have to melt titans into motherships and go back to useing gates for all fighting. A couple hyperspatial rigs and 2-3 bomber squads could effecively kill an entire enemy fleet before they load easily with this range restriction. Otherwise I am fine with the idea and look forward for it to being possible for defense fleet to at least take charge in a overwhelming odds fight. Alliance Recruit thread Alliance Homepage/Killboard |
Na'li Cyntanis
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:46:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Na''li Cyntanis on 13/04/2010 00:45:59 Why not do away with bookmarks altogether and implement a system that allows you to pick a spot to warp to similar how you control scanning probes.
Combined with a limit of 500 AU from the central star as well as a major boost to deep scanning probes this would be pretty cool.
|
Romale
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:50:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Romale on 13/04/2010 00:50:47 WTG CCP, your fixing a problem that nobody cares about right now and doing it in a way the ******ed, blowing up peoples ships. How about, just making it so you can't warp anything to it, and the bookmark no longer works instead of blowing up people who haven't logging in or read your blog ships.
I got news for you. People spending time on this instead of making it so someone can jump into someon else and actually shoot them instead of just dieing makes people a little angry.
|
Addison Tariel
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:50:00 -
[164]
What idiot came up with this idea? Does anyone want this change? |
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 00:53:00 -
[165]
I don't even fight in 0.0, have never needed / used a deep safe, and really have no business being bothered by it. If / when this goes live, I won't be affected in the slightest.That said, this nerf really makes me upset. It's indicative of something going on at CCP that I don't like, and it isn't limited to this single change.
What you have been doing lately, CCP, is eroding the sandbox. Here, in case you forgot: Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ok I'll try to give some use cases since Greyscale asked for them - but quite honestly I feel you shouldnt just be looking at those. It's like asking "what do people do in a sandbox?" and then giving them the tools to do ONLY that. Instead, you should just give them plenty of tools and let them figure out how to use for themselves. If you design the tools properly it doesnt have to become more difficult to use/understand.
..which if I recall properly, you thought made a pretty good point. As a TL;DR, you've moved away from "putting it out there", i.e. making unstructured content and letting players do as they wish, to "Okay, THIS is how you play." It's not just this nerf, it's not just the reduction of standings granularity. It's not that you are "encouraging" NPC players to leave with a 10% tax (can of worms right there). What is the issue is that you're constricting the walls of the sandbox. At some point, you'll lose credibility and the whole free-form gimmick will be laughable.
You've so far given no reason as to why you are implementing this change. Some background would have been appreciated; it's more than understandable that people would take this as an offence on their gameplay, because so far you have given no reason for it. As it stands, it's apparently an integral part of 0.0 warfare today since fleet fights have been borked. Without a good reason as to why, you come across as heavy-handed, unreasonable, and frankly it's a major kick to the nads to subscribers who rely on this "exploit" to play.
I don't appreciate the suddenness, either. There wasn't any community discussion, no hint that this was coming. Just a small dev blog, almost an "Oh, by the way..." kind of thing. Hell, you didn't even pretend to involve the players, and 6 pages of replies with nary a Dev response adds to that image.
CCP, you need to be more open and frank with the players, and more importantly, you need to stay true to Eve's ideals. If you expect to keep players happy with sudden, unilateral assaults on the so-called "sandbox", you have another thing coming.
|
Busta Rock
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:07:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Ulair Memmet The end of an era.
Those deepsafes really gave you a feeling of being in space. Needing like 5-10 minutes to reach such a spot with a capital ship while watching the solar system go further and further away was very nice to watch.
agreed to infinity. I've been around long enough to see that every time ccp 'expands' eve,they manage to shrink it just as much if not more. let me count the ways:
- the mythology of the game itself has canonized the fact that gates MUST AND CAN ONLY operate in binary star systems, yet we cannot travel via warp to those stellar companions (out past 1000au), or exploit what might be there. Hell... WE DONT EVEN HAVE PROPER ASTEROID/KUIPER BELTS, OR OORT CLOUDS!!!
- WE ARE NOT ALLOWED to warp to the countless single-star systems that lie beyond the reach of the gate network.
- capital ships may ONLY jump to a beacon created by another ship that had to travel the gate network - something I have had an issue with for a long time (for high precision jumps, a cyno makes sense, but a jump capable ship should be able to jump based solely on it's own sensor fixes with much reduced accuracy).
- Speed Nerf. WTF??? (don't tell me it was the best way. there were other solutions that you ignored)
Quote: All this stargate-travelling is so unimpressive. I wish there was a possibility to actually "warp" from one system to another. Though we'd need a new shipclass for that as even very close systems are over a lightyear away from each other. It'd take a covops with unlimited capacitor about 1 hour and 18 minutes to warp 1 light year (As 1LY is about 63240AU if i'm not wrong).
you know something, I would LOVE to have the option to warp to a system with no gates, even IF IT DID take hours or days to do so! NEW ORIGINAL CONTENT. NO LOCAL. NO SAFETY NET. (yeah, I know the wormholes bring some of this to eve, but W-space is STILL highly limited - in many ways even more so than the normal systems.)
space is supposed to be BIG, BEAUTIFUL, WONDROUS and most of all DANGEROUS! (yeah... I said it... eve is supposed to be a BBW with DDD's lol)
|
Ten Bulls
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:12:00 -
[167]
'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.' CCP Lemur
If CCP's justification for this change is based on this fairness to new players, then it is contradictory. Its a similar scenario to T2 BPO's,
T2 BPOs create 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 get T2 BPO's would be to acquire them from an older player.
Care to clarify CCP's position on T2 BPO's ?
|
Hazel Starr
Krypteia Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:22:00 -
[168]
The question I have is simply why?
What issue is there with deep safes?
Why are you devoting your limited programming time to eliminating a non-problem (in such an antagonistic way) when you have so many real issues on your table,
-- Haze
|
Siiee
Recycled Heroes Codemonkey Construction Project
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:30:00 -
[169]
registering my dislike of this change, both to the removal of Poseidon and the deletion of "deep" safes.
While I could see some justification for removing locations far outside of deep space probe range the 10 AU bounds to the system seems excessively small (1/6th of the max range of the smallest combat probes? really?)
The removal of Poseidon also seems unfortunate. Unlike other exploits that circumvent obvious restrictions on gameplay (MWDing between deadspace accel gates to bypass hull restrictions) Deepsafes within a couple hundred AU of the system bounds don't offer any more tactical advantage than on grid tactical bookmarks. It gives an advantage to those who are prepared ahead of time, but isn't an "i win" tactic.
As for the 'division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots"', that is laughably absurd. HTFU CCP, seriously. Where's my handout to bring me (a mere '07 player) up to parity w/ the advantage that all those ebil '03 players have.... oh wait... I don't need one
|
Alar Tangor
Caldari Decadence.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:39:00 -
[170]
The argument about destinction between "have"s and "have-not"s is especially ******ed in face of the fact that the people actively using those BMs (apart from storing stuff which in no way has an impact on gameplay of the have nots), i.e. the people lighting cynos for fleets on deepsaves are used on alliance scale opperations which in turn benefit the have nots as they do not get their ships blown to bits due to their grid not loading... in return if i was a fleetcommander and wanted my forward scout (a hypothetical player who started playing late 2008, can use covops and such) to light a cyno for my fleet i would sure as hell provide him with a copy of said BM, so again there is no issue (as well as the fact that everyone warping to said cyno or being bridged/jumped there can bm it to their liking...
|
|
Anela Cistine
Amarr GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:40:00 -
[171]
Originally by: teji 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.
Dear CCP,
Please convert all T2 BPOs to BPCs. Their existence is unfair to newer players who were not around at the time of the T2 lotteries and never had a chance to win one. This change will only affect a small fraction of the player base. Thanks.
|
Orb Lati
Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:42:00 -
[172]
Sorry to say, but the destruction of all objects outside of the range of your new limit to space seems a bit excessive when you could use the same algorithm to simply change the coordinates of all objects (and bms) and shift them back within limits.
While the decision to remove the current exploit for creating DS bookmarks is good, perhaps instead of removing all possibility of having difficult spots to find or travel to, provide us with an in game ability to create them.
An example would be as a function of the the Deep Space scanner Probe DDSP with its limit of 256AU (increased range to 512Au if needed?) you can generate a random BM to make scanning difficult and provide much needed travel time for large fleet incursion into a hostile system. Limit safe spots to a DSSP range from a sun?
While i agree all spots should be able to be scanned we currently need the ability to use and create them if we want to see more large scale capital / subcap combat with the current state of the servers.
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Ysp Amai
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:42:00 -
[173]
Now I have been generally okay with a lot of the changes that CCP has worked on over the years. Even the nano nerf was a long time coming. But this change makes little to no sence. The argument for the change is frankly very weak. There is no reason that any person desiring a deep safe spot can not make one. So it destroys the argument that its a situation of people gaining an unfair advatage. As creating them is avallible to all players in the game.
As for their use? Simply put they have been used almost exclusively for one purpose. They allow an attacking force to enter a system in relitive safety and be able to load grid. Without this, lag would dictate that anyone who manages to jam a system with their forces first can hold the field in a fight no matter what the enemy numbers.
Yes I know that CCP has been working on reducing lag. But there is one thing that no member of CCP can be foolish enough to do. And that is claim that they have fixed the lag and it will never show up again. With that fact in ones mind, one would need to have a way of countering the lag so large fleet fights can actually take place.
I understand that it is nearly impossible for a prober pilot to find the deep safe due to the expanse of space they are looking at. However, might you consider letting probes to a huge scan radius. When you do that outside of the system, the probe is looking for a collection of ships and they are likely to be all in one area. This means the chance of hitting a signature right off the bat is going to be very high. Then consider this. Most of the Deep Safe Spots I have seen have been used for remote cynoing. I can warp to that cyno at any time. If I'm in a cloaking ship this means I have the enemies deep safe.
Deep Safes have their tactical advantage. But like any good game mechanic they are not totally invulnerable. Yes you can use a deep safe for cov-ops cyno. but they are undetectable anyway unless you are right on top of them. And unless you are looking for a ship to drop one in a specific system, it is highly unlikely that you are going to spot it in time to get a warp in.
All in all this nerf is one of the most ill advised changes to the game I have ever seen. The small bonus it gives to everyone is easily outweighed by garenteing that fleets of 200 can now successfully system jam and be nearly completely immune to opposition. I strongly suggest that this idea be reconsidered.
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:43:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Caladain Barton on 13/04/2010 01:43:02 See that figure in the distance being beaten to death CCP?
That's fleet war. You know..the stuff that makes headlines and you like to harp on. Wave goodbye to it CCP.
I'm not joking..There is no way to load grid now if the enemy is in system. We're not talking about being "safe"..we're talking about not blackscreening.
Oh..and the method on how to make "Deep Safes" is available to anyone who can fly a frigate..only, really, it's just FC's, Scouts, and Supercap pilots who need them. Because if you can't get in system..you can't fight. No fights, no news. No news, players log off.
Once again..the Ebil Deepsafes..make..your..game..work..as..intended.
Stop breaking your own game.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:48:00 -
[175]
Dear CCP,
Having just read your blog I do have some questions.
1) What is the point of my Deep Space Probes now? I had trained up to Astrometrics V in order to use those. Then you nerfed them. But at least they still had the ability to scan down a deep safe. At least that's what you said when you were nerfing DSPs. Not that I'd ever have the need to scan 128au, but I had the ability just in case. But now there is no need to scan out that far. My combat probes easily cover 10au, in fact they go out to 32au. And they are of equivalent strength. Soooo... what good are my DSPs? What good is my Astro V that I trained up for? Are my skill points wasted now due to your retroactive decision?
2) Since max bookmark range is now 10au, will you be pulling all missions to within directional scan range now?
Taxman IX: Risky Venture
|
Lobster Man
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:49:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Lobster Man on 13/04/2010 01:49:42 While I do agree that there may be some issues with deep safes, I think that the method for "fixing" these presented in this devblog is atrocious.
I do not think that you should delete currently existing spots, nor should you destroy assets parked there already. If anything stop them from being created, and make it possible to scan out people who are using them (and maybe fix cloaks too), but please, please, please, please do not just say LOL and PUSH DELETE BUTTAN
|
Kallieah
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:51:00 -
[177]
Since this doesn't have a direct impact on me, a highsec hugging carebear, I would normally not care or even bother to comment. However, since I've been playing on and off for a few years now, I have to say that this is only more of the same CCP that I don't like.
This is not a sandbox. There is little to no transparency between the dev community and the player population. Features are being added rather than bugs being fixed.
In the end though, I'm all for the current player community leaving en masse. There are too many people in the game universe competing with one another and a population implosion would be rather nice. I can't imagine it won't happen anyway since there seem to be a lot of angry people who haven't yet left because, like it or not, there are no other decent internet spaceships games out there worth playing. Maybe that'll change and things will get quiet around here.
In the meantime, keep up the good work upsetting your community and cheers to whoever leaves to play "like EVE but better" in a few years. Clear out this miserable universe for me.
|
Axhind
Caldari Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 01:57:00 -
[178]
I have one thing to say. T2 BPOs
If you are going to give us this stuff about older vs. newer players than at least be consistent about it.
|
Crystal Starbreeze
Australian Mining and industry Corp Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:07:00 -
[179]
I use bookmarks that are 1000 AU out there; additionally I use deepspace probes and tested with a 4x2x1 256au grid pattern and was able to successfully (with an hour of work) probe out stuff that people hid 1000 AUs out in a random direction out there.
This means all the skills I put into deep space probes (which are awesome in that they are 256AU and most people never use) has been ruined.
I appreciate the have and have-not's but bookmarks that CAN be scanned out with current mechanics and nerfing them to protect against the have and have-not's; I would like to bring up the T2 BPO lottery.
If there EVER was a huge advantage it is was the T2 BPO lottery. At least with safespots even if you couldn't create them again you could still scan people out with the current mechanics.
With the T2 BPO it is a isk printing machine for anyone lucky enough to get them, and there is no way with current mechanics of the game to suddenly have a new T2 BPO.
Please do not nerf structures ships at over 10AU from celestial's and if you do please nerf those evil T2 BPO owners which I can't hope to compete against.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:09:00 -
[180]
Originally by: "CCP Lemur" 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 get a T2 BPO would be to acquire a bookmark T2 BPO from an older player.
See what I did there?
Bwahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa
And yes.. I find you inconsistent CCP. If you say A, you also have to say B.. don't stop in the middle.
|
|
Dan Sun
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:10:00 -
[181]
So what happend to the Sandbox?
|
Sperrzone
Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:13:00 -
[182]
CCP get your s*** together and start using your brains again...
impelement tis and you have -4 subs per monts
*middle finger up*
nuff said
|
wert668
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:14:00 -
[183]
|
Kirex
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:17:00 -
[184]
I for one am glad I'm not in a relevant alliance anymore.
Enjoy dieing while black Screened in 0.0, relevant alliances.
|
Dengen Krastinov
Amarr Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:18:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Dengen Krastinov on 13/04/2010 02:20:38
The logged out super caps is the real issue. I was frankly suprised when I saw CCP say they'd do that.
You guys do realize how many super cap pilots dont read your crappy blogs right? If I were to log in to find my titan gone and be in a clone station after taking a break from the game I'd quit. I know people will if this were to happen.
|
Kallieah
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:18:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Sperrzone impelement tis and you have -4 subs per monts
Multiply this by about twenty thousand and I'll be happy. Even this is a superb start. Too bad the change wasn't made first and then announced after the fact.
|
Rothana Haldane
Minmatar DucKtape Unlimited Opprimo Vox
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:23:00 -
[187]
I have this feeling this is a huge april fools jok guys, CCP's way of saying hahaha we got you! At least it better be an april fools joke
|
McFly
Peanut Factory BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:32:00 -
[188]
I like how CCP doesn't understand their own game again.
I can make any deepsafe I want at any distance I want in any system I want with the simple use of an anathema and a plate. Anyone can do it with any ship if they read the posiedon manual (look on eve files). This is not an older player vs newer player issue. It's an issue to do with whether or not u read the manual, or figured out how to do it urself.
This has nothing to do with old vs new.
If you want to make this change fine CCP it'll only be another wonderful nerf in the long succession of them.
Oh and the best part, is anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the devblogs or forums lately will get to enjoy the feeling of losing billions of isk due to another harsh implementation of a change.
U gave us super caps CCP, do u honestly expect people to put them in vulnerable places? I mean seriously? POSes die, safes get probed, can't dock, can't hide, and ur in every one of your enemy's address book shortly after you field your ship the first time.
Just my thoughts
|
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:34:00 -
[189]
1) Thanks for making EVE even smaller. 2) Thanks for making EVE even less realistic. 3) What's the role of Deep Space Probes now? I have Astrometrics V on 2 accounts, and my 2 old sets of probe BPOs are already nerfed (due to Apocrypha Disaster; I don't need 40 Core Probe BPOs, really). 4) Fix things that ARE broken. Rockets, pethaps? 5) Play your own game from time to time.
|
Mynas Atoch
The Salmon of Doubt Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:36:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 13/04/2010 02:39:14
"Space...is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space..."
The most significant use of 'deep safes' for me is getting into a system where the gates are impassible, not due to numbers, but due to the games inability to cope with ADDITIONAL numbers and spread the disadvantage of an increase equitably between those already on grid and those entering.
Difficulties in scanning down ships "out there" in deep space are exactly what I'd expect in a science fiction game set in space. What IS wrong with stuff far from planets being difficult if not nigh on impossible to find unless it does something like light a cyno?
As a PLAYER I really don't see the need for this and have seen no justification from a gameplay perspective either.
|
|
Andre Coeurl
Gallente TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:38:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Dan Sun So what happend to the Sandbox?
This.
And, not only this, but the dictatorial way they put it... I don't have any supercap, and don't plan to fly one, but those who have are completely ***ewed now. I'm beginning to think that it's getting a bit too stressful to try to survive all the nerfs that each patch brings along... --- --- ---
|
Gael Itrus
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:40:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Gael Itrus on 13/04/2010 02:41:31 Do your newly found level-playing field ideals extend to T2 blueprints?
Edit: Also, I'd like a State Issued Raven please.
|
Lord Zulu
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:46:00 -
[193]
Quote: This should make these locations essentially unreachable, thus forcing ships within a given system to use the other measures available (docking, cloaking, warping around an awful lot) if they want to avoid being shot at.
yeh CCP great coz like all ships can dock up can't they. Glad to see your spending your time on something really really useful like this and not wasting it on silly little things like DOMINION FLEET LLLLAAAAAAGGGG
fail change is fail
|
Snabbik Shigen
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:48:00 -
[194]
10AU from the farthermost celestial is too small of a range. It should be at least 25AU if not 50AU of a margin.
That, or you should change to code so that all bookmarks have to be within 250AU of the nearest celestial.
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:55:00 -
[195]
I guess this finally puts to rest the issue of that peep who used probing to jump all the way to Jove space and kept a bookmark there.... poof.
I do not have any deep bookmarks, but I can not help but think something interesting was just lost from the game. I kept hoping CCP would do MORE with deep space and oort cloud type areas. I guess instead they are making the world that much smaller and less 'space' like. Now we are not just underwater, but underwater in little caves....
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:56:00 -
[196]
What the... I don't even...
*Owns supercap* *is in military and gets deployed* *doesn't log off in a POS because the POS might not be there when they get back* *comes home*
"Dude, where's my supercap?"
There are some reasons to make this change, but I'm not seeing a reason to start DELETING **** in just over a month. I have two corp members in the military on submarine tours right now who we need to get a hold of that could be affected by this. Hopefully they trust their wives with their EVE account details.
|
Alex Telinov
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:56:00 -
[197]
CCP stands for "Crowd Control Productions" in case anyone didn't know. It seems CCP wants to live up to their name and continuously **** off its customers so much that they are going to need riot gear to hold back the keyboard warriors that fund this douchebaggery.
I wish you could start class action lawsuits for horrible service. |
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:57:00 -
[198]
Now i know i can get a job at ccp withot any prior knowledge of ... well... anything exept breathing.
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 02:58:00 -
[199]
So 10 au from the furthermost celestial.
So if that furthermost celestial is 150 au from the star, there will be a 160 au sphere around the star, where anyone can warp to? I don't think the dev blog communicates the change and its mechanics properly.
Destroying players ship is a bit heavy handed. Why not just have them warp to automatically to a celestial object within a certain distance?
|
Isidore Tailleur
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:01:00 -
[200]
This is the most ******ed thing I have seen from CCP yet...
Removing all the items? Wtf? Also people wouldn't be hunting for bugs to make these spots so desperately if they weren't needed. Make it safer to log supercaps in POSes ... before you do this.
|
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:06:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Ulair Memmet
All this stargate-travelling is so unimpressive. I wish there was a possibility to actually "warp" from one system to another. Though we'd need a new shipclass for that as even very close systems are over a lightyear away from each other. It'd take a covops with unlimited capacitor about 1 hour and 18 minutes to warp 1 light year (As 1LY is about 63240AU if i'm not wrong).
I kept hoping they would fix this bug. It is possible to have bookmarks in other systems and warp there, but because you never travel through a session change it never loads the system. I always thought it would be really cool if they fixed that and had session change when you got near a system instead, thus allowing people who wanted to poke around deep space to do so meaningfully.. and who knows, maybe even throw some big nasty things out there that make it a possiblity that such travel would carry risk.
|
Gatsukama
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:07:00 -
[202]
What CCP said:
Quote: any bookmark which is more than 10AU further from the local star than the furthest-out celestial object (planets or stargates).
What the people who get it wrong think it means:
Quote: any bookmark which is more than 10AU from the nearest celestial object (planets or stargates).
There's a HUGE difference between the two. The wrong way has tiny bubbles of valid space around each celestial; the right way has a huge sphere of valid space centered on the sun, extending 10AU past the furthest celestial in all directions. |
Kesper North
Caldari Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:15:00 -
[203]
THREADNAUGHTS, SIEGE IS GREEN IN 5 4 3 2 1 -- Killed me? Read about it in my blog! Northern Lights: Solo PVP in EVE Online
|
Busta Rock
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:21:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Gatsukama What CCP said:
Quote: any bookmark which is more than 10AU further from the local star than the furthest-out celestial object (planets or stargates).
What the people who get it wrong think it means:
Quote: any bookmark which is more than 10AU from the nearest celestial object (planets or stargates).
There's a HUGE difference between the two. The wrong way has tiny bubbles of valid space around each celestial; the right way has a huge sphere of valid space centered on the sun, extending 10AU past the furthest celestial in all directions.
the problem is that CCP is GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. there is no *right* way to shrink space!
|
Karab Gerlinger
Rim Collection RC Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:23:00 -
[205]
CCP, why?
Just fix the broken POSes and fleet warfare lag before you do this, that's all.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:24:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Kesper North THREADNAUGHTS, SIEGE IS GREEN IN 5 4 3 2 1
I think CCP may have underestimated the response.
I'm in agreement with most people in this thread...
- Killing logged off ships that have pilots in them is over the top
- Quit worrying about the stupid things and focus on fixing the existing lag issue
|
Cemial
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:25:00 -
[207]
The fact that you wasted your time in doing something like this, if only writing the Dev Blog, means that your priorities are wrong.
Cynos at deep space bookmarks became popular as a means of entering a system under heavy lag after Dominion. That should give you a clue to why players use them and where the real problem that needs addressing lies. Hint: Lag.
Fix the lag and people will stop using deep space spots to enter a lagged system and will go back to jumping right in the thick of a battle, because, believe it or not, people like doing hotdrops as opposed to deep-space-cold-drops.
If you take away the only means we have to play the game as it is (broken) and remove the only alternative that players have now to work around your incompentence and failure at addressing the single biggest problem affecting the vast majority of your playerbase (lag) you will simply leave us no other choice but not to play. True that we will still be able to spin ships at a station, but that is not what makes people pay for their subscriptions.
|
Alice Celadon
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:32:00 -
[208]
I give up. CCP is not collectively intelligent enough to bear correcting. I just can't even fathom the level of stupid that had to go into this change. It doesn't achieve a single one of its stated purposes. No one in this thread is saying "Woo, this makes my game better. I hated those Deep Safe Spots." It speaks pretty loudly when no one is citing actual grievances that are being mended.
Also, by removing deep safe spot creation mechanics you've ensured that semi-deep safe spots in systems with ~100au radii will be made before May 18th and sold to future players.
|
capn gump
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:33:00 -
[209]
This a terrible idea, and even worse implementation, if it really must go ahead make them limited to within 500au so at least the people who trained astrometrics V will have some use of the skill.
|
Gatsukama
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:34:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Busta Rock the problem is that CCP is GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. there is no *right* way to shrink space!
Taking CCP's perspective, you could say that (game-)space was enlarged through exploiting a game mechanic, and they're closing the exploit, and rolling back the gains made from that exploit. |
|
Gazelli
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:37:00 -
[211]
Brilliant, another classic example of how out of touch CCP is with the people who pay their bills.
Perhaps it's time for a bit of an insurrection. Anyone else have 'extra' accounts that are ripe for cancellation?
|
Jattzia
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:43:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Jattzia on 13/04/2010 03:42:54 I JUST WANTED TO STOP IN AND POINT OUT THAT YOU CAN STILL MAKE DEEP SAFES IN SYSTEMS WITH ~150 AU RADII.
GO MAKE SOME NOW AND SELL THEM TO NOOBS IN A FEW MONTHS.
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 03:59:00 -
[213]
I must say I am still amazed with the approach you guys are serving us. Its not even related to this particular issue, as its related to the complete lack of touch with the game, or at least lets say with member base.
We can debate here all day long are deep safe spots product of exploit, broken mechanic or just a feature and all the pros and cons around them, but your solution is...just...insulting. And on top of everything you spice it with a "smiley" at the end.
Originally by: "CCP Nozh's sidekick" That's all we've got today - please keep this in mind, and tell your friends to read this if they haven't already :)
I am trying to figure are you guys trying to be sarcastic, funny or you simply just laughing in our faces.
|
Eucarid
Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:03:00 -
[214]
For any ship subject to this destruction, they should move them to a point along the line between the deep safe and the sun at the maximum allowable radius. Or just move them to the sun. Destroying them is a lazy irresponsible act by CCP.
|
Shindow Leanne
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:07:00 -
[215]
Question, what is going to happen to ships with low capacitor that can't make all the way between stargates? Do they explode or what?
|
Ms Michigan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:12:00 -
[216]
Originally by: jst tstng Good stuff, I think.
How about, after Tyrannis is deployed, you guys make public a list of stuff that that got deleted, you know for the funny.
THIS! HILARIOUS!
Seriously though - It does level the playing field although it will suck/ be comical to the people that are inactive and lose their titan. Although change is fun that might be a tad extreme. I would say move their ship into within the 10au. Also - I have to agree with another post, space is supposed to be rather endless..10au out seems small. In RE: to lag - it sucks people but they are working on it. And if you don't like the camps, get used to it - all the small fish deal with it, big fish aren't immune Space is not safe - we have all been told that in EVE.
|
Normin Bates
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:12:00 -
[217]
Noob: who's that over there? Vet: Oh them? They're CCP developers. They make EVE. Noob: What are they doing? Vet: Let me look (Gets out binoculars) They are giving us the middle finger. Noob: Oh. Do they do that often? Vet: Pretty much. Yeah. Noob: Why? Vet: They don't play the game or understand why we do certain things. Noob: Bummer. ----------------------------------
When is the Cloak nerf?
When is the Bomber nerf?
etc. etc. ----------------------------------
Where was CSM during this brainstorming session? :facepalm: |
LuceOscura
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:14:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Vuk Lau I must say I am still amazed with the approach you guys are serving us. Its not even related to this particular issue, as its related to the complete lack of touch with the game, or at least lets say with member base.
We can debate here all day long are deep safe spots product of exploit, broken mechanic or just a feature and all the pros and cons around them, but your solution is...just...insulting. And on top of everything you spice it with a "smiley" at the end.
Originally by: "CCP Nozh's sidekick" That's all we've got today - please keep this in mind, and tell your friends to read this if they haven't already :)
I am trying to figure are you guys trying to be sarcastic, funny or you simply just laughing in our faces.
this and suggest changing saying 'april fools' to 'april ccp'.
|
Clb
The Intersect
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:15:00 -
[219]
Jumping on the outrage bandwagon.
So people will spend between now and May 18 creating 'semi-deep' safespots. Depending on the system these could be 20-50AU outside of the perimeter.
Not as good as the 300-1000 spots but still useful, valuable and impossible to create after the logoff bug is fixed (which it is on sisi).
Either do it right or don't do it at all.
---
|
Gatsukama
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:22:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Shindow Leanne Question, what is going to happen to ships with low capacitor that can't make all the way between stargates? Do they explode or what?
They'll be perfectly fine. You're misinterpreting what CCP said.
|
|
Kallieah
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:23:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Normin Bates Where was CSM during this brainstorming session? :facepalm:
CSM? You mean the PR gimmick that was done in response to Band of Brothers getting spawned T2 BPOs by CCP staff back in the day?
|
One SandyVagina
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:24:00 -
[222]
Deepsafe nerf?
What about the f-u-c-k-i-n-g LAG issue!?
Jesus what kind of people does CCP hire.
This game has turned from bad to worse.
|
Halaxi
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:33:00 -
[223]
One would hope that if you are removing deep safe spots, you are also removing the necessity for the same, i.e. the fact that in Dominion you have regressed as far as lag, grid load, node crashing etc is concerned.
If you can say that we can now bridge onto a hostile fleet without staring at the lovely black screen for half an hour, then good for you. If you can't state this, then maybe you should look to solve that issue first...
Hal.
|
Mutafakaz
Russian Thunder Squad
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:35:00 -
[224]
Utter idiocy, f88k u ccp really, fix the lags before you delete the only possibility to get into system with already 600+ hostile in local safely, without being shot at the g8, while looking at blackscreen. ******ed move, all I can say
|
bLoOd StAiNd
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:37:00 -
[225]
Wrong direction CCP. Instead of nerfing the "haves" down to the lowest common "have-not", why not do this: Warp to your probe!
1.) This allows the new guys to get out there too 2.) This keeps the gridload bandaid 3.) This maintains some reason to train for deep space probes
And seriously, destroying ships and podding ppl? Dumb.
Now how about T2 BPOs since your worried about "haves" and "have-nots"?
Also, as fighters (at least used to) warp to 100au randomly if you cloaked with them away - does that mean they are gone if this happens at a perimeter planet POS? |
cnx7
Caldari THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:45:00 -
[226]
CCP Thanks agein for totaly doing the wrong thing and make a bad problem mutch wores likes always. How is DUST and this planet stuff supost to work when everyone in space can hardly load and have a fun fleet battle when we cant even load grid or have our guns work right?
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:51:00 -
[227]
It is truly enjoyable to watch this thread be filled by spam from people who fail at reading comprehension. It's not rocket science, not even the internet spaceship kind of rocket science.
|
The Merc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:53:00 -
[228]
Dear CCP if you will fail in listning on all the comments that are being posted on this page then you should go and sell your self to Sony Online Entertainment..
if this is going through i will terminate all my subscribtions to your company. i where exciting to see how dust plays off and tyranis, but if you lack of being able to listen to the majority of players and the EvE Veterans that form 0.0 you will have a serious problem, you gonna end up with a restricted "sandbox" game where everything where supposed to be possible. where anything could happend, oh gosh, space just imploded on us.. you will end up with a game filled with a good amount of newer players and no old ones to teach them the dark secrets of the eve universe that defines your epic game. (that will not be so epic no more) its just nerf nerf, what about boosting other things to solve a problem, i dont even bother to tell any points couse you should have understood them already.
i feel the eve universe gets more and more "lightned" i wont bother to follow Dust or tyranis if you put this restriction in place. its not an open sanbox for me, and its not space. if it was a uboat game, i could understand the seas would have walls. but this is just redicilous.
personaly i have found a medival MMO made from the sweedes, its not space, but its starts to draw more of me than eve just now, just as harsh and dark no lame levelup's, The name is Mortal Online, sweeds are chatching up on you ccp, dont make things more bright in eve, you will loose.. but i know you have a tendency to ignore what we say, and for the rest of the ones that feel the same as me,
come and take a look at me with something medival in hand. and if ccp is kinda smart, they would google it theirself. read their forums, see what goes on. they actualy listen and take ideas from their players as well as keeping true to the true aspects of their game.
Good luck, and probaly godbye. The Merc.
|
antiantipirate
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:54:00 -
[229]
i completely support the devs on this one. they must have a good reason to do this, and if they're telling us what it is, it means we're not meant to know.
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:58:00 -
[230]
Edited by: BeanBagKing on 13/04/2010 05:01:04 Horray for limiting the sandbox!
Yea, I don't like this one at all... Ok, the several thousand AU safes are a bit much as it's not really possible to find those at all, but combat probes can go out to 64 AU, IMO this should be the limit outside the farthest planetary body no wait, we can go farther! Deep space probes go out to hundreds of AU, limit it to the max range of those! Not 10AU, sure, it has to be cut off somewhere, a distance had to be chosen, but so small of one? Lets make it the max range of a deep space probe! At least give us something to play with.
I say reward explorers! have hidden sites worth more than regular ones that are far enough out they can only reasonable be found with deep space probes. In other words, give us a reason to use deep space probes! Same with safes! I've never liked the idea of "We're going to give you all of this space, and stuff to find stuff in this space, it's a sandbox, go play! Oh, but your sandbox has walls right outside the planets, your not allowed there".
Sure, it's a game running on a computer, the limit has to be made somewhere, but I'm sick of only finding stuff right around planets, it's boring and repetitive, and this is just one more limit on how far away stuff can go. It would be nice to see this game try to find ways of removing limits, not put them in place.
tldr - This change sucks
|
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 04:58:00 -
[231]
It's that time of the year again ey CCP? You're probably right, we didn't had a CCPbashnaught threadnaught for way too long. At least you learned from the titan targetpainting nozh debacle. You now trow 2 dev's in the pit to be torn apart.
A few observations, already been made but can't hurt rephrasing them:
Very, very bad customer support if you'd nuke those ships who hide in a deep safe from people who may be totally unaware of what you are planning. Time after time you've shown us, when you made changes to your game mechanics, that it was possible for you to put the items, that could no longer (for example) fit to a ship, in our ship hangar. Don't be a lazy Fuuuuuuuuuu. Implement it this time as well. Will safe you a lot of tears.
Never used the deep safes but was planning to. I'll miss them. It chops off a big part of the sandbox. Its borders have gotten closer now. Which I think is a bad thing. Flying around in new Eden will feel more constrictive then before. How about implementing a feature where we can warp off in any direction we desire, with some limitation per ship type/ class on how long/ far that 'rogue' warp can take you?
This is a big change for some. In the end they'll either adapt or leave. Still, you take something away that has been widely used, and served a purpose for a big chunk of players. You might want to ask your self if you shouldn't give something back in return.
|
Baeryn
22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:06:00 -
[232]
Wait, what? Why are these "deep safes" such a problem, and how do you explain their removal in the in-character world?
If I fly my uber-expensive faction-built-and-fit interceptor (with my snake implants) out beyond the edge of the solar system, why the hell do I lose my ship? **** those other guys if they can't keep up, that's part of the benefit of my ship choice.
Seriously, CCP, please -- reconsider this. The game mechanics are one thing, lag is another; but downright breaking immersion is entirely another.
At least let us manually fly out there, and return us to that location when we log back in. Sure, remove our ability to warp out there (lack of gravitational locks, or something), but by god - let me keep trying to reach the EVE Gate, or at least surprise me with some damage when I get to a certain distance.
What ever happened to immersion? You're going to lose your core playerbase if you keep cutting away at it like this. Role Playing Games by RolePlayGateway |
EveFairy0
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:13:00 -
[233]
Oh look it's April 1st.. no wait
So you kill assets of players that may be taking a break from the game, who knows what they're flying (even supercaps)?
Also you kill the possibility to enter system via titan bridge somewhat safely when system is filled with hostiles?
GJ as usual.
How about fixing lag issues first and then poking at the stuff that's actually even playing field to everyone.
|
Lord Zulu
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:16:00 -
[234]
Edited by: Lord Zulu on 13/04/2010 05:21:33
Originally by: Seleene What the... I don't even...
*Owns supercap* *is in military and gets deployed* *doesn't log off in a POS because the POS might not be there when they get back* *comes home*
"Dude, where's my supercap?"
There are some reasons to make this change, but I'm not seeing a reason to start DELETING **** in just over a month. I have two corp members in the military on submarine tours right now who we need to get a hold of that could be affected by this. Hopefully they trust their wives with their EVE account details.
Seleene I'm in Royal Navy submarine service if your m8's are RNSMS as well PM me their names i might know their wifes and be able to get hold of them for you.
If they are from another nation sry can't help bye bye supercaps
|
Infinion
Caldari Endless Destruction Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:23:00 -
[235]
RAAAAAAAAGE
took me 3 hours to make a 3000 AU safespot
|
Syndemic
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:25:00 -
[236]
Hey guys its a sandbox! The universe is yours! Go hog wild!
*actively restricts where players can go in space*
*changes a mechanic where there was no problem while ignoring game breaking issues*
*is ccp*
|
Infinion
Caldari Endless Destruction Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:31:00 -
[237]
seriously though, what can we actually do in eve when we're bored, there aren't pvp ops going on and we don't feel like constantly ratting? This is why eve gets boring, because there aren't any Easter eggs to enjoy. The sole purpose of my 3000 au safespot is to warp afk corpmates in carriers and laugh my ass off when they come back and start raging
|
Ancy Denaries
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:37:00 -
[238]
Edited by: Ancy Denaries on 13/04/2010 05:39:14
Originally by: Jenina Hawke This, quite frankly, ****es me off.
I have done a ****load of missions in 0.0. I have saved every one of those bookmarks, taking a lot of time to mark the distance to the nearest warpable object - and some are over 22AU from any object. Quite a lot of them are over 10AU.
Now you are telling me that if I am in a ****ing MISSION when the server dies before patch, my ship will be dead and I will be podded???
CCP dudes, what are you smoking? Please stop, it is hazardous to your health and my sanity.
Not very bright, are you? They said 10 AU from the system boundary, not 10 AU from ANYTHING.
Also, rolf at the rage in this thread. You guys are just sad, you know that right? (Yes, I have LOADS of these deep safes I used on my pirate alt. It was fun while it lasted, but I definately see why they nerf them) ---- The Demigodess with a Conscience - An EVE IC Blog
Originally by: CCP Dropbear rofl
edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
|
Alaizabel Bronstein
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:39:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Lord Zulu Seleene I'm in Royal Navy submarine service if your m8's are RNSMS as well PM me their names i might know their wifes and be able to get hold of them for you.
If they are from another nation sry can't help bye bye supercaps. And if they are from another nation can you PM me their In-game names please i like to meet brothers of the deep past or present
lol, their J2 is gonna love Seleene for that
|
Shade Millith
Caldari International House of PWNCakes Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 05:55:00 -
[240]
I'm gonna jump on the ****ing outraged 'bandwagon'
This is beyond ******ed. IF you're going to go this way, then FIX YOUR BLOODY NODES FIRST SO ALLIANCES DON'T NEED TO RELY ON DEEPSAFE TITAN BRIDGES SO THEY CAN LOAD THE SYSTEM BEFORE DEATH
Your also giving the finger to any supercap pilots that might be not subbed atm.
Hell, WHY are you changing this? If anything, it should be 500 AU. It's NOT HARD to scan down a unmoving ship, no matter the distance, if it's uncloaked, it can be scanned down. You can easily cover 64AU's with 1 probe, and anything within that area that shows up is going to be a ship.
This is a stupid change, and I don't even USE deepsafes.
10AU is laughable ------------------------
|
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:02:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Matalino on 13/04/2010 06:05:10 In general I believe that this is a good change. However, I disagree with the plan to destroy piloted ships. Items and unpiloted ships should be destroyed, piloted ships should remain.
A pilot would be unable to do anything at a deep safe spot. Once he leaves the deep safe spot he will be unable to return to it.
I do not see enough value gained from destroying piloted ships to offset the damage done to those who might be away from the game during the next month.
If it is unacceptable to leave pilots at a deep safe spot, I believe that it would be preferable to relocate the ship to the grid of the local star rather than destroy the ship.
|
Monkey M3n
Ever Flow Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:08:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Monkey M3n on 13/04/2010 06:07:56 op is a gay
|
Vir Hellnamin
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:08:00 -
[243]
Stupid question, since it's not exactly clear:
Are you going to delete to 10+ AU BM's too or not, or will they just stay in the system as "non-warpable" (so you really need to check if they're crap or not by trial-and-fail)?
-- "Entering MH means instant death. It's worse than 0.0. Even the asteroids shoot back." - Alex Harumichi [GRD]
|
Pasha Cracken
Caldari Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:13:00 -
[244]
CCP reminds me of SOE now.
|
UndeadBabe
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:18:00 -
[245]
So far, not a single reply from the "game makers". Does this mean we are a) ignored b) correct, and are u adjusting your plans?
I see a lot of valuable replies here. The 10 AU border is too small. Its plain, stupit ans simple. Increase it to a more realistic number and noone has problems. Something like 25 AU circlewise out from the furthest object from the middle of that universe is morethan enugh for most of us, and playable. Shoeldnt make so much of a problem should it?
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:19:00 -
[246]
/starts to issuing those 1000au warps to avoid getting the mining fleet wiped/
Secure 3rd party service | my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' |
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:24:00 -
[247]
Why the bloody hell DESTROY ships out in deep safes ? What about people that are in ships there now, and their accounts are inactive, and they only come back AFTER the patch ? WHY NOT SIMPLY MOVE ALL THOSE SHIPS INWARD INSTEAD ? Just dump'em in a random spot inside the system far from anything else instead of deleting them.
No, I don't know anybody in this potential situation personally, but it's completely screwed up to just announce such a mass deletion barely a month before it'll happen. And a lot of people don't even read devblogs.
FOR SHIPS, MOVE INSTEAD OF DELETE. Dammit !
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Pasha Cracken
Caldari Trust Doesn't Rust Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:28:00 -
[248]
the 2 biggest names in MD have spoken,
Listen ccp, just listen,
Wait, the intern is reading this isnt he.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:29:00 -
[249]
I hope you are fixing the grid load issue alongside of this, right? RIGHT?
|
Mithfindel
Aseyakone
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:44:00 -
[250]
Just to increase the future hilarity: Would it be terribly impossible to move the deep space stuff to, say, a random spot within 10 AU of the star and declare the treasure hunt started? |
|
K'ven
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:47:00 -
[251]
Bad idea - Please do not add "walls" to systems.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:50:00 -
[252]
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?
|
Shade Millith
Caldari International House of PWNCakes Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:53:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Gnulpie 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.
They ARE easy to probe down
Probing them out. Use Deepsafes to change from 300 AU's to 1000's covered. If it's there in space and uncloaked, it's probeable. ------------------------
|
Joe Space
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:55:00 -
[254]
Bad idea.
[Edit: everything I had to say has been said above over and over again.]
Don't do it.
|
Lampblack
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 06:57:00 -
[255]
ccp please revise this idea thanks.
|
Nyitnizold
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:00:00 -
[256]
This idea is so lame, please reconsider it... This bookmark problem is not the most important...
WHAT ABOUT THE LAG???? When are you going to fix that???
|
CHAOS100
Raata Invicti Reckoning.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:02:00 -
[257]
CCP: if the problem is with people making cynos 500 au (in order so that they dont get killed loading the system), and you dont want people to be 500 au, why not just make cynos invisible to local, eliminating the need to make deep safes? --------------
|
Bloodhands
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:07:00 -
[258]
Solar system radius + 10AU, seems reasonable.
Please send out at least 2 mails to all character owners. One 2 weeks prior to patch day and another 1 day prior informing them of the upcoming expansion and this new feature.
The mail should state first off the date of the expansion and that all players who have items/ships/structures outside the system's radius+10AU will be deleted and players will be podded.
Please give all players fair warning as this would be an unprecedented act by the game designers. Also, just think how much you will get from re-subs for people checking to ensure they are in range. $$
|
Daan Sai
OHiTech
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:13:00 -
[259]
Please check with the mission spawning folks! Many lvl 4 and lvl5 missions spawn a lot more than 10AU out. If we can't warp to them it will man a lot of stuck petitions. Also we bookmark wrecks to return and salvage, so 10AU is way too small.
Also consider vary large systems with more than 10 Au between planets.
Please consider a 20-30 AU limit if you must, but 10 AU will break a lot of secondary things apart from unfair super deep safe spots.
2c Daan
--------------------------------- Internet Submarines is Serious Business ---------------------------------
|
dabatman
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:17:00 -
[260]
good god, why don't the dev's just start coding up some more incredibly useful and well reasoned content, like a fix for missiles that makes them more realistic agility wise and utterly unable to hit smaller ships cause they'd get a fixed turning radius. Or how about we add some more features to the fleet system, like a fixed non moveable graphical display of where all your fleet members are in the system, that'd help in fleet fights . Roll back the fleet code to pre dominion, let everyone deal with the intense and almost infathomable torture of having to invite people to fleets and not be able to catch ninja looters (ooooooooo the horrors), and if you really can't get the programming hard on that seems to have swept through the dev cages out of your systems, at least just make the limit mesh with current scanning ranges (256 au), since there's been proof provided that it'll work just fine as it is, and I'm sure more people can confirm it. I'd make some plea about getting the friggin grids to load, but I'll do something better. How about we explore the possibility of giving alliances the option to have the server bits responsible for the nodes of the territory they claim, but are not currently using (make reference to large sections of unused 0.0 space or space used by very few leech like alliance members while others are fighting), and applying that processing power to the system/surrounding systems where a huge friggin blob of people are trying to have a decent fight? Does that sound like it'd be possible? p.s. anyone who posts about people unfairly exploiting this idea to make counter attacks impossible can suck my douche canoe-ing nuts, its a quick idea that might be good to expand on, not a full fledged plan.
|
|
StyweBal
THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:20:00 -
[261]
/me have a look in the crystal ball:
Good day EVE subscriber base.
We have found a brilliant solution to all lag issues after the successful implementation described in CCP Lemur's previous dev blog, that will enable all of you, our valued customers, to have the ability to play the game without any lag. (Isn't THAT exciting stuff!!)
1) All systems of security < 0.5 will be removed. (They are lawless anyway) 2) All assets within these systems will be removed. 3) All characters within these systems will be returned to the stations where they were born at within the 0.5 security grid of systems. 4) All the hardware that will become available from this will be used to reinforce major mission running and mining hubs.
We trust you will find this in order. (If not, we don't really care, go play Hello Kitty or WoW)
Regards, EVE Online developer team, with UBER ideas. Happy gaming.
|
Angus McSpork
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:26:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Zhentar More importantly, why are you doing this now, before you fix the fracking loading issues that make deep safe spots necessary for any shred of a fair fight in today's EVE?
Bingo, qft..
|
Bobbeh
Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:27:00 -
[263]
Think this is pretty fail tbh... These safes are at the moment the only way to titan bridge a large fleet into system thats already pretty full, without risking slaughter on gridload.
Whats the problem with them in the first place. 10 au is very limited make it a distance where Deep space probes actually get use.
Also why not instead of deleting items and players that are outside the new range, just scatter them accross the system. That way its like a treasure hunt the next few days, knowing all those people that store items in deep safe. There might be systems full of Bs's that are just abandoned.
Also getting rid of deep safes completely removes any safe spot to swap ships out (eject the alt/pop in the main), As current mechanics stand you cant lock a ship if you eject and the minute you eject anyone else can get in immediately. So if your using a storage alt for your super cap you cant dare eject in a pos incase someone warps to the pos and hops into your ship. A deep safe allows you to go to somewhere relatively unscannable and swap in and out of your ships without risking someone stealing them.
Finally, My solution would be make longer range probes, making it the further (to a limit) the safe is, the harder it will be to find at first. So make a 200au probe or a 500 au probe with a low strength but it will show you where something is within 64 au. Meaning that No deepsafe is "safe" if someone is looking for it. but yet they do provide a level of security compared to a safe spot or a pos.
|
Monster Dude
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:35:00 -
[264]
Edited by: Monster Dude on 13/04/2010 07:35:39 Why I have feeling that somebody focusing development on wrong things?
If there would be no lag (not to mention NOT LOADED GRID) after portaling to a cyno or jumping through the gates then YES. Then why not... But for now we are getting portaled and ending up in cloning service without even seing grid! And of course CCP does not reimburse it... But for a perspective of the one who discovered himself in cloning service it looks like "Hey, what I did wrong? Did I have a tiny chance to protect myself? Hunging in no grid and then going straight to cloning is not what I paid for, right?" So basically players did find a workaround. They do some work (yeah to make deep isn't clap you hands - it is work and time) to help the problem. And now what I read is - "We don't want you to take care of yourselfs. We want you be dying after jumps in no grid, have no chance to survive" Correct me if I'm wrong?
|
Ap0ll0n
Gallente Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:35:00 -
[265]
This is pretty ****ing terrible CCP.. Your removing the only counter we have to your latest failexpansion for no obvious reason..
|
Miep Miep
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:37:00 -
[266]
Hey, ccp, what about logging in, and actualy play your game a bit. i believe you totaly lost your connection to your customers and your game.
STOP being retarted and START fixing important stuff.
hints: Lag , t2 bpos, lag, wrong session timers, lag, aggro timers, lag, fix some of the zillion exploits out there ( yes making deep safes may be one of them, properbly the most unimportant), lag , horribel ui, lag, unloved shiptypes ( black ops, some of the t3 cruisers, eafrigs etc), lag, etc lag, etc......
|
Jatata
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:40:00 -
[267]
I cant bookmark my deep space missions anymore and salvage them later :(
|
Othran
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:41:00 -
[268]
Ignoring the obvious lag/fleet issue. Ignoring the fact that deep space probes are now almost totally useless (there might be a few systems they'll work in). Ignoring sandbox ideals.....
You are giving people just over a month to move stuff that may have been in place for YEARS.
I'm interested to know how you believe this is going to retain customers? If I came back from a break to find stuff destroyed I'd probably just close the client and delete it.
You really have completely lost the plot with this one.
I think there will be an awful lot of people taking an extended summer break if this goes through and you don't fix the lag.
Still I'm sure there's someone in CCP who believes they know what they're doing. Heh who am I kidding?
|
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:45:00 -
[269]
Quote: This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots".
There are people who "have" 100 million skillpoints which I "have not". So it is not more then fair to give everyone SP equal to the oldest player to eliminate this division.
As for this change I¦m sure the people who coded this would be no use helping to fix the performance issues so I¦ll not say that their time could be much better spent. Destroying player assets with 35 days notification however is seriously stupid. As your company allows players to pay up to a year in advance for having an account this would be the minimum grace period to not having your assets destroyed arbitrarily for a change you decide is needed. Simply disallowing the creation of bookmarks, warping to fleet members in remote space and deletion of said bookmarks will do the job just as well. |
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:52:00 -
[270]
Awesome. Glad to know CCP is continuing to ignore issues people have been *****ing about for years and instead nerfing completely ****ing random parts of their game.
|
|
Lantanaa
Caldari DEFCON. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:55:00 -
[271]
This change better improves lag during massive fleet fight dramatically
|
bnogo
Caldari The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:56:00 -
[272]
this has been stated, but needs saying again, if you are doing this cause it is unfair to new players, you must remove t2 bpo's, and all state issued/unique ships.
although the idea of removing the ability to make them is ok, and even removing the saved points is ok, the limit you have set + the method of removal is far too harsh.
I have lived through several patches including the feared boot.ini patch, and this is probably the only change that has truly made me question my subs.
or at least be honest why you are doing this. it is a quick fix for lag(removal of ss) and that is all. it isn't fairness, its laziness.
|
Bob Random
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:01:00 -
[273]
I listen to other players opinions from in game, posted on the forums, MSN and real life discussions.
Over the past couple of years I have heard plenty of talk on areas of the game that, in an individuals opinion, affects their game play detrimentally.
I have never, ever heard anyone complain, moan, criticise or object to the presence of "deep safes".
I only have one question which I would appreciate an answer to:
Based on my previous comments, how has this issue come to be at the top of CCP's MASSIVE "to do" list? Have a good one... |
Max O'Deel
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:04:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Dan Sun So what happend to the Sandbox?
Originally by: Avenger1 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.
it just got it's a*se smacked
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:04:00 -
[275]
WTB CCP's response to all this.
|
Othran
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:04:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Bob Random Based on my previous comments, how has this issue come to be at the top of CCP's MASSIVE "to do" list?
Poseidon going public. Simple as that.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:06:00 -
[277]
I see this ending well ¼¼
What about fixing it so that 200 players can jump onto a grid with 200 other players and the whole thing doesn't grind to a hault first?
If you insist on this removal what about just jumping everyone who's beyond 10au to a safe that's within 10au wether they're logged on or not?
That'll at least save some people who aren't around atm.
What about people who trained for them deep scan probes? I thought they did some huge scan range and were kind of the point when it came to deep safe spots?
I guess level 5 skills and end game content isn't good for the "new player experience" though. --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:10:00 -
[278]
Given the number of supercap pilots which are likely inactive and logged at safespots how about you just move everyone+there ships who is at such a spot to their clone station with the caveat that if said supercap pilot does anything with his ship apart from undock in it (and jump to lowsec/0.0 if he ends up in highsec) he gets banned. I mean there can't be that many of them to monitor. Or is this your way of limiting supercap proliferation by getting rid of a few dozen of them.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Tasha Voronina
Caldari Caldari Navy Reserve Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:16:00 -
[279]
I will chime in with the "CCP, this is a bad idea" crowd.
CCP, this is a very, very bad idea.
Here's why:
1. It goes against the sandbox ideal. In the past, you have looked at what players invented, and added that functionality to the game if it wasn't a game-breaking idea. Remember the introduction of the "alliance" structure?
2. The hard-handed approach will (and already has) antagonize a lot of players. Even players not affected by this - if they find out, they will not exactly be happy that the company they're paying their money to would have no qualms about deleting ingame assets that don't conform with the newest standard.
3. Dominion blackscreening on jump-in via gates hasn't been fixed (as far as I know). You do not want to be in a fleet jumping in via a gate into a blob. Blackscreens aren't pretty. In fact, they're ugly, very ugly. So are massacres. Both is going to happen.
4. This is inconsistency at it's best. T2 BPOs have been ingame for how long after the lottery was shut down? Right. Why are they still here? Why weren't they deleted yet? Valid questions, don't you think? If not, then don't go with the "haves" and "have-nots" argument - please.
On that note, to make this post full of constructive criticism...:
If you absolutely must impose limits on solar system size, there are better ways of going about that. You could, for example, make any object farther away from the sun than your limit begin to slowly take damage. The farther away it is, the faster the damage accumulates. In-character reason: interstellar radiation that gets deflected by the star's magnetic field. So those 10k AU (I'm exaggerating on purpose here) deep safes would still be possible... it's just, nothing would live very long out there. I assume that would be possible, no?
If you're still going with the "have - have-not" argument... just allow people to warp to their probes? Problem solved - newer players just have to train up for, let's say, deep space probes, place them where they want to warp to and, you know, just warp there. Combine this with objects taking damage beyond a certain range from the star, and you will have achieved the following: a) maintaining a sandbox (or at least the illusion of one) b) not antagonizing a lot of people c) introducing a new way for people to run away when being followed (not that we didn't have enough of those already, but hey...) d) enforcing a soft limit on solar system size. People will not want to stay that far away from the star for very long. Encouraging people to do something is almost always better than forcing them to do something.
If that up there is still not a viable alternative, then at least just move all offending objects to somewhere within the new boundaries (still a bad idea, these boundaries). Shouldn't be too hard, updating a set of coordinates - that's what, 3 to 6 operations instead of 1 for every object? I'm sure that all affected players would be willing to accept a slightly longer downtime for this to happen.
Threadnaught signed, one concerned customer --- Sig will be updated shortly |
Lord Zulu
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:16:00 -
[280]
Edited by: Lord Zulu on 13/04/2010 08:23:10 Attention i got a mail from a dev
it reads We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a ****
|
|
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:18:00 -
[281]
Does this mean you guys have fixed the lag so we can jump bridge 1 person into a system with more that 2 people in it and have the grid load in a resonable time?
If not its another whack in the face for 0.0 warfare with the current lag issues and to be quite honest I'm getting slightly ticked off with all the anti-0.0 moves.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:20:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab It is truly enjoyable to watch this thread be filled by spam from people who fail at reading comprehension. It's not rocket science, not even the internet spaceship kind of rocket science.
I think it's pretty sad, actually. The first few were funny. Yet here we are 8 pages in and there are still people who can't comprehend or are too lazy to actually read (more likely, IMO) a simple sentence and think CCP is talking about being over 10 AU from the nearest celestial.
I think there should be a short quiz that you have to answer based on the DevBlog showing that you've read and understand what was said before you're allowed to comment on them.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:26:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Baeryn Wait, what? Why are these "deep safes" such a problem, and how do you explain their removal in the in-character world?
If I fly my uber-expensive faction-built-and-fit interceptor (with my snake implants) out beyond the edge of the solar system, why the hell do I lose my ship? **** those other guys if they can't keep up, that's part of the benefit of my ship choice.
Seriously, CCP, please -- reconsider this. The game mechanics are one thing, lag is another; but downright breaking immersion is entirely another.
At least let us manually fly out there, and return us to that location when we log back in. Sure, remove our ability to warp out there (lack of gravitational locks, or something), but by god - let me keep trying to reach the EVE Gate, or at least surprise me with some damage when I get to a certain distance.
What ever happened to immersion? You're going to lose your core playerbase if you keep cutting away at it like this.
Based on actually reading the DevBlog instead of just skimming it, I'm pretty sure you'll only have your stuff deleted during the deployment of Tyrannis. If, after that, you want to waste a few days flying out that far, I don't think anything will happen, but you won't be able to make bookmarks or set cynos, nor will anyone be able to warp to you.
In other words, it will be a one-time mass deletion. Your ship won't just suddenly explode upon crossing the threshold.
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:35:00 -
[284]
seriously. destroying supercaps etc that are sitting at deep safes were ppl logged off before going inactive is to put it mildly ****ed up.
and before you take away our option to jump into deep safes you should get your lazy asses at work with fixing the problems that caused us to have to do this in the first place.
all your doing now is making fleet fights even more impossible
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente JotunHeim Hird
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:39:00 -
[285]
I think you should just move the stuff closer instead of destroying stuff.
|
Sith LordX
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:42:00 -
[286]
Recon, SB, blackops fleets are the future of large scale warfare after this expansion. As if you never want to be found, you need a stealth fleet, that can use cov-ops cyno's, and there for never be detectable.
|
Karak Terrel
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:47:00 -
[287]
"On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created"
Sure.
Some questions.
If lets say planet X is the last planet in the System and it is 50 AU from the Sun, is it still possible to have a "not so deep savespot" 60AU vertical to the plane of the solarsystem or in the opposite direction of planet X?
Is this one of the 100 devblogs a new player has to read to actually understand how the game works? You destroy the whole player expirience with such limitations that are not explained or somehow limited do to a technology inside the game (Why should warp only be possible inside a sphere around the sun that depends on the farthest gate/planet?). In my eve life i had many of this very frustrating moments when i tried do something i thought this should work because there was nothing inside the game that gave a feking hint why in hell it should not work just to get a WTF moment and another player that shouts "you fecking noob should read devblog xy!!". Not exactly always that way, but i think you should get the point
Eve players are usualy smart ppl and smart ppl usualy like consistent worlds. I hope eve is not on its way to become a patchwork of houndreds of rules that result out of many years of software history so a player actually has to find and understand all this rules and the history behind them to actually understand the game.
this is not very "sandboxi" and it also increases the lerning cliff even more.
|
Jamaican Herbsman
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:48:00 -
[288]
Why destroy the ships? Why not just move the players inner to the system or move them in the clone station in their ship? Or are those technically impossible, please elaborate.
What's the reasoning behind 10AU? Why not 20AU? We need information puhlease
|
Tyby
KANTAI HIKAGE White Noise.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:53:00 -
[289]
"Hi, we are CCP Lemur and CCP Greyscale and we want to talk to you about ..."
sry, english it's not my first language,maibe i don't really get his right, but... but, where is the part when you are actually "talking about"?
this "nerf" prove once more mister ccp, that some of you guys have no idea how this game it's actually working; i dare you guys just go with this nerf, let's see how's going to end
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:54:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Kyra Felann Let's say you have a system called Example and in this system, there is only one planet, Example I, and that it is 500 AU from the star. The limit they're talking about is 510 AU from the star, not 10 AU from any celestial object. So in our simple example system, you could have a spot 10 AU, 50 AU, or 100 AU from the nearest celestial object with no problems--the only thing you can't have is a spot that is over 510 AU from the star.
Whilst what you say makes sense and that's how I read it too it also assumes that every solar system is perfectly circular.
Assuming a system were 200AU across it would be quite possible to still be <210AU from the star, but in a place far beyond any celestial by virtue of the fact that the system isn't circular, wouldn't it?
Excuse my crappy MSPaint..
|
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:00:00 -
[291]
Originally by: bnogo this has been stated, but needs saying again, if you are doing this cause it is unfair to new players, you must remove t2 bpo's, and all state issued/unique ships.
New players can acquire both those things given sufficient ISK. How do you propose new players make deep safes when the means to make them is no longer available?
|
Shade Millith
Caldari International House of PWNCakes Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:07:00 -
[292]
Edited by: Shade Millith on 13/04/2010 09:09:18
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab It is truly enjoyable to watch this thread be filled by spam from people who fail at reading comprehension. It's not rocket science, not even the internet spaceship kind of rocket science.
I think it's pretty sad, actually. The first few were funny. Yet here we are 8 pages in and there are still people who can't comprehend or are too lazy to actually read (more likely, IMO)
You should train reading competance lvl4. Most people are - angry about people who DO have stuff out there that cannot get back online/do not read Devblogs. (There are a lot of supercap pilots that use those to logoff in) - angry that 10 AU is a pitiful number. - angry that it's HARDLY difficult to probe down someone even in a 500 AU safe and beyond. - angry as currently with how they managed to screw up the nodes with Dominion, titan bridging in a fleet at 300+ AU's is the only way to get into a system relyably, without having the rather common "Didn't load grid, got shot by 200 enemies that nobody in my fleet saw"
And yes, I understand what the Dev blog said, and the reasoning they gave was bunk
Quote: following the changes made to the scanning system last year they've become nigh-on impossible to locate.
Bunk Near total coverage to 300 AU's, into the 1000's for Deepspace probes
Quote: 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.
Bunk T2 BPO's anyone? State issue ships anyone?
Quote: thus forcing ships within a given system to use the other measures available (docking, cloaking, warping around an awful lot) if they want to avoid being shot at.
Bunk Anyone sitting at a deepsafe not moving is not hard to probe out
Edit:
Quote: New players can acquire both those things given sufficient ISK. How do you propose new players make deep safes when the means to make them is no longer available?
This wouldn't have BEEN a problem, but CCP decided to nerf being able to make them. ------------------------
|
TheGreatDoc
Minmatar Princeps Corp Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:09:00 -
[293]
So.....no more deepsafespot, so, no more "safe" jumpin in a blobled system so, no more 0.0 WARS. Now, everybody will make anomalys bcoz cant figth and...WTF will happen if EVERYBODY in 0.0 starts to farm ISK and start to pay all accounts with ISK?
The idea is fu**ing BAD if the lag persist. But eh, we will start to see 400 frigate fleet defense? With that in a grid, dont think the other hand will load anything but will die sooooo quickly.
Fix the lag, then, f**k the deep safespots.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:10:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Durzel
Originally by: Kyra Felann Let's say you have a system called Example and in this system, there is only one planet, Example I, and that it is 500 AU from the star. The limit they're talking about is 510 AU from the star, not 10 AU from any celestial object. So in our simple example system, you could have a spot 10 AU, 50 AU, or 100 AU from the nearest celestial object with no problems--the only thing you can't have is a spot that is over 510 AU from the star.
Whilst what you say makes sense and that's how I read it too it also assumes that every solar system is perfectly circular.
Assuming a system were 200AU across it would be quite possible to still be <210AU from the star, but in a place far beyond any celestial by virtue of the fact that the system isn't circular, wouldn't it?
Excuse my crappy MSPaint..
I keep reading posts like this and I just don't think what CCP has in mind is sinking in. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt it.
Here's what I think will be happening:
While your diagram is correct in that the area involved will allow bookmarks inside the sun -> furthest celestial + 10AU radius, the key point that everyone seems to be missing is that CCP has eliminated entirely the existing procedure to produce bookmarks using the log on/log off trick.
So even though someone *could* have a BM at 150 AU from any celestial and from the star itself (if inside the envelope), they won't be able to make any new ones anyway after the patch because the 'bug' has been 'fixed'.
People seem to think that CCP is going to let the existing situation stand, save the elimination of deep safes, but I don't think this is the case. CCP are going to jack your safes, and they're also going to ass**** your ability to ever do anything similar to that ever again. -
Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Edmund Khan
Destructive Influence IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:10:00 -
[295]
Next titans are getting removed, because new players don't have them?
Just admit you don't have a clue what to do with all the empty space, instead of coming up with such a weak excuse...
EVE has like 99% of useless space - everything is happening at stargates, planets, belts, moons and stations... And instead of coming up with a plan how to make use of the 99% empty space - you're removing the ability to even move out there...
I guess also a way to fix it - just that it's the wrong one...
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:25:00 -
[296]
Edited by: Durzel on 13/04/2010 09:25:03
Originally by: Shade Millith
Quote: following the changes made to the scanning system last year they've become nigh-on impossible to locate.
Bunk Near total coverage to 300 AU's, into the 1000's for Deepspace probes
Your image presupposes several things:
- You already know exactly what direction their ship is in relative to the system (in your image it's "left", what if it happened to be above, below or whatever) - That the ship is "only" 121AU from the centre of the system
Surely you can see that with 3D space the further you go out the more probes & luck you need to even get a hit on someone in the first place?
There comes a point when even with DSPs unless you happen to randomly guess which azimuth they happen to be on then you'll never find them. That's sortof the whole point of deep safes.
|
Kerdrak
Big Guns Inc. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:25:00 -
[297]
CCP will release SPACE HIGHWAYS in Tyrannis also, so you can't war from planet 1 to planet 3 unless you warp to planet 2 before:
________________________________________
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:28:00 -
[298]
Edited by: Serpents smile on 13/04/2010 09:29:04
Quote: On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created.
Why was this "bad"? What makes you think its a unwanted 'feature'? Of all the whining, nerf this nerf that, fix this fix that on your forums, this (deep safes) where the least of your players base problems.
What suddenly changed making you go, chop chop?
|
DJ BlackLight
Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:29:00 -
[299]
Edited by: DJ BlackLight on 13/04/2010 09:31:55 Okay - first off, yes I know that this is an alt - however, as this alt is more widely known than my main, it shall suffice. It is worth mentioning, however, that my main does in fact use deepsafes on a regular basis for the purpose of wardec avoidance, deepsafe scanning spots, and deploying covops guerilla fleets against... well.. whoever, really.
I caught wind of this devblog at around 10pm gametime last night and I still cannot believe the heavyhandedness with which this 'development' is being handed out to the playerbase. Okay, so yes, the Poseidon and cyno-jump-as-it-collapses techniques are technically exploits of the system, and exploits are "baaaad m'kay" but let's take a step back for a moment.
Remember all those lovely posts regarding massive fleet action, both in 0.0 and Faction Warfare on the front page of the EVE Online website?? You must do - they're the carrots that give the uninitiated the first twinkle of interest in them handing over their hard earned to CCP. They featured heavily in the 'Sandbox' video for Dominion, and in 90% of the fan-fic videos.
I would also say that within the last 12-18 months, they have all used this 'exploit' as a method to gain a fleeting moment of tactical advantage over their opponents at the time.
There have been countless posts in this thread already about the proposed changes making higher scanning skills useless, making it too easy to scan down everything with combat/core probes so I won't go in to that - but I do feel that this change is akin to urinating in the sandbox that the EVE Community holds so dear. It's what makes EVE Online unique in the current MMO list - CCP provides the tools, the players get on with it.
In my opinion, the 10au outer ring is pitifully small. Should there be a limit ? Hell, maybe. But 10au? Come on - let's be serious. There are so many mechanics that could be applied to this that would be better than an outright ban. Here's a couple of suggestions for you :
1. Apply a 'reasonable' limit of space outside of the elliptic - 500au sounds about right to me. (Applying a sane limit)
2. Give pilots a mechanic to make deepsafes within this 500au area without resorting to exploiting unintentional features of the code. Whether this is a "Warp 5-100 au directly ahead" or "right-click in system scanner and 'warp to here'" is irrelevent - that's down to the coders. The latter would probably make more sense to me.
3. Apply a 'fuzzy filter' to the limit above... Just throwing some numbers out there, say 'warp accuracy decreases over distance if you are not inside the mapped* area of the system' so that a warp to zero now becomes 'warp to within 100km of bookmark' or something. (Making things a little more cerebral and less of a gamebreaker mechanic)
* note : Mapped = 10au further than last planet/moon/roidbelt etc.
I am sure that someone posted above something along the lines of "See that figure waving and walking away in the distance? That's Fleet Warfare." Fleet warfare on massive levels is the carrot that gains CCP more customers. Without the support behind EVE Online, Dust514 will be a soft launch... why will people want to play an addon to a game that is having people leaving in droves?
It's all money at the end of the day... and in the current economic climate, how many people can you afford to annoy to the point where they stop wanting anything to play EVE?
Instead of swinging the gargantuan nerf bat and annihilating any reason for any of your long-term players (The ones on who's shoulders CCP has been carried to their current level) to want to play Eve any more, make the game better, richer, bigger and more exciting. For everyone.
This is a step too far. Nerf it if you will - but at least offer a proper solution to the problem rather than this.
+1 to the "THIS IS MADNESS" vote.
BlackLight
PS: Opinions above do not represent GRN / EVE Radio staff, and are entirely by me... blahblah usual disclaimers appl
|
Ed Rush
Erasers inc. Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:29:00 -
[300]
Concentrated cerebral palsy's stop drooling on the floor :D
|
|
Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:36:00 -
[301]
I don't know if I am more disappointed about loosing deep safes or the Dev mindset that the decision to remove them reveals.
Right away, the removal of deep safes will hurt 0.0 warfare since they are the only way to load to safely load an already laggy system.
Now about that mindset thing CCP... Why does it bother you that people who have been your customers longer may have something that newer customers don't? We have been paying you from a time when there was less shiny content in the game - is that worth nothing to you?
Then the whole idea of shrinking systems - As others have said, a 200 AU warp really gives a sense of being in space, far better than jump gates do. You should be incorporating these distances into the game not removing them. Put some content way out there, make warp speed a bigger part of fleet tactics. Colonies and Capitals
Lowsec |
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:39:00 -
[302]
Originally by: DJ BlackLight
1. Apply a 'reasonable' limit of space outside of the elliptic - 500au sounds about right to me. (Applying a sane limit)
500AU is reasonable to you?
A ship 500AU past a celestial is only going to be found, even with deep safes, if you happen to guess which direction they are in. The further out you go the more probes you need to have a hope of finding them.
Think about it - they could be 500AU in any direction meaning you'd need countless 256AU probes in an ever increasing cube lattice structure to even get a hit in the first place.
|
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:42:00 -
[303]
HAHAHAHA
Thanx to living evelopedia Blazde I am presenting you old devblog about Deep safespots
system scanning and safe spots reported by LeKjart | 2004.11.11 17:23:05
Quote: With the introduction of the new system scanning in Exodus, it is clear that the word 'safe' in safe spot will be highly questionable. Now to make system scanning really a true gameplay addition, we must make sure that there are no spots which are _really_ safe from scanning, otherwise it would be a worthless feature. Currently on TQ, many have used F11 bookmarks to create safe spots (basically bookmarking a solar system in the constellation view of the F11 map). This is the result of a bug where the xyz variable were not initialized to any value, and thus hold some rubbish xyz value (typically many 1000 of AUs away). This loophole has been plugged in Exodus, but these bookmarks remain in the DB. We are planning to change them to legal solar system bookmarks (with no xyz values) before the Exodus release. Now the question arises what to do with any stuff that players might have left around those spots. We think that for most of the native F11 bookmarks, there won't be much, because they are too far away for people to have warped all the way there. On the other hand many have used these F11 bookmarks to warp to closer safe spots (warping as far as the capacitor permits) and bookmarked those spots. These might be anywhere from 100 AUs to 1000 AUs distance from the sun. For these bookmarks, we have plans to move them within solar system boundaries along with any stuff around them. This would mean that the bookmark will still work and bring you to your stuff, but the spot as a whole will be vulnerable for scanning, though it wouldn't be casually found. The moral of this story is that if you have any valuable stuff lying around at some safe spot, it would be wise for you to put it out of Harm's way before system scanning becomes a reality. We will also introduce items that have resistance with respect to scanning, so you will be able to keep stuff relatively safe. It would be nice to hear of any scenario where you think this will result in some catastrophe for you or your corp members.
|
The Wicked1
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:43:00 -
[304]
I must agree with those who say that you should either
A: Delete T2 BPO along with the change you are proposing or B: Have all the bookmarks still around, inside a certain maximum Au from a star maybe 50 Au from the furthest celestial body, and have new player acquire the BM from old players (read: As T2 BPO's are right now even though no one in their right minds would trade them)
|
Makar Kravchenko
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:44:00 -
[305]
Doesn't make a lot of sense TBQFH. More people complain about post Dominion GRIDFAIL than deep safe spots.
C/D?
Rollback Apocrypha.
|
Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:45:00 -
[306]
So to sum it up:
1. CCP wasting development time again to make the game worse rather than fix their bugs.
2. Inactive players gonna get it without lube.
3. If you anchor a TCU far enough outside of the warpable boundary it will be safe from all but fast ships.
4. People in this thread talking about "off-directional" seem to forget that you can very easily get off-directional spots by going vertical. So if your furthest celestial is 100AU from the star you will still be able to go 110 AU up or down (or anywhere else within that radius of the star). Gonna have to start making lots of bookmarks now, these will be worth good money after the expansion. CCP did want to give advantages to old players with this, right?
Missed anything?
|
Mighty B
PECK Online
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:47:00 -
[307]
Are there Devs left that actualy play this game and have a clue what is going on. Or are they all manager types that never ever played a game to begin with.
This is the most stupid idea ever, destroying ships outside the new range i mean some might not even able to move their stuff because they are afg for what ever reason. Some might think they are inside the range but are not, and i am sure CCP will **** up badly as ususal and destroy stuff that shouldn't be destroyed to begin with. Buy a 60 days GTC here
Animated Avatar |
DJ BlackLight
Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:52:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Durzel
500AU is reasonable to you?
A ship 500AU past a celestial is only going to be found, even with deep safes, if you happen to guess which direction they are in. The further out you go the more probes you need to have a hope of finding them.
Think about it - they could be 500AU in any direction meaning you'd need countless 256AU probes in an ever increasing cube lattice structure to even get a hit in the first place.
Yes, 500au is reasonable to me. To scan the full area, you wouldn't need "countless" probes. You'd need to be plotting things out with a careful and methodical plan in mind in order to cover that amount of space.
Roughly speaking - two ships with 10 DSP between them can cover an area, in the shape of a cube measuring 1500au across, in approximately 30-40 minutes. The new scanning mechanic made it a combination of player and character skill - ffs, make people work for their tactical advantage.
BlackLight
|
Shade Millith
Caldari International House of PWNCakes Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:53:00 -
[309]
Edited by: Shade Millith on 13/04/2010 09:54:20
Originally by: Durzel
Your image presupposes several things:
- You already know exactly what direction their ship is in relative to the system (in your image it's "left", what if it happened to be above, below or whatever)
There's only a limited amount of directions that DS's will be made from. Most systems don't even have 'up/down' warpable objects that have enough distance to get up to speed (If they do, then just place the probes along that line), and if they're using a deepsafe, then they're sitting there. Unless they're bouncing Deepsafes (Which is exactly the same thing as bouncing SS's is) they're not safe
- That the ship is "only" 121AU from the centre of the system
That wasn't the main point, any ship in that direction for 300 AU's I would have known about
Surely you can see that with 3D space the further you go out the more probes & luck you need to even get a hit on someone in the first place?
Yes, the exact way that it's a crap shoot doing ANY probing. The thing is, you just have to get ONE HIT with one of the probes, and you know where he is to within 64AU's (256 for DSP)
There comes a point when even with DSPs unless you happen to randomly guess which azimuth they happen to be on then you'll never find them. That's sortof the whole point of deep safes. Test if under 256 AU's If not, then do 4-6 of these around the system If he's uncloaked, and within 1000 AU's, you'll eventually get a hit, find which probe is getting the hit, and you've got an area to find him in.
------------------------
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:00:00 -
[310]
Number 1 Why you didnt see this comming?
I predicted something along the lines of this happening years ago when they first started to get rid of bookmarking and warping to probes and the sorts.
CCP Nerfing Pattern Minor Nerf 1 Minor Nerf 2 discovered after players got around it Minor Nerf 3 once again Massive Nerf with no work around that everyone is going to cry about
Best recent example Nano Nerf
Number 2 Adapt or Die
And here I was thinking that smarter allaince's would embrace and utilize and actually think there is now a new depth to thier situations now. Everything from system control where to set up fortress worlds (ie those 20AU wide systems) to fleet preplacemnts and maintaing the jump on thier enemies. Remember eve rewards the creative and intellegent not the lazy and sloth, there is still room for prestaging post expansion if you are really worried about the fleet lagging to death on arrival dont be dumb and put a shoot me sign on you.
Number 3 Stop complaining about the lag, ccp is well aware of the problem and has tirelessly worked on eliminating it, the fact they're spending thier weekends trying to solve it with us and scratching thier heads about this proof enough. Who knows maybe deleting all those really old bookmarks out there however many thousands exists may elivate loading a system a bit.
Number 4 About the deletion stuff.
I mean yeah I'm was blind sided by the fact they wanna destroy everything beyond the 'boundries' which I think is unreasonable for people who are still in thier ships but I can see the technical difficulties behind all of this.
There is really no real clear or good suggestion to prevent Exploits, Techncial Mistakes, Breaking without just nuking the whole thing.
Moving to station, last docked station, last clone station, last legal zone that ship is flyable in station, moving to within borders are all asking for a tonn of LOLs and whines. Im not sure if there is any other solution viable atm that will be fair to everyone all at once.
My best thoughts are deletion of all bms outside the zone, all anchorables put into your clone station, if its not allowed there then 100% reprocess. Move ship's warp into nearest border, and stuff that isnt anchorable or piloted be destroyed. But that may prove to be to difficult to automate.
None the less the game is still eve after this is said and done. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
|
Tomcat
Gallente Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:02:00 -
[311]
Quote: 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.
Will you at least start buying us dinner before you **** us? Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Adida |
|
CCP Lemur
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:10:00 -
[312]
Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:21:00 -
[313]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
Did you not think, even for a second, that that sort of clear, concise explanation should have been in the devblog? By not communicating clearly you are creating work for yourself and damaging your own reputation, and you only have yourself to blame.
You had this exact same problem - an inability to communicate effectively - in the original iteration of the citadel torp changes, leading to a 100-page threadnought of everyone telling you that sieged Dreads etc. couldn't be painted to receive full damage, simply because you didn't explicitly show that you'd already balanced their damage around that assumption. You might have expected that people would worked that out for themselves, but you ought to realise that people are stupid and need things explained to them very carefully, preferably with big pictures.
|
Clara Espion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:23:00 -
[314]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
And why did we need a player of this game to make this picture?
|
Whynot123456
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:32:00 -
[315]
Edited by: Whynot123456 on 13/04/2010 10:32:17 WTB Dev's that fix what they break WTB Dev's that actually play the game WTB Dev's that know what makes the customers tick WTB Dev's that don't waste resources on stuff that isnt broken WTB Public Relations Manager that can actually communicate WTB Fleetwarfare that actually works WTB Ability to actually use caps without the risk of massive losses due to "our logs show nothing" incidents WTB Customer service that cares WTB "Our logs do show something" WTB Decent sov mechanics WTB A MMO that is still fun to play WTB .....
WTB Subscription to new space MMO?
|
Cang Zar
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:32:00 -
[316]
Jesus Christ, I havent seen this much emo in one thread since the NPC corp tax was implemented.
Not being able to bridge in fleets in occupied systems, is obviously a problem, and it needs to be addressed somehow, but deep safes were lame to begin with, it was just a matter of time till they got yanked. This "ohnoez, my sandbox backbone!" **** is just hilariously stupid.
Inactive accounts that were logged off in deep safes with capital ships and whatnot? Geez, deal with it. Imo they should move characters (and the ships they're piloting) that are in illegal spots, into the new 10AU range, instead of destroying them, but if you have unpiloted stuff lying around in space, well.. that's the chances you take.
/I'm totally down with changing t2 bpos into 100 run copies and removing learning skills all together also, it really is the only reasonable thing to do, to counter silly game-design from 6 years ago
|
Oasio
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:37:00 -
[317]
A few comments, echoing people above:
-Do not destroy manned ships, move them. Or be ready to deal with lots of angry petitions from players currently away-from-game.
-Are you really absolutely definitively sure that missions/explorations site cannot spawn outside the 10 AU limits ? Especially in very small systems ?
-Make very sure -nothing- can be done outside the system border. Or people will mwd there from Bookmark at 9.999999999999AU and anchor sov unit/cyno/assign fighters/... in absolute impunity.
-You may want to thrown a bone to people who trained for deep space probes...
Oasio
|
Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:37:00 -
[318]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
What about players who are able to cross the 10au boundary using non-warp methods (this is not impossible nor improbable), they will effectively be invulnerable.
|
sakana
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:38:00 -
[319]
Good one guys, its great to see CCP are working hard to get to the core of the problems that are ruining this game.
All you hear on CAOD is people complaining about how "deep safes" ruined their fight, or how they couldn't risk using caps due to "deep safes". "Deep safes" have been the cause of my losses before and I can tell you personally, I'm so glad you are tackling this issue.
|
FlameGlow
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:40:00 -
[320]
Quote: On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created. 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.
Now how about permanently deleting T2 BPOs according to same reasoning? Furthermore, you're already reading my sig |
|
Jerppu
Minmatar Erasers inc. Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:42:00 -
[321]
Man, CCP... come on! Fix the game and leave this BS alone. _____________________________
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:55:00 -
[322]
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?!
|
Alice Celadon
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:56:00 -
[323]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
Oh, ok then. Just as long as you don't announce major hard and fast changes instead of floating ideas to an already dev-idiocy-weary player base when you haven't thought through what the ffff you're doing.
|
okcerg
Amarr WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:58:00 -
[324]
Originally by: CCP Lemur 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.
Nice quote for the next T2-BPOs-removal-thread pop
Question though: can we still go outside of limit via MWD or will we bounce on this new giant system condom?
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:02:00 -
[325]
Originally by: okcerg
Originally by: CCP Lemur 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.
Nice quote for the next T2-BPOs-removal-thread pop
Question though: can we still go outside of limit via MWD or will we bounce on this new giant system condom?
As has been said already it would take 170+ days in the fastest ship to travel 1 AU (in other words, it's a non issue).
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:03:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Normin Bates Where was CSM during this brainstorming session? :facepalm:
Unsurprisingly CSM were not consulted at all about this change. The first we knew about it was when the dev blog appeared...
The reasoning behind the removal of bookmarks (it being unfair on new players) is laughable because bookmarks can be copied freely in seconds. On the other hand T2 BPOs (copies take longer than making the item), learning skills (months of training), unique faction items even skillpoints in general are far more unfair than deep safe BMs.
Putting in a realistic hard cap (eg 250AU, or whatever the biggest system in eve is) and matching deep space probe range to this would be better. It would allow people who bothered to train for deep space probes to actually use them.
And destroying items outside the new "wall" including piloted ships - wow, just wow... Did the plot warp to a deep space such that you can no longer find it? (some might say lost it )
Seriously unimpressed...
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:04:00 -
[327]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
I already realised that and still it is a terrible idea.
This effectively makes it depend on the distance of the celestial furthest from the sun if you can make a reasonable safe spot. Protip, that is a nice image, but enough systems have celestials not further than 10 au from the sun, so then you pretty much cant make reasonable safe spots.
And it doesnt address the issue that you cannot enter a system anymore if the hostiles got there earlier.
Btw going to be fun not being able to warp to gates and missions that are too far from the sun (not all gates are at celestials)
|
Kayleigh Lothian
Minmatar KIA Corporation RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:12:00 -
[328]
Ok, so first of, as many have already said, this will make a president for when CCP kills the T2 BPOs. (haves and have-nots)
Second, removing stuff is kind of ireversible, right? And knowing how no mistakes has ever been made before there is nooooooo chance whatsoever that while removing stuff "out there" some other stuff would get nuked as well. No, that could never happen, and if it did all you had to do to check it would be to check your logs, right?
So, what is the third step? 1) Deep-safes 2) T2 BPOs (?) 3) ? Skillpoint requirement? Newer players have less SPs after all, we out here does not get maxed chars with extra special skills for flying Polaris etc. Wealth? Newer players have less isk, so since there are no longer any skill reqs to fly titans, why shouldn't they be able to afford buying one? (Also, if everything is free you fix the RTM problem, so that is a really good thing!) Playerskills? Newer players have less knowledge of how the game works then the average older player. Scanning does require some player skills as well as the ingame ski..yea, we have removed the skill requrement, sry. But you need to do stuff with the probes to finds stuff. The newer players might not be as good as the older player in this regard, can we change scanning to a textbox where you type the site you want to find, no. A dropdown list where you can select the site you want to spawn.
What next? |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:16:00 -
[329]
This is a terrible terrible idea. and it won't even work. It might if eve space was 2D but oh, its not. If the devs actually played the game they might know this, and also know that a lot of systems aren't on a flat plane either
People will still be able to make deep safes by just going up and down from the centre of the system as far as the furthest celestial +10
|
Ariane VoxDei
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:18:00 -
[330]
10 AU is not nearly enough range for bookmarks.
This is a major PITA for mission running - the bookmarking a wreck bit and coming back to loot/salv. In practice you can then forget all about using a MWD while cleaning up.
You really need to increase it to roughly 20AU. From my experience, missions always happen within 18AU of a planet/sun/moon. Not always outside 10AU, but frequently in the 10-16AU range.
Of course there is the upside that loot ninjas and other vermin can't just BM you and check on the site later, if you are outside 10AU. They have to rely on keeping the scanresult open (no docking nor switching ships), while keeping track of all the other scan results.
To the CSM mobile everyone!
ps: this **** was predicted by us, in the testserver part of the forum a while back. The only inaccuracy: we underestimated how much those put in charge of it would "overcompensate", aka nerf everything to the effin ground, with complete disregard for the consequences.
|
|
Ed Rush
Erasers inc. Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:19:00 -
[331]
I'm waiting for the CCP's 'Need For Methamphetamines' initiative that addresses server and client performance issues through optimization of existing features and content.
|
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:20:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Oasio -You may want to thrown a bone to people who trained for deep space probes...
One can hope but CCP doesn't seem to mind marginalizing longer-term players' skill training investments with "dumbdown nerfs" in subsequent expansions. It is difficult to express how ****ed off I still am that the huge amount of time I invested in training an alt to perfect probing skills that was rendered more or less a waste by the reduced probing skill requirements that came with Apocrypha.
And now it appears they don't give a **** about players' enormous ISK investments in assets either.
Makes it a little difficult to care so much about the game when you know that at anytime, your legitimate efforts and investments can simply be negated *poof* just like that due to some overblown and entirely unnecessary idea of "fairness" to newer players on the part of the devs.
My Blog: Life In Low Sec |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:29:00 -
[333]
Please support this topic (tick the support box) to register your dissatisfaction at this proposed change.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente JotunHeim Hird
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:29:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Ariane VoxDei 10 AU is not nearly enough range for bookmarks.
This is a major PITA for mission running - the bookmarking a wreck bit and coming back to loot/salv. In practice you can then forget all about using a MWD while cleaning up.
You really need to increase it to roughly 20AU. From my experience, missions always happen within 18AU of a planet/sun/moon. Not always outside 10AU, but frequently in the 10-16AU range.
Of course there is the upside that loot ninjas and other vermin can't just BM you and check on the site later, if you are outside 10AU. They have to rely on keeping the scanresult open (no docking nor switching ships), while keeping track of all the other scan results.
To the CSM mobile everyone!
ps: this **** was predicted by us, in the testserver part of the forum a while back. The only inaccuracy: we underestimated how much those put in charge of it would "overcompensate", aka nerf everything to the effin ground, with complete disregard for the consequences.
You can still bookmark stuff that is more than 10AU away from most celestials, so it is a non-issue for pretty much all cases.
|
xThugx
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:30:00 -
[335]
Edited by: xThugx on 13/04/2010 11:30:00 So glad you are spending time and resources on this instead of say idunno...
- fixing gallente ships so they are useful outside AFK pve
- fixing drones so they do what we tell them to
- Improving the mission system in general
- fixing scanning so it is not a pain in the ass
- fixing t2 ammo so it is worth using sometimes
- figure out how to stop station games in empire war
- nerfing the dramiel
- making sure that every ship has a proper role, and bonuses that make flying it viable
- New Content! T2 tier2 bc, t2 tier3 bs
- ...
Oh wait no... that is wrong... these things mentioned are much more important to the vast majority of players...
|
Shade Millith
Caldari International House of PWNCakes Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:36:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Oasio -You may want to thrown a bone to people who trained for deep space probes...
One can hope but CCP doesn't seem to mind marginalizing longer-term players' skill training investments with "dumbdown nerfs" in subsequent expansions. It is difficult to express how ****ed off I still am that the huge amount of time I invested in training an alt to perfect probing skills that was rendered more or less a waste by the reduced probing skill requirements that came with Apocrypha.
And now it appears they don't give a **** about players' enormous ISK investments in assets either.
Makes it a little difficult to care so much about the game when you know that at anytime, your legitimate efforts and investments can simply be negated *poof* just like that due to some overblown and entirely unnecessary idea of "fairness" to newer players on the part of the devs.
Hell, I didn't even THINK about that, what possible use could Deepspace Probes have now? |
Rockin RicciBobbi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:39:00 -
[337]
Just destroying a ship that is parked deep sounds extremely harsh, especially a supercap. People worked months or years to get it. Wonder how these developers would feel if someone just took months or years of their code and programming modules and just destroyed it? I smell a "business decision" behind this. The best business decision you can make is to take care of the customer, because grateful customers will take care of you.
|
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:40:00 -
[338]
CCP, it's obvious the players want their deep safes, they have gone to great lengths to acquire them. Why do you want to remove them so badly? It's not like people were complaining about them.
If you actually listened to your players instead of fighting them, you would give us a proper in-game way to make those safes. Something you can control, so you can set soft limits to it.
But if you really must set a hard limit to it, why just 10AU? Your basic combat probe reaches out to 64AU, and the deep space ones to 128 AU. Safes at those ranges can be probed down easily if the prober puts just a little effort in. |
Vuk Lau
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:46:00 -
[339]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
For the last time I will raise couple of concerns
1st - If you were debating this since before Apocrypha why you never consulted CSM 3, CSM 4 or CSM 5 about it. You would for sure get more then valuable feedback instead of pulling bastard solution out of someones ass. 2nd - Isn't much more convenient for both players and devs to publish devblogs at the beginning of work day so they could be in position to answer the angry mob during whole shift, and not to delegate scapegoat CCP Fallout to feel the wrath of the player for every devblog. 3rd - Stating the reason for removal is because deep SS are hard to probe is dull, especially now when you have much bigger faults in game mechanics when it comes to inability to probe stuff 4th - Also the reasoning in comparison of new players vs. old players is...I will be blunt sorry...******ed 5th - You could balance cloaking a zillion times for now if you really wanted to address this issue 6th - Destroying inventory/ships of pilots as collateral damage just cause you guys are happy with solution is shiniest example of how clueless some people on top of the world are. 7th - Give Mashie Saldana PLEX for drawing your graphs (I always thought that drawing pictures is the funniest part of the dev work)
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:48:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Mynxee And now it appears they don't give a **** about players' enormous ISK investments in assets either.
Everything in the game has no real value anyway. CCP could turn around and make Estamel spawn every 5 minutes with a 50% chance to drop the invuln and all it would do is devalue items that have no intrinsic value outside of the minds of the players anyway.
I know that's a bit of an overly philosophical perspective but getting too hung up about the relative value of things (skill training, assets, etc) which CCP can change at the drop of a hat isn't really healthy. |
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:49:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Kallieah
Originally by: Normin Bates Where was CSM during this brainstorming session? :facepalm:
CSM? You mean the PR gimmick that was done in response to Band of Brothers getting spawned T2 BPOs by CCP staff back in the day?
CCP did bring this to CSM during last summit and it's obvious now we where not heard on this matter.
Instead facing the fact that EVE is broken and fixing real exploits and issues this game has, they are having fun and are laughing to our faces. Great work CCP
Even worse is that the only guy that had any contact and knowledge of the game, as it is now days, is not working there anymore (hi Mark), so we are kinda left to mercy of ******ed ppl |
Silverlinings
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:52:00 -
[342]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
yeah wonderfull picture, but my own mind had that one worked out already.
This nerf still is crap, simply bewcouse you can not get the time to jump a secondairy fleet in before **** hits your cyno and MR LAG comes to play EVE again. So, basicly as long as we hold a system with like 500 to 750 people, come and get it is exactly what CCP subscribes to us, becouse that will happen, yet again.
So, comeon nerfalot gang, lets play EVE. You do this, and allow us to fly into CCP development space, well see who gets the cookies.... |
Bruno Bourque
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:57:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Durzel
Originally by: Mynxee And now it appears they don't give a **** about players' enormous ISK investments in assets either.
Everything in the game has no real value anyway. CCP could turn around and make Estamel spawn every 5 minutes with a 50% chance to drop the invuln and all it would do is devalue items that have no intrinsic value outside of the minds of the players anyway.
I know that's a bit of an overly philosophical perspective but getting too hung up about the relative value of things (skill training, assets, etc) which CCP can change at the drop of a hat isn't really healthy.
Training skills takes time, game time costs money... so yes this has a value outside of Eve
|
Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:10:00 -
[344]
You CCP (objects used for various indoor and outdoor activities including and not limited to fixing things) do hopefully realise april fools day was 12 days ago...right?
Just say you can't deliver on infiniband and all the lag fixes and now just want to kill off more database polution with objects that you deem unneccesary and "unfair" to the newer players. Newer players don't even know about deep safes or what they might hold so don't play the bull**** card. This is just anchorable can deletion time all over again for a bit of server/database performance gains. Which will ofcourse be negated by the still massive blobbing and no grid loading issues so the detrimental effect will be zero,nothing,zilch,nada,rien,nichts,niets,etc etc for players. New or old...
Where has the old CCP gone which actually promissed and delivered while actually knowing exactly what they where talking about and not trying to change this to WoW in space..Ohh wait, i violated rule 17 right? Ohh crap..now i am discussing moderation i think...
Btw, not angry much...don't have any deep safes or anything in any deeper safe so i'm vool..Just ****ed off @ the ever new and always changing CCP who just wants to kick veteran players in the balls for more revenue out of new players who want it kitty online mode...crap..rule 17.. ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
schwar2ss
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:12:00 -
[345]
A pitty you are limiting your sandbox concept that made eve somewhat unique. Why not buffing deep space scanner probes, helping dedicated scan chars track down even the ships hidden on safespots in deep space? What about introducing a new navigation skill that allows players to warp to random points within skill-dependent range of celestials or bookmarks? so new players can catch up with creating deep space bookmarks. legally?
please, don't take away the limitless space.
kthxbye
|
Mynas Atoch
The Salmon of Doubt Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:20:00 -
[346]
Edited by: Mynas Atoch on 13/04/2010 12:24:19
Originally by: Firvain So instead of fixing lag, you are removing the only to get in system when there is heavy lag. So if i have a pos coming out of RF i will just camp the system with my 200 dudes and no one can enter the system. Because if they try and get in the system through the gate well they will die in a horrible fire with out ever loading grid. If they open cyno 10 AU away from my bombers they will die in a horrible fire without able to do anything at all(and probally not loaded grid aswel).
But this IS a lag fix! No way to bridge or jump in without getting slaughtered, so people DON'T bridge or jump in. No contact, no pvp in overloaded system, no lag. Sorted!
Next problem?
Alternatively, could allow people to warp to their scan probes, but the probes are destroyed by entering objects in space or crossing the heliopause around the star(s). A bit more complex than this diagram as stars with gates are all binary systems, but it would solve both problems.
|
Dark Sensei
Caldari Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:20:00 -
[347]
TL;DR: How can we make some more cash this month? Lets make the old cap pilots resub just to save their ships.
|
WaiKin Beldar
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:23:00 -
[348]
TLDR thread. Several things that obviously CCP does not take into account:
- The urgency for nerfing "DEEP SAFES" against other problems affecting EVE atm is more than questionable.
- The method for avoiding this problem has been chosen on the basis of denying a potential advantage already present in the game, not a bug, instead of requiring further skills/special modules/ships/ fuels, or even a combination of all those, to be able for "deep safe scanning"
- The amount of time, effort and game mechanics knowledge to do a DEEP SAFE has been completely overlooked in favor of a simpler way of playing the game (high-skilled or veteran pilots again rewarded ).
- The inability of pinning down extreme DEEP SAFE spots does not correlate very well with the severe limitation of 10 AUs you want to impose. IF you want to limit those spots you can use different measures. The only way a pilot without cloak can escape from an enemy blob who will scan him down is either CTRL+Q or jumping to a NON DEEP SAFE BUT STILL OUT OF SCAN RANGE within the same system.
- The idea of an Open Universe is a fallacy if you are subject to the 10 AU limitation within systems clearly larger and at further distances than that among their different celestials. Instead of that, we're restricted to move within the 10 AU sphere for every celestial disregarding the vast spaces of void in between.
I understand DEEP SAFES are not a feature as relevant as DDs were to decide the course of action of the next battle/campaign, although they're relevant enough to be considered as an strategic/tactic asset when used properly.
You need to rethink this wisely if the target is to cut effectively the real DEEP SAFES around without hurting the whole game mechanics making EVE smaller than it actually is.
|
Snabbik Shigen
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:26:00 -
[349]
If the issue is "anchored items outside the range", then the solution should be:
- Un-anchor anything > 10AU from major celestials (planets, stars, gates)
- Only allow people to anchor items within 14 AU of a major celestial
|
PwrPuffGirl
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:30:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Lucian James Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring the problems you've created and do not fix which causes us to use these deep safes to begin with!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring your user community that uses these safes.
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads! "I'm sorry, but our server logs don't point out how badly we've handled our server load capacity and we're not going to refund your loss as a result."
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Thank you SO MUCH for devoting another big game expansion to garbage we don't need instead of fixing all the problems that exist in game.
Thank you SO MUCH for your continued arrogance and cruelty.
I sincerely hope that anyone who loses a SC to your wreckless selfishness will sue you in open court.
I have to agree with my Alliance mate here. Way to go CCP. Just another F-up, more problems less solutions.
|
|
Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:35:00 -
[351]
Originally by: WaiKin Beldar TLDR thread. Several things that obviously CCP does not take into account:
- The idea of an Open Universe is a fallacy if you are subject to the 10 AU limitation within systems clearly larger and at further distances than that among their different celestials. Instead of that, we're restricted to move within the 10 AU sphere for every celestial disregarding the vast spaces of void in between.
Well actually that's the only thing they did think about...The 10AU sphere is only counted from the farthest celestial object from the sun. So if the furthest planet is 150AU (large system) away from sun that will count as the border (add 10AU for sphere of no go here). Ofcourse you only have a 10AU ceiling/bottom in mostly horizontal built systems anywhere but that's besides the point.. ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:41:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Bobbeh
[cut] Finally, My solution would be make longer range probes, making it the further (to a limit) the safe is, the harder it will be to find at first. So make a 200au probe or a 500 au probe with a low strength but it will show you where something is within 64 au. Meaning that No deepsafe is "safe" if someone is looking for it. but yet they do provide a level of security compared to a safe spot or a pos.
They are in game already. Deep Space Scanner Probes have 256 AU range. Now they are close to useless (due to strenght nerf), after this change they'll become absolete. Many people trained Astrometrics V to use them. Dear CCP, it's... ridiculous.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:45:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Cang Zar
/I'm totally down with changing t2 bpos into 100 run copies and removing learning skills all together also, it really is the only reasonable thing to do, to counter silly game-design from 6 years ago
oh **** it, I'm with this douche. we should totally scrap all the core of eve and replace it with something else. make it so that everything's accessable by everyone, make it so that ammo bounces of and dones no damage in high sec, remove t2 bpos, get walking in station, get terestrial flight, I want hover cars! oh and a pet dog. can I build my own house inside a station? we should be able to run around in forrests and hit things with axe's!
that'd be awesome, in fact, lets drop the space thing all together and just nerf it back to wow \o/
my deeply sarcastic thought that nags my into serious is "why not just create eve2" and get all the new players on that?
Hell it's what you're moving towards anyway and you've said a number of times that there's core code you don't understand.
The point of eve, and what drew me to it, is that it's a sandbox, it's open to do what I want, it's harsh, violent and horrible. It's a niche game and has grown slowly because it's all about pvp and not being as straight forward dull as the other mmo's.
This "fix" in it's self doesn't effect my directly but still it irks me as it shows a warped view of the game.
Maybe you should make sure that you have a decent mix in the CSM and get more of your devs actually playing. Or at least pick a select few, I donno, alliance leads, core fc's? who get to play eve for free as they're the key people you'll want to talk to about game issues as far as epic fleet battles goes.
Hell, even convoing them after you see a huge fleet battle and asking them what their voew of things was?
I'm fairly sure most would treat it seriously if it resulted in better fleet action in the future. I know many will probably try and milk free stuff but that can be ignored.
I donno... CCP stop breaking my game :( make it more complex and fun and stop punishing the older players for getting here first, I'm not even that old a player and eve I think that that's an odd stand point.
It's not like we take all grandpa's stuff because he's been here longer or we make the super rich give all their money to the poor so why dullify an mmo by trying to limit the haves and have nots. why not just give the have nots the means to become the haves?
well that was a pointless ramble that many will flame and ccp will ignore.
oh... any words are my own, not the views of my corp or alliance, blah blah blah --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
WaiKin Beldar
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 12:53:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Freyya Edited by: Freyya on 13/04/2010 12:38:18
Originally by: WaiKin Beldar TLDR thread. Several things that obviously CCP does not take into account:
- The idea of an Open Universe is a fallacy if you are subject to the 10 AU limitation within systems clearly larger and at further distances than that among their different celestials. Instead of that, we're restricted to move within the 10 AU sphere for every celestial disregarding the vast spaces of void in between.
Well actually that's the only thing they did think about...The 10AU sphere is only counted from the farthest celestial object from the sun. So if the furthest planet is 150AU (large system) away from sun that will count as the border (add 10AU for sphere of no go here). Ofcourse you only have a 10AU ceiling/bottom in mostly horizontal built systems anywhere but that's besides the point..
A self explanatory diagram is posted in a quote a few posts above on this page.
You're right. We still have the opportunity to bookmark safes in between.
|
Shuluman
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:01:00 -
[355]
If you want to change the mechanic of deep safe spots then do the following instead.
1. You cannot logout in a deep safe spot. If you do your ship will warp back to a random point within the furthest celestial object + 10au bubble. Normal logout timers apply so you can be scanned down and killed.
2. Any items (ships, can, structures, etc) outside of the bubble are fine until someone warps to them. Then a timer is triggered that will warp everything back to the bubble after fifteen minutes unless they are taken out by a pilot, freigher etc. This gives people a chance to get their stuff back.
3. While there are grid loading issues then allow cynos to be lit outside of the bubble as this is a good way of getting round the load issue. Once that issue is fixed then you can stop this happening.
What this does is allow people to get their stuff back if its out there. Doesnt destroy assets that people have left at legitimate deep safe spots. Gives incoming fleets a way of getting round the grid loading issue (which is not an exploit as its avoiding a long standing bug). It does stop people adding more items to deep safe spots and means you cannot use them as a way to get out of a fight and log with no risk.
|
Malakai Draevyn
Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:01:00 -
[356]
Let's have a look at parts of the blog entry in detail shall we ?
- "Deep" safes refer to safe spots made outside the usual boundaries of the system - usually made a while ago by various techniques which have since been removed from the game, they can be up to thousands of AU from the nearest planet. Ships in these locations have always been very difficult to pin down, and following the changes made to the scanning system last year they've become nigh-on impossible to locate.
If anything, I would say more deepsafes have been made recently than through 'techniques that have been removed from the game' - and with the changes to the scanning system, they are now considerably easier to locate - it just takes time.
- We've been debating what to do about these bookmarks since before Apocrypha was even released: with the new scanning system, ships in these locations are essentially invulnerable in the majority of situations, and they can be utilized by any ship without any inherent cost.
The inherent cost is time, skills ingame and player skills out of game.
- 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.
Again, see arguements about T2 BPOs
- This is not something we're comfortable with, and we've now reached the point where we have both a solution we're happy with and the resources available to implement it.
aka : Bend the older players over a barrel and give them serious portions of 'surprise love' to keep the noobs happy.
- This should make these locations essentially unreachable, thus forcing ships within a given system to use the other measures available (docking, cloaking, warping around an awful lot) if they want to avoid being shot at.
This logic just shut down any regular or covops hotdrop technique in the game. Within the sun-to-outermost-celestial-plus-10au regime, it's far too damn easy to scan something down, especially the size of a fleet, using basic scanning skills. Hell, I can get a lock on a SINGLE ship inside that area inside 2 minutes, and I have awful scanning skills. To a talented operator -vs- a fleet of any size.... 30-45 seconds and they'll have a bookmark on it.
- Additionally, please note that we will be doing a "clean sweep" during Tyrannis deployment: ALL OBJECTS outside the 10AU perimeter will be removed, and by "removed" we mean "permanently deleted". Ships, cans, territorial structures - nothing will survive. 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.
Oh. My. God. You cannot be serious... surely ?!?
Have you ever thought about the masses of active serving military members who play EVE when they are not deployed in some god-foresaken hellhole, with no contact with the outside world? Way to go at alienating a large proportion of the people who have helped you lot (CCP) become as big as you are.
*sighs and shakes his head* Unbelievable. And here was me thinking that the end goal was to make PVP more easily accessable. This will do exactly the opposite, as nobody will want to do their big fleet warfare ****zle, because they can't stage the blobs effectively and "safely". I am not advocating fleet-pvp-easymode, I am advocating tactics, strategy and common sense.
Mal... Out. ..:: MD ::..
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:03:00 -
[357]
I dont see why you guys are so eager to delete these things, why not move them closer?.. If moving stuff closer isnt an option then what you SHOULD do is roll out a patch THIS WEEK that warns people when they warp to those far out places that bad ****nat is gonna happen. You should ALSO parse the DB for people who have ships (Cans dont matter, as those are dumped regularly anyhow) in those areas and EMAIL them with a FREE 1 DAY CODE that lets them log in, move, and log back out.
One has to wonder if the move to deletion was just someone being lazy, or if the bods in accounts seen it as a good single monthly payoff, or if you guys are just unable to code the move properly. ----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
LadyBreak
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:09:00 -
[358]
The exhibition of uselessness... CPP, please fix the lag
|
Steel Head
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:12:00 -
[359]
Good idea.
I <3 CCP.
|
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:15:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Schmell on 13/04/2010 13:15:22
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.
Personally i dont care of this changes, but i see some inconsistence in CCP statements.
Several months ago, CCP were asked (by Aralis) about possibility of outpost destruction. Answer was like:"no way, no plans, because we dont know what to do with logged off players and their stuff"
Good to see, you dont hesitate there. Way to go ccp
|
|
Siiee
Recycled Heroes Codemonkey Construction Project
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:18:00 -
[361]
Edited by: Siiee on 13/04/2010 13:18:41
Originally by: Schmell Edited by: Schmell on 13/04/2010 13:15:22
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.
Personally i dont care of this changes, but i see some inconsistence in CCP statements.
Several months ago, CCP were asked (by Aralis) about possibility of outpost destruction. Answer was like:"no way, no plans, because we dont know what to do with logged off players and their stuff"
Good to see, you dont hesitate there. Way to go ccp
QFT
|
Mega Docent
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:20:00 -
[362]
Good devblog. Good idea. I love CCP. =)
|
Volarus II
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:21:00 -
[363]
wtf ...
Why are u killing deep space spots? Why are u killing the possibilities to make 'em? Whom to they hurt?
Since when is there a limit in space? Stop reading bad science fiction books.
|
Empress Aurora
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:21:00 -
[364]
I for one welcome the new 'room-like' solar systems and new pseudo-infinite universe.
Inexorably we are pulled...
Bring on the instancing!
A short haiuku:
Spaceship in a room How can there be walls in space I am a bit sad
|
Numerius Valerius
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:23:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Kayleigh Lothian Ok, so first of, as many have already said, this will make a president for when CCP kills the T2 BPOs. (haves and have-nots)
As many of you know, president Ttwobpo's term ended abruptly when the now infamous CCP killed it.
I would like now to introduce you to the new president, welcome President Deep Safespot.
(all stand and clap)
|
greeny knight
Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:24:00 -
[366]
why the hell i traind my but off to use deep scan probes , 10 au is just so rediculus 256 wold be the proper distance alloud to get a deep ss , ccp can't controle the lagg on big fleetfights so they make the space smaller , first they should look into the permacloackers and put a mechanic in that the cloack overheat and they need to decloack for 5 min to disperce of the heat , i see a boom in the selling of cloackin devices , man this is so rediculus for words. [gold]http://www.funnet.be/greeny1.gif |
Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:29:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Freyya on 13/04/2010 13:29:57 Bringing this under your attention once more to show what it is really all about ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
JasonKuehn
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:49:00 -
[368]
With most dev blog proposals, whether I agree or not, I can at least empathize with both sides of the debate.
Not this one. This is just ******ed. Fix unprobeable ships, fix grid load, fix constant disconnects in laggy system, fix DC ganking. THEN, maybe you can think about dealing with deep safes.
You can't just trash game bug work-arounds without fixing the bugs that necessitate the work-around!
Elvenlord, I hope you and the CSM can help out with this. I can't see why anyone who really understands the 0.0 game would support this change.
|
Athalwolf
More-Cowbell Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:57:00 -
[369]
wtf, devs really need to sit down, look around and put back pieces of their brains who have clearly fallen out of their heads.
That you guys would consider even wasting one second of precious dev time on this non-issue makes me completely emorage inside, especially when there are probably a million more important things to fix, grid loading issues anyone?
Just on a side note, why create a big "open" SPACE game which constricts you to using "freeways" and invisble walls which tells you here but no further, the graphics might show you a spaceship when in fact you are in a pickup truck.
Wake up ffs!
------ www.manlovepvp.com |
Monster Dude
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:06:00 -
[370]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
I believe most of players understood the concept even without nice pictue. Thx for it anyway. Most players trying to say that whole concept is way too wrong to be true! Instead of making deep space easier available you ban it. Why should it be easier available? - Because with it players solve problems that you guys gave us. So actually help us to help you! Better return functionality of deep space probes. ---- And that will cause no "unfair" element to anyone. BTW current way of getting you deep safe is aparently ok with players, at least keep it. Once again they WORKING to get it to solve your problems. ---- There been nice reminder - if you want to remove something unfair from game remove t2 BPO or make them inventable (e.g. from t1 BPO) That bring piece to the game. I assume this issue is ignored because many of t2 BPO holders are mmm having hand on control what to change and what not. And they are comfortable with that they have something unique that makes them financial kings. ---- How about reimbursing all loses that happened due to NOT LOADED GRID? Or is it fair to lose ships like that? (I'm not even saying about lost fleets that partually loaded and failed because expected fire power didn't endup in the system - that would be too much) ---- BTW would be fair again to return skillpoints put into useless deep probes. ---- And once again back to the subject. Being on deep safe you are not 100% safe! You may have filthy feeling of safeness but with distant efforts your enemy may find you! And then you broke. So what is wrong to keep deep safe in game? If you claim it is too hard to find one on deep safe - solution is simple DOUBLE THE RANGE OF DEEP PROBES!!! That will make them useful again! And everyone is HAPPY! ---- Last question: Did CCP apply to NASA with demand to destroy Pioner satelite (hope i remember satelite name correct) that is now beoyng our solar system? Ask then to self distruct it, or move back :P Cause it does something unfair.
|
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:09:00 -
[371]
It seems fairly obvious that this change is a lag band-aid. Here's why:
* Deep safes permit blobs to get into systems that are already blobbed, increasing the blobbage.
* The change makes bridging into a blobbed system suicidal.
* Therefore, players will adjust their tactics, you won't see 500+ player fleets bridging into blobbed systems, and the lag is tamed at least temporarily.
The strategic consequences, at first glance, are that if you're willing to tie up 500+ players 24/7, you can make a system close to invulnerable. However, though the castle is invulnerable, the Huns can pillage the countryside with impunity -- and if you leave the castle to chase them, they can now risk cynoing in a blob, which means they're on the inside of the castle looking out, and you're on the outside looking in.
As I said, this is just a band-aid. The blunt reality is that "Fleets expand to fit the lag available". Lag is not going to go away until there are game-design and game-play changes that make blobs a bad tactical option.
As for the "podding your ass if you are at a deep safe", that's a classic red-herring proposal. It isn't going to be implemented. Moving stuff is much easier to implement, and won't it be fun if they move not just the player's ships but all the deepsafed cans and empty ships.
World Domination - It's fun for the entire family! EViE - The iPhone / iPod Touch Skill Training Monitor
|
GS Armada
Caldari Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:18:00 -
[372]
Edited by: GS Armada on 13/04/2010 14:25:22 im so sorry that ccp again thinks they are smart again this is total bull**** does this also meen you wont be able to make safe spots between gates that have nothing nearby for more then 10 au.
and yes i got hundreds of those safe spots all over eve mabey even more it just sucks wy dont you guys ad ccp first think about it and then think about it again before even doing something.
SPACE DOES NOT STOP AD 10 AU IT HAS NO BOUNDRY.
|
Nyu Shin
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:19:00 -
[373]
CCP: we cannot fix the game so at least let's do something and call it a fix.
fail
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:22:00 -
[374]
Guys, lets stay constructive. Calling CCP names won't help. I'm sure they're trying to find away around it, now. Lets just brainstorm here and see if we can help find a way together where we end up all being (somewhat) happy in the end.
It is somewhat ironical. Here we are, lots of us yelling at CCP to fix their bugs instead of doing A,B or C, now they are about to fix what they see as a bug-> being able to get off grid and bookmark said spot and we're once again in their hair, but now saying wtf, don't fix this bug, it's a feature!
Also the nature of EVE is that some of its features hang on together from existing bugs. If they remove one bug another crops up or breaks this or that, which worked properly before they fixed the bug.
Note: I, in no way, condone the way the blog deals with players assets after the wall has brought up, i.o.w. destroy their stuff if its outside the 10 AU border.
|
CEOcat
Gallente CAT Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:26:00 -
[375]
10 AU outside system is obviously way to short a distance.
In alot of systems you can cover that area with regular combat probes. Then there are the deep space probes making you perfectly scannable and no invulnerable at up to 200AU or so at least.
Right now doing anything about this at all is terrible. After you fix the lag issues I understand you might want to make a hard boundary somewhere though. But at least give us a few hundred AU to play with and implement an official method to make deep safes.
There could be special probes that you can warp to or something. Make it complicated and skill intensive though so people don't spam them everywhere. Maybe even a cap on bms you can have outside system if the deep safes really affect performance in some way.
You need to come up with an alternative for parking supercapital too.
Right now there is no other way to stash you supercap when you are taking a break. You need to chance the logging mechanics so it is more difficult to make login/logout traps for supercaps if you wanna do this chance. That however will most likely cause problems with exploiting logoffs in battle..
Leave this as it is for now cause it ain't broken. Once you have thought about it long and hard present a better solution..
|
fixmer
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:29:00 -
[376]
Originally by: PwrPuffGirl
Originally by: Lucian James Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring the problems you've created and do not fix which causes us to use these deep safes to begin with!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring your user community that uses these safes.
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads! "I'm sorry, but our server logs don't point out how badly we've handled our server load capacity and we're not going to refund your loss as a result."
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Thank you SO MUCH for devoting another big game expansion to garbage we don't need instead of fixing all the problems that exist in game.
Thank you SO MUCH for your continued arrogance and cruelty.
I sincerely hope that anyone who loses a SC to your wreckless selfishness will sue you in open court.
I have to agree with my Alliance mate here. Way to go CCP. Just another F-up, more problems less solutions.
this!
|
Silverlinings
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:30:00 -
[377]
Originally by: Serpents smile Guys, lets stay constructive. Calling CCP names won't help.
It is somewhat ironical. Here we are, lots of us yelling at CCP to fix their bugs instead of doing A,B or C, now they are about to fix what they see as a bug-> being able to get off grid and bookmark said spot and we're once again in their hair, but now saying wtf, don't fix this bug, it's a feature!
Its also somewhat ironical that the things we do not whine about get fixed, and the things we whine about a lot, get the shhh button.
I know some ppl love whining, and some dont. I usualy dont bother, unless someone comes up with "a workaround for lag that gets nerfed instaid of the lag itsself" I am so sorry, that my puny little peanut brain can not cope with Digital Illusions like that. Sory, just frustrating to pay for a priority list that a custoumer doesnt agree with...
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:33:00 -
[378]
Can I have all the safespaced stuff? --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:33:00 -
[379]
Originally by: JasonKuehn You can't just trash game bug work-arounds without fixing the bugs that necessitate the work-around!
exactly
Originally by: JasonKuehn Elvenlord, I hope you and the CSM can help out with this. I can't see why anyone who really understands the 0.0 game would support this change.
We are trying. Official mail has been send to CCP by CSM yesterday. Hopefully they wont ignore it like they did the discussion we had during summit.
Originally by: Serpents smile Calling CCP names won't help.
Calling someone intellectually challenged in this case is just stating the obvious
|
Karak Terrel
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:36:00 -
[380]
officially introduce deep space exploration. There is no point why it should be removed but many why it should not
|
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:40:00 -
[381]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
Confirming that I understood this correctly from the beginning and still think this is a horrible idea.
Putting walls on space removes the sandbox, and putting 10AU walls on space removes any reason to train for deep space probes.
|
Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:41:00 -
[382]
Edited by: Catari Taga on 13/04/2010 14:43:13 nvm
|
Xtover
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:44:00 -
[383]
So, with the current fixes for:
LAG Assault frigs Dual prop ships Hybrids LOLrockets
And suggested changes of
Sov POSs T2 destroyers Capital Cyno effect
You decide the most pressing issue right now is a need to put invisible walls in space?
|
Elzon1
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:44:00 -
[384]
Edited by: Elzon1 on 13/04/2010 14:46:09 Remeber everyone... this is all due to a bug. In no way is this a game mechanic, it is an exploit. All the exploit users should be happy CCP is giving them some time to recover their assets. They could have just banned those who had such bookmarks.
It was nice of them to give you a warning, wasn't it?
Edit: spelling
|
Htrag
The Carebear Stare Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:45:00 -
[385]
10 measly AU?
Weak.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:53:00 -
[386]
I am not against removing deep safes.
However... what's the point of having astrometrics at 5, now? The point of deep space probes?
So, why not adopting a looser range, like a 200AU from celestialsor something of that kind? This still gives meaning to the deep space probes, but does not allow the existance of super safes.
Or if you don't feel like it just bump combat probes prereqs at astrometrics 5. Or introduce t2 probes. Or just give SOME meaning to those who max out the skill.
|
Lucian Stratos
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:53:00 -
[387]
After a long thought it has been decided that this new 'fix' from CCP is worse than Jedward
|
Berzerkergang
Caldari Bendebeukers Green Rhino
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:54:00 -
[388]
It's too bad everyone is crying again about fixes in-game that have nothing to do with this topic. CCP is banning out an exploit, good for them, makes the game harder but requires players to actually think and do their best to actually get something done in-game, instead of just using this exploit.
My oppinion? I have never used safespots sofar in deepspace. Cloaking and using my head while in space and planning out stuff in advance works fine to my oppinion.
Would love to see the list of stuff that gets destroyed during the sweep. *grabs popcorn for emorage below* "He who knows he knows nothing, is a wise man..." -- Socrates
|
Pbs
Pumpkin Scissors DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:54:00 -
[389]
I have several question about "clean sweep": - If you destroy (by accident) all ships in sysetem - they will be returned after petition or your logs will show nothing? - Selling all ship and stuff - this is good idea? Or wallet can be deleted during this "clean sweep" too? - Is there some way to protect our stuff? Make screenshots? Or send to GM list of most valuable stuff? Which category i should use? You can guarantee that all stuff from list will be returned after patch deploying?
|
Gunnanmon
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:55:00 -
[390]
ibtl Signature locked for discussing moderation. Navigator
|
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:55:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Elzon1 Edited by: Elzon1 on 13/04/2010 14:46:09 Remeber everyone... this is all due to a bug. In no way is this a game mechanic, it is an exploit. All the exploit users should be happy CCP is giving them some time to recover their assets. They could have just banned those who had such bookmarks.
It was nice of them to give you a warning, wasn't it?
Edit: spelling
If CCP can 'time honour' the exploit with putting cans in your cargohold to increase your cargo, I don't see why they can't do the same with DSPs. ------------- Rough Necks Alliance
BOOST FALCONS. Nerf whiners.
|
Vladstorm
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:00:00 -
[392]
maybe this was suggested before:
instead of this nerf, why not add a new probe type, a 1000 au probe or something along that range. or buff deep space probes. and make your space 'limit' something astronomical, not a mere 10au.
|
Swiftgaze
Elysium Trading Company Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:06:00 -
[393]
Ahhhh Eve is earning more and more authenticity.
"Sir, we can't warp there." - .. why not? "It's more than 10 AU away from the celestial body that's the farthest away from the sun." - So? "Sir, we can't warp there." - .......ok let's just put up a few reactors on our high sec poses then, alright? "Sir.."
|
Myz Toyou
APOCALYPSE LEGION
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:12:00 -
[394]
Originally by: Dan Sun So what happend to the Sandbox?
|
DOARota
Gallente BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:12:00 -
[395]
At the very least you(CCP) should offer a valid reason for doing this. The have/have not explanation holds no water since new players can make deep safe spots just as easily as any veteran.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:19:00 -
[396]
Originally by: DOARota At the very least you(CCP) should offer a valid reason for doing this. The have/have not explanation holds no water since new players can make deep safe spots just as easily as any veteran.
Exactly. Why now? Are deep safes somehow impacting the lag issue or is this just another way to **** off a lot of people? Just who was complaining about this anyways? Fix the lag issue first before you eliminate work arounds that people came up with.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Angels Of Death EVE Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:19:00 -
[397]
Quote: Also lol @ all those players who depended on those deep safes to play the game.
Its very simple now: You need 1500 players to hold a system and prevent the enemy from entering to fight. Systems with this would now be basically invulnerable to harm. And there are more than a few places in EVE in zero sec this happens. This basically allows turtling which SUCKS.
Quote: The strategic consequences, at first glance, are that if you're willing to tie up 500+ players 24/7, you can make a system close to invulnerable. However, though the castle is invulnerable, the Huns can pillage the countryside with impunity -- and if you leave the castle to chase them, they can now risk cynoing in a blob, which means they're on the inside of the castle looking out, and you're on the outside looking in.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. This is what i'm afraid of the most. The mega alliances out there (IT, Atlas, NC, etc) have the membership to do this on multiple fronts in multiple systems thereby preventing key objects from ever falling under attack.
I don't bother using these. But it sure as hell makes me glad i got cloaking 4 yesterday. I might put it to five after this change. This is a bad idea without more experimentation. I can understand getting rid of some of the crazier deeper safes. But i can not agree with the heavy handed damned if you do dead if you don't method they want to implement this. Motherships and Titans can not dock in stations. Its that simple. Stations do not have that capacity and by reckoning never will. The counter to this may well be coming in Tyrannis With all this planetary exploration stuff it may be possible that a true 'spacedock' system could actually be implemented in planetary orbit (I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL EXIST OR NOT) But a system to finally allow pilots of these massive ships to be able to live in at least a modi****of safety would be overdue. Otherwise the last two dev blogs have made supercapitals completely worthless to own. No matter your alliance size. I stated in the insurance dev blog that CCP was pricing anyone under 1000 players out of the supercapital game. Now they may be putting even the larger groups out of it as well. These ships would now demand their pilot be actively piloting that ship 23/7 to prevent their destruction. No person can maintain that pace.
CCP News like this would be far easier to swallow if you were implementing a system that would allow those two ship types to dock. These changes to me suggest this HAS to be coming because i can not believe you want to remove these ships completely from the game. Which is what your intentions appear to be based off these two dev blogs. So either your telling me, that supercapitals are bad for the game and are going to be made unplayable. Or your telling me that we're going to throw you a bone but your not going to know about it until launch. The latter is a bad thing the first isnt so much but annoying none the less.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:19:00 -
[398]
Originally by: DOARota The have/have not explanation holds no water since new players can make deep safe spots just as easily as any veteran.
*sigh* But they will not be able to after Tyrannis deployment, because CCP is fixing e-warp exploit that made them possible.
|
Sunbird Huy
Caldari WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:24:00 -
[399]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
1. Is that man getting a reward for doing your job, PROPERLY? 2. "I'll let you know..." Just as you(CCP) did in the OP? What do you need to discuss about is what I/all of us fail to understand. Don't be a ostrych with the head stuck deep into the sandy hole, with your butt sticking out and browning your customers.
You are being rude, arrogant and nonchallant about your customers. You are being disrispectfull to every single player that has ever paid a subscription fee. At least treat us with something less than sheer sarcastic disrespect that causes nothing but antagonism.
Don't SHAITE in YOUR OWN BREADBASKET.
|
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:27:00 -
[400]
Originally by: Oasio
-Are you really absolutely definitively sure that missions/explorations site cannot spawn outside the 10 AU limits ? Especially in very small systems ?
Of course they can and already do. I have the bookmarks to prove it. ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
|
eleve
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:27:00 -
[401]
Had to check two times that this devblog really was posted 12.4.2010, not 1.4.2010.
Eventhought I'm not using deepsafes much, this bothers me. We are finally getting these annoying invisible walls to this game too. It's just stupid. Destroying ships and stuff makes this just even more ridiclous.
If you really are going to implent this, that 10AU range is way too short. Why we have deepspace probes? I have probed couple guys 77AU away from closest celestial and it didn't take too much time (about 5 minutes). And I used only combat scanner probes.
|
DOARota
Gallente BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:30:00 -
[402]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: DOARota The have/have not explanation holds no water since new players can make deep safe spots just as easily as any veteran.
*sigh* But they will not be able to after Tyrannis deployment, because CCP is fixing e-warp exploit that made them possible.
They gave the have/have not as a causal factor for making the change. It does not exist, so after the patch arguments are moot. They could make deep safes now as we type this, thus eliminating that argument.
As far as fixing the e-warp , you will still be able to do the double logofski to avoid being tackled so fixed might be a fairly strong assessment.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:31:00 -
[403]
Originally by: Gypsio III Did you not think, even for a second, that that sort of clear, concise explanation should have been in the devblog?
I think it was perfectly clear if you actually read the blog instead of skimming it. I understood exactly what was meant the first time I read that sentence.
It's not CCP's fault if you can't understand a fairly simple sentence.
|
Rico Lobo
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:34:00 -
[404]
Originally by: Akita T Why the bloody hell DESTROY ships out in deep safes ? What about people that are in ships there now, and their accounts are inactive, and they only come back AFTER the patch ? WHY NOT SIMPLY MOVE ALL THOSE SHIPS INWARD INSTEAD ? Just dump'em in a random spot inside the system far from anything else instead of deleting them.
No, I don't know anybody in this potential situation personally, but it's completely screwed up to just announce such a mass deletion barely a month before it'll happen. And a lot of people don't even read devblogs.
FOR SHIPS, MOVE INSTEAD OF DELETE. Dammit !
NO DELETE DELETE DELETE! Stuf going KABOOM in massive quantities means more sales of replacment kits!
Akita you know what the worst bit is? Because I have lines tied up producing subs I now have less than a month to start rolling out new ships! hell all that stuff going BOOM at the sametime and I have my lines tied up with other crap!(WHINES)
/sarcasm off
I have to agree with Akita 100% on this one, ****in stupid move guys. you just decided to abritraily punish people for your screwup. (and yes, I agree deepsafespots need to go.
the 10 AU limmit could have been done a long time ago.
|
Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5 Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:34:00 -
[405]
CCP proves yet again that they dont actually play the game.
|
xThugx
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:39:00 -
[406]
Make it so you can warp to probes. Improve deep space scan probes. Fix problems when a system is blobbed.
|
Ziley
Viziam
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:39:00 -
[407]
This is plain dumb. Listen to your customers and focus ALL available resources on restoring pre-dominion fleet lag levels. Don't waste your time on changes like these...
Quit imitating Blizzard and HTFU!
|
Ur kahanu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:40:00 -
[408]
Originally by: DOARota At the very least you(CCP) should offer a valid reason for doing this. The have/have not explanation holds no water since new players can make deep safe spots just as easily as any veteran.
SIGNED!!!!
|
Rico Lobo
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:44:00 -
[409]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
Good because I hope you get the Irony of the people who stand the most to gain from this (industrialist like me Akta and so on) including some who agree that deleting the deepspace safe spots is a good idea (me) think that also defacto deleting the stashes and ships is a bad ias bad an Idea as reintroducing thoes old bugs
|
Griznatle
Caldari Jersey's Best Dancers ARROGANCE.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:44:00 -
[410]
Hey CCP, does that mean your removing t2 bpo's? Cause I wasnt subscribing when you put those on market. I know Iceland doesnt have many troops fighting over-seas, but unless you want your island taken over by drunken American vets wanting their stuff back, you better re-think your "ideas".
If you put all of CCP in a room, will they write a novel? I know monkeys can. But calling CCP primates would be calling monkeys mindless vagina's. Thats a scientific term. oh, on the other hand, did you read my sig?
CanihazurBumpBump? |
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:50:00 -
[411]
Originally by: DOARota
*sigh* But they will not be able to after Tyrannis deployment, because CCP is fixing e-warp exploit that made them possible.
They gave the have/have not as a causal factor for making the change. It does not exist, so after the patch arguments are moot. They could make deep safes now as we type this, thus eliminating that argument.
Yes, because they are (gasp!) ANTICIPATING. Yes, anyone can make deep safes NOW. No, they will not be able to after Tyrannis, so there will be another thing for newer whiners to constantly complain about, after T2 BPOs.
Oh, and while deleting stuff outside "system border" is very on the HTFU line, it is very very very bad idea. Just move it closer or to random spot, ffs. At least piloted ships.
Quote:
As far as fixing the e-warp , you will still be able to do the double logofski to avoid being tackled so fixed might be a fairly strong assessment.
We'll see how it turns out in release. Anyway, DSS-making e-warp is "fixed" already.
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:06:00 -
[412]
Edited by: Kerfira on 13/04/2010 16:09:43 The real reason for this change could be that the database is starting to suffer from what was previously known as 'insta-bookmark-disease'...
Might not be that they WANT to do this, but that they HAVE to....
Also, the emphasis on destroying everything outside the 10au range... Is there anyone who is aware whether wast amounts of ships and cans are being left there as replenishment for war losses? If so this could explain a bit more about the reasons.
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.
|
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:12:00 -
[413]
|
Zex Maxwell
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:13:00 -
[414]
Originally by: Seth Ruin So Deep Space Scanner Probes are now completely useless?
Yeah that's what I was thinking. when I read this. CCP, If your doing this for the deep space reasons, you just removed an Item in the game. DSSPs (Deep space scanner probe) have an AU of 265 ish range (I don't know the exact number and I cant look it up atm). Deleting everything past an 10 AU range of a planet will render this item useless.
CCP, Under the current scanner probe system, most stuff that is scanable is near a 12 to 25 AU range, and can be easily picked up with normal probes. DSSPs is not a practical probe to use since we can center the probes on a planet and scan. we do more scanning but its easier to do more scanning then scan with a big probe, then switch to a smaller probe.
DSSPs is for scanning down DEEP space of a about to 100AU of range. What we normally look for with DSSPs is for other people, since there is no anomaly to scan for out side the system.
CCP this is what I propose. Destroy everything that is out side the range of the DSSPs, doing so will still keep the use of DSSPs.
|
Axhind
Caldari Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:16:00 -
[415]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
That still ignores that deep safes are only way of having a chance of jumping in to system where the defenders are without getting in to a turkey shoot. Why not fix the game before fixing insignificant problems. Not to mention if you care about new vs. old player remove the T2 BPOs as that is by far the most unbalancing thing in eve ATM.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:20:00 -
[416]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
After reading 11 pages you must have missed the important parts. Let me summarize them for you...
- Concerns about mid safes > 10au from a celestial object not working : These will work just fine as the player illustration indicates.
- Concerns around laggy grid loading on titan bridges and not having sufficient time to load the grid properly before the hostile fleet is on top of them and killing them : Legitimate concern
- Concerns about SuperCap pilots who had no other option except to log off at a deepsafe if they found themselves away from the game for an extended period of time (loss of job, military duty, moving house etc.), and will come back to a pod?? : Legitimate concern
- Concerns that CCP is focused on non-critical issues and continue to "add content" to a broken game. The overall fundamentals of the game are not working properly, players get frustrated when CCP works to remove or modify non-critical items (especially those used to help alleviate the broken conditions) : Legitimate concern
When you cannot jump through a gate, or engage a hostile in a PVP game, the fundamentals are simply broken. Players for the last several years have been giving CCP a very clear message, "We do not care about content or changes to the game as long as the issues surrounding lag exist". Yes we realize you are working on the lag issue, but honestly, until you focus on lag and nothing but lag, we don't want to hear about mining planets, removing deepsafe bookmarks, insurance changes etc. until you...
- Fix the existing lag issue
- Change your testing procedures to insure that the lag does not simply reappear during the next update as it always does.
"New Content" to your player base is a lag free (as much as possible), working game.
One more bit of feedback for you CCP. Everytime I talk to a friend that plays MMO's about Eve, they always say the same thing regarding Eve... "I have heard that you die to invisible enemies and there is nothing you can do about it". My reply is always, "Yeah, it sucks".
|
Cordin Hamir
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:21:00 -
[417]
Fair enough but what about that other technique for staying safe forever in a system i.e. get to a safe, cloak and then stay there forever?
|
ElanMorin6
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:22:00 -
[418]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 13/04/2010 16:09:43 The real reason for this change could be that the database is starting to suffer from what was previously known as 'insta-bookmark-disease'...
Might not be that they WANT to do this, but that they HAVE to....
I don't think you remember just how many instas people needed back in the bad old days. There's no comparison.
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:29:00 -
[419]
Edited by: Kerfira on 13/04/2010 16:31:05
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Kerfira The real reason for this change could be that the database is starting to suffer from what was previously known as 'insta-bookmark-disease'...
Might not be that they WANT to do this, but that they HAVE to....
I don't think you remember just how many instas people needed back in the bad old days. There's no comparison.
Oh, I do remember! I had most of the regions, high-sec included... That's why I said 'starting' to suffer!
IIRC, back then, the instas you had for a system were loaded from the database when you jumped into system. This could(!) mean that the database load for a fleet jumping in is significantly increased if a lot of people have them.
Since we don't have any numbers or other indications, I'm just speculating... primarily because it seems to be such a small matter to work on that there almost have to be untold reasons...
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.
|
OmegaTwig
THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:33:00 -
[420]
TLDR: Dont do it its a bad idea and many people would ragequit EvE all together.
I can see why you guys would want to make a change to eliminate deep safes however, its a sandbox game. You should be allowed to do whatever you want including being able to take the time to get yourself into a "Deep Safe."
Many people store their Titans, SC's, and other EXTREMELY valuable assets that, by virtue of your game mechanics, can not dock in a station and CAN be bumped outside of a POS shield. (Yes i know its space and know how physics works in space, but if you cant bump a POS then why the hell can you bump a Titan with at least 100 times more mass than a POS?)
Removing everyone's assets from their deep safes would be a huge blow to the eve economy and the players in the game.
Possible Solution: Allow people to "Anchor" their supercaps TO a POS (like tying a horse to a tree or w/e) so that they CAN NOT be bumped outside of a POS shield. (Put like a 30 min anchor/unanchor timer on it where the supercap CAN NOT do ANYTHING during that time, including movement, and if the supercap IS NOT ANCHORED then they CAN be bumped outside of the shield like "normal")
If you do allow this then I am sure that many people would be O.K. with the inability to create new deep safe spots and the inability to warp to the ones that have already been created.
Also I would post a notice on the Log-In page or make a Popup notification for the first time you log into the game with the details on this change...
I think that the current "fix" you have now is flawed and would cause more harm than good it would do...
|
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:33:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Zex Maxwell CCP this is what I propose. Destroy everything that is out side the range of the DSSPs, doing so will still keep the use of DSSPs.
Would still be way too much. Even if you were to get a hit with a DSSP it would take forever to nail down due to the **** poor strength of the things (need to use set of combats).
Solution: - Retask DSSP for deep-space exploration and have special explorations sites that spawn only in deep space. - Use 16AU (1/4 Combat Probe range) as limit instead of the arbitrary 10AU. - Allow warping to deep exploration sites, but keep restriction on BM/Cyno creation beyond the 16AU barrier.
Gives us: - A place in Eve for DSSP, - Insane time sink when making "deep" BMs (16AU takes a while to cover without bugs). - New exploration (perhaps mini-arcs?) away from prying eyes. - Potential safespots out of onboard scanner range.
10AU is a completely useless range with the insanely fast/accurate probing a skilled pilot can do.
|
ChronoLynx
Caldari Federation of Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:33:00 -
[422]
Boo... Bad Idea....
Also, I will make sure to be docked for the patch. Never know what CCPs cleanup script will do. Knowing my luck it will wipe anything more than 10au from the star; not the 10au from a celestial body.
|
Robocop
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:34:00 -
[423]
i heard CCP actually plays EVE...
|
stellaemater
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:38:00 -
[424]
Well... got just a few deeep safes and not that i'm using them that much. Anyway. Seems to me, here, that the will of CCP is to make almost everything scannable. If that's the way you going, guys, please also consider annoying cloaker alts and make those scannable (with combat probes only, maybe?) same as all the rest. Nothing p*ss*ng players off more than a darn hostile alt afk cloaked. Cloak should become a temporary tactical advantage in my honest opinion, not a systematic way to p*ss ppl off. Afk. Cloaked. Cya. |
Katrya Verna
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:40:00 -
[425]
Thank you for totally ignoring lag and nerfing the workaround players have to deal with YOUR problem. Also thanks for making the decision for me, I'll be canceling 2 of my 3 accounts, and if Tyrannis is as horrible as it looks #3 will go too! |
Tyremis
The Perfect Storm Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:44:00 -
[426]
Absolutely terribad idea CCP. Fix the LAG FIX YOUR BROKEN GAME. |
Canadian1
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:51:00 -
[427]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
After reading 11 pages you must have missed the important parts. Let me summarize them for you...
- Concerns about mid safes > 10au from a celestial object not working : These will work just fine as the player illustration indicates.
- Concerns around laggy grid loading on titan bridges and not having sufficient time to load the grid properly before the hostile fleet is on top of them and killing them : Legitimate concern
- Concerns about SuperCap pilots who had no other option except to log off at a deepsafe if they found themselves away from the game for an extended period of time (loss of job, military duty, moving house etc.), and will come back to a pod?? : Legitimate concern
- Concerns that CCP is focused on non-critical issues and continue to "add content" to a broken game. The overall fundamentals of the game are not working properly, players get frustrated when CCP works to remove or modify non-critical items (especially those used to help alleviate the broken conditions) : Legitimate concern
When you cannot jump through a gate, or engage a hostile in a PVP game, the fundamentals are simply broken. Players for the last several years have been giving CCP a very clear message, "We do not care about content or changes to the game as long as the issues surrounding lag exist". Yes we realize you are working on the lag issue, but honestly, until you focus on lag and nothing but lag, we don't want to hear about mining planets, removing deepsafe bookmarks, insurance changes etc. until you...
- Fix the existing lag issue
- Change your testing procedures to insure that the lag does not simply reappear during the next update as it always does.
"New Content" to your player base is a lag free (as much as possible), working game.
One more bit of feedback for you CCP. Everytime I talk to a friend that plays MMO's about Eve, they always say the same thing regarding Eve... "I have heard that you die to invisible enemies and there is nothing you can do about it". My reply is always, "Yeah, it sucks".
|
Brennah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 16:54:00 -
[428]
This is going to be fantastic, especially when unsubbed supercap pilots resub and come back to a pod. CCP is good at customer service.
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:02:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Robocop i heard CCP actually plays EVE...
I think that is part of the problem.
An issue with playing your own game is you tend to loose perspective, esp if you are engaged in only a subset of activities. So this is something that is probably negativly effecting their characters and not being used by them.
Of course, it is also possible they are so enamored with their videos of fleets cynoing on top of each other ala-B5 that they are getting frustrated that people are not actually doing it that way...
|
Raidek
Minmatar Battlestars Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:04:00 -
[430]
Whats ****ty is I know of a few afk super caps that did just that. This is ******ed CCP. Nerf the method to make new ones and use existing ones, not what objects already out that far.
Step #1: Use Brain.
|
|
Johnnny B
Caldari Planet Express Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:16:00 -
[431]
No matter what people say or do here it looks like CCP will do the nerf.
The real bad thing is destroying all the ships in the old deep-safe spots. i have quite a few of eve friends who are in the military and deployed in ongoing fights. most of these guys have super caps in deep safes somewhere. These guys do no deserve to have their ships killed off while out there.
But then again CCP dont really care about their player base, only Dollars.. if all else fails keep your well erned cash in your pocket :)
|
Arch Alterius
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:17:00 -
[432]
I'm getting the impression that people don't like this idea
|
Cassius Longinus
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:17:00 -
[433]
Deep safes were always a pretty horrible mechanic, and were just used to meta around some pretty horrible game conditions.
Happy to see them go. Shame some of the conditions persist.
|
Zaknussem
Intrum Industria
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:23:00 -
[434]
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":
OK, fair enough. When are you going to fix other similar situations in EvE, like T2 BPOs for example? |
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:36:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Zaknussem
OK, fair enough. When are you going to fix other similar situations in EvE, like T2 BPOs for example?
Go buy one and stop whining.
|
Arakkis Melanogaster
GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:40:00 -
[436]
OK, now that you've gotten to here, go back and look at how all players in 0.0, no matter the side of the current conflict, are against the changes you are implementing here. MMO players as a whole are a whiny bunch of babbys, but when an entire population that is familiar with 0.0 mechanics is telling you it is a bad idea, it is a bad idea and needs revision. Take Dominion for example. Everyone told you that it was a terrible idea, and needed significant revision for the desired consequences to occur, with detailed examples and consequences. Many of those consequences have come about and Dominion has produced the opposite of the desired effects.
|
Argo Pyxis
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:47:00 -
[437]
Edited by: Argo Pyxis on 13/04/2010 17:49:27 So the Poseidon Safe fix is good.
But on the topic of preventing a pilot from being a prisoner in his supercap lest it get stolen, CCP should consider implementing a "Boarding Password" feature for ship types which cannot dock.
Not only will it address the immediate issue of reasonably securing an expensive ship so that a pilot isn't effectively chained to it, but it's also more realistic to have. A secure container floating in highsec offers more security than a Titan when it comes to accessing it? Really?
/AP
|
Yakumo Smith
Gallente No End To Infinity Fleetingly Finite
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 17:59:00 -
[438]
Insta popping ships outside a specific range is a bad idea.
Moving them closer would resolve the issue.
You don't solve the problem of large systems where players can create BM's 100+ AU from the sun. You'll still have your have/have nots/
You still haven't answered the questions within that ask about 10AU + 10km from a MWD. Those will be the new super spots to hide in, warp just short of the 10AU, burn away from the sun and blam, untouchable...as you've seen with the deep safe spots (I consider my spots of 1800AU to be on the short side compared to others) people will make the effort to create a BM like this and with even a relatively basic inty travelling 500000km in 23 hours it'll be doable.
I suppose this must be my sig. I'll do something cool with it eventually. |
TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:01:00 -
[439]
Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 13/04/2010 18:03:46
What are they fixing: Deep safes What did absolutely ****ing no one complain about: Deep safes. What have they not fixed: Lag What is every ****ing null sec player in eve complaining about: Lag
Deep deep safes came around from primarily the massive lag caused by ccps inability to code and then inability to fix this. Absolutely no ****ing progress made on this front to the point where EVE is now a "login all your alts and get in the system 6 hours early so no one can load in, and if they do, they won't fire their guns" . But yeah sure deep safes that helped people get enough time to grid load before the **** train began are haram
If ccp don't fix the lag in tyrannis, and combine it with this fix, i see a lot of problems for them.
Thank you ccp, you have now given your systems walls, and removed the one thing that could get a fleet to load grid in time(which we shouldnt have to do had you fixed the ****ing lag) .
_______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =( |
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:02:00 -
[440]
Edited by: War Kitten on 13/04/2010 18:03:00 WTB Cheese!
Seriously people, learn to read. Farthest celestial + 10au is the limit, in *any* direction from the sun, is the farthest you can BM. If you needed the picture, you're probably paste on someone's killboard many times over, but we're glad you play the game.
Lag: Addressed in a separate devblog, (http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=727) quit changing the subject. They're working on it. You can't throw 100% of your dev team at one problem just like you can't have 100 people digging the same hole.
T2 BPO comparisons: yeah, its the same thing as a bookmark.
The only legit complaint I see is the auto-destruct of assets. Please to be putting them all at the sun instead where we can save the time of scanning it all down before absconding with it or transmorgrifying it all into salvage.
|
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:02:00 -
[441]
Maybe it's faster to load a finite space rather then an infinite space.
Maybe they aren't saying it because they don't want people to intentionally exploit a way to increase lag 10,000% by warping a shuttle some place..
|
Kevin Kappel
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:02:00 -
[442]
What a load of crock.....
Destroying yet another tactical gameplay..
Let's kill kill kill, insta gratification... it must not take any real effort in any form or shape to do it....
WOOOOOOOOW i think i've seen this game somewhere else.. now where was that hmmm....
|
TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:07:00 -
[443]
All of nullsec, no matter what side of the current great war they are on are completely against these changes, they serve no purpose except to **** over people who need to enter a system(god forbid) when there is an alliance/coalition level fight to be had.
_______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =( |
Neyko Turama
Minmatar Black Arrows
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:13:00 -
[444]
CCP please, instead of nerfing stuff of any kind and adding shiny harvestable planets and ****, put more juice into the lag fixing department. If there's such. All in all, this sometimes looks like: "Oh problems! Let's add more, they'll forget about the others"
Come on
|
Jill'iam
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:15:00 -
[445]
Instead of fixing lag issues with fleet battles, they fix safe spots. Being able to loading grid @ a 600au safe spot and to be ABLE to fight is wrong, CCP wants you to loose your ships to lag not gun fire. I remeber the battle for Y8R in gem, as others probably do to. No fight would have happened without them.
Instead of fixing lag issues, CCP is taking out another expansion... which might also cause more lag issues with fleet battle. But again, the fixed something... somewhere, that was useful.... but unfair somehow. Wait what lag??
Where's the logic?
|
Clyde ElectraGlide
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:15:00 -
[446]
I don't care much about the change to stuff being destroyed out in deep safes (which seems a bit much anyways, just moving them back into the fly-able areas of the system would be ok) as I've never really intended to keep stuff out there for long periods of time, but what gets me is the whole "space is limitless" thing won't really apply anymore. I can understand in games like xxx that have invisible boundaries because of the world being so big and having to stay because most of the action happens in that confined area, but with this from what I understand there has been no real issue with just warping constantly away from a star just to make it look like your ship is in another system on the map for teh lolz.
In hindsight, for the average empireer like me, it won't make much of a difference, but I guess as many people have mentioned already, the implications of this seem to be more hard-hitting in null where the blobtastic battles are happening, and using deep space as the only way to get in without getting blackscreened. I know that there's been a lot of tests to fix the lag, and hopefully later the lag does get fixed, but from my point of view it doesn't make sense to just get rid of something that has been used as a possible way out from the lag, and following death.
Just my thoughts, but again, the main issue for me is still that the possibility to do something that was not a problem in the first place will now not be able to happen come Tyrannis, or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:17:00 -
[447]
During past fanfest the dicussion was " How to get more people to 0.0" . Now that the player base has found away to move into 0.0 and live and take advantage of the area, CCP is going to take it away. There are alot of people who live at deep safes cause it is fun and it feels like real space. They set up refugee camps and mine and do other stuff with out having to set up a POS just to have it taken down by one of the big boys.
Deep safes created an even playing field between older players and newer ones. A newer player who want to get out to 0.0 could survive and thrive using deep safes. You call this a sand box but the player base called it a beach. The deep safe ability was found by us the players and is out there for everyone to use and take advantage of and now CCP wants to regulate it and take it away. Honestly CCP Iam disappointed, will I quit NO. But you are becoming something that you honestly tried to avoid for years. Please do not regulate us, enjoy are ability to create with in your game with out your help and honor it. leave the deep safes alone they have help us more then hurt us. These spots are nothing more then player develope and created worm holes. They have made the fighting in 0.0 even by allowing everyone to get into system and not die to the black screen of not loading. you should reward us for making eve bigger and space endless area as it is now
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:17:00 -
[448]
Originally by: War Kitten
The only legit complaint I see is the auto-destruct of assets. Please to be putting them all at the sun instead where we can save the time of scanning it all down before absconding with it or transmorgrifying it all into salvage.
This isn't the only one. A lot of players are unhappy about the lack of lag fix and this being the only way around it. Lets assume for a minute that lag was fixed... I STILL WOULD NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT THIS! I don't even fly cap ships or use deep safes. Why would I be unhappy then you ask?
Because I am now limited to a big room with highways (lines between warp-able objects). Maybe if I use mission bookmarks I can get outside these narrow lines a bit, at most 10AU away from a celestial (yes, I know, more if it's in a straight line, I understand the pictures, etc). What happened to the sandbox space game I was playing? It's now not as much of a sandbox, I can't play in it with my own rules, if they aren't the devs rules they are a "bug" and a OMGWTF GIANT NERFBAT will be used to correct them, and it might as well not be space because I can't go anywhere that isn't close to, or in direct line between, two warpable objects.
F*** THAT! Not to mention destroying Deep Space Probes
Again, if, for reasons of server stability, the HAVE to put limits on a solar system, it should be -at least- 500AU so that we still have room to play and DSP's are still useful.
Also, if for reasons of e-warp abuse (other than creating said safes, such as logoffsky macro miners), they have to destroy the posidon method, then introduce a way to make deep safes. This way new players -can- make them, as well as old, though this method should be neither easy nor fast IMO. The argument that it's not fair to newer doesn't hold water in light of T2 BPO's and Trophy Ships, really no argument about removing this holds water.
I see a LOT of *****ing on these forums about different things, cloaking, T2 BPO's, logoffsky tactics, lag. I don't think I've ever seen *****ing about deep safes... until now that is, and all that *****ing seems to be directed at CCP in the form of "we're ****ed, don't do this"
|
Lamasul
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:19:00 -
[449]
Another interesting Question:
What is when i log off in a Wormhole system an warp out of the 10 AU area? How far will i warp away on log off?
|
Neyko Turama
Minmatar Black Arrows
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:24:00 -
[450]
Originally by: DNSBLACK You call this a sand box but the player base called it a beach.
win
|
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:37:00 -
[451]
Originally by: Lamasul Another interesting Question:
What is when i log off in a Wormhole system an warp out of the 10 AU area? How far will i warp away on log off?
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I've never created a DSS but, the tutorials I've read require you to log off and log on in order to obtain them presumably because your ship warps to some distant random location.
So, what about all those people that have logged off without docking? Seems like maybe there's gonna be a lot of people ****ed off when they come back after the application of the expansion,DSS or not.
I have to say this sounds like a horrible idea CCP. After this the only thing this game is going to be lacking is a discernible floor, ceiling and walls. Space in a box.
If this fix is being done to help with lag issues great. But perhaps you should stop advertising Eve as a space game implying vast amounts of space?
|
Maeve Kell
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:44:00 -
[452]
So you force us to jump directly into the blob to die like in d-g? n1 ccp, nerf attacking even more.
|
ZergRushJohnny
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:52:00 -
[453]
Originally by: Mr Kidd
Originally by: Lamasul Another interesting Question:
What is when i log off in a Wormhole system an warp out of the 10 AU area? How far will i warp away on log off?
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I've never created a DSS but, the tutorials I've read require you to log off and log on in order to obtain them presumably because your ship warps to some distant random location.
So, what about all those people that have logged off without docking? Seems like maybe there's gonna be a lot of people ****ed off when they come back after the application of the expansion,DSS or not.
I have to say this sounds like a horrible idea CCP. After this the only thing this game is going to be lacking is a discernible floor, ceiling and walls. Space in a box.
If this fix is being done to help with lag issues great. But perhaps you should stop advertising Eve as a space game implying vast amounts of space?
When you log off normally you only warp about 100,000km away (or maybe it's 10,000), either way it's nowhere near 10AU, you will be safe just logging off as normal.
The way the DSS's work is logging off in warp at the right time with a specific ship fitting and relogging quickly to create a bookmark. Tried it last night after reading this just to have a DSS before they went extinct, it's actually kinda fun seeing how far out you can get.
But this method of creating DSS's (known as the Poseidon Method) will be fixed as well, so it won't even be allowed to happen by accident, you have no worries about something happening to you in a WH or not.
As for your other points (horrible idea, space in a box, false advertising, lack of a sandbox, etc) I completely agree. Giving some of the comments in the dev blog about it being impossible to find these spots I don't think the issue is lag. Instead of nerfing deep safes I'd rather see CCP consider options that allow us to keep sandbox play while nerfing only the -inability to find- deep safes (not the safes themselves, only being able to find them), such as my suggestion HERE (shameless plug).
|
Iguanoid
Caldari The 5th Freedom Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:52:00 -
[454]
Until the massive lag issues are fixed this has no place on the discussion table, let alone serious consideration for implementation in a months time.
And quite frankly that after 16 pages of pretty 1 sided criticism, offset by a few people with no practical experience of why these are needed in the games current state, i am shocked that the only dev response has been "sorry i went home before anyone got to see this, here is a link to some random guy who explained in 1 picture what i failed to explain in a wall of text. Oh and as for all your concerns, i read 11 pages of whining and i dont see a problem so htfu".
Best make it so alliances cant blue each other any more, and cant have more than 100 members and cant blue / red anyone anymore. That way you will "discourage" engagements of more than 100 vs 100 by creating a clusterfuk of the whole overview concept, and make the biggest steps in fighting the lag monster.
Way to go, wtb more bananas for the trained monkeys in the dev & QA departments, seeing as you fed them all the hamsters that used to keep the server running. --
|
Atius Shinkan
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 18:55:00 -
[455]
some asshats I must say, as if this was a big issue in game.
Instead of removing some of the few things that helps a little on your relaxing lag features, how about actually doing something with the lag!
|
Sikari Nillfar
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:07:00 -
[456]
Come on CCP, you gave us a sandbox and the tools to play around, you talk endlessly about this. Now that we have played around and made us self comfortable with this, you take it away cause you think its wrong....
you guys are lost, its space, its vaste....
|
Raneru
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:14:00 -
[457]
Spoil sports
|
Radix Salvilines
The Gummy Bears
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:17:00 -
[458]
i usually avoid large discussion threads but this idea is so unnecessary and stupid... that i will leave my comment which is:
NO
|
britishfish
Minmatar Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:19:00 -
[459]
doesnt really effect me but i thought i would post to say no wonder the grid/lag issues havent been fixed as your fixing stuff no one really gives a **** about ...again
|
EasyPickingsOA
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:20:00 -
[460]
CCP forget the new bells and whistles, fix the goddam lag.
|
|
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:22:00 -
[461]
Originally by: BeanBagKing
This isn't the only one. A lot of players are unhappy about the lack of lag fix and this being the only way around it. Lets assume for a minute that lag was fixed... I STILL WOULD NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT THIS! I don't even fly cap ships or use deep safes. Why would I be unhappy then you ask?
Again, fixing lag is probably a different dev team than the game-balance/bug-fixing/whatever-this-team-is. Players using this bug/feature/quirk to mitigate some lag doesn't make it neccesary bug/feature/quirk to keep.
Originally by: BeanBagKing
Because I am now limited to a big room with highways (lines between warp-able objects). Maybe if I use mission bookmarks I can get outside these narrow lines a bit, at most 10AU away from a celestial (yes, I know, more if it's in a straight line, I understand the pictures, etc). What happened to the sandbox space game I was playing? It's now not as much of a sandbox, I can't play in it with my own rules, if they aren't the devs rules they are a "bug" and a OMGWTF GIANT NERFBAT will be used to correct them, and it might as well not be space because I can't go anywhere that isn't close to, or in direct line between, two warpable objects.
The sandbox always had limits, and was always rooms connected by little doors, and you've always been limited by lines to/from warpable objects (except for the random e-warp). CCP has decided that playing with the sand outside the limits of a 10au circle around the box is detrimental to the game and they are changing things. Oh noes. You've always had to play in the sandbox within their rules. Bad argument.
Originally by: BeanBagKing
F*** THAT! Not to mention destroying Deep Space Probes
Again, if, for reasons of server stability, the HAVE to put limits on a solar system, it should be -at least- 500AU so that we still have room to play and DSP's are still useful.
So what? Do you own a deep space probe BPO and your market just went down the tubes? Ridiculous argument.
Originally by: BeanBagKing
Also, if for reasons of e-warp abuse (other than creating said safes, such as logoffsky macro miners), they have to destroy the posidon method, then introduce a way to make deep safes. This way new players -can- make them, as well as old, though this method should be neither easy nor fast IMO. The argument that it's not fair to newer doesn't hold water in light of T2 BPO's and Trophy Ships, really no argument about removing this holds water.
I think you're close to a reasonable argument here. They're fixing the now-officially-declared bug of the poseidon method. As a consequence, this would make all those unintended existing bookmarks un-reproduceable without already having access to one. (Incidently, this is a difference in the T2 BPO argument too... invention can create a T2 BPC. It doesn't only take access to an existing BPO to create the BPC.)
Anyway, rather than deciding to accept the existence of ships, items and bookmarks outside the limits of their sandbox, CCP decided to clean up the mess and throw the sand back into the box (Or throw it in the trash as it currently stands).
Originally by: BeanBagKing
I see a LOT of *****ing on these forums about different things, cloaking, T2 BPO's, logoffsky tactics, lag. I don't think I've ever seen *****ing about deep safes... until now that is, and all that *****ing seems to be directed at CCP in the form of "we're ****ed, don't do this"
You're assuming *****ing about something motivates people to fix something, especially programmers. This is a common misconception.
I think the change is positive, long-term. It removes the warp-to-1000au-safe-and-loggoffski tactic, and it probably will clean up a lot of floating-in-space junk that adds to the lag of loading a system. It'll probably clean up the bookmark database a bit too. |
Chattia Kand
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:28:00 -
[462]
Originally by: War Kitten
I think the change is positive, long-term. It removes the warp-to-1000au-safe-and-loggoffski tactic, and it probably will clean up a lot of floating-in-space junk that adds to the lag of loading a system. It'll probably clean up the bookmark database a bit too.
This
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:29:00 -
[463]
quote=Lamasul]Another interesting Question:
What is when i log off in a Wormhole system an warp out of the 10 AU area? How far will i warp away on log off?
This!
|
Qual
Gallente Cornexant Research
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:29:00 -
[464]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Did you not think, even for a second, that that sort of clear, concise explanation should have been in the devblog? By not communicating clearly you are creating work for yourself and damaging your own reputation, and you only have yourself to blame.
His post WAS clear: "10AU further from the local star than the furthest-out celestial object"
How could it be any clearer? Do you see anoything there that is not EXACTLY CONCISE? Dont blame him for not being concise. The picture only ilustrates what is CLEARLY SAYS in the text.
Its the n00bs out there that suddenly puts in a rule about it beeing about range to celestial boddies. I know a lot of stuff in the game works like that, but the blog didn't mention it at all. That some people cant READ without adding a lot of imaginary text which is not there, does not make it inconcise. Not by a long shot.
You could blame him for not illustrating, or not giving examples, but NOT for not being concise.
"The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf |
Tempest Fortius20
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:36:00 -
[465]
You claim one of the reasons for this change is that it causes an unfair advantage to older players, as the only way a new player can get a safespot bookmark is from an older player. I'm sorry, but aside from that being the POINT of the game.... What about ****ing T2 blueprint originals? That's one of the most UNFAIR aspects of the game I've seen so far..... If you really wanna "Level" the playing field.... how about scrapping the outdated BPOs, whose value is now almost unlimited?
ALSO
How about instead of making a bunch of random changes, you fix the core issues like lag, so that the game is actually playable during large fleet battles
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:39:00 -
[466]
That nerf sucks. With every year EVE became more and more restrictive. Too much stupid rules, that breaks the immersion from spaceflight. You can't do this, you can't do that.. More rules = less fun. I'm not quiting, but that sucks. Really.
|
Crystal Starbreeze
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:44:00 -
[467]
I have scanned out lost fighters 700AU from the system successfully with deep space scanners.
What is a little unknown is if you leave the solar system just a bit (about 100AU out) then start dropping 256AU deep space probes you can continue to adjust the view until the solar system is very small as you drop a probe, shift move it then drop another one.
It takes over a hour with scanning but I've setup search patterns in some case probes out as far at 1500au - 2000au.
Yes I realize most people don't do that, but just because you are OUT at 1000AU does not mean you are safe!
This nukes a small but useful skill most people never use for deep space scanning. I think it is sad that the world of eve is being shrunk by so much and the deep space probes are now going to be completely useless! |
Driven Marcelli
Minmatar Evil Overhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:46:00 -
[468]
Ok my two er three er bits
1) you guys explained in SiSi why 5k safespots were causing lag(for thoes who dont know if you log out in space at a safespot, the database still keeps a record of your loging and therfor "existing" in the grid because when you log back in you warp back to that grid point, and that when you scan the scan serverside looks through all posible grid cells that have Anything (even a unancored can or abandoned drone or one or both logoffski "markers" that only "exists" on the database)(reguardless of if the scan in question can actualy see them) them including the ones that are 5+kau out and have people who logofskied in that cell(reguardless of how long ago the logoffski happend), and haveing to go through all the posible grids including ones that basicaly dont realy exist anymore because the logoffski account is suspeded for whatever reason) is part of whats causing the servers to go nuts. (from what I understand they partly want to purge the ones that are from way back and partly want to make the individual system files more compact and thus faster for the system to page through when it has to do so and partly because some of the "WAY Deep space" safespots just will not be scannable AT ALL when you switch to the new database handleing)
2)If the new system is going to be limmited to the "10Au limit" for various scanning (shesh should start caling it the XAu line) then thats kind of ok but frankly I think it needs to be adjusted to have a minimum size but otherwise I dont realy have a problem with it.
3) Abitrarily deleting peoples stuff is bad buisness k, I know of several people who use the various Industrials and or carriers in deepspace logoffs to store spare gear. some of them have accounts that will not be active untill after may 18. you realy want to deal with them when you were the one who took away a carrier, 2 fitted out T3s and other items because you guys are incapable of thinking about how change will impact the players apart from "we need to do this because of the numbers we are seeing RIGHT NOW?
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:55:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Driven Marcelli 1) you guys explained in SiSi why 5k safespots were causing lag(for thoes who dont know if you log out in space at a safespot, the database still keeps a record of your loging and therfor "existing" in the grid because when you log back in you warp back to that grid point, and that when you scan the scan serverside looks through all posible grid cells that have Anything (even a unancored can or abandoned drone or one or both logoffski "markers" that only "exists" on the database)(reguardless of if the scan in question can actualy see them) them including the ones that are 5+kau out and have people who logofskied in that cell(reguardless of how long ago the logoffski happend), and haveing to go through all the posible grids including ones that basicaly dont realy exist anymore because the logoffski account is suspeded for whatever reason) is part of whats causing the servers to go nuts. (from what I understand they partly want to purge the ones that are from way back and partly want to make the individual system files more compact and thus faster for the system to page through when it has to do so and partly because some of the "WAY Deep space" safespots just will not be scannable AT ALL when you switch to the new database handleing)
Now THAT is an explanation you can understand as a good reason for doing the nerf!
However, people in ships should not have their ships destroyed. They should simply be moved in-system at the sun.
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.
|
Driven Marcelli
Minmatar Evil Overhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 19:58:00 -
[470]
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze I have scanned out lost fighters 700AU from the system successfully with deep space scanners.
1500au - 2000au.
!
Just a hint, but they are planning on nerfing long range scanners to the XAu limmit because of the performance hit caused by forceing the system to actualy search the database for every possible item that either has created a grid or might trigger the creation of a grid (ie logoffski points)
|
|
Induc
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:02:00 -
[471]
Seriously, everyone who has never created a deep safe spot before STOP complaining that this will destroy your sandbox "feeling", you won't notice this change at all.
To everyone else, lets just face it, even if DSS's are useful, helps against lag, bla bla bla: Does logging in and out in the middle of warp until you're so far away that you don't show up on the solarsystem map feel like something that is working as intended?
|
Driven Marcelli
Minmatar Evil Overhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:03:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Driven Marcelli
Poof! scroll up if you realy must know
Now THAT is an explanation you can understand as a good reason for doing the nerf!
However, people in ships should not have their ships destroyed. They should simply be moved in-system at the sun.
I agree but I also disagree, Personaly I think your stuff should be dumped to whereever your respawn point is at.
|
ZergRushJohnny
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:06:00 -
[473]
War Kitten: You are wrong on several points. First, the sandbox has not always had limits. At one point you could warp to another system, I believe at another you could edit bookmark coordinates. You could scan down fighters that would disappear hundreds of AU away. NONE of these are in direct line between two warpable points. Therefor we have not -always- been limited by two/from lines.
With the current system you can create multiple deep safes and then create deep safes between those. Given the time and planning you can land on any grid anywhere in space, not just in straight lines. So we still aren't limited in space.
This nerf will change that, we will truely be limited to the "rooms connected by little doors". To me this isn't removing a small thing. Detrimental to the game? In its current "you can't find me" form maybe, but instead make a way for players to find things, this would be expanding the game, not shrinking it's rules. Tell me how that would be a bad thing?
As for your deep space probe argument, it's not a BPO production point of view. It's the fact that most systems are not 256AU+ in diameter, so why use them anymore? It becomes a 15 day skill that nobody will ever use again (ok, maybe in the 1% of systems over 250AU, but even these can probably be covered by 7 combat probes).
Assuming that *****ing motivates people to fix something? Probably the only thing you are right on. Complaining (for those wondering what all the *'s were) probably won't make them fix anything. However, when the people complaining are the ones paying for the game it would be a good idea to listen to them and find out where most complaining is coming from. You don't fix something nobody has an issue with, you fix the things they think are problems.
And last point, you said that this would help "clean up space" and help with lag and bookmark database. The bookmarks haven't been an issue since warp to 0 was fixed. Nothing in the dev blog addresses lag, it's stated that these points have become "nigh-on impossible to locate." and "creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots"", suggesting that that is the reason for the fix. I don't think this will help with lag, if it does CCP would have posted that, seeing as what a big issue it is.
Again, instead of limiting us, how about doing something like THIS to expand space and our sandbox. I don't see how limiting anything is a good idea. I guess if you think more rules and limits are a good thing then we'll never see eye to eye.
|
Klam
Amarr FACTS on EVE Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:12:00 -
[474]
Edited by: Klam on 13/04/2010 20:15:01 Edited by: Klam on 13/04/2010 20:12:39 Deep safes were a broken game mechanic that they have been trying to fix for quite some time.
The intention was that to avoid scan detection in a system you cloak up, not just move out of any Scan Probe's range.
This has also been misinterpreted by some as all safe spots that aren't within 10au of a celestial. Invalidating mid system safes. ... that is the wrong interpretation.
It will just invalidate safe spots that are extremely far from the center of a system. áTo remain valid bookmarks must be within a certain distance of the sun. áThat distance is variable per system. It is 10au+ the distance from the sun to the furthest celstial object in the system.
I mocked up the following example in Chaven... it's a rather small system but it should hopefully shed some light on this. This is not to perfect scale, it is just a visual aid.
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4708/newsafespots.jpg
This is not a nerf to the general concepts of safe spots away from celestials and off-axis safe spots for gates. áIt just nerfs the unscanable ranges for safe spots. áA standard safe spot is still far safer then warping directly to a celstial. áIt just prevents someone from sitting afk in one 23 hours a day.
|
Vestus Regula
The Black Dawn Gang High Treason Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:14:00 -
[475]
I don't like this at all; not only it'll make the lag issue that much worse (by removing one of the few ways of working around it), it'll also make the game a bit more dull by reducing its possibilities.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:17:00 -
[476]
1. Iam talking about player creativity. If there is one thing eve players are it is creative and productive. This meathod was created by players, developed by players. It isnt a bug the game acted exactly as they designed it when you log off in warp. The process that happen was not a bug or a cheat it was mechanics period. So if the devs didnt create it then it doesnt belong. honestly CCp i would be proud of the eve player base we took your game and used it in the manner you wanted.
2. Think about it we have all wondered if there was a cap on that nebula way out there. How far could we really go. We all loved the fact or at least imagined that this game was endless. A eve player found away to go out past those boundries and expand the sandbox and now we are being told no space has limits which honestly sucks. Honestly making these spots was alot of fun and really didnt hurt much in the end.
3. You should reward us for being creative not punish us and take it away. hell i would put the guy on pay roll who first foundout about this. I can remebr nathan saying this once " we are about giving the players the tools to create and sitting back and watching what you guys can do" well you gave the tools to warp past the limits of warpable space and into real unexplored space to bad you couldnt use this and put stuff out at 10000 au for players to go find and have fun like artifacts and such from the joves. O'well just reel us in and put us all back in the box and kill what was by far the most harmless fun we the players have ever found in this game on our own.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:20:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Narfas Deteis
Originally by: Zaknussem
OK, fair enough. When are you going to fix other similar situations in EvE, like T2 BPOs for example?
Go buy one and stop whining.
That was propably his point. Bookmarks can be copied and sold much easier than T2 BPOs, so if CCP allows the more meaningful advantage that T2 BPOs gives to persist, why would legacy bookmarks cause issues. They propably wouldn't cause much. Sounds to me like they are using the "won't someone please think of the children" -excuse to justify something they wanted to do anyway.
|
Darth Jihad
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:22:00 -
[478]
Edited by: Darth Jihad on 13/04/2010 20:25:04 CCP, please ignore the people whining in this thread.
This change will finally set the mechanics of the game back to how it was intended. Everyone who is caught with the purge is lucky to only have their ship destroyed, as creating this safes requires that they use exploits! I've witnessed slow warping ships evade concord by deagressing, by warping to a very deep safe.
Good change CCP. *thumbs up*
|
wizard87
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:22:00 -
[479]
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.
Same thing regarding T2 BPOs.... Remove them.
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:26:00 -
[480]
So you released this bomb shell, at the end of the day and then you all just went home, awesome customer service.
Let me just sum things up for you CCP, don't get me wrong EVE is a great game, it try's to be far more than any crappy MMO out there. The crucial word being try's there. I don't intend to be harsh but that's why most of us love the game, when you start as a noobie in empire your not playing because you love you frigate, destroyer, etc your playing because your imagining not only the big shiny capital ships you could one day fly, or the billions of isk you may once smear all over your **genitalia of choice** It's because you imagine that as technology gets better the game will grow, maybe this game WILL become the sci fi emulator that you speak off. When I first started playing this game I imagined that one day we could walk around stations, walk around even our ships, move from one ship to another in a realistic way, perhaps damage would become more realistic, etc, etc, basic progressions on the same theme, I mean when I first started playing the game and someone mentioned you could build your own station, I was like, OMG THATS FREAKING AWESOME, 3-4 months later, I was like, are you freaking kidding me, this stick in a bubble is my station.
The reality.
7 years down the line, what do we have, better looking ships granted, they are very well done and pretty, better looking planets, again awesome, but has the game advanced in any noticeable way? not really.
Rant aside, I know that this deep safe thing is not really related to this directly, I just want to point out the dangers of this mentality you seem to be in. As a business model I'm sure you have to perpetuate this idea to new and old players that the game is going to progress in a good way. as people have stated reducing the space, setting rules on the sandbox is only going make players think, well maybe this game is never going to progress to where I envisioned, perhaps it is always going to be this, I'm a spaceship lol, my missiles come from model origin, lol, my guns hit the model at origin 0,0, lol I got killed from lag, lol, I can fly though stations lol, oh look my ship is inside another ship lol, space ship game.
I know that your not going sell many new subscriptions from fixing and improving the old stuff, and that rebuilding large parts of the engine is costly but your going to have to do it, otherwise all its going to take is someone else to rebuild an engine from scratch and release a new game, they will capture peoples imaginations and they will then put there faith in someone else to release the game we all want to be playing.
Just as footnote, guys who are claiming that we are ranting because we don't understand, we do understand 10 au past the furthest celestial body from the sun yeah yeah yeah we get that, that point will form a spherical barrier beyond which all will be doomed to oblivion and will become un book-markable, we understand that and its still a problem due to the lag/mechanics problems stated in all these posts.
Please resize signature to the maximum allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels and a maximum size of 24000 bytes. Navigator |
|
Serret Nevets
Serret's Harem
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:26:00 -
[481]
When you rage quit because you lost some bookmarks...
Can I have your stuff?
|
Teclador
Caldari Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:26:00 -
[482]
CCP this is a Game and it plays in Deep Space, so why we can't use anymore Deep Save Spots?
As long this game isn't lag free and there isn't any possibility to enter a system with hundreds of Pilots waiting for ya, DON'T change game mechanics, because these Deep Save Spots are used to handle lags during jump in by cyno.
Rather spend more time to fix more important bugs or such things like overview bugs, role and access management shortcomings. etc, etc.
--------- Solong Teclador |
Darth Jihad
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:27:00 -
[483]
Originally by: Darth Jihad Edited by: Darth Jihad on 13/04/2010 20:25:04 CCP, please ignore the people whining in this thread.
This change will finally set the mechanics of the game back to how it was intended. Everyone who is caught with the purge is lucky to only have their ship destroyed, as creating this safes requires that they use exploits! I've witnessed slow warping ships evade concord by deagressing, by warping to a very deep safe.
Good change CCP. *thumbs up*
I hate cheaters. You're all cheaters.
|
Alice Teal
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:28:00 -
[484]
Cool stuff CCP. I'm really interested in the other Dev Blog someone must be writing...
New Dev Blog: THE GREAT DEV EXCELLENCE NERF 2010
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:38:00 -
[485]
Originally by: Darth Jihad
Originally by: Darth Jihad Edited by: Darth Jihad on 13/04/2010 20:25:04 CCP, please ignore the people whining in this thread.
This change will finally set the mechanics of the game back to how it was intended. Everyone who is caught with the purge is lucky to only have their ship destroyed, as creating this safes requires that they use exploits! I've witnessed slow warping ships evade concord by deagressing, by warping to a very deep safe.
Good change CCP. *thumbs up*
I hate cheaters. You're all cheaters.
I would like to point out Darth Jihad is a 2 year old GoonFleet member and the irony of him calling everyone cheaters when it was his corp that came up with not only the popular Poseidon Manual , but the Grid-Fu manual and various other ways to expand the game code from it's limited design. I'd bet all the ISK in my wallet he has used deep safe spots :)
Nice try at trolling though, now go back to COAD goon :P
|
FourFiftyFour
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:39:00 -
[486]
I'd like to inform you that what you have just done is tantamount to the ignorance of the GOP when thinking that Sarah Palin would help win the votes of America.
What you should've done is fixed the lag that necessitates the use of these deep safe bookmarks.
Then and only then could you have removed deep safes with out geting the cacophony of disent from your players.
It would be really sad if you needed to hire a PR firm to keep your own customers playing your game.
When you created the CSM you politicized your game. You've now made yourself answerable to your players in more ways than just subscription numbers. As a PR guy I think it would be probably a good idea if you took public opinion into account next time you decided to nerf something.
Personally I think you need to take a page out of your Economics team's book. They study the game in detail. Then they write reports on it. They promote transparency. Do the same and you might get out of this one with minimum losses.
|
cBOLTSON
Caldari Shadow Legion. Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:45:00 -
[487]
So that basically sounds to me like. CCP: **** off, we have taken your money for years however we didnt even want to discuss or debate this with you. We havent thought this through.
I allways thought you boasted about you 'sandbox'? Now theres going to be barriers? Why no discussion over this?
|
Vakasho Umi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:47:00 -
[488]
Well, I'm glad to hear things are going to be leveled regarding legacy bookmarks, but on the other hand I'm somehow disappointed to see that now, training probing skills to be able to use deep space probes will be even less worth the time spent. What a pity, probing specialists will be less desirable now... I hope we'll see legit deep safe spots someday, making those probes useful again aside from the occasionnal 'wide system' one may encounter.
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 20:50:00 -
[489]
Yes yes we get it people, it's the sun -> farthest celestial -> 10 AU, even if it's in a "space" between planets.
The problem is now EVERYTHING will be in a FIXED RADII from the system.
A DSP can now find EVERY HIT within a system within seconds. It's even possible to probe out a cap before it can align and GTFO.
So you're left with slapping a cloak on everything, or enough ECCM to make is unable to be probed out.
Any system with a large number of people will be an inpenetrable stronghold because guess what? This won't solve the lag problem.
Here's a clue: THE FLEET SYSTEM CAUSES A ****TON OF LAG.
|
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:10:00 -
[490]
Originally by: cBOLTSON So that basically sounds to me like. CCP: **** off, we have taken your money for years however we didnt even want to discuss or debate this with you. We havent thought this through.
I allways thought you boasted about you 'sandbox'? Now theres going to be barriers? Why no discussion over this?
Of course there are going to be barriers, there have always been barriers. You've just come to accept them without question. Rules of engagement in High Sec and Low Sec, stacking penalties, tracking penalties, prerequisit skills to name only a fraction.
You just don't see them as barriers because you have come to accept them.
Lets face it, the term is "Sandbox". If there were no barriers at all it would simply be "Sand".
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
|
Yodabunny
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:17:00 -
[491]
Edited by: Yodabunny on 13/04/2010 21:18:01 You can not warp to a point outside of the farthest celestial object from the star in any system without an exploit.
Rarely a mission might (and I've yet to see proof of this or check it myself, but it's possible sure) go outside of this distance if you happened to be in a very small system. Since you won't be able to warp to these points anymore these missions will either be adjusted or bugged, considering the locations are fairly random I'm not exactly worried about missions spawning outside of system perimeters (they already have distance limitations).
For those complaining about their supercaps not being safe, if you're leaving your supercap pilot logged in unattended why the heck should it be safe? If you're leaving your supercap unpiloted please PM me your location.
For those complaining about losing stuff outside of this very generous range, YOU SHOULDN'T BE THERE NOW. Be glad you're not getting banned and you're being given OVER A MONTH to retrieve your stuff from the location you USED AN EXPLOIT to get to.
The game is a sandbox, sandboxes have walls. If you throw your sand outside of the walls no one is going to cry for you when the lawnmower blows it away.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:19:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Yodabunny Edited by: Yodabunny on 13/04/2010 21:18:01 You can not warp to a point outside of the farthest celestial object from the star in any system without an exploit.
Rarely a mission might (and I've yet to see proof of this or check it myself, but it's possible sure) go outside of this distance if you happened to be in a very small system. Since you won't be able to warp to these points anymore these missions will either be adjusted or bugged, considering the locations are fairly random I'm not exactly worried about missions spawning outside of system perimeters (they already have distance limitations).
For those complaining about their supercaps not being safe, if you're leaving your supercap pilot logged in unattended why the heck should it be safe? If you're leaving your supercap unpiloted please PM me your location.
For those complaining about losing stuff outside of this very generous range, YOU SHOULDN'T BE THERE NOW. Be glad you're not getting banned and you're being given OVER A MONTH to retrieve your stuff from the location you USED AN EXPLOIT to get to.
The game is a sandbox, sandboxes have walls. If you throw your sand outside of the walls no one is going to cry for you when the lawnmower blows it away.
Your a moron, it was never an exploit.
|
Rico Lobo
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:23:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Vincent Gaines
This won't solve the lag problem.
Here's a clue: THE FLEET SYSTEM CAUSES A ****TON OF LAG.
here is another clue, the changes in when bounties were payed out did not solve the lag problem but it took out one of the causes of lag
This will not solve the lag problem by itself but it will solve part of the problem by removeing part of the causes of lag
nerfing Grid fu will not in itself remove all of the lag problem but the Grid fu nerf on sisi will solve part of the problem
Preplaceing the original server code for handleing the in game text channels with new code that was better able to sourt and process information did not solve all of the lag problem but it solved part of it.
Replaceing the total Mail system (including "NPC"/Game generated mail) with a newer system did not solve all of the server lag problem, but it did solve part of it.
Throwing Raw horsehpower in terms of CPU speed and multi core processors and larger/faster memory sticks at the system will not solve the Lag problem but it will solve part of the problem
however standing there screaming DONT SOLVE THIS PART OF THE LAG PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE WHOLE LAG PROBLEM!!!!!!!11!1!!1 will not solve the problem at all.
The reality is that neither you or I can sit there or here and chery pick what part of the overall lag problem you want the developers to work on for you. the developers have to sit there, go over the code, figure out what part of the code they can actualy fix or try to fix, and then fix it.
Granted when they do something as Brain dead stupid as mass delete ships and assets of people who were useing what was untill now a perfectly legitmate mechanic, well its time to get the baseball bats and railroadspikes out and remind them who pays there salarys every 2 weeks.
|
Solitude Jack
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:29:00 -
[494]
nerf this, nerf that, nerf nerf, restrict restrict....
Fix any bugs / lag... no, to busy nerfing sh*t
|
Kateryne
Minmatar Nisaba Syndicate New Eden Retail Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:30:00 -
[495]
Originally by: Rico Lobo
Originally by: Vincent Gaines
This won't solve the lag problem.
Here's a clue: THE FLEET SYSTEM CAUSES A ****TON OF LAG.
here is another clue, the changes in when bounties were payed out did not solve the lag problem but it took out one of the causes of lag
This will not solve the lag problem by itself but it will solve part of the problem by removeing part of the causes of lag
nerfing Grid fu will not in itself remove all of the lag problem but the Grid fu nerf on sisi will solve part of the problem
Preplaceing the original server code for handleing the in game text channels with new code that was better able to sourt and process information did not solve all of the lag problem but it solved part of it.
Replaceing the total Mail system (including "NPC"/Game generated mail) with a newer system did not solve all of the server lag problem, but it did solve part of it.
Throwing Raw horsehpower in terms of CPU speed and multi core processors and larger/faster memory sticks at the system will not solve the Lag problem but it will solve part of the problem
however standing there screaming DONT SOLVE THIS PART OF THE LAG PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE WHOLE LAG PROBLEM!!!!!!!11!1!!1 will not solve the problem at all.
The reality is that neither you or I can sit there or here and chery pick what part of the overall lag problem you want the developers to work on for you. the developers have to sit there, go over the code, figure out what part of the code they can actualy fix or try to fix, and then fix it.
Granted when they do something as Brain dead stupid as mass delete ships and assets of people who were useing what was untill now a perfectly legitmate mechanic, well its time to get the baseball bats and railroadspikes out and remind them who pays there salarys every 2 weeks.
Totally agree with you on all but one point. CCP are the only entity that decide what is and isn't 'legitimate'. Sandbox Eve may be, but CCP are our gods and you'd better learn to live in fear.
|
cBOLTSON
Caldari Shadow Legion. Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:30:00 -
[496]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Originally by: cBOLTSON So that basically sounds to me like. CCP: **** off, we have taken your money for years however we didnt even want to discuss or debate this with you. We havent thought this through.
I allways thought you boasted about you 'sandbox'? Now theres going to be barriers? Why no discussion over this?
Of course there are going to be barriers, there have always been barriers. You've just come to accept them without question. Rules of engagement in High Sec and Low Sec, stacking penalties, tracking penalties, prerequisit skills to name only a fraction.
You just don't see them as barriers because you have come to accept them.
Lets face it, the term is "Sandbox". If there were no barriers at all it would simply be "Sand".
Humm when you put it that way it makes sense I guess. However I dont see the need to get rid of these? Why not just let this be part of the game? Give people the option to make deep safes. This in turn (like others have stated) really makes the probing skills and exp. meaningfull. Especially the deep space probes.
|
Yakumo Smith
Gallente No End To Infinity Fleetingly Finite
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:42:00 -
[497]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Driven Marcelli 1) you guys explained in SiSi why 5k safespots were causing lag(for thoes who dont know if you log out in space at a safespot, the database still keeps a record of your loging and therfor "existing" in the grid because when you log back in you warp back to that grid point, and that when you scan the scan serverside looks through all posible grid cells that have Anything (even a unancored can or abandoned drone or one or both logoffski "markers" that only "exists" on the database)(reguardless of if the scan in question can actualy see them) them including the ones that are 5+kau out and have people who logofskied in that cell(reguardless of how long ago the logoffski happend), and haveing to go through all the posible grids including ones that basicaly dont realy exist anymore because the logoffski account is suspeded for whatever reason) is part of whats causing the servers to go nuts. (from what I understand they partly want to purge the ones that are from way back and partly want to make the individual system files more compact and thus faster for the system to page through when it has to do so and partly because some of the "WAY Deep space" safespots just will not be scannable AT ALL when you switch to the new database handleing)
Now THAT is an explanation you can understand as a good reason for doing the nerf!
However, people in ships should not have their ships destroyed. They should simply be moved in-system at the sun.
God forbid you put something useful like that in a DEV blog.
You'd have cut out a large percentage of the complaints with that. Hire some PR people and don't post formal contact to the player base without running it past them.
I suppose this must be my sig. I'll do something cool with it eventually. |
Emeline Cabernet
Amarr Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:42:00 -
[498]
Originally by: XoPhyte
Originally by: Yodabunny Edited by: Yodabunny on 13/04/2010 21:18:01 You can not warp to a point outside of the farthest celestial object from the star in any system without an exploit.
Rarely a mission might (and I've yet to see proof of this or check it myself, but it's possible sure) go outside of this distance if you happened to be in a very small system. Since you won't be able to warp to these points anymore these missions will either be adjusted or bugged, considering the locations are fairly random I'm not exactly worried about missions spawning outside of system perimeters (they already have distance limitations).
For those complaining about their supercaps not being safe, if you're leaving your supercap pilot logged in unattended why the heck should it be safe? If you're leaving your supercap unpiloted please PM me your location.
For those complaining about losing stuff outside of this very generous range, YOU SHOULDN'T BE THERE NOW. Be glad you're not getting banned and you're being given OVER A MONTH to retrieve your stuff from the location you USED AN EXPLOIT to get to.
The game is a sandbox, sandboxes have walls. If you throw your sand outside of the walls no one is going to cry for you when the lawnmower blows it away.
Your a moron, it was never an exploit.
You're a moron. Now who is the moron?
|
0Exile0
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:45:00 -
[499]
all I can say is that this has to be the single most stupid change in eve history.
with lag issues and server side crashes surely they should be concentrated on first. second of all I think its incredibly unfair on people who are on a break from the game. when they come back to play and find there titan/SC pilot sitting in a pod in station im sure they will quit and never return. at least move there stuff to inside the system boundary's like what happened last time you made a system wide change.
this is a completely disrespectful and disgusting way to handle the matter.
ccp devs, sort your self out! what made you think this was even a half decent idea?
regards 0exile0
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:45:00 -
[500]
Edited by: XoPhyte on 13/04/2010 21:45:45
Originally by: Rico Lobo
Originally by: Vincent Gaines
This won't solve the lag problem.
Here's a clue: THE FLEET SYSTEM CAUSES A ****TON OF LAG.
here is another clue, the changes in when bounties were payed out did not solve the lag problem but it took out one of the causes of lag
This will not solve the lag problem by itself but it will solve part of the problem by removeing part of the causes of lag
nerfing Grid fu will not in itself remove all of the lag problem but the Grid fu nerf on sisi will solve part of the problem
Preplaceing the original server code for handleing the in game text channels with new code that was better able to sourt and process information did not solve all of the lag problem but it solved part of it.
Replaceing the total Mail system (including "NPC"/Game generated mail) with a newer system did not solve all of the server lag problem, but it did solve part of it.
Throwing Raw horsehpower in terms of CPU speed and multi core processors and larger/faster memory sticks at the system will not solve the Lag problem but it will solve part of the problem
however standing there screaming DONT SOLVE THIS PART OF THE LAG PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE WHOLE LAG PROBLEM!!!!!!!11!1!!1 will not solve the problem at all.
The reality is that neither you or I can sit there or here and chery pick what part of the overall lag problem you want the developers to work on for you. the developers have to sit there, go over the code, figure out what part of the code they can actualy fix or try to fix, and then fix it.
Granted when they do something as Brain dead stupid as mass delete ships and assets of people who were useing what was untill now a perfectly legitmate mechanic, well its time to get the baseball bats and railroadspikes out and remind them who pays there salarys every 2 weeks.
Where did CCP ever state that this was to fix lag? Here is a hint, they didn't. A bookmark is simply a pointer to an x,y,z location. The numbers that make up the x,y,z don't create lag, they are just numbers in a database. Additionally people are not going to have less bookmarks as a result of this, everybody will still create the same, or more bookmarks in each system now, the only difference is that the numbers that represent the x,y,z location in the database will change.
Second, in a roundabout way you are saying what many people in this thread are already saying, this change won't fix lag, therefore at this point in time it is a meaningless change. Focus on the more important issues and causes of lag.
|
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:48:00 -
[501]
Originally by: Rico Lobo
however standing there screaming DONT SOLVE THIS PART OF THE LAG PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE WHOLE LAG PROBLEM!!!!!!!11!1!!1 will not solve the problem at all..
Nothing we say or so, suggest, test, or express will solve the lag problem.
The CSM is a joke, the feedback forum is a joke, testing on SISI is a joke.
The past few expansions CCP has shown that they decide to implement decisions before even asking for information from the playerbase. They post dev blogs without even giving things a second thought (target painting dreads).
No, not even me yelling in caps how lag-inducing the fleet mechanic is (try it yourself, you'll be surprised) will do anything.
|
Lev Aeris
b.b.k Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:50:00 -
[502]
Hey look, its another Dev blog with **** that nobody ask for, or really wants.
Lag Issues? **** it. Balanced T2 Frigates? **** it. Listening to the Hands that Feed You? **** it.
Keep it up CCP, and you're all going to be Fishing in Reykjavfk Harbor by November.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:56:00 -
[503]
Fine disable deep safes, but CCP you'd better, and I cannot over-emphasise this, you had god damb better fix the dominion lag before this goes through, or there will be tears before bedtime.
|
bw8
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:57:00 -
[504]
Not cool CCP, not cool!
Rather pointless, and a good waste of everyone's time. Is CCP Lemur the new CCP Nozh?
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 21:58:00 -
[505]
Box has walls you know and lately too many people been tossing sand out of it.
CCP is just putting some sand back in,
This nerf was incomming for years since 2004 an earlier blog mentioned, I been aware enough they been wanting to nerf this for quite some time.
Like I said eve is going to continue to reward the smarter of you folks who seen the value of what this changes brings and still how to exploit it for all its worth in both terms of allaince defense and offense. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Mindfarer
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:06:00 -
[506]
As long as people complain about the destruction of assets I could somewhat sympathize, but it is hilarious to see how many people are complaining because CCP are fixing exploits and deleting the chance to continue using them. All of them complaining in the name of the "sandbox". Some people should be ashamed of themselves.
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:08:00 -
[507]
While I generally disagree with the mother****ing repeated and over-the-top nerfing practiced by CCP, what strikes a chord with this particular decision is the destruction of player assets, some of which may have cost thousands of $USD worth of GTCs legitimately purchased and traded for in-game currency.
The always innovative crowd of forum posters has provided several solutions in this thread that should be considered before removing assets from players who may not be able to log into the game and relocate their stuff.
Even if the EULA waives the right over any claim to in-game goods, the courtesy afforded to those whose assets are at-risk(*) will be remembered and rewarded (**).
(*) - my **** is safely docked up in NPC stations, but who knows if even that **** will be safe from the CCP Repo men (and women).
(**) - I recall recent CCP marketing ventures promoting existing players to bring their friends into the game. It is not clear to me how terrible design decisions that inflame the community enhance these marketing programs. I would dearly love to hear the tale of how CCP's marketing people endorsed this decision.
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:19:00 -
[508]
Edited by: Kerfira on 13/04/2010 22:24:12 Another player posted what I'm about to write here. However, it was in Wall-Of-Text format, and written in two very long sentences, so I've tried to write it here in a more readable format.
NOTE: I do not vouch for the validity of this information, but it is supposedly directly from CCP devs on the Sisi server.
---
TECHNICAL REASON FOR THIS CHANGE!
When you log out in space, the grid you log out in stays in the database. When something is dropped in space ('cans, ships, drones, etc.), that grid stays in the database. Those grids exist in the database until what caused them to be stored is gone, even piloted ships that logged out years ago.
When scanning in the system (ship or probe scan), the server looks through ALL those stored grids to see if you find anything there, no matter how far away they are. The more grids are stored, the more system resources are used for the scan.
[My guess would also be that there is also an impact when warping, since you have to be able to arrive in the right grid, but this is my own guess]
This extra database load is one of the reasons for lag, and it has been growing as the game has grown older and players have logged out never to return.
CCP want to purge part of these stored grids, and want to make the system use resources more efficiently. As part of that change Deep Safes would not be scanable at all [reason unknown].
---
Now, this is an explanation that I can understand the reason behind! If it is in any way true, then THAT is what CCP Lemur should have written!
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.
|
Emeline Cabernet
Amarr Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk Amarr branch.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:23:00 -
[509]
Originally by: XoPhyte Edited by: XoPhyte on 13/04/2010 21:46:29
Originally by: Rico Lobo
Originally by: Vincent Gaines
This won't solve the lag problem.
Here's a clue: THE FLEET SYSTEM CAUSES A ****TON OF LAG.
here is another clue, the changes in when bounties were payed out did not solve the lag problem but it took out one of the causes of lag
This will not solve the lag problem by itself but it will solve part of the problem by removeing part of the causes of lag
nerfing Grid fu will not in itself remove all of the lag problem but the Grid fu nerf on sisi will solve part of the problem
Preplaceing the original server code for handleing the in game text channels with new code that was better able to sourt and process information did not solve all of the lag problem but it solved part of it.
Replaceing the total Mail system (including "NPC"/Game generated mail) with a newer system did not solve all of the server lag problem, but it did solve part of it.
Throwing Raw horsehpower in terms of CPU speed and multi core processors and larger/faster memory sticks at the system will not solve the Lag problem but it will solve part of the problem
however standing there screaming DONT SOLVE THIS PART OF THE LAG PROBLEM BECAUSE IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE WHOLE LAG PROBLEM!!!!!!!11!1!!1 will not solve the problem at all.
The reality is that neither you or I can sit there or here and chery pick what part of the overall lag problem you want the developers to work on for you. the developers have to sit there, go over the code, figure out what part of the code they can actualy fix or try to fix, and then fix it.
Granted when they do something as Brain dead stupid as mass delete ships and assets of people who were useing what was untill now a perfectly legitmate mechanic, well its time to get the baseball bats and railroadspikes out and remind them who pays there salarys every 2 weeks.
Where did CCP ever state that this was to fix lag? Here is a hint, they didn't. A bookmark is simply a pointer to an x,y,z location. The numbers that make up the x,y,z don't create lag, they are just numbers in a database. Additionally people are not going to have less bookmarks as a result of this, everybody will still create the same, or more bookmarks in each system now, the only difference is that the numbers that represent the x,y,z location in the database will change.
Second, in a roundabout way you are saying what many people in this thread are already saying, this change won't fix lag, therefore at this point in time it is a meaningless change. Focus on the more important issues and causes of lag.
Originally by: Emeline Cabernet
You're a moron. Now who is the moron?
Still you.
Edit more you god of posting. More tears please.
|
Quesa
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:34:00 -
[510]
Counting the days before the lead dev comes on and says CCP Nohz formulated this plan and we'll be reversing it.
|
|
Belthog
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:47:00 -
[511]
You jackasses are amazing. God forbid there should be any advantage to having played this game a long time. Or for using some strategy. Really there are 64AU probes and i can cover a lot of distance with those. So you make safes outside of scan range good on you, that proves your not ******ed. Unlike CCP who obviously is. **** off some more older players why don't you. Oh thats right it's what you guys spend your days doing for kicks.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:48:00 -
[512]
Originally by: CCP on Sisi When you log out in space, the grid you log out in stays in the database. When something is dropped in space ('cans, ships, drones, etc.), that grid stays in the database. Those grids exist in the database until what caused them to be stored is gone, even piloted ships that logged out years ago.
As I understand it, ANY object whatsoever (be it cans, unpiloted ships or frozen corpses), will VANISH after 30days of NOT tinkering with it.. Thus ANY grid, that has stuff on it will be removed from those database calls after 30days. Cant see the problem here?!?!
If thats not the case yet - IMPLEMENT it ASAP!
Originally by: CCP on Sisi When scanning in the system (ship or probe scan), the server looks through ALL those stored grids to see if you find anything there, no matter how far away they are. The more grids are stored, the more system resources are used for the scan.
This extra database load is one of the reasons for lag, and it has been growing as the game has grown older and players have logged out never to return.
Then the grid where NOTHING is in (logged out ships with pilots in them for example) should be deleted from that database THE MOMENT the ship vanishes due log-off. Is that so hard to implement?
I mean.. if the ship is gone and nothing is on grid anymore (even when it takes 30days).. why keep the grid in the database for probe-scannable stuff? Also.. if I can't probe for cans/corpses/whatever.. why keep those grid info in the database for probe-scanning in the first place?
Originally by: CCP on Sisi CCP want to purge part of these stored grids, and want to make the system use resources more efficiently. As part of that change Deep Safes would not be scanable at all.
If it should become more efficient, then CCP please explain the above and why your server cant work efficient now..
|
ElanMorin6
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:49:00 -
[513]
Originally by: Driven Marcelli 1) you guys explained in SiSi why 5k safespots were causing lag(for thoes who dont know if you log out in space at a safespot, the database still keeps a record of your loging and therfor "existing" in the grid because when you log back in you warp back to that grid point, and that when you scan the scan serverside looks through all posible grid cells that have Anything (even a unancored can or abandoned drone or one or both logoffski "markers" that only "exists" on the database)(reguardless of if the scan in question can actualy see them) them including the ones that are 5+kau out and have people who logofskied in that cell(reguardless of how long ago the logoffski happend), and haveing to go through all the posible grids including ones that basicaly dont realy exist anymore because the logoffski account is suspeded for whatever reason) is part of whats causing the servers to go nuts. (from what I understand they partly want to purge the ones that are from way back and partly want to make the individual system files more compact and thus faster for the system to page through when it has to do so and partly because some of the "WAY Deep space" safespots just will not be scannable AT ALL when you switch to the new database handleing)
This is not how grids work. Play around with grid-fu for a while and you'll understand why. "Grids" don't exist in usused space, they're created strictly on an as-needed basis. Basically, grids are just a figment of your imagination.*
* And the imagination of the collision-detection engine.
|
Lucita Thoron
Minmatar Black Souls Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:49:00 -
[514]
Edited by: Lucita Thoron on 13/04/2010 22:50:27 "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."
Lets say im inactive and my alt is loged in Nyx 100 AU deep spot. Im returning to game after May 18... Im in pod, without Nyx.
WTF?
Now imagine Titan chars...
Is CCP serious with that? LACK OF IMAGINATION DEVS?
"In ancient times they had no statistics so they had to fall back on lies."
|
ElanMorin6
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:54:00 -
[515]
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: CCP on Sisi When you log out in space, the grid you log out in stays in the database. When something is dropped in space ('cans, ships, drones, etc.), that grid stays in the database. Those grids exist in the database until what caused them to be stored is gone, even piloted ships that logged out years ago.
Keep in mind that CCP learned about grid-fu from GARPA, I wouldn't expect some random dev logged into Sisi to have any clue at all how grids actually work or how the server manages them.
There's no difference to the DB between having objects sitting at 10 AU or 10,000 AU other than the stuff at 10,000 AU tends to persit much longer
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:58:00 -
[516]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 13/04/2010 22:24:12 Another player posted what I'm about to write here. However, it was in Wall-Of-Text format, and written in two very long sentences, so I've tried to write it here in a more readable format.
NOTE: I do not vouch for the validity of this information, but it is supposedly directly from CCP devs on the Sisi server.
---
TECHNICAL REASON FOR THIS CHANGE!
When you log out in space, the grid you log out in stays in the database. When something is dropped in space ('cans, ships, drones, etc.), that grid stays in the database. Those grids exist in the database until what caused them to be stored is gone, even piloted ships that logged out years ago.
When scanning in the system (ship or probe scan), the server looks through ALL those stored grids to see if you find anything there, no matter how far away they are. The more grids are stored, the more system resources are used for the scan.
[My guess would also be that there is also an impact when warping, since you have to be able to arrive in the right grid, but this is my own guess]
This extra database load is one of the reasons for lag, and it has been growing as the game has grown older and players have logged out never to return.
CCP want to purge part of these stored grids, and want to make the system use resources more efficiently. As part of that change Deep Safes would not be scanable at all [reason unknown].
---
Now, this is an explanation that I can understand the reason behind! If it is in any way true, then THAT is what CCP Lemur should have written!
my not-so-technical reason why that's a ****ty reason: people will re-make the same, if not more, safespots now. More than likely more since they will have to warp to a new one every minute.
how you like that for lag-inducing database calls?
|
James Razor
Amarr The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:59:00 -
[517]
Are u out of your mind @CCP?
Get working on real problems LIKE THE ****ING LAG!!
Did u EVER ****ING GET THAT WE PLAY A SPACE MMO and that SPACE is kinda INFINIT. Meaning that it has NO boundaries?
Just would like to see what u do, if the first Titan is destryoed because of this ****.
|
Miss President
Caldari SOLARIS ASTERIUS
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 22:59:00 -
[518]
Folks that made this blog must be in disconnect with reality and do not play this game aka NOOBS.
First of all, why did I and other players train Astonometrics Lvl 5.
What do we use deep space probe range of 256 AU range now? Do you offer skill point reimbursement with this change?
If you must cut distance, cut it to 128 AU range, so deep space probes are useful.
I do agree that some outrageous 400 AU 300 AU spots are not practically scannable but cutting it down to 10 AU is just lame.
|
Roastedpot
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:03:00 -
[519]
hmm, ill throw my hat into the disapprove group too
|
Tornim
Minmatar Hades Renegades
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:08:00 -
[520]
Despite 18 pages I believe it can not be said enough:
Bad implementation of a bad fix that to most players is a non-issue.
Helpful suggestions: 1.10AU off the furthest object is too short. You should be able to get beyond d-scanner off the last planet/gate the same as all other objects in a system. 2.Increase DSSP effectiveness. 3.Deleting stuff/ships is WAY too heavy handed. Especially when in most cases your mechanics put them there in the first place. |
|
Lavender Princess
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:11:00 -
[521]
Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring the problems you've created and do not fix which causes us to use these deep safes to begin with!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring your user community that uses these safes.
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads! "I'm sorry, but our server logs don't point out how badly we've handled our server load capacity and we're not going to refund your loss as a result."
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Thank you SO MUCH for devoting another big game expansion to garbage we don't need instead of fixing all the problems that exist in game.
Thank you SO MUCH for your continued arrogance and cruelty.
I sincerely hope that anyone who loses a SC to your wreckless selfishness will sue you in open court.
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:11:00 -
[522]
Shrink the sandbox and wipe out tons of isk? Cool, CCP. Don't forget to delete boot.ini while you're at it!
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:14:00 -
[523]
Originally by: Vincent Gaines my not-so-technical reason why that's a ****ty reason: people will re-make the same, if not more, safespots now. More than likely more since they will have to warp to a new one every minute.
*shrug* As I said, I vouch for nothing in that...
However, I know that sometimes there are things in legacy code that it is very VERY hard to fix! It may be that this is an intermediate step they have to take, or it may be that they actually know what they're doing!
CCP's system architecture decisions are usually pretty good (and this is one). Their implementation sometimes let a bit too many bugs in, and they don't do enough to weed them out, but that is another matter.
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.
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:20:00 -
[524]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Vincent Gaines my not-so-technical reason why that's a ****ty reason: people will re-make the same, if not more, safespots now. More than likely more since they will have to warp to a new one every minute.
*shrug* As I said, I vouch for nothing in that...
However, I know that sometimes there are things in legacy code that it is very VERY hard to fix! It may be that this is an intermediate step they have to take, or it may be that they actually know what they're doing!
CCP's system architecture decisions are usually pretty good (and this is one). Their implementation sometimes let a bit too many bugs in, and they don't do enough to weed them out, but that is another matter.
heh, I have your corp name tattooed on me.
I don't know, it seems like pointless rationale, and is completely unclear. There's no justification given- it's just "we're going to do this so make sure you bend over"
|
Gael Itrus
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 23:23:00 -
[525]
Edited by: Gael Itrus on 13/04/2010 23:25:35 Forget bookmarks, here is the real effect of what you're planning:
You are creating artificial walls in space.
Good luck creating a "science fiction simulator" when everyone knows your game takes place in a bathtub. Do you guys have any idea how fundamentally stupid this idea is?
constructive edit: perhaps instead of taking the idea that space is a big place out of your game, you could make deep space a mysterious and interesting place, and give your players the means to explore it.
|
Derkan
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:04:00 -
[526]
I demand u remove warp to zero from newbs so they too can feel the pain us vets had to go through the first few years of eve
But seriously. The whole blog doesn't seem very well thought out. Start thinking outside the box (or circle in this case)
- Fix the ability to get a fleet into a blobbed system before removing the only way to counter it.
- Destroying ships that are currently logged off in deep SS is just LOL unless it's another secret way to reduce ingame titans.
- There are far more concerning bug/lag issues that are affecting our game currently
- and last but not least. If it ain't broken, don't fix it
|
Pervigilo Alea
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:13:00 -
[527]
Originally by: Gael Itrus Edited by: Gael Itrus on 13/04/2010 23:25:35 ...You are creating artificial walls in space.
...Good luck creating a "science fiction simulator" when everyone knows your game takes place in a bathtub. Do you guys have any idea how fundamentally stupid this idea is?
constructive edit: perhaps instead of taking the idea that space is a big place out of your game, you could make deep space a mysterious and interesting place, and give your players the means to explore it.
This
|
Neuuton
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:13:00 -
[528]
In these days of Gridload failures, or as CCP cutely writes them off as space anomalies, using deep safes is the only viable way to enter contested systems.
I disapprove of this "fix" until gridloading mechanics have been fixed.
Having been on both ends of the gridload failure, and seeing fleets wiped off the map without having the opportunity to fire a shot, I prefer to see CCP invest the time into fixing current bugs.
|
supertrollguy2
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:13:00 -
[529]
18 pages in and there are people who still think that they won't be able to warp further than 10AU from inner system celestials...
|
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:17:00 -
[530]
Originally by: supertrollguy2 18 pages in and there are people who still think that they won't be able to warp further than 10AU from inner system celestials...
Bad troll. Or just dumb.
|
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:27:00 -
[531]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow It seems fairly obvious that this change is a lag band-aid. Here's why:
* Deep safes permit blobs to get into systems that are already blobbed, increasing the blobbage.
* The change makes bridging into a blobbed system suicidal.
* Therefore, players will adjust their tactics, you won't see 500+ player fleets bridging into blobbed systems, and the lag is tamed at least temporarily.
The strategic consequences, at first glance, are that if you're willing to tie up 500+ players 24/7, you can make a system close to invulnerable. However, though the castle is invulnerable, the Huns can pillage the countryside with impunity -- and if you leave the castle to chase them, they can now risk cynoing in a blob, which means they're on the inside of the castle looking out, and you're on the outside looking in.
As I said, this is just a band-aid. The blunt reality is that "Fleets expand to fit the lag available". Lag is not going to go away until there are game-design and game-play changes that make blobs a bad tactical option.
As for the "podding your ass if you are at a deep safe", that's a classic red-herring proposal. It isn't going to be implemented. Moving stuff is much easier to implement, and won't it be fun if they move not just the player's ships but all the deepsafed cans and empty ships.
Only plant could spill such words. Because even absolute moron with a brain slick like a pool ball would never ever think about "adjusting tactics", if he need to bring fleet of X ships into Y system. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Miskinea
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:40:00 -
[532]
If only CCP could fix the real problems (like lags and others)instead of listening the whiners...Why are we accepting a limitation on how we can use space.....if anyone thinks it is a good change then they have no idea on what it will do to PVP....they will be no more escape once you are engaged or ganked ...be ready to loose that ship if you cannot win that fight. Oh yeah and scanning now can be done with almost no skills, 10AU why do we have 32 AU probes and deep space probes for now? Also forget about going into a W/H and getting stuck there....not a very good idea either. Well sorry this change will bring one good thing actually, ppl will just stop playing and lag will improve....... But will I be there to see that.......
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:45:00 -
[533]
Originally by: Kerfira TECHNICAL REASON FOR THIS CHANGE!
Translation: "I put some words in there to not look like a moron". Sorry, mate, but unless you prove you know what you're speaking about, you're what you're trying to pretend you aren't.
There's no technical reasons to put walls in space. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:49:00 -
[534]
Originally by: Durzel As has been said already it would take 170+ days in the fastest ship to travel 1 AU (in other words, it's a non issue).
But prior to May 18, you can make a BM a few hundred km less than the 10AU limit. After May 18, you can warp there and in a few minutes MWD to your invulnerable spot just outside the 10AU ceiling.
You can be probed out, but no one can warp to the result. -- Nah, that's just my Asperger's kickin' in.
|
EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 00:57:00 -
[535]
CCP Lemur - I normally would support this move to "bring the fight" but unless you actually fix the main issue with PVP right now is "grid loading" and with this issue still not fixed I do not nor does the Community of EVE think this as a good idea to bring into the game, maybe if you could 99.9% guarantee that the grid will load with little to no lag then and only then can / should you bring this patch to "Deep Safes" otherwise you are asking for another "08 Carrier Threadnaught" to be unleashed... and from the looks this thread is already heading that way...
|
col chronic
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 01:17:00 -
[536]
so.... CCP must not give a crap about their customers. Not saying that its a bad idea but if you have a capital ship logged off there.... I would quit, and i dont really blame them if they did quit and play another game. Shame on you CCP devs that would decide "I dont give a **** if they are logged out we are gonna delete thier titan." Remember these people that have capitals in deep SS have been paying your bills for a long time... just let that sink in. For the record i have deep safe bookmarks but all of them are in systems i never use anymore anyways... but its still F*(#ed up that the devs would come to such a radical decision keep it up CCP and there wont be a CCP there wont be a DUST, because no one will care as you dont.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 01:20:00 -
[537]
My .02 Federal Debt Note opinion:
Probing in deep space was fun for a while. If deep safes are to be taken out, and no bookmarks made there after a given point, why not put all of the deadpace complexes, exploration radar/hack/arch and magneto sites way out there instead. This would add some challenge to the game if warping out means de-spawn.
It would also make it more feasible to take chances in low/null sec going after these sites (more targets beyond CONCORD secured space) without risking instagank/blob. If deep safes worked for hiding large ships, it would work for everybody else. Putting good hack/arch sites way out there would make them harder to find too, but it's almost a giveaway already with everything being so compacted in. Seriously, if there was a "field" of empty containers even outside of present day Earth we would have seen it already. This would also raise the bar for piracy/killmailing when missioners and explorers have to be sniffed out with deep space probes first, then combat probes - giving the intended target/victim more chances to react and adding to the excitement. This is better than "spank gank - ha ha go back to WOW noob!". As sure as people have to earn that deep exploration/mining spot, those who hunt them have to equally earn it.
Deep deep space gives a great sense of.... space. Invisible walls close in - arbitrary boundries - seems fake and WOWish. Compacting everything in "inner" space makes it feel like a board game.
I would hope that as safe spots move in, deadspace, hack/arch/mine sites will move out, making things harder for both play styles, with much better chances at the rewards for the effort (something this game considers one of its good features).
|
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 01:20:00 -
[538]
So what page do we need to get to before we get more links to player-made content?
Five mil says at page 25 they'll link us to the Tyrannis dev blog announcement and say "To clarify, this is the new expansion."
|
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 01:21:00 -
[539]
I'm totally cool with nerfing the stupid-deep safe spots; saw that one coming.
But 10AU? Really? That's too short.
First, missions routinely take you to about 20AU from a planet; if that planet is the "furthest out" celestial, those missions will all be broken, at least the 50% of the time that the mission spawns in an "out" direction. 20AU is thus a logical minimum.
Second, some of us have put a ton of effort into scanning skills specifically for finding hard-to-find distant objects. You're makeing a rule that says everything has to be in d-scan range of something, ferchrissake. Isn't that excessive?
The deep space probes have a 256AU range. I think that would make a good "shell" distance if there must be one. If there are database issues, I could settle for 64AU.
But I think it's ESSENTIAL that players be allowed to retain some sort of safes in places the d-scanner cannot reach. It's one thing to eliminate ancient advantages, it's another to dumb things down so that hard-won probing skills don't get you anywhere than a fresh alt with a d-scanner can get. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Zetenga
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 01:42:00 -
[540]
Please, Please, Please, Oh please fix the sound issue that we have had for over a year! I have looked and can't find once where the Dev's have even commented once on this problem! Gawd, I wanna hear the battle happening, not the stupid background noise or my hardeners being on. Please in your devlog, please give us an update on weather or not the sound problem is something your going to fix at all and if so, when it will be!
|
|
WhiteSavage
Ever Flow Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:00:00 -
[541]
Good idea but terrible thing to implement it NOW considering its our only way to combat lag.
Your forcing fleets to jump straight into each other now... amazing ccp. Its as if your TRYING to kill med-large scale combat.
...hmm
|
Baka Lakadaka
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:04:00 -
[542]
Originally by: Marlenus I'm totally cool with nerfing the stupid-deep safe spots; saw that one coming.
But 10AU? Really? That's too short.
First, missions routinely take you to about 20AU from a planet; if that planet is the "furthest out" celestial, those missions will all be broken, at least the 50% of the time that the mission spawns in an "out" direction. 20AU is thus a logical minimum.
Second, some of us have put a ton of effort into scanning skills specifically for finding hard-to-find distant objects. You're makeing a rule that says everything has to be in d-scan range of something, ferchrissake. Isn't that excessive?
The deep space probes have a 256AU range. I think that would make a good "shell" distance if there must be one. If there are database issues, I could settle for 64AU.
But I think it's ESSENTIAL that players be allowed to retain some sort of safes in places the d-scanner cannot reach. It's one thing to eliminate ancient advantages, it's another to dumb things down so that hard-won probing skills don't get you anywhere than a fresh alt with a d-scanner can get.
We're 18 pages in and the misconception that you can't get more than 10AU from celestials is persisting. It's quite possible to be 20AU from all celestials.
The new 'boundary' is a sphere, centred on the sun. The radius of this sphere is equal to the distance from the sun to the furthest celestial + 10 AU. You can make safes at ANY point within the sphere and many of those will be more than 10AU from any celestial. Any of these safe spots is fine, provided it's within the sphere.
As an example: the stargate in a system is 50AU from the sun. This is the most distant object from the sun. The boundary is a sphere that is 60AU radius and centred on the sun.
256AU probes might not be commonly used, but in some systems when you're sitting at a planet that is 80 AU from the sun, the other side of the sphere is at least 170AU away, so a probe dropped right next to you can reach the other side of the sphere. I know you can move probes around and all, but if you're after a quick scan and recover you want to save as much time as possible.
As to the change itself, probably not the best way to announce it, the effects are yet to be seen. As usual, players will improvise, adapt and overcome. I'm not a fan of it, but whining isn't my style. I'd rather analyse it and start working on ways to adapt. ______________________ Agony Unleashed Home of the PvP University. |
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:08:00 -
[543]
Edited by: AdmiralJohn on 14/04/2010 02:09:31
Originally by: Baka Lakadaka We're 18 pages in and the misconception that you can't get more than 10AU from celestials is persisting.
Train reading comprehension to V first, and then post.
EDIT: We're 18 pages in and the misconception that people don't "get it" still persists.
|
Playing Eve
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:38:00 -
[544]
Originally by: Zetenga Please, Please, Please, Oh please fix the sound issue that we have had for over a year! I have looked and can't find once where the Dev's have even commented once on this problem! Gawd, I wanna hear the battle happening, not the stupid background noise or my hardeners being on. Please in your devlog, please give us an update on weather or not the sound problem is something your going to fix at all and if so, when it will be!
Dear Concerned Player,
Thank you for playing Eve Online! We appreciate your feedback. We have worked hard to come up with a solution that is fair to all players and also reduces lag. As a result, we are removing all sounds from the game with the exception of the delightfully musical sound of strip miners. We're sure that you will enjoy this game enhancement as much as we.
Best Regards, |
PyroTech03
Caldari Refugee LLC. Wayfarer Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:39:00 -
[545]
I don't think it's a good idea due to the fact that we are putting up invisible walls. The fact that you could theoretically keep flying out was something that attracted me to eve....not even 6 months in now and they're taking that away from me.
I don't know much about these "deep safes" so i couldn't care much....but if your gonna put up the little wall, why does it have to be 10 AU?
This is one check lost for the things and idea's i like about EVE. |
Shaka Quatuic
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:45:00 -
[546]
Edited by: Shaka Quatuic on 14/04/2010 02:45:49 Can we please get over the idea that the limits have anything to do with planets or other celestial bodies? the core of the problem is that CCP is deliberately choosing to artificially restrict the movements of players even more than they have previously. Frankly, I think the player base is finally starting to get fed up with it, even if said base hasn't fully realized the intent before this post.
to be perfectly honest, I am beginning to wonder how long it will be before our movements become even more restricted... no more tactical BM's for example - such as undock instawarps, or indeed any BM more than 150km off of an established celestial object. I heard that once upon a time, it was possible to warp from one system to another (before my time). then came the gates. then the nano nerfs, then the bookmark nerfs (of which this is merely the most recent). we can only anchor POSes (the design of which sucked from day one) at very specific locations. cant do this... cant do that... when will it stop?
eve is certainly feeling more and more like WoW as time goes by. |
Benri Konpaku
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:47:00 -
[547]
Wasn't EVE supposed to be expanding? 'cause this kinda sort of maybe looks like the complete oposite. __________
"Welcome, to city 17. It's safer here." |
Baka Lakadaka
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 02:59:00 -
[548]
Originally by: AdmiralJohn Edited by: AdmiralJohn on 14/04/2010 02:09:31
Originally by: Baka Lakadaka We're 18 pages in and the misconception that you can't get more than 10AU from celestials is persisting.
Train reading comprehension to V first, and then post.
EDIT: We're 18 pages in and the misconception that people don't "get it" still persists.
I'm not sure what I didn't comprehend, the following statement makes it clear that the poster didn't understand that it is possible to make safes outside of d-scanner range in the new system. Indeed some mission spaces will fall into this category and should be bookmarked immediately.
Originally by: Marlenus
Second, some of us have put a ton of effort into scanning skills specifically for finding hard-to-find distant objects. You're makeing a rule that says everything has to be in d-scan range of something, ferchrissake. Isn't that excessive?
______________________ Agony Unleashed Home of the PvP University. |
Matterick Boon
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:03:00 -
[549]
Edited by: Matterick Boon on 14/04/2010 03:03:31 i like to do drawings http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff48/thetedrock/eve/6d11c35b.jpg http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff48/thetedrock/eve/cb43c8f0.jpg
remember solar systems are not 2D and anything within Distance Of Furthest Celestial From Sun + 10AU is safe/vaild (eg. 90AU + 10AU = 100AU). So this makes a happy sphere with vast space for decent safes.
|
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:08:00 -
[550]
Originally by: Baka Lakadaka I'm not sure what I didn't comprehend
Er, this part: Originally by: Marlenus First, missions routinely take you to about 20AU from a planet; if that planet is the "furthest out" celestial, those missions will all be broken, at least the 50% of the time that the mission spawns in an "out" direction.
But I'm in a frumpy mood and moaning in this thread makes me feel better. You're just a victim.
|
|
Dtech
Minmatar The Suicide Kings True Reign
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:08:00 -
[551]
Changes seem fine to me, but I have one concern with regard to fighters. From experience if a carrier cloaks or explodes while their fighters are out in space and in warp, they seem to end up in random locations at least 100 AU from the solar system.
Would this coming change eliminate that feature? Would fighters stay within the solar system or would still end up in the far reaches? Would someone still be able to locate and warp to fighters 100 AU from the system or would they be forever stuck in space?
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:09:00 -
[552]
Originally by: Matterick Boon Edited by: Matterick Boon on 14/04/2010 03:03:31 i like to do drawings http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff48/thetedrock/eve/6d11c35b.jpg http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff48/thetedrock/eve/cb43c8f0.jpg
remember solar systems are not 2D and anything within Distance Of Furthest Celestial From Sun + 10AU is safe/vaild (eg. 90AU + 10AU = 100AU). So this makes a happy sphere with vast space for decent safes.
Nice drawings.
Personally I would be happy with this -if- they weren't removing the ability to make deep safes. How are you supposed to get one 100AU above the sun exactly? They've been killing methods of creating deep safes since they've been able to find them instead of embracing the idea. Now if this were to change... but it won't.
Also, I realize that there may be a need for a hard limit, but 10AU is still short, there are some very small systems out there where 10AU from the sun is still scannable. Try 64 (combat probes) or 256 (deep space) from the farthest object, and I'll be willing to talk.
|
Matterick Boon
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:13:00 -
[553]
Originally by: BeanBagKing
Nice drawings.
Personally I would be happy with this -if- they weren't removing the ability to make deep safes. How are you supposed to get one 100AU above the sun exactly? They've been killing methods of creating deep safes since they've been able to find them instead of embracing the idea. Now if this were to change... but it won't.
Also, I realize that there may be a need for a hard limit, but 10AU is still short, there are some very small systems out there where 10AU from the sun is still scannable. Try 64 (combat probes) or 256 (deep space) from the farthest object, and I'll be willing to talk.
what if they just shifted all the current safes that are outside the bubble to the edge? i know it doesn't give a solution for very small systems but at least your hard work isn't totally erased.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:14:00 -
[554]
Originally by: BeanBagKing Personally I would be happy with this -if- they weren't removing the ability to make deep safes. How are you supposed to get one 100AU above the sun exactly? They've been killing methods of creating deep safes since they've been able to find them instead of embracing the idea. Now if this were to change... but it won't.
Yeah, it's almost like we'll have a situation of "haves" and "have-nots."
I love that CCP thinks these decisions through so thoroughly.
|
Makar Kravchenko
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:18:00 -
[555]
Originally by: Vincent Gaines
Here's a clue: THE FLEET SYSTEM CAUSES A ****TON OF LAG.
I know, I know, off topic right? MORE RELATIVE THAN SCRAPPING DEEP SAFE SPOTS CCP. |
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:19:00 -
[556]
Edited by: BeanBagKing on 14/04/2010 03:20:16
Originally by: Matterick Boon
what if they just shifted all the current safes that are outside the bubble to the edge? i know it doesn't give a solution for very small systems but at least your hard work isn't totally erased.
Again, something to make me happier, especially because this would probably also mean shifting stuff at said bookmarks to the edge.
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.
A lot of the arguments against this seem to be "it was never ment to be anyway, doing so is a bug, they are just fixing that". Just because it was a bug or an exploit does that mean it was a bad idea? I'd rather see an implementation to be able to travel 100au straight up. Even if there is a magic wall out there somewhere for real life server performance reasons the more you remove that wall, the better it is. 10au (from the farthest out, yadda yadda) feels like an awful close wall.
Not everyone will agree with this, it's just my feelings, and in the end we don't get to decide, I just hope CCP listens to players on this one.
|
Matterick Boon
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:22:00 -
[557]
Edited by: Matterick Boon on 14/04/2010 03:23:45 i'd like to know what happens if you fly your ship out to this new mythical wall that's been created (after the update). do you explode? do you bounce? do you start talking damage and are encouraged to fly back into "known space" before you explode (will the damage increase over time so you can't take a bunch of RR buddies with you to poke god in the eye?), are you magically teleported to somewhere inside the safe zone? please please please don't make it just a bounce off an inviable wall.
|
Baka Lakadaka
Gallente Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:28:00 -
[558]
Edited by: Baka Lakadaka on 14/04/2010 03:32:59
Originally by: AdmiralJohn
Originally by: Baka Lakadaka I'm not sure what I didn't comprehend
Er, this part: Originally by: Marlenus First, missions routinely take you to about 20AU from a planet; if that planet is the "furthest out" celestial, those missions will all be broken, at least the 50% of the time that the mission spawns in an "out" direction.
But I'm in a frumpy mood and moaning in this thread makes me feel better. You're just a victim.
No, I understood that and had moved down to the next part (as quoted in my second post).
If being grumpy at me makes you happier, then I'm happy too. At least I've made someone's life better!
Originally by: Matterick Boon Edited by: Matterick Boon on 14/04/2010 03:28:07 i'd like to know what happens if you fly your ship out to this new mythical wall that's been created (after the update). do you explode? do you bounce? do you start talking damage and are encouraged to fly back into "known space" before you explode (will the damage increase over time so you can't take a bunch of RR buddies with you to poke god in the eye?), are you magically teleported to somewhere inside the safe zone?
please please please don't make it just a bounce off an inviable wall. each system having a massive magically micrometeorite belt around it would kinda be lame but way better then bouncing. also don't use a micrometeorite belt that's from Shattered Horizon and they will sue you. make it like radiation or something.
If you've got a couple of spare months you might be able to find out. 10AU past the furthest object would take months/years to slow-boat even with a very fast ship. Even if you had a mission that was 9.9AU beyond that object and in perfect alignment from the sun, it would take a few weeks (someone else in my corp calculated 17days in a 10k m/s ship). ______________________ Agony Unleashed Home of the PvP University. |
Shaka Quatuic
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:33:00 -
[559]
this also seems to me to be - at least in part - to be a ploy by ccp to avoid any pressure to actually create any deep space content. with this nerf, they have effectively destroyed any possibility of making oort clouds, comets, real celestial events etc.
|
Matterick Boon
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:42:00 -
[560]
Originally by: Baka Lakadaka If you've got a couple of spare months you might be able to find out. 10AU past the furthest object would take months/years to slow-boat even with a very fast ship. Even if you had a mission that was 9.9AU beyond that object and in perfect alignment from the sun, it would take a few weeks (someone else in my corp calculated 17days in a 10k m/s ship).
challenge accepted.
Originally by: Shaka Quatuic this also seems to me to be - at least in part - to be a ploy by ccp to avoid any pressure to actually create any deep space content. with this nerf, they have effectively destroyed any possibility of making oort clouds, comets, real celestial events etc.
maybe it's some terrible attempt to counter lag? "Lets just make the systems really tiny that should fix it."
|
|
Playing Eve
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 03:43:00 -
[561]
Originally by: Matterick Boon
please please please don't make it just a bounce off an inviable wall. each system having a massive magical micrometeorite belt/sphere around it would kinda be lame but way better then bouncing.
Welcome to EvE:"For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky"
"We come to play in friendship." (CCP thunderclap) "Then learn what it means to be our enemy, before you learn what it means to be our friend. Die in your safespot!"
"The truth of CCP is your truth; There can be no other for you. Repent your disobedience."
|
Normin Bates
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 04:15:00 -
[562]
Now all the small radius systems will be simple to defend and the large radius sytems will be worthless.
The new SOV system really worked out well. I'm sure this will be the same. |
NeoShocker
Caldari Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 04:21:00 -
[563]
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. ----------------------------------- Peace through power! |
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 04:33:00 -
[564]
Originally by: Shaka Quatuic this also seems to me to be - at least in part - to be a ploy by ccp to avoid any pressure to actually create any deep space content. with this nerf, they have effectively destroyed any possibility of making oort clouds, comets, real celestial events etc.
This is a good point...but they may not be thinking that far ahead. I don't know why they would feel any pressure to create content out there. It would be easy to just say it's "empty space" and let real player-created content take hold. Then, if they want, throw in random drone invasions etc. to keep frontiersmen on their toes.
In any case, I don't understand the "contraction" approacth to the EVE experience. The opposite should be the goal. If I really get the sense that this trend is to be the reality, then I'll rethink investing time and money on my accounts which are based upon a universe that grows over the years.
|
Kallieah
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 04:58:00 -
[565]
Hate and trolling aside, I really do hope that the community gets to keep the deep space safes. The way this is going down just seems to break way too many things in the game from limiting fleet actions to deleting ships and objects, it's not pretty and the NINETEEN pages of mostly hate seem to sum it all up.
Besides, as a previous post mentioned, the idea of setting up a sort of stationless refugee camp at a DSS is a rather interesting concept that actually captures my interest in EVE for once with all the potential fun to be had setting up a squatters' nest of people and their stuff, even without a POS. Taking that away would help, in a small way, push us closer to 'just another MMO' rather than something different. I request fewer limitations on warp rather than more to open the universe.
|
Draumr Kopa
The Perfect Storm Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:06:00 -
[566]
Edited by: Draumr Kopa on 14/04/2010 05:09:15
CCP please say this is a troll. If it is I applaud you, if it is not you are so out of touch you should step back and sort your ****ing lives out. This problem only needs a broom to clean it up put down the sledgehammer k thx bai.
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:07:00 -
[567]
Is this possibly a precursor to utilizing that space? |
Kasarch
Caldari Atomic Scrapyard Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:15:00 -
[568]
Yeah. Good job CCP, now nodes will be crashed every time when overblob FC try to warp fleet to safe spot. More addons - more lag.
|
Jita Jen
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:36:00 -
[569]
Things that should take priority over this useless and de-moralizing nerf:
Fix: -t2 BPOs -fleet lag -missiles at model origin -random missile explosions on ship model (wtf ... new?!) -moon mining passive income -t2 frigate balancing -everything else thats broken...
Seriously, step back and look at the bigger picture here. Try listening to those who pay your salary.
|
Yodabunny
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 05:40:00 -
[570]
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.
|
|
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 :( |
|
dischordia
Gallente wiggle Tech.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:03:00 -
[601]
Originally by: Ethan Hawk 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.
They have been with all the mass testing on sisi .... you cant cure cancer over night ya know
|
Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:07:00 -
[602]
Edited by: Nikita Takeaway on 14/04/2010 10:13:42 I personally have deepsafes currently. I understand the need to fix the "exploit" of the game mechanics (AKA Poseidon) that made it possible to create deepsafes since this method is also used to avoid gatecamps. This said, I believe that there should be a method of creating a deep safespot. Using the following criteria;
A. Deepsafe must be able to be found using probes. B. Must be created using a valid game mechanic. C. Usable by any player new or old
I have the following possible solutions;
1. Implement 6 warp to spots at a max range of 250AU or some other preset distance in the following locations N,S,E,W,Up,Down centered on the sun. Safespots could then be created using the normal warp between locations and drop a BM.
2. Implement a random warp command that warps you in a random direction for a max of 250AU or some other preset distance. This command could be issued from a BM or a celestial as an example.
In conjunction with either of these methods it would be a good idea to make the scan deviation on deepspace probes less otherwise someone probing with max skills using deepspace probes still has to deal with a possible scan deviation of 25% of the max scan range for the probe which would be around 64AU. It would also be possible to increase the scan range of deepspace probes to allow the creation of safespots using either method above at any desired distance.
All of the above would still allow the creation of deepsafes, would ensure that having the correct skillset still means you can find the deepsafe, and would be in keeping with the "The universe doesn't look like a dark scary place, it is a dark scary place" lore in that even when you think you are safe, you might not be.
As far as the deleting object or ships that are currently outside of the boundaries you have set, I completely disagree with this. It is obviously possible to modify the location of items in game as evidenced by previous patches. For example removing fitted items from ships.
If CCP desires to level the playing field as far as ""older "haves" and newer "have-nots" "" then there are additional steps required most notably removal of all items such as T2 BPOs or anything else that a newer "have-not" cannot obtain. While a desire to reduce the division between these two groups might be desired by some, it is not in line with your previous policies or the sandbox design of the game. If a player has been playing in the sandbox a long time and has built a sand castle ala Castle Neuschwanstein Wiki then a player who just started playing in the sandbox should have to invest a similar amount of time to achieve that.
* Edited to correct spelling error
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:07:00 -
[603]
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.
Naah, in this whole thread there are some three pages or so of reasonable concerns.
|
Melor Rend
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:09:00 -
[604]
Originally by: Serpents smile
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.
Didn't see that post early enough. I'm so terribly sorry good sir. I hope you can forgive me for my cataclysmic mistake.
My post still is totally valid though. If CCP had any devs that played EVE since Dominion then they could have invested the man hours for this crappy dev blog for something more useful (because they'd know that their "solution" doesn't actually solve anything). At least they wouldn't have had to rely on their customers to tell them that their design decisions suck.
|
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network Dignitas.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:22:00 -
[605]
I didn't know these deep safes existed. So it doesn't affect me at all, since I'm a poor sucker with no valuable ships anyways. However I can see several reasons why CCP would want to do this. For the technical people among us, this should be quite obvious... So I won't detail those reasons. In the end of the day, it seems a good patch. Those who don't understand the bigger picture are whining about the loss of their super-capitals (if not moved in time), as we have seen earlier in this thread.
If I got that right, then this is the case: Say a system is 100 AU in diameter, right? Like last planet to sun is 50 AU, and obviously to get to the other end of the orbit line is 50 AU. In total that means you have 120 AU space effectively available. Why 120?
| o -------- SUN -------- # | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 120 AU
| = Limit for deepest bookmark o = Farthest planet # = Other end of orbit line
I could be wrong but this is the way I see it.
The question remains whether this is only horizontally applicable (line of celestial arrangement) or spherical (which would make more sense).
If I'm wrong correct me please.
----
|
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:47:00 -
[606]
I hope CCP will expand EVE using those vast amounts of space beetween solar systems - for example creating some kind of new, more realistic and exciting exploration content.
Instaed, we will probably receive bubbles of space connected via stargates.
Basically, it's dungeon, not galaxy. I'm disappointed.
|
BIZZAROSTORMY
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:47:00 -
[607]
Cool, so I can make a bang on 10au SS and then just mwd over the edge into the void, whereupon nobody can warp to me, no matter what probe results they get?
Lovely. Thats even SAFER than a deep safe.
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:47:00 -
[608]
Edited by: Amberlamps on 14/04/2010 10:51:37 Edited by: Amberlamps on 14/04/2010 10:48:35 I don't usually swear but.... WHAT A ****ING JOKE.
Quote: (docking, cloaking, warping around an awful lot)
Love the "Sandbox" that Eve apparently is.
Quote: we strongly recommend that you move them prior to May 18th.
Sounds like instead of moving the items to the nearest station you'd prefer the people who have assets in space to have to subscribe for a month. Unfortunately for them they will subscribe for a month and likely not be able to move those assets. Theres a ****ing reason why people have GSC in deep space as they're usually unable to move the contents safely and its an easter egg to come back to in the future. To make it worse for those that do sub up for the month just to move the stuff they will be presented with one of the failest expansions going and most likely not be able to log on for a full week as the bugs will be so epic in proportions even your Nan would be horrified.
Quote: What we're doing
Taking the easy route as ALWAYS, Nerf what you initially allowed. You cannot say you didn't allow it as it has been around for multiple expansions and has gone unhindered.
CCP... you fail, you really do. You bigged Tyrannis up like it was an epic expansion, T3 frigates, Comet mining and now.... we get Dot to Dot on the planets which has little content to what you implied it would. Currently there is no real reason to bother with Planetary interaction.
Originally by: BIZZAROSTORMY Cool, so I can make a bang on 10au SS and then just mwd over the edge into the void, whereupon nobody can warp to me, no matter what probe results they get?
Lovely. Thats even SAFER than a deep safe.
I just read that... Amazing idea, thanks. Lets keep it quiet!
However I believe it would be hard to get a 10AU Bookmark if you're unable to driftwarp when you log off.
|
Xia Long
Two Brothers Mining Corp. R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:48:00 -
[609]
ok there are just 2 points i don't find very "smart"
1- why do you (ccp) have to delete from the game every assets that r lyin in those deep safe spots?just 'cause it requires less time than moving them to a closer spot?
2- what's goin to happen to 0.0 warfare?those safespots r not legit? fine, but are the only way people can try experience that aspect of your game that u publicise on trailers, i've been on both sides, lost 3 ships waiting from 20 to 54 minutes to load a grid, and popped some hostile ships while they were doin the same
that said i have no deep space safe, and no expensive assets out in space aswell...but i never had the chance to win a T2 BPO lottery...will you remove T2 BPOs aswell?maybewithout givin a single isk/object in return
cya
|
BIZZAROSTORMY
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:53:00 -
[610]
Originally by: Amberlamps
Originally by: BIZZAROSTORMY Cool, so I can make a bang on 10au SS and then just mwd over the edge into the void, whereupon nobody can warp to me, no matter what probe results they get?
Lovely. Thats even SAFER than a deep safe.
I just read that... Amazing idea, thanks. Lets keep it quiet!
However I believe it would be hard to get a 10AU Bookmark if you're unable to driftwarp when you log off.
Well I plan to just bring my deep safes back to exactly 10au by pingponging a few times. Ill get within a few hundred Km's Im sure.
|
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:53:00 -
[611]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: CCP Lemur Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.
This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.
More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.
Did you not think, even for a second, that that sort of clear, concise explanation should have been in the devblog? By not communicating clearly you are creating work for yourself and damaging your own reputation, and you only have yourself to blame.
Working as intended. Also: same old same old
|
Viscount Hood
V I R I I Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:55:00 -
[612]
I have only one deep safe in JZV which is 300au out and I haven't been there for 3 years. Its no big deal to me.
|
Shintai
Gallente Arx Io Orbital Factories Arx Io
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 10:59:00 -
[613]
Good move CCP. I like the progress this game is doing and have done for the 7 years :D --------------------------------------
Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry |
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:03:00 -
[614]
Originally by: Narfas Deteis I hope CCP will expand EVE using those vast amounts of space beetween solar systems - for example creating some kind of new, more realistic and exciting exploration content.
For those vast amounts of deep space, you may wish for either realistic or exciting content.
Unless odd hydrogen atom excites you, of course.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:05:00 -
[615]
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.
You are probably better off posting it tomorrow morning than late today, oh and include pretty pictures.
|
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:19:00 -
[616]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Narfas Deteis I hope CCP will expand EVE using those vast amounts of space beetween solar systems - for example creating some kind of new, more realistic and exciting exploration content.
For those vast amounts of deep space, you may wish for either realistic or exciting content.
Unless odd hydrogen atom excites you, of course.
For example finding abadoned/wrecked ships (both players and NPCs) or mining comets. You don't need to be sarcastic.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:21:00 -
[617]
Originally by: Narfas Deteis
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Narfas Deteis I hope CCP will expand EVE using those vast amounts of space beetween solar systems - for example creating some kind of new, more realistic and exciting exploration content.
For those vast amounts of deep space, you may wish for either realistic or exciting content.
Unless odd hydrogen atom excites you, of course.
For example finding abadoned/wrecked ships (both players and NPCs) or mining comets. You don't need to be sarcastic.
I think he does.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:34:00 -
[618]
Originally by: Narfas Deteis
For example finding abadoned/wrecked ships (both players and NPCs) or mining comets. You don't need to be sarcastic.
Sure, wrecks, comets to be mined, hulks of odd generation ships and stuff like that would be exciting (for a while, at least).
However it will be as realistic as nonmoving celestias and respawning asteroids.
|
Grohalmatar
The Tuskers The Tusker Bastards
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 11:59:00 -
[619]
10 AU is just too small and seems very arbitrary. Why not 64 AU? Doesn't this change make Deep Space probes much less useful?
|
Dana Serenity
Caldari Guerillaz
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:01:00 -
[620]
While I agree with this in pricipal, I think the way its being implemented is not so good. I think deep safespots WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A SYSTEM are perfectly fine. Any player new or old can create them and therefore there is a level playing field. Obviously older legacy bookmarks that are 1000's of AU away from the sun should still be deleted.
Personally I think a better option would but to delete all bookmarks that fall beyond the distance from the sun of the furthest planet plus a few AU to allow for complexes to be bookmarked which fall outside this scope. Any bookmark within this range would remain intact. Creating good safespots is a tactical gameplay element to the game and should remain so.
|
|
JusCheckin Jita
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:03:00 -
[621]
So wait, you can't warp to anyone past that point? Okay, great! Lets just watch as everyone makes bookmarks next to the border, moves there alt within 5km of it, brings in there carrier, crosses the border, and now assigns fighters into the system while probers and everyone else can't warp to them.
Broken. Already. New fix please
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:18:00 -
[622]
Originally by: Dana Serenity
Personally I think a better option would but to delete all bookmarks that fall beyond the distance from the sun of the furthest planet plus a few AU to allow for complexes to be bookmarked which fall outside this scope. Any bookmark within this range would remain intact. Creating good safespots is a tactical gameplay element to the game and should remain so.
Um, this is exectly what is planned - anything within distance of farthest celestial + 10AU from star is fine.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:31:00 -
[623]
Quote:
You are probably better off posting it tomorrow morning than late today, oh and include pretty pictures
... and don't forget to put in a GREAT video, showing unique texture ships, huge lagless battles of hundreds, fantastic in game voice quality, fleets of carebears migrating in 0.0 and some of the best resolution detailed planet interactable structures!
And target painters, lots of them.
Quote:
Broken. Already. New fix please
New fix = solar system wide fish tub, you get to 10AU, you bounce over the glass walls!
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Tread Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 12:45:00 -
[624]
After some research I believe the appropriate response for such an ill-concieved proposal expressed in the parlance of the Internet forum is ...
picard-facepalm.jpg
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:19:00 -
[625]
Wait 0.0 being safe? Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Sajeera
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:26:00 -
[626]
Making the sandbox even smaller, no deep space anymore??!!
Whos idea is this, Nozh again?
Its bad advertising for the game itself, imagine what will learn about space in EvE some newbie pilot in his first flying hours:
"So dude this is called stargate, behing the stargate there is an invisible wall."
"Lolwut??!!!!"
"Yeah, you heard me, its invisible wall dude, welcome to Age of Conan reloaded"
|
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network Dignitas.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:33:00 -
[627]
Originally by: Sajeera Making the sandbox even smaller, no deep space anymore??!!
Whos idea is this, Nozh again?
Its bad advertising for the game itself, imagine what will learn about space in EvE some newbie pilot in his first flying hours:
"So dude this is called stargate, behing the stargate there is an invisible wall."
"Lolwut??!!!!"
"Yeah, you heard me, its invisible wall dude, welcome to Age of Conan reloaded"
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Space will expand behind the 10 AU barrier. It's just that you can't warp to it or scan things behind it. That's a subtle difference.
----
|
Punkt Landung
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:42:00 -
[628]
I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
|
Sajeera
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 13:54:00 -
[629]
Originally by: Dan O'Connor
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Space will expand behind the 10 AU barrier. It's just that you can't warp to it or scan things behind it. That's a subtle difference.
Thats exactly how it was in AoC, you see things, you just cant go there because there is an invisible wall that stops you.
One of the main 3 or 4 things people were pointing for the reason they don't like the game was this - invisible walls everywhere.
Funcom tried to improved it a little but they were limited by their engine and bad design decisions they made early during the development.
Now EvE is a game that don't have these problems and they want to implement them willingly??!!
Leave everything as it is just remove the mechanic for making deep safes or introduce a legal way for creating them.
This invissible wall will hurt your game more then you can imagine.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:04:00 -
[630]
Originally by: Sajeera
Thats exactly how it was in AoC, you see things, you just cant go there because there is an invisible wall that stops you.
You don't understand. You will be able to still go anywhere where you could have before, even 5000AU from sun. Just without a warp drive.
|
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:09:00 -
[631]
1. removing from the game stuff outside the distance is idiotic, just warp them all to within the distance, scale back the coresponding bookmarks and locations of items outside the wall...
2. That said, having a wall in f*cking space is idiotic!
3. I still find that we shud be able to create deep safes, the fact is i find it stupid that we can't set a direction enable our warp drive and leter fly lol, but even so if its new vs old and closing the ctrl-q bug, then how bout this, FIX THE ctrl-q bug, and then give new and old players a proper sanctuned way for creating deep safes.
4. Implementing this before fixing the grid load problem is just insane
|
Santiago Fahahrri
Galactic Geographic
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:12:00 -
[632]
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
REALLY good feedback here.
|
Qeesa
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:16:00 -
[633]
This is the pinnacle of stupidity and MUST be stopped.
There is a threadnaught about this in the Assembly Hall, go there and voice your opinion.
|
Daedalus II
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:25:00 -
[634]
For those worried about 10 AU being too narrow:
Do consider that all bookmarks further out will be removed, so there is no way to warp further out than the furthest celestial. So essentially, to hit this so called "wall" which isn't a wall because you can still fly past it, you would have to go with an MWD from the planet/stargate furthest from the sun, straight outwards. Even with a maxed out (20km/s which I think is very generous) cap stable interceptor do you realize how long time it would take you to go 10 AU? We're talking two and a half years, real time!
And that's just to hit the limit where you can't create bookmarks or light a cyno any more! You can still continue outwards for as long as you wish.
Even starting from a very lucky bookmark right on the border at 9.9999 AU still doesn't mean that you bounce into a "wall" if you go further out, it just means you can't create any more bookmarks or light cynos.
It would be great if people could just take their time to read and understand what is written before they start drawing crazy conclusions and emo-raging.
|
Galison
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:28:00 -
[635]
Edited by: Galison on 14/04/2010 14:29:50 I'm sure its been said but I've seen some people complaining about the super cap losses that will happen guess what park that **** at a POS.
Going away a few months then sell the damn thing don't use a messed up way of keeping it safe and then ***** when CCP fixs it, they stay in game for a reseaon if you can afford a super cap you honestly can afford the deathstar pos to store it at.
Worried the pos would be attacked and your ship would be lost well then your alliance sucks at protecting its space and assets. Alliance tears power my ships so keep the *****ing and moaning coming.
As for needing them because of lag yea maybe CCP does need to fix it but that and superdeeps are 2 seperate issues. I do how ever hope ccp posts a listing of ships lost because of the changes should be a fun read.
|
Redshirt I
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:43:00 -
[636]
This is just stupid. This game is supposed to give us as real a space experience as possible and limiting our exploration travels to 10 AU really takes a way from the immersion I felt. I didn't care that I never found anything when I was speeding away from celestials to the great unknown, the fact that I could was enough for me.
If its a matter of players exploiting the current system to keep from being harmed then IMPROVE THE SCANNING AND PROBING!!! don't remove an interesting aspect of this game and the feeling that it truly is a vast game world rather then a glass box.
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
And with all the real problems this game has, THIS is what you decide to "fix"?!?!
Stupid.
Red
|
338Lapua
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:46:00 -
[637]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Narfas Deteis
For example finding abadoned/wrecked ships (both players and NPCs) or mining comets. You don't need to be sarcastic.
Sure, wrecks, comets to be mined, hulks of odd generation ships and stuff like that would be exciting (for a while, at least).
However it will be as realistic as nonmoving celestias and respawning asteroids.
On a lighter note, if they went through with this as they HAD originally planned there would have potentially been quite a few wrecks out there. Think of all those MOMs etc :)
|
Squat Hardpeck
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 14:54:00 -
[638]
Despite all of this whining, nobody will quit, they'll keep playing, and then find something else to ***** about.
|
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network Dignitas.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 15:01:00 -
[639]
Originally by: Sajeera
Originally by: Dan O'Connor
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Space will expand behind the 10 AU barrier. It's just that you can't warp to it or scan things behind it. That's a subtle difference.
Thats exactly how it was in AoC, you see things, you just cant go there because there is an invisible wall that stops you.
One of the main 3 or 4 things people were pointing for the reason they don't like the game was this - invisible walls everywhere.
Funcom tried to improved it a little but they were limited by their engine and bad design decisions they made early during the development.
Now EvE is a game that don't have these problems and they want to implement them willingly??!!
Leave everything as it is just remove the mechanic for making deep safes or introduce a legal way for creating them.
This invissible wall will hurt your game more then you can imagine.
I don't think there will be a wall as such - you can go beyond the limit. Just bookmarking and warping won't work. That is still a difference.
----
|
Skippermonkey
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 15:02:00 -
[640]
good changes; the further we distance ourselves from AFK Online the better
|
|
Khaelis
Caldari Daikoku Enterprises Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 15:12:00 -
[641]
For those of you whining about losing some "Exploration" value because of the removal of deep safes, please tell me how you would find such places? There is absolutely NO way, you would EVER find these locations unless you knew where they were. People interested in the vastness of space are not losing anything, infact they may be gaining content as things will be closer and therefore be possible to probe.
The systems in eve have always been walled up. The arbitrary value just keeps it within a reasonable area to make sure that all things can be found by other players, instead of hidden away forever.
I do think they should fix the dominion lag before they do this though.
Whilst I don't really disagree with the change a whole, I think the "Wall" should be abit further out, perhaps 20-50? its still very probable.
Also deleting peoples ships may be a little harsh, just make them log on somewhere random in the system.
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 15:16:00 -
[642]
Originally by: Baka Lakadaka
Originally by: Marlenus I'm totally cool with nerfing the stupid-deep safe spots; saw that one coming.
But 10AU? Really? That's too short.
First, missions routinely take you to about 20AU from a planet; if that planet is the "furthest out" celestial, those missions will all be broken, at least the 50% of the time that the mission spawns in an "out" direction. 20AU is thus a logical minimum.
Second, some of us have put a ton of effort into scanning skills specifically for finding hard-to-find distant objects. You're makeing a rule that says everything has to be in d-scan range of something, ferchrissake. Isn't that excessive?
The deep space probes have a 256AU range. I think that would make a good "shell" distance if there must be one. If there are database issues, I could settle for 64AU.
But I think it's ESSENTIAL that players be allowed to retain some sort of safes in places the d-scanner cannot reach. It's one thing to eliminate ancient advantages, it's another to dumb things down so that hard-won probing skills don't get you anywhere than a fresh alt with a d-scanner can get.
We're 18 pages in and the misconception that you can't get more than 10AU from celestials is persisting. It's quite possible to be 20AU from all celestials.
The new 'boundary' is a sphere, centred on the sun. The radius of this sphere is equal to the distance from the sun to the furthest celestial + 10 AU. You can make safes at ANY point within the sphere and many of those will be more than 10AU from any celestial. Any of these safe spots is fine, provided it's within the sphere.
As an example: the stargate in a system is 50AU from the sun. This is the most distant object from the sun. The boundary is a sphere that is 60AU radius and centred on the sun.
256AU probes might not be commonly used, but in some systems when you're sitting at a planet that is 80 AU from the sun, the other side of the sphere is at least 170AU away, so a probe dropped right next to you can reach the other side of the sphere. I know you can move probes around and all, but if you're after a quick scan and recover you want to save as much time as possible.
As to the change itself, probably not the best way to announce it, the effects are yet to be seen. As usual, players will improvise, adapt and overcome. I'm not a fan of it, but whining isn't my style. I'd rather analyse it and start working on ways to adapt.
Actually, it's not a Sphere, Most systems only have huge growth on the horizontal.. So now a 200 wide au system will be like 220 au wide, and anywhere from 20 to 40 au in the vert... ----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 15:43:00 -
[643]
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
^^ I like this
Also, glad to see CCP had decided to change things based on player input. While I don't know what those changes are yet, I hope they are for the best and it's good to know that they are at least listening.
|
Rico Lobo
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:05:00 -
[644]
Edited by: Rico Lobo on 14/04/2010 16:05:37
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.
you know what this means dont you!
To the Ba -- er -- Blogcave!
ok ok I admit it, I love sliding down firepoles.
. . . wait, we were resonable about all of this?
|
ZOGYBOY
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:09:00 -
[645]
Defenetly a crappy ideea, but considering that in order to make SSs u had to cheat the game somhow....it's not very surprizing. I like my safespot allso, even though it;s made in hisec. That's not the ideea. It's vital for everibody to be able to have his small private corner where nobody can find him. Or at least, very hard. U should think about implemeting the safespots in the tyrania release, not get them out. These things might **** some players off, but they might allso satisfy others. Why not having safespots??? That's the question. Becasue u cannot find a fleet that's hiding? Blah, makes no sense.
|
Khaelis
Caldari Daikoku Enterprises Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:17:00 -
[646]
Originally by: DeODokktor
Actually, it's not a Sphere, Most systems only have huge growth on the horizontal.. So now a 200 wide au system will be like 220 au wide, and anywhere from 20 to 40 au in the vert...
Are you serious?
Yes it is a sphere. 200 AU Wise system would be 210 wide, all around. As 210AU would become the radius of the sphere, radiating from the centre of the sun in all directions. Including verticle.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:20:00 -
[647]
I do find this a rather strange nerf.
The 10AU limit is way too small, you should at least double it. When people can make safe now newer have nots can get them, the whole nerf thing seems ott. Not sure on your logic in this regard.
The destroying of items and peoples ships even podding some to stations, seems very harsh and uncalled for. Those logged at deep safes should be placed either at another point in the system, or when they log on warped to a random point.
This change has me baffled tbh.
|
Avoida
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:36:00 -
[648]
Originally by: Khaelis
Originally by: DeODokktor
Actually, it's not a Sphere, Most systems only have huge growth on the horizontal.. So now a 200 wide au system will be like 220 au wide, and anywhere from 20 to 40 au in the vert...
Are you serious?
Yes it is a sphere. 200 AU Wise system would be 210 wide, all around. As 210AU would become the radius of the sphere, radiating from the centre of the sun in all directions. Including verticle.
Technically you are both correct. If the system has all the planets, moons and gates existing on a plane how do you expect to go above/below that plane when you're limited to warping between objects? In that regard, the distance above/below the plane is minimal. If you find a mission, deadspace complex, anomaly, etc above/below and the poseidon mechanic remains viable then you can still get above/below the plane of the system up to the limit of the sphere.
|
RentableMuffin
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:49:00 -
[649]
uhhh guys... I hate to be the one to bring this up but sandboxes have walls... walls are kinda in the definition of a box to begin with...
and of all ****ing things to complain about ccp limiting your choices... I mean where are the custom player ships, I want a RentableMuffin's modified vexor. when it comes to crafting on most items I'm limited to producing either tech 1, or tech2, and on some items there are even multiple tech 2 varients! I mean t3 is nice, but for many it is prohibitivly expensive, and well, there are only a few combos that really work.
but to complain you can't have a spot in deep bumble**** nowhere to do nothing in.... I had more faith in the eve community...
however I will say there has been one valid point if a deep safe is really the only way to get a fleet into system without lagging the hell out, then well... ccp has some explaining to do.
okay 2 points, don't **** over people that have been away from game for a while, eespcially those guy/gals out on deployment. o7
|
Tierius Fro
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:50:00 -
[650]
I agree that destroying items in deep safe spots is wrong and unnecessary.
As far as putting up ôwallsö, this is not a space SIM, it is a space game. Game play trumps reality, every time.
|
|
MissyDark
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:04:00 -
[651]
Dumb idea. Since deep safespots are used and desired by players, they enhance the game. So how about you make a valid way of making those, instead of nerfing something people want?
TL;DR: don't!
|
Drazi1
Minmatar The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:14:00 -
[652]
way to go CCP, u think deep safe spots nerfing take priority over sorting out the lag that has been effecting nearly every1. Just shows ur priorities atm :-(. Expect to be very busy with all the petitions that will ben heading ur way after this
|
Dennison Spade
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:18:00 -
[653]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Vlt-lpVOY
"This is a bummer man... that's a bummer,"
|
Shaka Quatuic
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:26:00 -
[654]
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
this is simply a beautiful expression of what I originally felt when I started eve. well said.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:36:00 -
[655]
That will make getting into hostile system pretty bad in this age of bombers. Current counterbomber tackics is to open deep safe cyno, bridge your fleet there and get the hell out before bombers land there.
|
Karak Terrel
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:41:00 -
[656]
Originally by: Tierius Fro
As far as putting up ôwallsö, this is not a space SIM, it is a space game. Game play trumps reality, every time.
Acording to CCP, the target for eve is to become the bigest science fiction simulation ever. There are many other aspects than spaceships already in the game.. are you sure you actually play that game? The walls actually destroy that simulation feeling.
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:43:00 -
[657]
Originally by: Shaka Quatuic
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
this is simply a beautiful expression of what I originally felt when I started eve. well said.
Agreed.
Though once WIS comes out I won't be surprised if we are reduced to 2d movements in space due to server load. Any excuse to attempt to hide the fact that Dominion created an undeniable amount of lag.
|
wiersma
Caldari RBL Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 17:59:00 -
[658]
this is just silly, so might aswell delete deep space scan probes from the game too because they are mostly useless after tyranis is deployed ================================================ Mining is the extraction of valuable minerals or other geological materials from SPACE... :-P |
cuncannon
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:06:00 -
[659]
Oh well there goes my deepest safe in game and prob the deepest ever safe in game at 1778 AU from the nearest planet or object in the U-SHO2 system in fountain
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1004/mega-super-safe.jpg
People who was a few years ago in catalist reactions will remeber this one, 10-15 mins for a carrier sized ship to fly to, a bs/bc 5 or 6 warps to get there, cruiser or frigate forget it. Or from the safe spot set ap for DBRN next door, go and make a coffee, time you get back you may be just getting to the gate. I joke not
|
Sajeera
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:13:00 -
[660]
Originally by: cuncannon Edited by: cuncannon on 14/04/2010 18:09:01 Oh well there goes my deepest safe in game and prob the deepest ever safe in game at 1778 AU from the nearest planet or object in the U-SHO2 system in fountain
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1004/mega-super-safe.jpg
People who was a few years ago in Xelas Alliance will remeber this one, 10-15 mins for a carrier sized ship to fly to, a bs/bc 5 or 6 warps to get there, cruiser or frigate forget it. Or from the safe spot set ap for DBRN next door, go and make a coffee, time you get back you may be just getting to the gate. I joke not
Have one at a little over 5000 AU
|
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:14:00 -
[661]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 14/04/2010 18:22:34 Edited by: DNSBLACK on 14/04/2010 18:21:29
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
I must agree this is how i feel. I also cant figure out why everyone considers this an expoit.
1. Fitted a ship in a station using everything the dev gave me.
2. Undocked warp to a gate and in the process of warping LOGGED off. Again a game mechanic the devs created so I could log back on again and play.
3. After logging on. I bring up my people and places and push the create book mark button.
4. The result is my ship ended up 20 au on the other side of the gate. Now some will argue that My ship is not allowed or shouldn't be there. I would argue if that space exist and iam in it then it is part of EVE.
"Natthan you said you would give us the tools to create" We did that using everything you guys developed and gave us. We havnt left EVE we are still in space. We have created a part of eve that you didnt have to develope and we are having fun. if this isnt a Matrix moment then i dont know what is. We have created communities in these DSS and we are thriving and living in 0.0 call us refugees call us what you like. Are we safe no we cnt
|
Elder Man
Gallente ATRISC
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:15:00 -
[662]
Edited by: Elder Man on 14/04/2010 18:18:10
Quote: OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
Quote: 4. The result is my ship ended up 20 au on the other side of the gate. Now some will argue that My ship is not allowed or shouldn't be there. I would argue if that space exist and iam in it then it is part of EVE.
Agreed, EM Elder Man |
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:17:00 -
[663]
It is already 2010, and we are still playing "Waypoints online". The whole warp to bookmark system is outdated. You can't warp your ship to random XYZ point in space, you have to bookmark it first , and the bookmarking is not fun, terribly inconvenient process.
How about allowing us to warp to your probes position using scanning interface? That could open a lot of new gameplay options while reducing the server load: - no more multiple bookmarks, wich are created only for purpose of moving your ship somewhere
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:21:00 -
[664]
5. You gave us the tools and we have created so let this play remain. It is not an exploit we are in a part of space that exist cause honestly we are in it. Please dont give us some weak excuse it is why the lag exists. We have been doing this since 2004. We have seen lag come and go.
6. This is unlike tech 2 BPOs. Right now anyone can create these and live were they want and make the big alliance polisce there space or find away to kick us out. This truly has opened 0.0 for alot of us we just never said anything cause like in all of life you create something beutiful some one will want it and then wreck it for you.
|
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:28:00 -
[665]
At this point I would just wait for the next dev blog to come out hopefully clarifying some of these issues.
|
Guth
Legion of Boom LLC. Eternus Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:36:00 -
[666]
Can an exception be made for the New Eden Solar System? :(
All that hard work trying to "Reach the gate" ;_;
|
The Optician
Pathfinder Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:47:00 -
[667]
Please don't nerf my deep safes...I've spent a lot of time making some of them and it would be a pity to lose them
|
Areo Hotah
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 18:57:00 -
[668]
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.
When are you going to change your communication protocols?
Every dev blog in the past half year concerning balance and game mechanics has been greeted with a **** storm and/or threadnaught because of your ad-hoc, poorly constructed blogs promising sweeping changes in gameplay with no gains for the players.
What you COULD do is. a.) identify problem, and clearly state why this shouldn't be in the game / should be changed. b.) come up with a solution. c.) send solution to CSM, and give them one week to respond. d.) if needed, change solution based on CSM feedback. e.) make devblog, summarizing all of the above, and ask for additional feedback from the players f.) based on player feedback, change solution again. g.) make SISI implementation of solution, and have players test it for at least a month h.) tweak solution on SISI based on feedback i.) deploy to TQ
|
Kateryne
Minmatar Nisaba Syndicate New Eden Retail Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:04:00 -
[669]
Originally by: Areo Hotah
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.
When are you going to change your communication protocols?
Every dev blog in the past half year concerning balance and game mechanics has been greeted with a **** storm and/or threadnaught because of your ad-hoc, poorly constructed blogs promising sweeping changes in gameplay with no gains for the players.
What you COULD do is. a.) identify problem, and clearly state why this shouldn't be in the game / should be changed. b.) come up with a solution. c.) send solution to CSM, and give them one week to respond. d.) if needed, change solution based on CSM feedback. e.) make devblog, summarizing all of the above, and ask for additional feedback from the players f.) based on player feedback, change solution again. g.) make SISI implementation of solution, and have players test it for at least a month h.) tweak solution on SISI based on feedback i.) deploy to TQ
Or, you know, people could just accept that CCP know what's best to change code-wise in their own game that they've spent like a decade working on. Hell I'm still waiting for the day jet cans get nerfed and the ensuing threadnought.
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:12:00 -
[670]
Originally by: Kateryne
Or, you know, people could just accept that CCP know what's best to change code-wise in their own game that they've spent like a decade working on. Hell I'm still waiting for the day jet cans get nerfed and the ensuing threadnought.
You must be new here.
|
|
Elizabeth Mancor
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:13:00 -
[671]
Make deepsafe accessible without exploiting by making rare anomolies far outside the normal areas. Enhance the deep scanner probes so that they can find ships in deep safe spots and so on.
This would be a more normal approach to exploits found in this sandbox. Build on them, instead of removing something that is not really a problem.
|
joe hamil
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:14:00 -
[672]
any chance CCP devs could so some sort example image using a in game system like jop or something similar, exactly as we would see it in game, showing the out of bound range? i have never really heard of deep safes before, but it would be good just to have an example
|
Den Dugg
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:39:00 -
[673]
lolz for restricter plates on our ships... space is suppose to be endless and free!! free!! freee!! free!!
|
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:40:00 -
[674]
Originally by: DNSBLACK I also cant figure out why everyone considers this an expoit.
Here's a hint: If achieving an effect in-game requires you close the game client and then re-log at the right time, its probably NOT an intended game mechanic.
"Here's your sign." - Bill Engvall |
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:53:00 -
[675]
Edited by: Amberlamps on 14/04/2010 19:52:50
Originally by: War Kitten
Originally by: DNSBLACK I also cant figure out why everyone considers this an expoit.
Here's a hint: If achieving an effect in-game requires you close the game client and then re-log at the right time, its probably NOT an intended game mechanic.
Here's a hint: If achieving an effective gate gank in-game requires you close the game client and then re-log at the right time, its probably an intended game mechanic.
|
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 19:53:00 -
[676]
Originally by: War Kitten
Originally by: DNSBLACK I also cant figure out why everyone considers this an expoit.
Here's a hint: If achieving an effect in-game requires you close the game client and then re-log at the right time, its probably NOT an intended game mechanic.
Yes, it is closely related to "If achieving an effect in-game requires you crash the server at the right time, its probably NOT an intended game mechanic.", but possibly not quite so obvious.
As for the topic, I think 10 AU is a bit low. Give those deep space probes a reason to exist please! -
|
gibdinn
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:09:00 -
[677]
I ACTUALY EXPECTED FROM DEVS TO MAKE "POINT AND CLICK WARP" TO ENGAGE WARP WITHOUT PARTICULAR DESTINATION. AN OPTION THAT WOULD MADE SPACE MORE LARGER AND UNPREDICTABLE.
BUT I GOT A ZOO HERE... WTF?!
CRY!
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:10:00 -
[678]
Originally by: War Kitten
Originally by: DNSBLACK I also cant figure out why everyone considers this an expoit.
Here's a hint: If achieving an effect in-game requires you close the game client and then re-log at the right time, its probably NOT an intended game mechanic.
Please show me in the EULA or Game policy this discription as the one for Exploit. See your defense dosnt hold water cause everyone has the ability to do this at any point in the game unlike other exploits like the moon scam.
1. Ok then logging off so you dont die in a fight is an exploit ( no it isnt according to CCP I petitioned that one and got an answer like this "We can not determine the reason why a player logged off, there for it is not a exploit and the game is operating as intended"). Wait better yet logging off period is an exploit. Maybe we should all wait until CCP decides when it is best for us to log out.
2. Logging out while warping and ending up back in EVE after you log in again is an exploit???? The ship was designed to continue warping after you logged. I didnt change the game or hack it or expoit it. The net result of the game being played was a 20 au or greater book mark in virgian space. They have known about this since 2004 and nothing was done. Bug reports were turned in and nothing was done. This process has made 0.0 fighting managable at best and given EVE the chance for the game they want it to be with large fights being able to engage and load grid. I have watch large fleet after large fleet die coming thru gates and never loading grid. matter fact i have watch all those pilots get volantary log off and not be able to log in for 13 hrs while the nod crashed. So would you call crashing a NOD an exploit.
iam sorry your reason for calling this an exploit hold no water this game requires you to log off. the results when you log in are not in your control but are sometimes predictable.
|
Uncle Fester
R E D E M P T I O N Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:14:00 -
[679]
I remember when i was first told of deep safes and the way they were made, way back in the day. There used to be an option, when you right clicked a star on the star map to add bookmark. When you used this bm it would use up all your cap in one go and warp you in a random dirrection, we used pods for their cap efficiency to make those 500au+ spots,players went on a bming frenzy and pretty much every major system/regions were bmd up within weeks.
A patch came soon after that removed the option from the star map, but the galaxy had already been bm pretty much completely.
Scan probes appeared and with enough training you could get good enough signals on all kinds of things upto 1000au, which was pretty much the limit of one deepsafe(ds) warp in a pod. All the ships shuttle, noobie ships, even fleets of ships that had been abandoned at these dsspots were found by a new set of players, and old, that were able to mark these hidden locations.
Then the scan probes changed, a new mini game appeared, which on the whole works nicely but for one thing. The max range of the probes with the new system was 1/4 that of the old system, instantly dsspots once again became virtually invunerably . The main problem i found with the max range probes is just one thing and one thing only, the map cant be scrolled out far enough for you to move the probes to places outside the system bodies orbits, this means even having a bm 100au out cant be found as you just cant manipulate the probes so they can find anyone at the bm.
So dsspots are once again invunerable, unlike last time when probes were developed to counter them, which was a great work around and a system that was perfect you what it was intended to do. This time, instead of thinking of a work around for the problem the system has now in combating ds' they just descide to remove the ds'.
CCP you have given us and lets face it yourselves a wonderous, virtually infinate 3D environment to act out all our/your universal domination fantasies or what ever they maybe. Not only do we have this infinate arena to play in, you also gave us/you the tools to explore and use it. You yourselves have told us your subscribers that we the players have taken this game in dirrections you could'nt possibly have predicted.
We/you have used these bm's since the day someone told us about it, you made features for the game that were designed as a result of what we did. Please for the love of whatever you hold dear, reconsider this change, instead of removing the problem get back to old school thinking and gives us a feature to work with them like last time, or just give us a bigger map, whatever it takes as i know the players will hate it and all of you at ccp play.
Fester
|
Sunbird Huy
Caldari WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:22:00 -
[680]
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.
UNITED PLAYERS OF EVE >>> CCP DEV's + handfull of bots... I guess they are going to work on Lagg issues now.
|
|
Skyrape
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:26:00 -
[681]
Just out of curiosity, what alternative are you geniuses going to offer to super capital pilots who reside in lowsec?
Will they be forced to leave a multi-thousand dollar ship parket at a pos which can eventually go down to any decent sized fleet?
Or perhaps they should just log off their toons in the said super-capital and forget about playing eve on any other ship?
Food for thought!
|
Skyrape
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:33:00 -
[682]
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 ? :)
Expect some stupid a$$ GM to ban you and reply with "we don't have a log of that" to your petition... simply for _thinking_ about this!
|
Skyrape
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 20:41:00 -
[683]
Originally by: maya ibuki2
Originally by: Lucian James Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring the problems you've created and do not fix which causes us to use these deep safes to begin with!
Thank you SO MUCH for ignoring your user community that uses these safes.
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads! "I'm sorry, but our server logs don't point out how badly we've handled our server load capacity and we're not going to refund your loss as a result."
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Thank you SO MUCH for devoting another big game expansion to garbage we don't need instead of fixing all the problems that exist in game.
Thank you SO MUCH for your continued arrogance and cruelty.
I sincerely hope that anyone who loses a SC to your wreckless selfishness will sue you in open court.
quoting the truth for great justice.
fix the lag before killing deep safespots.
infact, fix the lag full stop.
Thanks for taking the time to type this, I'll buy you beer.
|
Des Jardin
Aperture Harmonics K162
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:04:00 -
[684]
While I appreciate (and have used on occassion) deep safe spots for various purposes, the EVE community cannot reasonably deny that a "logoffski" to confuse the EVE software into placing Internet spaceships at system coordinates beyond intended destinations is an out-of-game manipulation of an in-game function.
DSS have their benefits, there is no doubt, but CCP is making a clear statement with this change that the ends do not justify the means.
Evolve or die.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Final Agony B A N E
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:04:00 -
[685]
So why can't I fly to where I want in a system yet? All this is great but I still have to make bookmarks in warp or probe stuff out to get somewhere. (Pretty lame)
Originally by: F'nog
Originally by: Stareatthesun No no no ... Polaris is where CCP keeps the death star that will destroy eve when the servers shut down.
Thankfully I've got Interceptors trained to V. S |
Constable Chang
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:17:00 -
[686]
Originally by: DNSBLACK
Originally by: War Kitten
Originally by: DNSBLACK I also cant figure out why everyone considers this an expoit.
Here's a hint: If achieving an effect in-game requires you close the game client and then re-log at the right time, its probably NOT an intended game mechanic.
Please show me in the EULA or Game policy this discription as the one for Exploit. See your defense dosnt hold water cause everyone has the ability to do this at any point in the game unlike other exploits like the moon scam.
1. Ok then logging off so you dont die in a fight is an exploit ( no it isnt according to CCP I petitioned that one and got an answer like this "We can not determine the reason why a player logged off, there for it is not a exploit and the game is operating as intended"). Wait better yet logging off period is an exploit. Maybe we should all wait until CCP decides when it is best for us to log out.
2. Logging out while warping and ending up back in EVE after you log in again is an exploit???? The ship was designed to continue warping after you logged. I didnt change the game or hack it or expoit it. The net result of the game being played was a 20 au or greater book mark in virgian space. They have known about this since 2004 and nothing was done. Bug reports were turned in and nothing was done. This process has made 0.0 fighting managable at best and given EVE the chance for the game they want it to be with large fights being able to engage and load grid. I have watch large fleet after large fleet die coming thru gates and never loading grid. matter fact i have watch all those pilots get volantary log off and not be able to log in for 13 hrs while the nod crashed. So would you call crashing a NOD an exploit.
iam sorry your reason for calling this an exploit hold no water this game requires you to log off. the results when you log in are not in your control but are sometimes predictable.
Unfortunately the definition of 'exploit' has changed significantly in recent years.
It used to mean 'taking advantage of a bug'.
Now it means 'something that the game company decides that it does not like' eg 'unintended consequences'.
In the MMO world, the game company is force majure and they effectively get sovereign rights to do whatever they please.
Its a bit like living in a totalitarian state where the state can kill anyone and destroy anyones assets any time, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever or even without a reason.
That is the nature of the contemporary MMO.
|
Rotti
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:24:00 -
[687]
You would really thing that CCP had so little time that they would concentrating on important things and not this cr*p. DSS are used to get ppl into system that they can not get into cause the game is broke and will not let you load the grid, does this bold statement by you mean that you have fixed this problem and it is no longer present if so please say so so we can all rejoice, till ofc you release the patch and as normal it is all bullsh*t.
( note I have one DSS so I do not care, save that fact that you are concentrating resources on this and not on the major problems within the game )
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:32:00 -
[688]
Edited by: Tres Farmer on 14/04/2010 21:42:35 Edited by: Tres Farmer on 14/04/2010 21:41:53
Originally by: Des Jardin ...the EVE community cannot reasonably deny that a "logoffski" to confuse the EVE software into placing Internet spaceships at system coordinates beyond intended destinations is an out-of-game manipulation of an in-game function.
The only thing that went 'wrong' here in the first place was CCPs code, that handled E-warps while in warp like impulse-flights, thus applying inertia to your ship at high-speed-turning maneuvers.. Why our ship can't do warps into any direction we want for how long we want is beyond me. Maybe CCP should clear this up also.
The only thing which is problematic here at best are people who are able (with dedication and out-of-the-box-thinking) to fly to places in space where other people usually don't SEARCH for them and aren't really able to, because of the tools available to them. That's the only problem I see here.. cause, no matter where the grid with your stuff is in the solar system, the grid gets created anyways, be it 1kAU out or 5,000km from the sun. So not even database calls are the reason here.. it's worse.. the more grids in range of your D-scan range.. the more DB calls/replies/tansactions.
And the blatant lie about the 'have and have-nots-struggle' is an insult to the players intelligence. The only one who is actually causing that is CCP themselfes, by removing the possibility to create those bookmarks and constrain the players into a sphere of radius x. And even thats BS soon to be - as with the poseidon method gone try to fly to those boarders of the sphere.. LOL. It's like any racing simulation.. you can't leave the freaking road. The only game I remember allowing this (within city boundaries) was a game that used Sim City maps as racing grounds - I liked it. If we would get the possibility to scan for people out there better the problem would be gone..
Also, as long as CCP isn't coming over with the REAL thinking behind all of this and starts to treat us as intelligent audience they'll getting the exact same response.
|
ISHKUR MASTER
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 21:55:00 -
[689]
I personally think, these devs, their personal characters alliance have been pwned by deep safe cynos etc enemy fleets getting in system that they cant scan, so they lost badly and decided to nerf it.
Sounds more like sore loser syndrome....
|
Bearclaww
Australian Mining and industry Corp Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 22:03:00 -
[690]
What about adding the feature:
New Probe: deep space exploration probe, travels at 128AU per day, launch the probe like a standard moon probe.
Lifetime of probe determines range, level 1 of deep space exploration = 1 day of flight time, up to level 5 which is 5 days of exploration and another skill for how many max that you can have. The probes can be listed in the journal and when they are finished you have a bookmark (in this case a maximum of 640AU's), also you can make a rule where it can only be fired within a certain range of a celestial object.
deep space probes are still effective at probing people out w/ 8 of them 256AU each you can cover a lot of range to see what is out there.
You can also make it so deep space probes are picked up via scanner probes as well.
This will mean you do not need to contract the universe; makes a new isk sink (make the skill cost some ISKies as well as the special NPC provided "bookmark probes"), and the deep space probing skill is no longer worthless. |
|
Wulfstar 1
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 22:21:00 -
[691]
Hey that sucks about ss that are more then 10 au
So because like we as older players that we are being penalized for being an old player for taking away deep space safe spots from us. So whatÆs next ccp give every new player that joined from this point on as many skill points that took me all this time it train to now.
whatÆs next ccp would do is to nerf my skill points down to like a noob now just because they do not think its fiar for the noobs because they have not been playing or paying as long as a older player has so give them the same skill points as an older player has to a noob player because they have just started to play eve. Then they should just go head and giver every one mother ships and 900 bil in isk too.
|
Dasfry
Caldari Demio's Corporation Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 22:28:00 -
[692]
Excellent! *********** Military Tactics Dasfry, CEO Demio's Corporation
|
Bongo Debbie
Minmatar Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 22:37:00 -
[693]
Still waiting on 'today's' update. |
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 22:46:00 -
[694]
Originally by: Bongo Debbie Still waiting on 'today's' update.
Originally by: CCP Lemur There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow.
Really.... It was neither a long or complicated sentence...
If your limit to reading sentences is that they're 8 words long or shorter, then possibly you should not reply to posts... |
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 22:57:00 -
[695]
*yawn*
It's a bug that your ship adopts pre-warp inertia mechanics while still in warp when you log off.
You can call a bug a feature if you want. Doesn't change how CCP sees it.
It's probably been a very low priority bug to fix, but it seems to have made the new code base, so we've all been notified. Now we're all enjoying the fallout of a bug that existed so long its become a beloved game mechanic.
|
Bruno Bourque
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:00:00 -
[696]
Not all deep safes were created by bugs... back in the day cepters did insane speeds and were able to create these.
|
TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:03:00 -
[697]
Fix the problem of why we have to resort to these measures to bridge in a fleet safely, not fix the ****ing solution.
_______________________ Fix rockets in '09 =( |
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:21:00 -
[698]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Sajeera
Thats exactly how it was in AoC, you see things, you just cant go there because there is an invisible wall that stops you.
You don't understand. You will be able to still go anywhere where you could have before, even 5000AU from sun. Just without a warp drive.
Have you ever tried to calculate how long it takes to travel 1 AU without warp drive?! You'll be lucky to make it in half a year...
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:27:00 -
[699]
Edited by: Kerfira on 14/04/2010 23:27:27 Summing up the contents of this thread:
- Valid complaint that players in ships logged off outside the limit should be moved, not have their ships destroyed.
- Semi-valid complaint that one of the ways deep safes are being used is to compensate for lag. The problem is real, but not a reason not to implement this. If anything, EVE has shown us that no matter what improvements are made, players will always blob beyond the breaking point of the servers....
- Lots of whinging about limits in an internet spaceship game where spaceships can only go 20 km/s, and come to a rest if the engines are turned off...
Amazing that this has taken 24 pages...
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.
|
Glarion Garnier
Thermal reaction
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 23:39:00 -
[700]
devs .. reconsider this idea. Destroying players stuff for them not reading the dev blog would be a disaster from your part.
there are multiple ways to **** of a customer
1. Arrogance towards customers 2. Indefference towards customers 3. Underestimate the customers
Start destroying ppl's stuff is like shop keeper saying "I dont want you in mys tore, go away"
Do not convert to WOW.
The greed road may be tempting but it's a short road that leads to fail. The long road that is walked with patience is the key for ultimate riches.
And do not remove tech 2 bpo's. They are part of eve.
_________________________________ -be vary of the men behind the curtain-
|
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 00:05:00 -
[701]
Originally by: Bruno Bourque Not all deep safes were created by bugs... back in the day cepters did insane speeds and were able to create these.
1 au is about 150,000,000 km....
I dont think cepters EVER made deep safes...
You could use scan probes to make deep safes, with more than one person... scan them out with the WORST probe, and you get a large deviation, warp to the deviation (if it's in the correct direction) and add quite a few AU's on top of their location, they scan for you, rinse and repeat...
Then there was the sub-map "bug"...
Using scanprobes and the deviation of those probes to create safe spots shouldnt be considred a bug, but bookmarking the adjacent solar system (or a random xyz coord as it turns out) was a bug, as is the logoffski-bookmark bug. ----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
Gasig Howlsen
Dark Nexxus
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 00:43:00 -
[702]
CCP limiting their "sandbox" game, what's new?
|
Taedrin
Gallente Xovoni Directorate
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 00:58:00 -
[703]
Originally by: DeODokktor
Originally by: Bruno Bourque Not all deep safes were created by bugs... back in the day cepters did insane speeds and were able to create these.
1 au is about 150,000,000 km....
I dont think cepters EVER made deep safes...
You could use scan probes to make deep safes, with more than one person... scan them out with the WORST probe, and you get a large deviation, warp to the deviation (if it's in the correct direction) and add quite a few AU's on top of their location, they scan for you, rinse and repeat...
Then there was the sub-map "bug"...
Using scanprobes and the deviation of those probes to create safe spots shouldnt be considred a bug, but bookmarking the adjacent solar system (or a random xyz coord as it turns out) was a bug, as is the logoffski-bookmark bug.
It used to be possible to fit and activate multiple MWDs on a ship. People were able to achieve INSANE speeds, and produce very deep safe spots by simply by activating their MWDs. ----------
Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident"
Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
|
jurkie turkey
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 01:17:00 -
[704]
WAAAA the Player V Player croud is losing some old bookmarks from old exploits. Waaa Waaa Waa. kind of harde for a "carebare" to care when every dam time i go in to low with a badger to pickup market orders on minrals I get poded or gate camped.
You whant to have CCP care about your safe spots? how about showing some moral fiber out there? Instead of 2 year olds that have to get there "gun off" on everyone that might be a easy target. I mean you whant ships arms and ammo I need things like mega and morph. and when i go to pick them up ya gank it. For the life of me i can not feel bad that you are going to lose some "deep safe" spots. The fleet jump in lag you folks couse buy having 300 ship fleets is not CCP's foult it is yours. use smaller fleets the server only has a limmeted bandwith for craps sake. the grid will load quicker. jump in 10 30 ship fleets in a scattered patttern and gee you can get them in with less lad from the grid loads. then have a covert ship in there as a cloked stager that actes as a fleet warp point for muster.
Think people you are not thinking. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 01:45:00 -
[705]
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
I approve of this message.
The feel of vast space, and the content in it, whether CCP starts putting complexes out there or other players do, makes this game worth playing, even if a real pain in the butt sometimes. An arbitrary limitation on how far out you can go just seems so dumb. I would sooner accept a larger scale cap-loss per distance than a glass wall.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 01:53:00 -
[706]
Originally by: jurkie turkey WAAAA the Player V Player croud is losing some old bookmarks from old exploits. Waaa Waaa Waa. kind of harde for a "carebare" to care when every dam time i go in to low with a badger to pickup market orders on minrals I get poded or gate camped.
You whant to have CCP care about your safe spots? how about showing some moral fiber out there? Instead of 2 year olds that have to get there "gun off" on everyone that might be a easy target. I mean you whant ships arms and ammo I need things like mega and morph. and when i go to pick them up ya gank it. For the life of me i can not feel bad that you are going to lose some "deep safe" spots. The fleet jump in lag you folks couse buy having 300 ship fleets is not CCP's foult it is yours. use smaller fleets the server only has a limmeted bandwith for craps sake. the grid will load quicker. jump in 10 30 ship fleets in a scattered patttern and gee you can get them in with less lad from the grid loads. then have a covert ship in there as a cloked stager that actes as a fleet warp point for muster.
Think people you are not thinking.
Ok i cant stop laughing . By the way are you the FC who was in charge of the providence defense. OMG You need to get out more. By the way me killing you helps me make more isk on the market by preventing you from flooding it with more ships. Supply and demand. hey here is a tip have a scout or pay some one to protect you.
|
Nairova Intaku
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 02:20:00 -
[707]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Originally by: Punkt Landung I see theyÆve changed their minds now, hereÆs my thoughts as IÆd already written em!
I read once that the original Eve developers realized fairly quickly that the universe they created could function as a viable social experiment where player actions and interactions would create something truly unique that no team of software developers could hope to create with code alone. I suspect that the original hope would have been to support these unique player creations and allow them to be implemented into general game play.
Jules Verne said, "Anything one man can imagine, other men can make real." In Eve anything that can be discovered or instigated by players IS real, until it is destroyed by CCP. There are places within the virtual worlds of the servers that have never been discovered and still lie, secretly hiding, from both players and developers. Surely this is part of the magic of the game?
In seeking to circumvent some of the limitations of the Eve universe, players have demonstrated that virtual exploration can unlock areas of space that were believed to be inaccessible. By using a æbugÆ or an æexploitÆ they have not only facilitated smoother game mechanics but they have also created an impression of the vastness of Eve space and the epic scale that must be a cornerstone of any æspaceÆ game. The concept of people storing ships and supplies unimaginable distances out in space is just really cool. I appreciate that CCP never intended this to happen, but the fact that it has, has actually made the game scale even more impressive.
You cannot have a void where all players are in direct sight of anyone who chooses to look for them. The central appeal of a wilderness is its æemptinessÆ of other human life. Your own country of Iceland has only 320,000 inhabitants and epic landscapes to inspire the human soul û how inspiring would these landscapes be if your population was 3 million and the mountains were covered in houses?
OK, so your computers canÆt cope with this sort of expansion? Fair enough, explain it and I suspect most people will grudgingly except that technology has its limits. If you canÆt deliver the vast lonely universe we want then weÆll have to accept the one you give us. BUT, I, like many others, can live without sim city on planets, new ship models, planet textures, browsers, FPS interaction, walking on stations etc, etc, etc û we want a truly massive, deep, dark, immersive space game and all the meaningless fluff is just not necessary.
The Eve universe is already unique, artistic, beautiful, and awe inspiring. You canÆt make it more so by squeezing it into smaller and prettier rooms. If so, the concept of æspaceÆ becomes meaningless; you might as well call planets and stations, æcitiesÆ and put them under fixed sized æbio-domesÆ connected by motorways.
I approve of this message.
The feel of vast space, and the content in it, whether CCP starts putting complexes out there or other players do, makes this game worth playing, even if a real pain in the butt sometimes. An arbitrary limitation on how far out you can go just seems so dumb. I would sooner accept a larger scale cap-loss per distance than a glass wall.
Please don't make the EVE sandbox less sandbox-like <_<
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 02:22:00 -
[708]
Edited by: Ban Doga on 15/04/2010 02:22:55
Originally by: Taedrin
Originally by: DeODokktor
Originally by: Bruno Bourque Not all deep safes were created by bugs... back in the day cepters did insane speeds and were able to create these.
1 au is about 150,000,000 km....
I dont think cepters EVER made deep safes...
You could use scan probes to make deep safes, with more than one person... scan them out with the WORST probe, and you get a large deviation, warp to the deviation (if it's in the correct direction) and add quite a few AU's on top of their location, they scan for you, rinse and repeat...
Then there was the sub-map "bug"...
Using scanprobes and the deviation of those probes to create safe spots shouldnt be considred a bug, but bookmarking the adjacent solar system (or a random xyz coord as it turns out) was a bug, as is the logoffski-bookmark bug.
It used to be possible to fit and activate multiple MWDs on a ship. People were able to achieve INSANE speeds, and produce very deep safe spots by simply by activating their MWDs.
Let's assume a very deep safe spot is 100 AU away. Let's also assume people managed to reach 1000 km/s.
100 AU = 100 * 150,000,000 km = 15,000,000,000 km 15,000,000,000 km / 1000 km/s = 15,000,000 s = 250,000 min = 4,166 h = 173 d
So unless the ships were much faster or very deep is much closer people did not go that far "simply by activating their MWDs".
|
Alice Celadon
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 03:05:00 -
[709]
Originally by: Ban Doga
Let's assume a very deep safe spot is 100 AU away. Let's also assume people managed to reach 1000 km/s.
100 AU = 100 * 150,000,000 km = 15,000,000,000 km 15,000,000,000 km / 1000 km/s = 15,000,000 s = 250,000 min = 4,166 h = 173 d
So unless the ships were much faster or very deep is much closer people did not go that far "simply by activating their MWDs".
Assume you can fit as many MWDs as you want and the bonuses don't have stacking penalties. This gives a speed of [Base Speed]*6^S where S is the number of midslots.
S=7 or 8 allows for speeds in excess of 1,000,000 km/s which achieves 100au in .173 days. I'm guessing Scorpions were employed for the task.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 03:27:00 -
[710]
Edited by: Torothanax on 15/04/2010 03:29:55 I really don't see a problem with the idea. Space is infinite, but there's really no reason to be out further then the proposed limit. Sucks that some people may lose items, but hey, they left them in space. You might consider moving people who logged out in space to the nearest station though.
Deep safes have always been a bit of an exploit anyway.
|
|
Fitz VonHeise
Eye Bee Em Stellar Defense Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 04:04:00 -
[711]
There is no need to destroy any ships outside the limit who are logged off.
Just make the ship ONLY able to warp to or cyno to a location inside the 10au limit when they log back in.
So people don't try to keep a fleet sitting in a location to attack from a deep space location right after the patch day... just make the limit "any ship owned by a pilot who has not logged in... in x weeks".
This will insure anyone who temporarily left the game will not loose Titans or Super Caps when they come back.
|
Shade Millith
Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 04:08:00 -
[712]
Originally by: Alice Celadon
Originally by: Ban Doga
Let's assume a very deep safe spot is 100 AU away. Let's also assume people managed to reach 1000 km/s.
100 AU = 100 * 150,000,000 km = 15,000,000,000 km 15,000,000,000 km / 1000 km/s = 15,000,000 s = 250,000 min = 4,166 h = 173 d
So unless the ships were much faster or very deep is much closer people did not go that far "simply by activating their MWDs".
Assume you can fit as many MWDs as you want and the bonuses don't have stacking penalties. This gives a speed of [Base Speed]*6^S where S is the number of midslots.
S=7 or 8 allows for speeds in excess of 1,000,000 km/s which achieves 100au in .173 days. I'm guessing Scorpions were employed for the task.
IIRC, at that time, scorpions had the highest possible speed in EVE. A full 8 MWDing scorpion covered a grid pretty much instantly once it was up to speed. Nanovaga's had NOTHING on that thing for raw speed ------------------------
|
Vidork Drako
Amarr Repo Distribution and Salvage
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 06:14:00 -
[713]
This change should have gone hand in hand with other changes to negate understandable rage... you do understand the carrot and stick?
1. Scrap Deep Safes but dock everything parked in them and increase the silly and very probable new 10AU limit to something more realistic, like 50AU 2. Quadruple the size of stations and let Supercaps dock or anchor themselves to the station 3. A cyno creates a few hundred mini-grids around it so people can load faster rather than all landing on the same grid *or* a cyno dumps you at a random spot in the system
|
arbiter reformed
Minmatar Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 06:35:00 -
[714]
RABLE!rable!RABLE!rable
also . . . summin about ghost training Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
ULTImatio
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 07:13:00 -
[715]
Deep-Safe-Spots removals on Tyrannis patch deployment.
Found in this post: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=748
CCP promotes the method for creating those Deep-Safe-Spots for new players on there own site.
CCP source: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Safe_Spot_Bookmarking
CCP posted article: http://sites.google.com/site/lsouljacker/home/Poseidon-Manual.pdf ====================================
After some more thinking I think it is a good thing CCP finaly sets a maximum border to the outer region of a system. I think we can compare it with the Solar System Heliosphere, that our own solar system has.
The only problem I have with the current plan is that its only 10AU from fardest object in the system. Like in our own sollar system the heliosphere is twice as far from the Sun as Pluto.
==================================== Solar System Heliosphere: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/images/heliosphere.jpg
An immense bubble-like structure surrounding the Sun and formed by the solar wind and is squashed together by interstellar magnetic fields.
The ôheliospheric termination shockö is at a distance of about 12bn kilometers from the Sun. This is about twice as far from the Sun as Pluto.
This termination shock is a turbulent region is where the solar wind (a fast-moving stream of electrically charged particles expelled by the Sun in all directions) slows down significantly. It marks the boundary between the inner heliosphere (where the solar wind dominates) and the heliosheath, where the effects of the interstellar gas begin to dominate. ====================================
I like to introduce the following.
* Solar System Heliosphere background info ingame + visual effect in system map.
* Solar System Heliosphere at twice the distance from the Sun as fardest planet.
* No bookmarking / scanning outside the Heliosphere. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 07:26:00 -
[716]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/04/2010 07:27:08
Quote:
There are many other aspects than spaceships already in the game.. are you sure you actually play that game? The walls actually destroy that simulation feeling
Well tbh the "simulation" aspect is broken by design and all those claiming the current "OH BUT WE HAVE VAST SPACE" are delusional.
If made in the correct direction, adjacent and close systems should be reachable by making those 5000 AU deep bookmarks and cross system gate-less jumps would be possible. THAT is vast space. Instead you still stay in a "virtual box" with infinite limits but only 1 system.
BTW we are already limited, unless someone can show me how to get out of the systems currently in game and find new ones. Even WHs afaik are connected with regular regions (even if in a random and ever changing way).
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 07:33:00 -
[717]
Originally by: Ban Doga
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Sajeera
Thats exactly how it was in AoC, you see things, you just cant go there because there is an invisible wall that stops you.
You don't understand. You will be able to still go anywhere where you could have before, even 5000AU from sun. Just without a warp drive.
Have you ever tried to calculate how long it takes to travel 1 AU without warp drive?! You'll be lucky to make it in half a year...
Well yes, but it still doesn't make the limit any kind of invisible wall. It is just another restriction on FTL travel.
|
Ynot Eyob
Minmatar Nisroc Angels The Obsidian Front
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 08:42:00 -
[718]
Edited by: Ynot Eyob on 15/04/2010 08:45:18 One of the things which makes those iv spoken with interested in EVE it the huge space without real hidden walls. What you are saying it that all of New Eden now become a "small" areana like any other game.
Deep Space bookmarks removed, alright, The internal computer cannot calculate the coordinates that fare out. But destroying everything out side those boundaries??
Its nice to have the 300 - 1000 AU bookmarks but really not needed, but i can imagine the Titan and SC pilots love them.
|
Spring Wind
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 08:56:00 -
[719]
*******s.. what else can i say deepspots was an interestin' part of the game, realy interestin' .. and you just ruin it!
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 08:58:00 -
[720]
Originally by: ULTImatio CCP promotes the method for creating those Deep-Safe-Spots for new players on there own site.
CCP source: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Safe_Spot_Bookmarking
That's an EVE wiki entry. Wikis by design are a collection of user-generated content. The only exception are pages marked "official" in the EVE wiki, such as the Sovereignty guide.
Originally by: ULTImatio CCP posted article: http://sites.google.com/site/lsouljacker/home/Poseidon-Manual.pdf
lolwut? What about that makes you think it has anything to do with CCP?
|
|
alt20111974
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 10:18:00 -
[721]
My question is: even if these "new deep safes" are 10au or more are allowed in the new expansion, how will they be made? CCP is nerfin the old method using log off.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 10:37:00 -
[722]
Originally by: Spring Wind *******s.. what else can i say deepspots was an interestin' part of the game, realy interestin' .. and you just ruin it!
What exactly was so interesting about them? They only exposed flaws in simulated universe. You were, according to the map, few systems over, but in reality you were in same solar system.
All this complaining about lost feeling of infinite space is lots of bull.
|
Dan O'Connor
Cerberus Network Dignitas.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:05:00 -
[723]
Edited by: Dan O''Connor on 15/04/2010 11:05:24 All in all it's just a...
nother Nerf of The Wall
----
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:20:00 -
[724]
Remove the ability to warp to a cyno.
...that is all.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:27:00 -
[725]
Blog related threadnaughts should really have more ccp updates.
say, once a day, if not more. Letting the general populous know what's going on wether that be a rethink or a "DADDY SAID NO" stand point --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:32:00 -
[726]
Originally by: alt20111974 My question is: even if these "new deep safes" are 10au or more are allowed in the new expansion, how will they be made? CCP is nerfin the old method using log off.
The one remaining method of making "deep" safes is running missions and bookmarking the spots. If you are lucky, you get spots off the plane, out of scan range, especially in big systems. Highly unreliable, and doesn't work in conquerable 0.0.
Escalation plexes might follow the same distribution as missions, but that's even more unreliable.
|
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:34:00 -
[727]
Originally by: Shade Millith
IIRC, at that time, scorpions had the highest possible speed in EVE. A full 8 MWDing scorpion covered a grid pretty much instantly once it was up to speed. Nanovaga's had NOTHING on that thing for raw speed
Out of curiosity, how long could a scorpion maintain that top speed? I would think the capacitor penalty also stacked, and the cap usage of 7-8 MWDs all at once would be pretty draining.
|
SyntaxPD
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:35:00 -
[728]
Ok, there're 2 problems figured in dev blog:
1. Quote: Ships in these locations have always been very difficult to pin down, and following the changes made to the scanning system last year they've become nigh-on impossible to locate.
Right solution - to make counter for this like "super-duper-deep-infinite-range-probes". It will not cut our game experience and even make it wider.
2. Quote: a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots"
Right solution - make new special probe, which have not scan facilities, but we can warp directly to it. This will allow new players to make such deep spots, destroying said "division".
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:39:00 -
[729]
Originally by: TheBlueMonkey Blog related threadnaughts should really have more ccp updates.
25 pages is NOWHERE NEAR a threadnaught! It is merely a few whiners (relative to the size of the player base) repeating themselves!
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.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:54:00 -
[730]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/04/2010 11:54:51
Quote:
The one remaining method of making "deep" safes is running missions and bookmarking the spots. If you are lucky, you get spots off the plane, out of scan range, especially in big systems. Highly unreliable, and doesn't work in conquerable 0.0
The point of EvE is that CCP want that players actually DO find out the others and have that scary thing called PvP.
All those pathetic excuses to find the most impossible ways to every meet anyone else should be removed.
It's an unconsensual game, unconsensual means that the others are entitled to eventually find your "I studied the last logoffski + cloak + DSS + grid game + unscannable super-sensor booster" combo made in order to forfeit the very definition of unconsensual PvP game.
CCP cannot allow their game to rot like that.
The only debatable part of this is about their "not solved first" laggy management of blobs, which game mechanics favor instead of penalizing. - Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
|
Sable Moran
Gallente Moran Light Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 11:55:00 -
[731]
Originally by: War Kitten
Originally by: Shade Millith
IIRC, at that time, scorpions had the highest possible speed in EVE. A full 8 MWDing scorpion covered a grid pretty much instantly once it was up to speed. Nanovaga's had NOTHING on that thing for raw speed
Out of curiosity, how long could a scorpion maintain that top speed? I would think the capacitor penalty also stacked, and the cap usage of 7-8 MWDs all at once would be pretty draining.
The eight mwd's destroyed the cap of the scorpion, IIRC you could get two cycles out of the mwd's then the cap would be dry. So no, even back in the times of multi mwd setups you couldn't use them to fly manually from system to system. ----- Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene 5, Moon 4, Duvolle Laboratories Factory. Ammo at affordable prices. |
War Kitten
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:00:00 -
[732]
I realize this post will probably be lost in the shuffle, but what the heck...
Wouldn't it be cool if this was the precursor to user-creatable bookmarks that are stored on the local client instead of the server?
Talk about reducing lag and database hits... move the bookmarks to the client and remove the need to secure them by letting anyone make a bookmark anywhere in a system, whether in game or through a user-made editor.
The only thing they'd need to do is impose a reasonable limit to the distance from the sun in each system to prevent ridiculous distances... say 10au out from the furthest celestial?
(Although I'd pick a fixed number like 150au and call it a day, making the tiny solar systems suddenly MORE desirable for hiding things, and write it up as "the ships computer can only lock on to things 150au from the sun because it was designed by Minmatar and they can't count higher than that" or something.) |
Mr SmartGuy
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:04:00 -
[733]
deep safe spots were only used by local channel trols that are ötoo coolö to smacktalk while cloaked. |
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:33:00 -
[734]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: TheBlueMonkey Blog related threadnaughts should really have more ccp updates.
25 pages is NOWHERE NEAR a threadnaught! It is merely a few whiners (relative to the size of the player base) repeating themselves!
You're right, no feedback is AWESOMES!! \o/ --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
Paknac Queltel
Standards and Practices
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:37:00 -
[735]
Originally by: War Kitten I realize this post will probably be lost in the shuffle, but what the heck...
Wouldn't it be cool if this was the precursor to user-creatable bookmarks that are stored on the local client instead of the server?
Talk about reducing lag and database hits... move the bookmarks to the client and remove the need to secure them by letting anyone make a bookmark anywhere in a system, whether in game or through a user-made editor.
The only thing they'd need to do is impose a reasonable limit to the distance from the sun in each system to prevent ridiculous distances... say 10au out from the furthest celestial?
(Although I'd pick a fixed number like 150au and call it a day, making the tiny solar systems suddenly MORE desirable for hiding things, and write it up as "the ships computer can only lock on to things 150au from the sun because it was designed by Minmatar and they can't count higher than that" or something.)
This sounds very interesting indeed. Doesn't sound likely, though, as it would vastly reduce the amount of time necessary to set up some good bookmarks. It would be pretty simple to do some magic with the datadump to get good bookmarks for the entire world.
I know I would like to have good autogenerated undock BMs, gatescan BMs, off-dscan BMs, and I'm quite willing to spend the couple of hours necessary to write something for that. - Paknac Queltel
|
James Razor
Amarr The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:48:00 -
[736]
Well, CCP again fails at setting prioritys as they did in the past. Instead of fixing real issues that cause day to day drama, like the fleet lag or similar issues, they decided to screw up a game mechanic that actually IS usefull. And even helps us to get fights in 0.0 by using deep safes to drop in a fleet in a occupied system.
They come with shiny new stuff but dont bother to fix the old. We still got bugged anomalies in upgraded systems and a lot of stuff that does not work as intended. Their reimbursment policy is a joke, they advertise mass battles as a goal in eve but fail to provide the proper enviroment (-> stable server). And i am afraid of the day tyranis will hit to TQ, because the new planet interaction will cause again more server load and that means again more lag.
Oh, excuse me. I forgot: Your logs show nothing and there is no lag in Eve
|
Lolobritzita
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 13:29:00 -
[737]
sorry i cannot go back through 25 pages to see if this particular issue came up so please have a look in this thread
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1302457
thank you
|
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 13:37:00 -
[738]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/04/2010 11:54:51
Quote:
The one remaining method of making "deep" safes is running missions and bookmarking the spots. If you are lucky, you get spots off the plane, out of scan range, especially in big systems. Highly unreliable, and doesn't work in conquerable 0.0
The point of EvE is that CCP want that players actually DO find out the others and have that scary thing called PvP.
All those pathetic excuses to find the most impossible ways to every meet anyone else should be removed.
It's an unconsensual game, unconsensual means that the others are entitled to eventually find your "I studied the last logoffski + cloak + DSS + grid game + unscannable super-sensor booster" combo made in order to forfeit the very definition of unconsensual PvP game.
CCP cannot allow their game to rot like that.
The only debatable part of this is about their "not solved first" laggy management of blobs, which game mechanics favor instead of penalizing.
So we should remove normal safespots too? And all sorts of bookmarks, while we are at it. How about we reduce each system to a single grid where you spawn at 0? Wouldn't that make for lots of PVP?
I live in lowsec, I am -10, and I should be the one complaining about the death of nonconsensual PVP. But deep safes are not that: I use a variety of 60-100 AU deep safes for many things, usually to evade larger gangs. Good gangs with probers find me without problem, so I still have to be on the lookout for probes.
Deep safes are not invulnerable unless they are a thousand AU deep, not to a prober with deep space probes. They are just another strategic tool in the dance between the gangs that usually predates actual combat.
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 13:52:00 -
[739]
Edited by: Vincent Gaines on 15/04/2010 13:51:57
Originally by: Mr SmartGuy deep safe spots were only used by local channel trols that are ötoo coolö to smacktalk while cloaked.
why would you need a deep safe if you're cloaked?
obvious troll is obvious
|
Vincent Gaines
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 13:55:00 -
[740]
Originally by: Meno Theaetetus Remove the ability to warp to a cyno.
...that is all.
That right there.
Broadcast it as a beacon but remove the warp to ability.
HOWEVER
allow it to be probed down, with core probes.
|
|
Karak Terrel
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:08:00 -
[741]
Edited by: Karak Terrel on 15/04/2010 14:09:13
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Well tbh the "simulation" aspect is broken by design and all those claiming the current "OH BUT WE HAVE VAST SPACE" are delusional.
The simulation is not perfect, far from it, but a wall would make it even worse. As pointed out by others before there are also other Problems if the wall still let you pass with an impulse drive. If you cross the barrier with impulse others may scann you down, but they will not be able to warp to you. Tools to scann ships in deep space and a tool to make deep savespots are the better solution and they don't need that wall. The distance for the deep savespots should be limited by time. You can make them, but it should take you massive time to create a 100AU savespot.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
If made in the correct direction, adjacent and close systems should be reachable by making those 5000 AU deep bookmarks and cross system gate-less jumps would be possible. THAT is vast space. Instead you still stay in a "virtual box" with infinite limits but only 1 system.
But who says that this will never be introduced as a way to travel? At the moment this is not possible because a system change is a session change and you switch to a different node in the cluster. But i think one day this limitation will be removed and the stargates will still be used cause this is a much faster way. You can then "Autopilot" in warp directly to Jita from Rens, but there will also be tools to intercept such traders.
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
BTW we are already limited, unless someone can show me how to get out of the systems currently in game and find new ones. Even WHs afaik are connected with regular regions (even if in a random and ever changing way).
There is no way atm, but again, i don't see why this should not be implemented in the future.
I think you actually don't see the potential of this game. It is massive, and it is not one of the games that will stay the same forever, CCP will constantly improve it, add new stuff and usualy they destroy the walls and don't build them.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:11:00 -
[742]
LF Ideas for a service
Quote:
So we should remove normal safespots too?
Why, normal safespots can be probed (unless cheating with some unprobable T3).
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:21:00 -
[743]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/04/2010 14:21:11
Quote:
The simulation is not perfect, far from it, but a wall would make it even worse
There's already a wall, the one separating the systems. Sure, you can pretend you are free to float inside the infinite yet strict limits each system got, but that's just "pretend".
Quote:
If you cross the barrier with impulse others may scann you down, but they will not be able to warp to you
Ofc CCP did not think about the endless exploits their change will bring in, they'll nerf them in some idiotic way later.
Quote:
But who says that this will never be introduced as a way to travel? At the moment this is not possible because a system change is a session change and you switch to a different node in the cluster.
Because gates are not only design limitations but also design features, made to choke the passage between systems. With a free travel, everyone would totally and safely go across the whole 0.0 because if you made jumps thru random points before, inside and past a system, the possibility to be intercepted while out of warp would be close to zero.
Quote:
I think you actually don't see the potential of this game. It is massive, and it is not one of the games that will stay the same forever, CCP will constantly improve it, add new stuff and usualy they destroy the walls and don't build them
EvE peaked before these days, now it's nearing maturity. One day the next half checked patch will break fundamental and old code or they'll exhaust all of the possibilities of the current engine and will have to restructure and rejuvenate it. That day, it will be a dice toss, between a sort of EvE 2.0 or SWG alike fail "gameplay upgrade".
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:38:00 -
[744]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha LF Ideas for a service
Quote:
So we should remove normal safespots too?
Why, normal safespots can be probed (unless cheating with some unprobable T3).
Deep space probes have a 128 AU range. Most moderately deep safes can be probed with those, and the really deep ones that can't, it's mostly because of a client issue (zoom on the solar system map) making moving probes hard, not because of any server limitations.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 14:45:00 -
[745]
Originally by: Lolobritzita sorry i cannot go back through 25 pages to see if this particular issue came up so please have a look in this thread
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1302457
thank you
You just wasted 3 seconds of my time, and you owe me a new soda and a new keyboard
thank you
|
CEOcat
Gallente CAT Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 15:01:00 -
[746]
Edited by: CEOcat on 15/04/2010 15:02:28
Originally by: Torothanax You might consider moving people who logged out in space to the nearest station though.
Newsflash: Super-capitals can't dock.
Originally by: Torothanax Deep safes have always been a bit of an exploit anyway.
No, the 'exploit' is having supercap pilots in your address book and instantly scanning them down and killing them when they log in before they have chance to align out of there login spot.
Logging at POSes for long periods is just not an option. Neither is login in a normal safe, you need the warp time to a deep safe to allow you to align out if you are scanned down when you log in.
There are a few things that could help this. -Ships that log out under cloak should just vanish rather then de-cloak and emergency warp like they do now. -Ships that log in should have like a 30-60 second window at least where they don't appear on d-scans or probes when they enter the game. So that they at least have time to finish there emergency warp before they are scannable.
|
Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 15:02:00 -
[747]
Me thinks all of CCP is out to watch their island explode and forgot to post the new devblog More devblog awesomeness is required before Iceland sinks to the bottom! ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
Freyya
Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 15:20:00 -
[748]
Originally by: CEOcat Edited by: CEOcat on 15/04/2010 15:02:28
Originally by: Torothanax You might consider moving people who logged out in space to the nearest station though.
Newsflash: Super-capitals can't dock.
Newsflash for the newsflash: CCP GM's can make a planet dock if they want to... ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 15:31:00 -
[749]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 15/04/2010 15:31:58
Quote:
Deep space probes have a 128 AU range. Most moderately deep safes can be probed with those, and the really deep ones that can't, it's mostly because of a client issue (zoom on the solar system map) making moving probes hard, not because of any server limitations.
Of course if people limited themselves to 128AU range, CCP would not prioritize nerfing it so soon.
CCP does not want to nerf basing on server usage or whatever, but because (and the hypocrisy of the posters show so hard here) by making the safe spots so far away it's impossible to catch them. By the time anyone arrives on such distant place they have just warped to the next. This non counterable perma-avoidance of encounters is the cause of the nerf, the rest are just added minor motivations if anything at all.
Quote:
-Ships that log out under cloak should just vanish rather then de-cloak and emergency warp like they do now.
The logoffsky gods would be forever grateful for this.
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Monster Dude
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 15:39:00 -
[750]
Hey, gents!
But listen! We'll soon get walking on station and posibility to change dress. That is the solution!!! Don't you see it?
After dying in all those lags, and those poor cap pilots who will find themselfs in pods and all other infair things - we will be able to dress our chars like emo and start crying. That is sertainly right direction of developing the PVP game!
|
|
CEOcat
Gallente CAT Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:04:00 -
[751]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
-Ships that log out under cloak should just vanish rather then de-cloak and emergency warp like they do now.
The logoffsky gods would be forever grateful for this.
How would that help logoffskis? I mean ACTUAL FITTED AND ACTIVE cloaks, why should you suddenly re-appear just because you leave the game if you have managed to activate your cloak and vanish from enemy view? I obviously didn't mean that ships should vanish if they log under the jump cloak...
|
Jenina Hawke
Minmatar Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:17:00 -
[752]
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???? ***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 16:25:00 -
[753]
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.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 17:27:00 -
[754]
Edited by: Serpents smile on 15/04/2010 17:27:43
Originally by: Gnulpie
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.
You might find this of interest. Blog prob has been written, PR guys are now inbetween the blog and its actual release.
|
Crystal Starbreeze
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 17:37:00 -
[755]
Edited by: Crystal Starbreeze on 15/04/2010 17:38:06
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha LF Ideas for a service
Quote:
So we should remove normal safespots too?
Why, normal safespots can be probed (unless cheating with some unprobable T3).
Deep space probes have a 128 AU range. Most moderately deep safes can be probed with those, and the really deep ones that can't, it's mostly because of a client issue (zoom on the solar system map) making moving probes hard, not because of any server limitations.
actually they have a 256AU range
and zooming is NOT a problem, the solar system autoscales, if you are 150AU out and drop probes the solar system is really small and you can easily move the 256AU probes around with ease. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 17:58:00 -
[756]
We can accept the removal of deep safes once the ability to put 200+ into a grid without it freaking out is added. Unless you also want to remove capital ships, because last I looked, no one is using them due to the grid bug.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Cyxopyc
The True Seekers
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 18:11:00 -
[757]
Edited by: Cyxopyc on 15/04/2010 18:15:49 Please have this antideepsafe code on sisi while one of your test sessions is going on with 100s of players helping. Test it :)
Have mission runners test what happens when they try to warp to a mission that might be over 10AU from a celestial. == Support fixing the EVE UI |
Valkrin S'jomah
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 18:37:00 -
[758]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Bongo Debbie Still waiting on 'today's' update.
Originally by: CCP Lemur There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow.
Really.... It was neither a long or complicated sentence...
If your limit to reading sentences is that they're 8 words long or shorter, then possibly you should not reply to posts...
... Apparently something is long and complicated. Still waiting on 'today's update.' |
Nika Dekaia
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 19:11:00 -
[759]
Originally by: Valkrin S'jomah ... Apparently something is long and complicated. Still waiting on 'today's update.'
So the update will not be today but tomorrow since they are trying to get a solution better suited when considering the feedback.
Do you really need them to post the obvious: Sorry, we're working on it, please be patient?
|
D3rg3
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 19:40:00 -
[760]
Originally by: Kyra Felann ...they would realize that there is nothing to complain or ask questions about.... <AND THEN>...There may still be valid complaints here
U'K recruitment has gone right down the tubes
|
|
|
CCP Lemur
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 19:45:00 -
[761]
Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
|
|
D3rg3
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 19:46:00 -
[762]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 12/04/2010 23:52:31
Fail CCP. 10 AU from the star is small enough not to get all planets. Also, this is another brutal nerf for vets (who have a lot of stuff within deep). You shouldn't play with assets like this.
this far into the thread and you are still clueless
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Frontier Venture
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 19:57:00 -
[763]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Please, please PLEASE tell me your not unnerfing deep safe spots. Keep them nerfed, they are game breaking and 3/4ths of this thread is nothing more than whiny drivel.
Stick to your guns.
--Isaac A Paladin Without A Crusade...
"You just can't fix stupid"
Amarr Victor.
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 20:03:00 -
[764]
Originally by: CCP Lemur
We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed.
does that include us players that actually have to use deep safes cause your game cant handle us jumping in through gates?
i dont mind you guys removing deep safes at all, but for the love of god, first fix the reason we have to use them in the first place. until you have the lag issue fixed i suggest you leave those deep safes alone
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 20:13:00 -
[765]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Thanks for the update on the update :P Seriously though, I like being informed, as do most players I think. I don't mind if the update is "Hey, we're working on some stuff, but it's not finished and we don't want to release halfassed plans". I can understand this, the updates just lets me know CCP isn't glossing over this issue and are still working on things, that's important information! Thanks Lemur!
|
Baroness D
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 20:32:00 -
[766]
Well that seems typical of CCP.
As long as only a few people know about these things then its fine. These people are welcome to have an unfair advantage over others. But when a lot of people learn about this then that's unfair so lets nerf it.
Yeah don't think about moving stuff to the station instead, destroying it is better. People should know that even though CCP didn't consider this unfair till recently. CCP is schizophrenic and can change there minds at will for the lamest of reasons.
Also don't send out any emails to people who have deactivated accounts. Much more fun for people to comeback and find out all there stuff in a deep space has been destroyed by CCP. That builds customer support. Unless you happen to know that a person can't do anything about it even if they did know. Like military personnel. That would be hilarious.
Its customer service like this that keeps me coming back everyday and doing all I can to get my friends to play this game.
|
Noran Ferah
Red Sky Morning
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 20:40:00 -
[767]
I think this new plan contains the plan that they must let SuperCarriers plan to dock, so then I can plan to therefore buy one and plan to grief people with it.
I love it when a plan comes together.
|
Adm AnnAlingus
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 21:13:00 -
[768]
CCP,
Glad to see you have the lag issue solved as well as all the other problems associated with this game that you ask us to debug for you and now it is time to work on non-exploits and things that are not broken. Great job.
|
Rico Lobo
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 21:43:00 -
[769]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
its a plan to replace the plan to replace the plan that replaces the plan, and all of that plan replaning takes planing
by the way thats no volcano, thats just where all the heat from the rage this ideal unleashed was vented.
|
Driven Marcelli
Minmatar Evil Overhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 21:46:00 -
[770]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
if your still looking at this . . . you may want to take a look at the "forum" in case you missed it
|
|
Quesa
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 22:11:00 -
[771]
Edited by: Quesa on 15/04/2010 22:12:13 This change affects 0.0 entities and 0.0 combat more than it does anyone or any other entity in the game.
So all you have/have not or people arguing about un-probable 'safes' are just acting like ******s. As if anyone 2-3 brain cells could be caught with the current probing mechanics if the pilot is actually playing the game.
Originally by: Baroness D Well that seems typical of CCP.
As long as only a few people know about these things then its fine. These people are welcome to have an unfair advantage over others. But when a lot of people learn about this then that's unfair so lets nerf it.
Yeah don't think about moving stuff to the station instead, destroying it is better. People should know that even though CCP didn't consider this unfair till recently. CCP is schizophrenic and can change there minds at will for the lamest of reasons.
Also don't send out any emails to people who have deactivated accounts. Much more fun for people to comeback and find out all there stuff in a deep space has been destroyed by CCP. That builds customer support. Unless you happen to know that a person can't do anything about it even if they did know. Like military personnel. That would be hilarious.
Its customer service like this that keeps me coming back everyday and doing all I can to get my friends to play this game.
I'm trying to figure out if you really are that ******ed or just trying to act like it.
Please reply.
|
CyberGh0st
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 22:17:00 -
[772]
Originally by: Sunbird Huy Edited by: Sunbird Huy on 13/04/2010 00:21:32 Edited by: Sunbird Huy on 13/04/2010 00:20:06 1. LOL. 2. More LOL + facepalms... 3. An extract from the DEV chat channel:
DEV a: Guys, we still haven't fixed 0.0 lag...we've made it worse... DEV b: We need to do something to divert the attention from this matter... DEV c: Players/Customers(read: suckers) have found ways to reduce our fecktardedness, they call it Poseidon, and it seems to allow for 0.0 battles to happen, with at least a chance for players to load grid before they die... DEV a: Wow, good stuff...They actually go around our feck-ups, now we can do something about lagg... DEV b: WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT - MAKES US LOOK, UMMM...INCOMPETENT? NERF IT! DEV c: Ok, so we have an agreement. We're gonna nerf what they did, grief all the players that are AFK from the game, and do nothing about the matters we should dealing with... FAILPROOF PLAN - DEVSTAMP.
4. I have a question : is there a way for us customers to get a few of you mor0ns fired, so the others get a jolt and do something about issues we have at hand.
None of this really affects me - not a cap pilot, I try to stay out of mass blobbing and I sure as hell don't spend entire nights making those Poseidon spots. But the point is, someone in your office really should re-assert your policy and attitude towards customers.
TTFN...
You made me smile :)
http://www.mmodata.net Favorite MMO's : DAoC Pre-TOA-NF / SWG Pre-CU-NGE |
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 22:33:00 -
[773]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Bongo Debbie Still waiting on 'today's' update.
Originally by: CCP Lemur There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow.
Really.... It was neither a long or complicated sentence...
If your limit to reading sentences is that they're 8 words long or shorter, then possibly you should not reply to posts...
Still waiting on 'today or tomorrow's' update. ~
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 22:50:00 -
[774]
Originally by: Lady Spank
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Bongo Debbie Still waiting on 'today's' update.
Originally by: CCP Lemur There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow.
Really.... It was neither a long or complicated sentence...
If your limit to reading sentences is that they're 8 words long or shorter, then possibly you should not reply to posts...
Still waiting on 'today or tomorrow's' update.
How about you read up a little. ------------- Rough Necks Alliance
BOOST FALCONS. Nerf whiners.
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 23:05:00 -
[775]
Edited by: Lady Spank on 15/04/2010 23:08:28 A new blog was promised. There isn't one.
Edit: I see. Pardon me for not reading 25 pages of whining and gnashing of teeth. ~
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 23:13:00 -
[776]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Actually, news that deeper consideration of the issue is taking place IS news.
Of course it does seem the lag issue must be resolved before removing the "exploit" workaround that makes the game playable for large fleets. And the capriciously heavy handed deletion of assets is just a horrible idea.
And I'd like to again advocate with those wishing for an expansion and not a contraction of space. Make it possible to warp to probes or whatever mechanic would allow for "deep space", LOTS of deep space, not easy to probe out, but not impossible either. Use the Heliosphere/Termination shock concept as an upper limit at a few thousand AU out....perhaps a point beyond which ships take increasing, consistent damage from interstellar gasses or any old pseudo-science you care to use.
And an idea to go with this is to make all "deep space" (beyond the farthest celestial + 10 or 20 AU or whatever limit originally conceived) outside of CONCORD reach. That's right, create 0.0 space right next door to everywhere. Wouldn't really affect carebears or other empire dwellers except for giving them an opportunity to go PVP on a moment's notice. Could be the "log in for quick fun" option that many people lament isn't really existing in the game now.
|
Punkt Landung
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 23:13:00 -
[777]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Seems fair enough, they haven't all agreed on the best course of action yet so can't give us an answer yet. I'm happy to wait, mean the issue is getting some serious consideration, that's a good thing.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 23:36:00 -
[778]
Its not an issue given the scanner can find people at these locations. they just need to adapt and they have the tools already so no, your wrong in this action.
Also please sort out bookmark managment - nerfing **** without even offering us the tools to delete bookmarks via right click in system etc is just silly -- allow/highlight offending bookmarks and then we can delete them or move all offending ones to a folder - otherwise you will have lots of people with bookmarks that they wont know are any use until they goto the system in question - utterly stupid.
One last thought - there are systems were 10AU dont even cover the distance between the gates so having a bookmarks outside of this arbitory 10AU limit is easily achivable.
Bottom line - utter fail idea to problem that isn;t there given there are already ways and means to counter said deep space bookmarks.
Stop wasting time on this venture and focus on fixing more relavant issues were players dont have the means or the tools to work around them like ew fleet lag/ Jita macro spammers just to name two of the top of my head. Focus pinky, focus..
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 00:23:00 -
[779]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Some food for thought:
The knowledge of how to create deep safe spots in a variety of ways have been known to the 0.0 community for a long time. The reason you've seen a dramatic rise in their every-day use is because it was determined that cynoing in at that distance, in effect, gave your fleet the couple minutes it needed unmolested on a grid to load the system.
Once the lag is fixed, fleets will stop using them. We *like* to drop and siege green on landing. Dropping 1000au is a work around to enable us to shed the blood of our enemies.
Here's my argument: Lets say you fix the crippling, soul crushing fleet lag. 0.0 citizens rejoice, and much blood is shed, and everyone is happy. Next patch, the crippling lag comes back. If you remove deep safe spots, you effectively removing this workaround that *might* allow us to resume combat while you fixed the lag again.
Conclusion: No one seriously used DSS before the crippling lag. FC's started using DSS as it is the only work around for the crippling lag. If you remove DSS, Fleet combat, which now consists of just BS or smaller engagements, stops (pardoning the stupid FC's..who won't be FC's for long slaughtering their fleets mindlessly to blackscreens). If you fix the lag, people won't have a need for DSS, and will stop using them for fleet battles. If you remove DSS after you've fixed the lag, and the next patch comes out and lags the game out again, there will be zero work-arounds.
That, and it's epic to have your cap fly for 10 minutes in system. Pure epic.
Deleting people's supercaps that are at DSS is messed up considering CCP's previous promises that such a thing wouldn't happen. Deleting everything that's not a manned ship out in a DSS? I don't see anyone complaining about that. Removing the ability to create DSS? You're removing one of the few tools that works from a Fleet Commander's belt..you always tell us that we have to be aware, plan, and work around the lag in the replies to petitions. This is one of the ways we plan and work around the lag, and it works.
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Star Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 00:48:00 -
[780]
Jeezuz, you f c u kers at CCP are evil sometimes. This latest attempt to treat your players (who generally work hard at your game) like cheap crap makes me think I'm paying you too much good money for no value. I think I'll go cancel an account or two.
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 01:06:00 -
[781]
Originally by: Bomberlocks
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Star Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 01:11:00 -
[782]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
They fired you yet?
|
Fangaroo
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 02:46:00 -
[783]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Nothing personal, CCP Lemur, but we've already lost faith in you clowns a LONG time ago.
|
Htrag
The Carebear Stare Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 04:16:00 -
[784]
Originally by: CCP Fallout Changes are afoot. CCP Lemur's newest dev blog details the changes that will be made to bookmarking in deep space with Tyrannis. Please be sure to read the blog carefully and closely, as some capsuleers may find themselves affected once Tyrannis is deployed.
Quoted for posterity. The ignorance and disrespect for the players in this post is mind bottling.
|
Broderick Cahal
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 05:14:00 -
[785]
Heres waiting for CCP Lemur to post "Capsuleer tears best tears"
|
Miss Pauli
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 06:17:00 -
[786]
Never really felt the need to respond to a dev blog before, but the idea of removing the deep-safes is a little absurd. CCP wont (or can't) fix the lag issue in 0.0, so the players develop a solution of bridging or cynoing fleets in at extreme ranges so both sides can actually load system. Funny that this is removed before the lag is sorted. Also, why cant we have safes outside of max directional scanner range outside the system? I mean, you all do have those fancy deep space probes that require astro 5 for a reason right?
Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current, and in 0.0, they are frequently traded around to fleet members. T2 BPOs appear to be a much bigger advantage to players who were around for the duration of the lottery- now to get a T2 BPO, players have to spend billions of isk, this is an obvious advantage for the same reasons you all mentioned. Remove T2 BPOs, keep deep safes.
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 07:26:00 -
[787]
Originally by: Adm AnnAlingus
Glad to see you have the lag issue solved as well as all the other problems associated with this game that you ask us to debug for you and now it is time to work on non-exploits and things that are not broken. Great job.
I'm glad to see that Eve player community is full of experienced enterprise-class project managers, which are aware of two basic facts:
1. If dev team does not give detailed updates three times a day on each and every particular issue, that means that they are not working on that issue at all.
2. Throwing additional manpower and resources on some issue is always a good thing. For example, if one women's pregnancy takes 9 months, assign 9 women for a job and you can have baby in a month!
[/sarcasm]
|
128th ABC123
Eve Liberation Force OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 07:42:00 -
[788]
This must be one of the dumbest things I've seen these guys do... just sayin...
Seriously makes you wonder if anybody at CCP actually plays the game they sell...
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 07:57:00 -
[789]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
This is better than not telling us anything and letting us assume we're being ignored.
Thank you --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
Mynas Atoch
The Salmon of Doubt Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 08:07:00 -
[790]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
Mate, we could have told you that you wouldn't be able to turn this mess around internally in that short a period if you'd only asked us. Not without the risk of looking Nozh-like to all and sundry. Were you not around during previous abortive devblogs issued on changes without prior consultation with people actually affected with them before? Take your time, but read what we are saying. To take away functionality that has emerged from our desire to work around the games problems, you MUST give us something to compensate. Poseidon wasn't developed to hide a few jetcans. It was developed because of GAMEBREAKING ISSUES. Allow us to cyno in without sitting dying on the grid, or allow us our workaround and the method we found to create it.
|
|
Sunbird Huy
Caldari WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 08:46:00 -
[791]
Originally by: Htrag
Quoted for posterity. The ignorance and disrespect for the players in this post is mind bottling.
QUOTED FOR POSTERITY - BOTTLED MINDS. ZOMG ROFL LOL LMFAO OMG HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I ROLLED AND LOLLED AND CHOKED.
@CCP Lemur, we're still waiting...
|
Kythren
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 09:53:00 -
[792]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
this is the worst idea you guys had in the past 5-6 months, also who has let lemur and that other guy out of their newbie cage? is this your first official patch you were allowed to commit, like you being all excited you actually havent made the code worse from a performance point of view? what a beautiful feeling isnt it, but now you should come down from your opiate trip to heaven and get back to reality. at this point this fix is completely useless, you are about to rob us of the only mechanic to negate the grid deadlock effects. better get back to devschool...fast, 27 pages of rant on your sanity should be enough, and while you are there greet GM Gruber from me he must be floating around somewhere there as well. ----- <sarcasm="inside"> murmur<->eve authentication script(python) http://mumble.sourceforge.net/Mumble, the |
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 10:09:00 -
[793]
Originally by: Sunbird Huy
Originally by: Htrag
Quoted for posterity. The ignorance and disrespect for the players in this post is mind bottling.
QUOTED FOR POSTERITY - BOTTLED MINDS. ZOMG ROFL LOL LMFAO OMG HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I ROLLED AND LOLLED AND CHOKED.
@CCP Lemur, we're still waiting...
I bet your American. Certainly a douchebag. ~
|
bIowen
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 10:46:00 -
[794]
Edited by: bIowen on 16/04/2010 10:47:20
Originally by: Tarhim
2. Throwing additional manpower and resources on some issue is always a good thing. For example, if one women's pregnancy takes 9 months, assign 9 women for a job and you can have baby in a month!
Female human Gestation time is 10 months... just fyi. When you're going to be a smarta-- you may aswell do it right. So I guess we would need 10 women.
|
Herring
Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 11:10:00 -
[795]
Originally by: Seth Ruin So Deep Space Scanner Probes are now completely useless?
That would be correct.
|
Herring
Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise En Garde
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 11:37:00 -
[796]
Originally by: Orb Lati Sorry to say, but the destruction of all objects outside of the range of your new limit to space seems a bit excessive when you could use the same algorithm to simply change the coordinates of all objects (and bms) and shift them back within limits.
While the decision to remove the current exploit for creating DS bookmarks is good, perhaps instead of removing all possibility of having difficult spots to find or travel to, provide us with an in game ability to create them.
An example would be as a function of the the Deep Space scanner Probe DDSP with its limit of 256AU (increased range to 512Au if needed?) you can generate a random BM to make scanning difficult and provide much needed travel time for large fleet incursion into a hostile system. Limit safe spots to a DSSP range from a sun?
While i agree all spots should be able to be scanned we currently need the ability to use and create them if we want to see more large scale capital / subcap combat with the current state of the servers.
Wow. That would make sense. Therefore, it will probably be discarded immediately.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 12:09:00 -
[797]
Originally by: Miss Pauli Never really felt the need to respond to a dev blog before, but the idea of removing the deep-safes is a little absurd. CCP wont (or can't) fix the lag issue in 0.0, so the players develop a solution of bridging or cynoing fleets in at extreme ranges so both sides can actually load system. Funny that this is removed before the lag is sorted. Also, why cant we have safes outside of max directional scanner range outside the system? I mean, you all do have those fancy deep space probes that require astro 5 for a reason right?
Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current, and in 0.0, they are frequently traded around to fleet members. T2 BPOs appear to be a much bigger advantage to players who were around for the duration of the lottery- now to get a T2 BPO, players have to spend billions of isk, this is an obvious advantage for the same reasons you all mentioned. Remove T2 BPOs, keep deep safes.
Very well said indeed.
|
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:06:00 -
[798]
Just adding my 2c (better late than never).
A good idea would be to remove the "deep" part of deep safes. When the maximum range of a DSP is 256AU and there are safes at more than 1000AU, that simply won't happen. Fix the DSPs to reach them and the "deep" safes are not "deep" anymore, and all this discussion can end.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:06:00 -
[799]
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Miss Pauli Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current
Very well said indeed.
Wasn't going to post, waiting for the re-re-revised dev blog on this but reading skills aren't the best trained skills, are they?
Deep safes would become unfair *IF* CCP would fix the 'bug' that allows you to create deep safes.
It is currently not an imbalance, but it would be if deep safes no longer can be created.
But then again it was not the best worded/ thought out dev blog published here.
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:31:00 -
[800]
Edited by: DeODokktor on 16/04/2010 13:33:58
Originally by: Adm AnnAlingus
I'm glad to see that Eve player community is full of experienced enterprise-class project managers, which are aware of two basic facts:
1. If dev team does not give detailed updates three times a day on each and every particular issue, that means that they are not working on that issue at all.
I think the problem is when devs rush out and give blogs on partially thought out ideas and state that "this is what's happening". Too many times in the past they have rushed out with changes that would upset the playerbase (this is one of them) without giving any real warning, taking customer feedback, or giving thought to how it'll damage the playerbase. It doesnt matter how large your project is, be it a science fair for a 5 year old or building the worlds largest energy collider. Steps must be taken to make sure that nothing is rushed into before consideration is given across the board.
The dev stated we would have a responce in 1-2 days (that didnt happen) and no clarification has been made on the blog itself (like a small admenment at the bottom to say it's currently under review).
Here's something to ponder however, and no doubt when you become older (or wiser if your indeed old and not that wise). What's more work for the dev, editing the original blog to include 3 lines that roughly states it's getting re-reviewed, or trawling through 10-20 new pages of forum post.
Originally by: Adm AnnAlingus
2. Throwing additional manpower and resources on some issue is always a good thing. For example, if one women's pregnancy takes 9 months, assign 9 women for a job and you can have baby in a month!
Gestation of human's is rougly 40 weeks so you would need about 9.2 months (give or take depending on what time of year) to have a child. On top of that, throwing extra "Manpower" at 9 women wouldnt result in any more children, you need "Womanpower". Also, if you had 9 women, and a job, you would actually have 9 babys in 9.2 months, not one baby each month unless your saying that the first woman can have her child in 31 days time or so.. and the 2nt woman having her time in only 62 days...
----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
|
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:45:00 -
[801]
Originally by: TheBlueMonkey
Originally by: CCP Lemur Sadly I have to inform you that today's news is no news. We have made yet another plan and will publish the even newer blog once all parties involved agreed. Thank you for your patience.
This is better than not telling us anything and letting us assume we're being ignored.
Thank you
This ^^. Timely expectations management in the form of regular communication goes a long way toward keeping people patient and out of the rage zone. On hot topics like this one, touching base with us daily would at least let us know you're still in the loop with us. Surely it's not that time-consuming to pop in and type a two- or three-sentence update at some point in your workday.
FYI, I'm a big fan of CCP and betcha its a pretty intense work environment, but your skills at player expectations management could use a buff.
My Blog: Life In Low Sec |
seregakz
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:52:00 -
[802]
My view may have been expressed in the past, but reading 27 pages is just too much. If CCP's moto is focusing on enabling player creativity than this change goes completely contrary to that. While some bugs or exploits are clearly too much, it seems that whenever players creatively use game mechanics, CCP deems to be a "bug", which effectively defines "creativity" as "you do whatever we want you to do." I am not sure what is so harmfull in deep safe - I never used them, but I think it's a valid player-created tactic. I vote this change down.
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:53:00 -
[803]
One issue that they seem to be trying to deal with is that keeping track of a volume of space increases with the CUBE of the radius, so, whatever they're doing, going from 64 AU to 256 AU for example will result in the size of the data being 60 times bigger.
The way they're so stringent with that 10 AU limit leads me to believe that they really really want to shrink the size of the database or whatever.
I don't believe they're going to go for making all solar systems 256 AU (the size of the deep space probe), simply because some systems are very small, and increasing all of them to 256 AU will result in a bigger data set than what they have now. And they're trying to reduce, not increase.
|
Mari Seles
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 13:58:00 -
[804]
Originally by: DeODokktor
Gestation of human's is rougly 40 weeks so you would need about 9.2 months (give or take depending on what time of year) to have a child. On top of that, throwing extra "Manpower" at 9 women wouldnt result in any more children, you need "Womanpower". Also, if you had 9 women, and a job, you would actually have 9 babys in 9.2 months, not one baby each month unless your saying that the first woman can have her child in 31 days time or so.. and the 2nt woman having her time in only 62 days...
Sarcasm or completely mising the point... I honestly can't tell here...
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 14:12:00 -
[805]
Originally by: Mari Seles
Originally by: DeODokktor
Gestation of human's is rougly 40 weeks so you would need about 9.2 months (give or take depending on what time of year) to have a child. On top of that, throwing extra "Manpower" at 9 women wouldnt result in any more children, you need "Womanpower". Also, if you had 9 women, and a job, you would actually have 9 babys in 9.2 months, not one baby each month unless your saying that the first woman can have her child in 31 days time or so.. and the 2nt woman having her time in only 62 days...
Sarcasm or completely mising the point... I honestly can't tell here...
Actually, I didnt miss the point, that it was an attempt at a sarcastic dig to forum posters. He didnt deliver on the sarcastic point, nor on the actual idea itself. ----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
Mari Seles
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 14:20:00 -
[806]
Originally by: DeODokktor
Originally by: Mari Seles
Sarcasm or completely mising the point... I honestly can't tell here...
Actually, I didnt miss the point, that it was an attempt at a sarcastic dig to forum posters. He didnt deliver on the sarcastic point, nor on the actual idea itself.
OK then, I might think the point got across, but others might disagre.
As long as you got the point all is fine. Carry on.
|
Kythren
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 14:41:00 -
[807]
@navigator: im running on 1920x1080 i didnt break the layout for me :P
i still dont understand why you guys think this would decrease the size of the database. the only thing it would do is decrease memory usage, however that doesnt really impact the performance issues we have. its merely a problem of processing power and network bandwidth. dont start to spread this rumor or else people would believe it. |
Singion Hawk
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 16:31:00 -
[808]
right now ccp remind me of sony and the great swg combat upgrade **** up 1000's left the game as sony failed to see it had destroyed its own game and player base.
keep this up ccp because your not far from the straw that broke the camels back with your customers
we should have a ingame protest crash jita node permintaly etc to show our disaprovial of your plans
|
Pretty kitty
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 16:56:00 -
[809]
"Tears, Tears, Oh mommy it hurts, Dont let daddy spank me again"
All most of you people are doing is crying. If you are so amazingly passionate about this subject stop moaning about it and do something.
The only way to ever make your voice heard is to vote with your feet. Dont threaten on the forums, make a sound pledge and then follow thru with it.
I think this is the a great idea from CCP, supercaps parked within 10AU of the nearest celestial body? I feel a rookie ship titan kill coming on :)
|
Lady Spank
Amarr Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 16:58:00 -
[810]
Originally by: Singion Hawk right now ccp remind me of sony and the great swg combat upgrade **** up 1000's left the game as sony failed to see it had destroyed its own game and player base.
keep this up ccp because your not far from the straw that broke the camels back with your customers
we should have a ingame protest crash jita node permintaly etc to show our disaprovial of your plans
Epic BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW ~
|
|
riverini
Gallente Reliables Inc Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 17:00:00 -
[811]
this is a Bad Thread IMO
the op is trolling.
German Hugs, riverini
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 17:14:00 -
[812]
Originally by: Merouk Baas One issue that they seem to be trying to deal with is that keeping track of a volume of space increases with the CUBE of the radius, so, whatever they're doing, going from 64 AU to 256 AU for example will result in the size of the data being 60 times bigger.
The way they're so stringent with that 10 AU limit leads me to believe that they really really want to shrink the size of the database or whatever.
I don't believe they're going to go for making all solar systems 256 AU (the size of the deep space probe), simply because some systems are very small, and increasing all of them to 256 AU will result in a bigger data set than what they have now. And they're trying to reduce, not increase.
This just can't be correct. Your concept would be analogous to a bitmap image, where every pixel requires a bit of data, so increase the size of the image and the file size grows accordingly, no matter what the image is. If EVE space is run this way, then OMGWTF, no wonder there's lag! But no, EVE space must be defined more like a vector image, where algorithms and coordinates "code" the image with a small set of actual data. In other words, an empty system of 20AU and an empty system of 2000AU would require very nearly the same amount of data. Each point in the system is only a set of coordinates, generated on-the-fly as needed within the set boundaries.
What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 17:31:00 -
[813]
Originally by: Herring
Originally by: Seth Ruin So Deep Space Scanner Probes are now completely useless?
That would be correct.
They would still be useful in systems with celestials 128-256 AU from the Sun. All four of them.
-- Nah, that's just my Asperger's kickin' in.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 18:39:00 -
[814]
Edited by: Zenst on 16/04/2010 18:41:07
Originally by: Serpents smile
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Miss Pauli Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current
Very well said indeed.
Wasn't going to post, waiting for the re-re-revised dev blog on this but reading skills aren't the best trained skills, are they?
Deep safes would become unfair *IF* CCP would fix the 'bug' that allows you to create deep safes.
It is currently not an imbalance, but it would be if deep safes no longer can be created.
But then again it was not the best worded/ thought out dev blog published here.
IF you had quoted the whole post you would see in-context that your being a ****head.
" Originally by: Miss Pauli -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Never really felt the need to respond to a dev blog before, but the idea of removing the deep-safes is a little absurd. CCP wont (or can't) fix the lag issue in 0.0, so the players develop a solution of bridging or cynoing fleets in at extreme ranges so both sides can actually load system. Funny that this is removed before the lag is sorted. Also, why cant we have safes outside of max directional scanner range outside the system? I mean, you all do have those fancy deep space probes that require astro 5 for a reason right?
Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current, and in 0.0, they are frequently traded around to fleet members. T2 BPOs appear to be a much bigger advantage to players who were around for the duration of the lottery- now to get a T2 BPO, players have to spend billions of isk, this is an obvious advantage for the same reasons you all mentioned. Remove T2 BPOs, keep deep safes. ----------------------------------------------------------------"
Remember selective quote mining is for morons, dont act like one please with toss away insults due to your selective quoting.
Also the bug you seem to infer towards are Deep Safe Probes in themselfs that can be used to create a deep space bookmark aka deep safe - so not realy a bug IMHO.
Lets just agree that its a real real bad idea and a change utterly not needed and I'll put your misdermeners down to your anger of this change being proposed instead of fixing the problem of lagjumping into a system.
Personaly if they had a invulnibility timer of N+1 were the min was 30 seconds (current) and N being the number of people in the system, it can only go to help balance things for the players instead of silly idea's like this dev blog that shows somebody has been snorting too much volcano ash
|
Reticenti
do you Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:20:00 -
[815]
This is STUPID!!! Do not nerf Deep Space SS!!!! WTF are u thinking
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:29:00 -
[816]
Just flagging another oversight by CCP with regards to this propossed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HIMPOSSED action.
What about players who have a suspended account, ie there on a break, parked up in a deep-deep safe. THIS is a totaly viable situation and I'd garantee there are a fair few chars on accounts that aint active currently in this very situation. IE:
1) ew its summer I'll reactivate my eve-online account 2) lala payed and logged in - ew the excitement 3) WTF were my ship, why am i in this station - what the heck 4) petition 5) ????????? 6) WTF account cancelled - never again
^^run that by marketing who can dig out your numbers - not everbody will have fair warning given this.
This also ignores the main issue of utterly failing to fix current issues and ignoreing players beyond what appears to be a select few who are perverting the game. Also utterly fail given celestical objects can be >20au apart in places - including gates so you have the potentual for this:
1) player warps the long warp between gates in his ship prior to DT 2) player runs out of cap so only warps half way on the long 100au warp 3) DT and new patch hits 4) player patches logs on and find he has no ship as due not being within 10/20au from a celestical object 5) petitions 6) ????????? 7) player quits and terminates his account forever
Is it fair on them when they come back to play again, say they only play during the summer holidays, does this action not only give them no warning but also blatantly discriminates against them as they will return and find they lost there ship and then spend many days petitioning a GM for something they shouldn't need to? Given this change and all factors, yes they would with this change.
There are many many arguments against this entire idea and I'm not seeing one valid one for it - why is that.
Now given you tried to do something like this a few years back and didn't as you came to your sences CCP, perhaps you can consider that this is not only so badly thought out but actualy insulting to players who already have a list of problem due to Dominion that are still issues and not being fixed and all your doing is rubbing salt into a large wounded player base who are seeing a game they love be labotamised right infront of there very eye's.
Bottom line a dev blog like this only shows that you have not only failed to grasp past mistakes but are blindly willing to compound them - wake up and smell the coffee as we the player don't forgive nor forget such lamentable affairs.
Now I'm still trying to think of ONE single valid reason to impose this change and even I cant thing of one. Not one single valid reason for this, period. Even if there was there would be a far better solution then this. This change is so full of fail that it realy is a huge insult to your customers on so many levels for so many reasons - WHY
|
Tarhim
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:40:00 -
[817]
Originally by: Zenst
Also utterly fail given celestical objects can be >20au apart in places - including gates so you have the potentual for this:
All 28 pages of discussion, with pictures even, and you still do not get where the boundary is. You can't fall outside warping between celestials, ever.
That said, idea of destroying stuff being outside boundary is still very, very bad.
|
Fergus Blakra
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:52:00 -
[818]
Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Zenst
That said, idea of destroying stuff being outside boundary is still very, very bad.
signed
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:56:00 -
[819]
Originally by: Hellvin What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.
The number of items in a solar system is a lot more dependent on the popularity of the solar system than it is on its size. It's not like people are crowding up small systems and running out of grid space, even in Empire.
The justification they gave for why they want to do this doesn't really make sense. They seem to want to limit the sky box to a small radius, and get rid of "clutter" that's supposed to be auto-destroyed after 30 days of inactivity anyway and thus shouldn't be there, but why doesn't make sense.
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:24:00 -
[820]
Originally by: Merouk Baas
Originally by: Hellvin What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.
The number of items in a solar system is a lot more dependent on the popularity of the solar system than it is on its size. It's not like people are crowding up small systems and running out of grid space, even in Empire.
The justification they gave for why they want to do this doesn't really make sense. They seem to want to limit the sky box to a small radius, and get rid of "clutter" that's supposed to be auto-destroyed after 30 days of inactivity anyway and thus shouldn't be there, but why doesn't make sense.
Agreed, I don't find the sense in it either. I can only imagine the fear of both large AND popular would be a factor on a decision to shrink space. The apparent existence of "deep space" communities could seem like a problem if they started popping up in systems everywhere, I guess. That's one reason I suggested that ALL "deep space" be 0.0, to make it less likely that empire space gets cluttered with comfortable deep space inhabitants and their flotsam and jetsam. But I don't really see much difference in the data load since the same player base would likely be on one side or the other of the line marking the deep space boundary. I certainly wouldn't be rushing to Jita just to hang out at 1000AU.
Actually, I'm not convinced that CCP has really considered such possibilities, and perhaps that's why an iron-fist approach to DSS was their first-blush response to fixing an "exploit" rather than seeking a way to utilize what players have found. A "Tyrannis" mind set indeed.
|
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:25:00 -
[821]
Originally by: Merouk Baas
Originally by: Hellvin What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.
The number of items in a solar system is a lot more dependent on the popularity of the solar system than it is on its size. It's not like people are crowding up small systems and running out of grid space, even in Empire.
The justification they gave for why they want to do this doesn't really make sense. They seem to want to limit the sky box to a small radius, and get rid of "clutter" that's supposed to be auto-destroyed after 30 days of inactivity anyway and thus shouldn't be there, but why doesn't make sense.
I think it's because someone QQ'd that some ebil pirate was using a deepsafe spot, he had to be officer!
I'd really like a full, honest reason. CCP Lemur, could you give us one? Remember the days when Dev's actually gave us the full, technical reason why they were doing things, along with a small "for everyone else" summary. Now we just get the summary.
CCP Lemur, and CCP in general..your game is played by a disproportionate number of software engineers. Don't worry..we'll understand you if you give it to us as you would a fellow CCP Software Engineer (or hardware, or mechanical, or EE...lots of Engineers in this game)
|
Valadeya uthanaras
GK inc. Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:08:00 -
[822]
OMG new player might not have what old vet gets, NERF IT its evil ?
Humm, its not like you can't copy BM( if CCP remove the logoffski bug) , or in fact, just get in gang with older player that use such things ?
I mean, newer player will never get T2 BPO from lotery, but can buy one if he really want too ?
I am not a supercap pilot, and not involved in many big fight lately (viva la guerrilla warfare) but even then , I know how much lagtastic its been since the release of dominion, and see the legitimate point in using Deep safe to bridge in fleet .... cause all the other way will result in: your fleet got ****d, never fired a shot, server show nothing in the logs no reimboursement node was reinforced and should have provided enought juice to everyone (humm lovely black screen I like it) failcascade alliance defender always win(tm)
Stop thinking about changing something that was in game since the time of birth of the universe, maybe unintended, but with both side having access to it, both side using it, and newer player having access to it... we all know U have much more gamebreaking matter than deep safe, and if you really want to change something on those, zomg increase range of probe(its really hard i know...)
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:10:00 -
[823]
Originally by: Zenst
1) player warps the long warp between gates in his ship prior to DT 2) player runs out of cap so only warps half way on the long 100au warp 3) DT and new patch hits 4) player patches logs on and find he has no ship as due not being within 10/20au from a celestical object 5) petitions 6) ????????? 7) player quits and terminates his account forever
all gate<->gate travel will be safe... On the day, the only type of travel that might not be safe would be Missions, if one throws you >10au outside the farthest orbit pattern, then time to worry.. To view the width, fly to the sun (ish) and view all planets/moons/stations/gates on overview, and then the highest number add 10.. that's how far away from the sun you can be...
I am sure there will be some variations on this, but your lack of understanding of how this works after sooooooo many pages, and crappy bitmap pictures, says that the blog was indeed not clear enough for everyone. ----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
Mavric
Viscosity Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:16:00 -
[824]
You know the best way to get to CCP is their pocket books. How about everyone stop shooting each other and just start farming isk. Everyone in the player base then starts supporting the accounts with Plex's.
What the hell.. They can have knee jerk reactions, so can we.
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:29:00 -
[825]
Originally by: Mavric You know the best way to get to CCP is their pocket books. How about everyone stop shooting each other and just start farming isk. Everyone in the player base then starts supporting the accounts with Plex's.
and how would that actually affect ccp in the slightest?
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:38:00 -
[826]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Mavric You know the best way to get to CCP is their pocket books. How about everyone stop shooting each other and just start farming isk. Everyone in the player base then starts supporting the accounts with Plex's.
and how would that actually affect ccp in the slightest?
It would make CCP laugh as the "protesters" start paying more and more ISK per PLEX as the price skyrockets.
|
|
CCP Manifest
C C P
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:39:00 -
[827]
For those that are following this thread, a new blog on the subject of deep safe spots is here.
Comments on the blog are going on in this thread.
Although we've been perhaps a bit to quiet here in this thread, me included most def, our community team has been following it and bringing the issues raised to all corners of CCP. Thanks for your constructive criticism, your humor, your ire and all the emotions inbetween.
As CCP Greyscale says in his blog: "Thanks to everyone who raised warning flags once the blog went out - we've caught our mistake with plenty of time to spare and we're implementing a better solution instead."
--CCP Manifest-- |
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:36:00 -
[828]
Originally by: Lucian James Thanks CCP!
Thank you SO MUCH for being so blatantly aweful in understanding basic customer service that you would destroy any ships including supercaps who don't read your worthless blogs and will lose billions in isk to your petty, selfish desires.
Wilful destruction of property does, indeed, seem rather extreme. Question, of course, is, Where would you have their stuff returned to? A POS? Where their medical clone resides? Can't really dock a Rorqual, ya know (let alone return it to high-sec). So I can see the conundrum. Doesn't mean I agree with destroying people's assets (and yes, they're assets: just because it's not a real ship doesn't mean it's not a real asset).
I, for one, rarely read this blogs. Sorry. Between studing Law, and Japanese this year, I hardly have time to play EVE as is. And the time I *do* have, I mostly spend on actual playing. And only ever-so often I quickly pop in to read about the latest and greatest. Point just is, wilfully destroying people's property, without adequate warning, is an entirely inadequate way of going about it. And no, a one-line mention inside any of the many devblogs is not 'proper notification.' Imagine wardec notifications being delivered in this fashion!
In fact, while we're at it, why indeed don't you send the affected people regular in-game notifications? At least 1x every week until the day of reckoning itself.
Quote:
Thank you SO MUCH for all the lag and grid load problems to the point where we can no longer enter a system with a large fleet in lag else the entire entering fleet be destroyed without ever activating a module, loading grid OR any means of compensation for your complete inability to handle heavy loads!
Lotsa anger there. :) Truth be told, though, lag problems *are* worrisome. When you log on to the game, and one of the first things you see is a message stating people need to fill out a form now before doing a large fleet op, well, then you realize EVE is essentially already overloaded beyond redemption. How CCP intends to solve these issues is perhaps best left to another thread. Destroying billions worth of people's property would be one way of alleviating the lag, btw, if the object is to alienate thousands of angry users who will quit. I hope CCP finds a different solution, though. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
Napro
Caldari Buccaneers of New Eden death from above..
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:02:00 -
[829]
Quote:
1) ew its summer I'll reactivate my eve-online account 2) lala payed and logged in - ew the excitement 3) WTF were my ship, why am i in this station - what the heck 4) petition 5) ????????? 6) WTF account cancelled - never again
So people who were not playing for months quitting after 1 day hurts CCP's profits ,,, how?
|
Crotador
Minmatar DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:27:00 -
[830]
FANTASTIC!!!
CCP you have done it again, fix something thats not broke!!!
Got a new one for you to try, FIX SOMETHING THAT IS BROKE!!! LAAAGGGG!!!!
This is my forum sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
|
August Risen
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 20:11:00 -
[831]
This thread is like the WoW forums every Tuesday.
|
Drazi1
Minmatar The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 11:03:00 -
[832]
Originally by: August Risen This thread is like the WoW forums every Tuesday.
hahahhaah nice quote :D
/me seconds that
|
Draco Carollis
Amarr The Dead Canary Mining Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 21:50:00 -
[833]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun. This is roughly the same distance as the diameter of the milky way
Who needs the Eve Gate to get back to terra?
(WTB ship with enough capacitor to do this warp...and the 20 years of continous playtime to complete it...)
|
Fab971
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:39:00 -
[834]
Edited by: Fab971 on 19/04/2010 14:45:55 Edited by: Fab971 on 19/04/2010 14:43:51 Edited by: Fab971 on 19/04/2010 14:42:43 After the web nerf diwallowing small gangs and solo gates camping, but allowing fast ships to escape even easyer than before from a tackler.
After giving back (wtf?) efficient nanoships (dramiel, cynabal) in order to compensate the nerf of 95% of nanoable ships in eve (speed nerf was a very good idea imho), but adding even more specialized ships with specialized bonuses (i.e ashimmu, cruor for web strength), now you are giving pirates even more possibilities to escape. Why ? Any pirate or wartarget, or just a target, will now have to warp and warp and warp in order to avoid being killed, or just... well .. just dock, which will be the only reflex they'll have if hunted.
Out of scan bookmarks are a very important part of pvp, whichever the zone, disallowing it will just kill even more the very good small gang/solo pvp. If you really want to disallow this feature you'll have to compensate by changing some other mechanics, for example the agression timers. Currently these timers, like jump/dock timers, are much too short. Raise these timers to at least 3 minutes, perhaps even 5.
to be honest, I ca't imagine a game where agressions, especially in low sec systems, have no consequence. I repeat, what you are doing is just telling pirates that they have to dock 1 minute after they ganked someone. It's just very, very sad if it's just what you really want.
|
Reiisha
Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 16:10:00 -
[835]
Originally by: Eucarid For any ship subject to this destruction, they should move them to a point along the line between the deep safe and the sun at the maximum allowable radius. Or just move them to the sun. Destroying them is a lazy irresponsible act by CCP.
If people don't care enough about their stuff to pick it up with a month's warning, why move it and make it keep using system resources? Better just clean the stuff up properly.
The people with inactive accounts and deep space property will lose it either way. If they're moved within scanning range they'll be picked up anyway because people will be scanning for those things.
"If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
|
Valkerias
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 16:40:00 -
[836]
Edited by: Valkerias on 19/04/2010 16:42:08 Here's just a wild idea. Have the boundaries, but keep the deep safes. Create legitimate means of creating "deep safes" and instead of destroying the deep safes or the ships, set the capacitor recharge rate to anything in a "deep safe" outside the bubble boundary of the system to 0 except for ships that can NOT be docked, like super capitals, titans, rorquals, and even throw in the Orca for good measure.
Smaller ships, like interceptors, bombers, etc. may be able to warp IN to a "deep safe" but may find themselves not being able to warp out again because they've exceeded the maximum distance that they can gain power from the sun and they don't have on board reactors strong enough to make up the difference. In addition, these "deep safes" should be 0.0 regardless of what system they're made in, like wormhole space. It could open all sorts of possibilities. Rare ice belts (lightning ice anyone) with asteroids the size of small moons, "fueling stations" where players can get their cap recharged for a price, rare exploration sites like Jovians or something really bizarre. pirate staging areas, (those belt rats have to warp into the belts from somewhere, oort clouds (as someone mentioned earlier), nebula, being able to WARP from one system to another without using gates... the list goes on! CCP, you should have really given this more thought.
Edited for clarity.
|
the plague
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 04:34:00 -
[837]
Edited by: the plague on 20/04/2010 04:41:16 Still not sure I see the sense in making space smaller.
|
Loko Crackhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 09:34:00 -
[838]
Edited by: Loko Crackhead on 20/04/2010 09:43:48 Why do people believe that they should be able to find everything that is hiding in space is beyond me. Think hard enough about how big is the space and you could jam your brain. I can understand that having people lighting grids all over the place and dropping stuff there is putting a load on the servers but erecting walls in open space is a lame way to deal with it. Maybe talking with a SF writer and inventing a "space monster" that eats unmanned stuff out of system perimeter (furthest+10AU) will be a more credible story . On a more serious note , let ppl have their deep space spots but clear unmanned things (not ships with characters in) dropped there during DT. Make a way for people to create those deep space BMs in a conventional way, expand the range of deep space scanning probes, and please make intys and dictors able to follow in warp if they have locked the target (that is a personal desire ).
All in one: Baaad, bad CCP for trying to lock us down in space cells (non-sense), and for even thinking to destroy people hard earned assets (plain arrogance). Friends at CCP, you do know that our fun is your work, don't you. So when we stop having fun you stop having a workplace, keep that in mind and don't let the f****kos from the marketing department convince you that we are numbers in a statistical report. This could be the end of a lot of beautiful friendships .
Cheers, Loko!
|
reons
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 08:46:00 -
[839]
Hey I thought this was suppose to be realistic as possible? if the restrictions are placed? isnt that controling outcomes that are otherwise would be a natural occurance? in real life there is no deep space restrictions! But it is a way to increase trade and interaction between players!!!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: [one page] |