| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gloster II
   |
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:11:00 -
[61]
Support .... if they take away the deeps ... it ll be not possible to enter a system in order to fight an enemy fleet .... . Fleetfights wouldnt be possible, after taking away the deeps. Less fun would be the consequence and less pilots, that play this game.
Therefore, im against this "takeawaythedeeps" plans.
|
Pellit1
Bushwhackers
Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:16:00 -
[62]
Supported 100% for the reasons stated in the main topic.
-------------
Rough Necks Alliance
BOOST FALCONS. Nerf whiners.
|
schawo
Gallente
Hungarian Operational Team
Pannon Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:17:00 -
[63]
I support the removal. These make no real sense beside limiting the playability.
|
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive
The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:17:00 -
[64]
While I don't necessarily have a problem with removing deep safes per se, it would be better to simply add some method of creating and discovering them.
The destruction of property located beyond your new imaginary wall, on the other hand, is over the top and completely unacceptable. If you don't want the items there, then they should be placed inside an NPC station (yes, even supercaps - once they undock, don't let them dock again).
--Vel
 Originally by: Jiseinoku
Mining is the path to enlightement.
|
Sort Dragon
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:18:00 -
[65]
|
Teglagyari Megallo
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:22:00 -
[66]
I support the idea of removing deep safes, but not the property destruction.
|
LadyBreak
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:29:00 -
[67]
Signed 
|
Anna Habbott
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:30:00 -
[68]
Fix the lag, fix a safe way to store supercaps, fix scanning.
Random destruction of items, and no consultation with players or CSM, on the pretence of "Old vs new" players doesn't hold or stand.
If you've got a technical reason for this, or you can say it will improve something, anything, then I could be pursuaded to change my views on this.
Random and pointless destruction is uncalled for. move structures anchored at deeps to within your new boundary if you so wish, but destroying players items is uncalled for.
|
Tekai Foo
German Kings
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:35:00 -
[69]
|
Mynxee
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:36:00 -
[70]
Supported because I disagree so strongly with how CCP has said they plan to implement it.
My Blog: Life In Low Sec |
|
|
Alyx Cjarrigan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:37:00 -
[71]
Agreed with the OP
|
Lu Ziffer
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:38:00 -
[72]
Signed
|
Isidore Tailleur
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:40:00 -
[73]
Signed
|
Vir Hellnamin
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:45:00 -
[74]
voting for more beer!
--
"Entering MH means instant death. It's worse than 0.0. Even the asteroids shoot back." - Alex Harumichi [GRD]
|
Depili
Blood Works Inc.
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:46:00 -
[75]
Let's see if ccp listens to it's players for once....
|
Rebnott Valeri
Epiphyte Mining and Exploration
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:47:00 -
[76]
Supported.
Fix jump-in lag first!
|
Noertti
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:47:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Noertti on 13/04/2010 13:47:18
|
Padre deSoya
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:49:00 -
[78]
signed |
Sylvia Lafayette
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 13:58:00 -
[79]
signed.
|
Lord Atlan
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:03:00 -
[80]
fix lag completely. Then fix deep safes. Not the other way.
signed
|
|
|
Rokkit Kween
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:04:00 -
[81]
Supported.
The ability to make said spots should be removed, but more thought needs to be given as to what will happen to any property hidden at these spots.
Will hidden Super-caps and Titans be re-imbursed?
Also the boundary should be upped to 20AU beyond the furthest celestial, to put you out of D-scan range but still leave you probable.
Another consideration is missions. What if a mission spawns a deadspace complex beyind the boundary? will it still be warpable. It would seem not from the Dev Blog. This would not only make the mission undoable, even if it was warpable you would be unable to bookmark it for salvaging (if you're a one man show and run the missions then come back in a salvage boat)
All in all this seems like a solution that has been rushed through without much in the way of consideration, consultation or thought. Put it on hold till you can solve all the problems that doing it throws up.
|
Volarus II
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:07:00 -
[82]
signed (and underlined) 
omfg, is this really an issue you spend developers time? Go and have a beer instead, maybe this clear things a littel. 
|
fixmer
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:18:00 -
[83]
100% signed
|
Smexer
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:20:00 -
[84]
signed!
|
August Hayek
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:22:00 -
[85]
Edited by: August Hayek on 13/04/2010 14:22:08
Signed.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Xenogenesis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:28:00 -
[86]
Sorry to say... I honestly think this change is a good compromise.
10 AU is nothing to sneeze at as far as distance is concerned... the only thing that makes me frown a little is the destruction of property beyond that... but what the hell would be out there as it is?
The "Excuses" for not having this change are honestly quite utterly pathetic... so far all I've seen are:
1: Fix lag because deep safe's are needed as a result.
2: I've played this game too long and deserve this privilege.
3: CCP you suxxors
4: ???
5: My Profit!!!!
Let's be honest... the whole idea of a deep safe has been controversial and at best dare I say exploitative.
It's an abuse of game mechanics... legal at the time or not... the game wasn't meant to be played in that way.
If you can't create a deep safe without forcing the game to "quit" or "disconnecting" or "logging off" then honestly In my eyes its abuse.
But that's just me.
Now don't get me wrong... as a Jump Freighter pilot... I would use a deep safe to protect my 4.5 (now 5) billion ISK investment... but then CCP doesn't like that.
If CCP makes this change I won't lose sleep over it.
If they reverse it... I won't lose sleep over it.
But my interpretation of the rules/mechanics says.... this is good.
If anything it will force people to fly smarter... and not give you an instant-immunity to getting shot down.
I have personally seen a gross abuse of this mechanic... repeatedly.
Sorry to say... nice to see it get nerfed.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:39:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 13/04/2010 14:45:36
I, for one, disapprove of this.
There will still be 'deep safes' out there, just not super-deep safes. There are plenty of systems which are >100 AU in diameter. I'm more concerned about the fact that you will still be able to hide things in these systems which are unlikely to be found without Deep Space probes yet this will not be possible in others.
Rework the 'grid' system on the solar system map so it doesn't spaz out when trying to place probes at range.
Have a 'hard cap' of say 256 AU diameter. All bookmarks/assets move to the edge of this 'cap' come patch day but make the 'warpable' boundry 257 AU to prevent some fellow right on the edge sneaking back over it in his supercap and becoming truely unprobable.
Until then you'll probably see me and my alts logging in and out a lot as I push the boundries in systems I frequent.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
No. Larkonis |
Master Akira
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:40:00 -
[88]
Supported.
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:45:00 -
[89]
Signed
If a hard wall -must- exist for server performance reasons it should be hundreds of AU out, allowing us to have both a sandbox feel and a use for deep space probes. Also WTB Devs that don't just say "meh, delete all their stuff" and consult CSM (that's what they are there for right?) about **** like this.
|
Khors
Amtek Inc
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:46:00 -
[90]
Signed.
-
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |