| 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) |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
   |
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:46:00 -
[91]
Agree. I don't disagree that something should be done, but 10AU is just a bit ridiculous as a mission runner would sometimes be beyond that threshold and would need to set a BM.
Don't have any deep safes myself but feel it's absurd that you put a padded wall on a solar system. Yes, eliminate the mechanic that allows you to create the "poseidon" safe but set the limit at whatever the missions take you plus 20AU. If someone wants to run their interceptor for 11 hrs to create a deep safe in some system then they should be able to do so.
Space has no limits.
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:48:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: Drake Draconis
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.
Currently you can make deep safes without using the logoff/logon trick, there are actually a few methods (which CCP might be removing as part of this, but they haven't specified) but only the logoff/logon one was available to anyone.
I guess in your eyes it can't be classed as abuse any more 
In seriousness this heavy handed nerfbatting is not required and the reasons used to justify it are utterly ridiculous.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM5!
|
Rastuasi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:52:00 -
[93]
I have not used deep safes but eve is open, free, and unlimited. Even in the chronicles pod pilots warp to deep spots for wrecks, there is no logical reasoning to your decision ccp and you will be liable to being sued for false advertisement of the sandbox idea in the butterfly effect trailor
|
Ariah Adama
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:53:00 -
[94]
|
5erious Business
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:57:00 -
[95]
Couldn't agree more, many people keep repeating that the current deep safes are an unfair advantage to new players when the reality is that ANYONE is easily capable of making his/her own deep safespots, it's not even that hard to do.
I'd much prefer a new method was introduced to make it possible to scan these down like the OP mentioned. |
Fartislartbast
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 14:58:00 -
[96]
150%
|
cBOLTSON
Shadow Legion.
Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:00:00 -
[97]
Right I know this is only a game, but its a bloody good one at that.
Ive only been playing eve just over a year so im still young in relative terms. I only recently discovered the
'posiedon manual'
I had read through the 'Grid foo manual' before that. I have to say ccp they are intresting reads. Dont you like the fact that so much effort goes into these things? This is the sandbox you wanted and hell we all love!
DEEP SAFES - Keep them! The first thing I did when i figured out how to do them was make a long tour around my system. It was great being able to warp huge distances, fling past the sun and out to the other side of systems you cant normally do that it.
Long story short - PLEASE KEEP DEEP SAFES. Either changed the way they are created so its an in game ability. Or change scanning ranges so that you can scan out to the far reaches of space.
The ammout of feedback here is surely eveident to the communities wishes?
|
Zoon Muidac
eXceed Inc.
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:00:00 -
[98]
This is going to be 3 terrible expansions in a row. Perhaps they are planning on us forgeting about the lag when this new expansion brings in all the new game breaking bugs.
|
XxNukeyxX
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:00:00 -
[99]
signed
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:01:00 -
[100]
I'm torn on this issue. I think there is a very small, very small percentage of eve players that own these deep safe spots. I do know that that small percentage will try to make their voice be extremely loud to be heard by CCP.
Is having a deep safe spot an unfair advantage? Sure. The tools to create the same advantage are no longer available. My problem is that CCP waited this long to remove these deep safes. If they had done away with this immediately when they took away the tools to make them then they would not be as coveted as they are from all the threads started and comments on the dev blog.
In many ways, I view these deep safes as I do owners of the T2 BPO's. These are the ones who lucked out. It is a valuable asset, just like the deep safes. I would be shouting at CCP too if it was not for this one factor. Invention allows those without T2 BPO's to compete with those who do have it.
I have seen someone light a cyno, sacrafice the ship the lit the cyno by killing it thus forcing the cyno to drop. The cyno was 2000+ AU away from where we were at in the solar system. This allowed them to bridge in an entire fleet uncontested. No one was able to warp to the beacon before it closed, no even remotely close.
I can't remember if you can right click on a cyno beacon and bookmark it, but it creates and extreme, extreme unfair advantage that can not be duplicated. It is not the same as when comparing invention to T2 BPO owners.
Now I will say I completely disagree with them blowing up ships that players are currently flying if they are at said deep safes.
If CCP is do get rid of deep safe bookmarks, then they should move any ship that a player is piloting to a random safe spot that is actually within the boundaries of the solar system. Hopefully to the furthest edge of the boundary. If that is not possible, then by all means, dock them in the closest non-kick out station. Capitals and super capitals to the closest non-kickout, low sec station. Along with this, any ships they docked that was out of bounds, when that player logs in, there is a window that pops up just like the EULA. They have to read it and in this letter it explains what CCP did, why and lets them know where they were moved. The player has to scroll to the bottom to get a box to pop up that they check saying they read the letter. Once checked, they can hit the 'enter game' button.
I mean no offence to those forum warriors that make a habit of spending a sizable amount of time on the forums, but having to read the forums constantly to watch for things like this, in order to prevent your ship from being blown up because of where you logged is total ****ing bull**** and you know it CCP. 
In the end I agree that the deep safes should be removed. I do not agree with you punishing those who happen to be logged off there with their ships when the patch hits. You want to change something this controversial in the game then you need to handle it with kid gloves.
Blowing up each others ships is OUR job, not yours. We pay for that privilege.
|
|
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar
Shadow Cadre
Xenogenesis Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:01:00 -
[101]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Originally by: Drake Draconis
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.
Currently you can make deep safes without using the logoff/logon trick, there are actually a few methods (which CCP might be removing as part of this, but they haven't specified) but only the logoff/logon one was available to anyone.
I guess in your eyes it can't be classed as abuse any more
In seriousness this heavy handed nerfbatting is not required and the reasons used to justify it are utterly ridiculous.
First off... the only other method means slow boating it in an interceptor or some other ship for hours on end... which even then would be a bit silly.
At least obviously... feel free to expose other tactics that don't involve leaving the game repeatedly. (Bring up the Carrier/Fighter trick and I'm pretty damn sure that's called an exploit considering what happened to the idiot that tried that in 0.0 space when I was there)
And secondly... the reasons to justify this change at just as every bit ridiculous as the reasons to not have the change.
and if you had read my post before making your little nice argumentative poke in the side... you'd see I honestly don't care either way... if it happens.. it happens... if it doesn't... so be it.
I'm entitled to my opinion... but I sure as hell won't make silly excuses as to why it's needed.
People complain and whine about ships repeated logoffsking and being unable to track them down and kill them.
How ironic that suddenly everyone want's to keep that mechanic... lets be honest.. deep safe's encourage this... you can't have it both ways...
With that I will no longer discuss this topic.
=========================
CEO of Shadow Cadre
http://www.shadowcadre.com
========================= |
ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:01:00 -
[102]
Edited by: ElvenLord on 13/04/2010 15:01:39
I forgot one option to add, instead of killing deep safes and ruining deep space probing and possible exploration, CCP should ponder a bit on it (but proper game designers this time pls, ones with brain).
Few times mentioned comets and comet mining could become part of deep space spots in systems, this could be a new reason to use 100+AU probes, as space is limitless and comets tend to get far away from center of the system 
|
Mona X
C0VEN
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:01:00 -
[103]
signed
|
Oli Geist
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:03:00 -
[104]
Supported, by which I mean I strongly dislike the deep-safe change.
I'm unconvinced by its necessity (smart probing tactics? Improve deepspace probes?); even if it were, the proposed fix is poor (utterly invulnerable beyond a potentially reachable boundary?); even if the fix weren't, the implementation is terrible (destruction of assets.)
To top it all off, not running this past the CSM first was just silly.
|
Kalain ap'Sulen
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:06:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Kalain ap''Sulen on 13/04/2010 15:06:45
Unthink this stupidity.
Quando ami flunkus morti. |
Sunbird Huy
WEPRA CORP
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:11:00 -
[106]
They need a slap across the face too.
|
MrEMan
Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:13:00 -
[107]
agree
|
Clb
The Intersect
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:14:00 -
[108]
The implementation is completely wrong.
Firstly, inactive supercaps should not be getting destroyed.
Secondly, break every bookmark that is in a place that it should have never been possible to get to, without the logoff-trick, or don't break any of them.
Do it right the first time or don't do it at all.
---
|
Jinhai Storm
Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:14:00 -
[109]
also agree
|
Jerid Verges
Gallente
The Society of Innovation
The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:23:00 -
[110]
Not supporting for these reasons.
-Using Deep Deep safes is something that only older players have in their pockets. (You can argue that you can make Deep safes with interceptors but you won't ever be able to get the 1000 AU safes old players had)
-CCP is totally in the right to eliminate anything beyond the border (Which by the way, it is not a border, you can still fly past 10 AU but now it is going to be meaningless to do so) they've given notice.
-Supercap pilots will be forced to play the game fairer, as now they cannot store their ships 1000 AU from the center. Even then, they can still put a supercap in an alt and logoff, that is pure invulnerability. So no, supercap pilots are fine.
I WOULD however support this initiative if some hard limits were set.
-Deep Space Probe buff immediately
-Super Deep safes removed (beyond 100 AU or something like that) but safes within 100 are okay.
-Implement mechanic to create these deep safes (Besides slow boating interceptors).
|
|
|
Luccul
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:23:00 -
[111]
I object to CCP's plans for changing and/or eliminating deep safes, especially for destroying things currently at such safes.
I am not in favour of using a log-off trick to create deep safes, but I think deep safes should be possible via an in-game mechanic available to everyone. How about a "warp beyond" option where you can warp to an object plus some distance past it (in AUs please). Putting a max on the distance from the sun is ok, but make it more reasonable than the proposed change.
|
Tae Jito
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:24:00 -
[112]
signed
|
Lost Hamster
Hamster Holding Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:28:00 -
[113]
Signed
|
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:29:00 -
[114]
Edited by: James Tritanius on 13/04/2010 15:32:49
I can see problems with destroying objects outside of the great wall of >10 AU (just move them and the corresponding bookmark within range). But I don't see any problems with removing deep space safes.
Quote:
-Implement mechanic to create these deep safes (Besides slow boating interceptors)
Slow boating interceptors do not create deep safes... It would take an interceptor going at 5km/s an entire year to travel 1.0AU.
|
Jenina Hawke
Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish
Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:32:00 -
[115]
Signed!
***** Jenina Hawke *****
Happy to fly with AAA & ET, the best FC in the game. |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:40:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Jerid Verges
Not supporting for these reasons.
-Using Deep Deep safes is something that only older players have in their pockets. (You can argue that you can make Deep safes with interceptors but you won't ever be able to get the 1000 AU safes old players had)
yes only old players can read the documentation freely avaiable on the internet to make deep safe spots. 
Quote:
-CCP is totally in the right to eliminate anything beyond the border (Which by the way, it is not a border, you can still fly past 10 AU but now it is going to be meaningless to do so) they've given notice.
-Supercap pilots will be forced to play the game fairer, as now they cannot store their ships 1000 AU from the center. Even then, they can still put a supercap in an alt and logoff, that is pure invulnerability. So no, supercap pilots are fine.
I WOULD however support this initiative if some hard limits were set.
-Deep Space Probe buff immediately
-Super Deep safes removed (beyond 100 AU or something like that) but safes within 100 are okay.
-Implement mechanic to create these deep safes (Besides slow boating interceptors).
|
Normin Bates
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:42:00 -
[117]
CCP, please use your brains before nerfing stuffs you don't understand! |
Hideomi Dye
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:44:00 -
[118]
I fully support this topic.
|
TehPhil
Community for Justice
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:44:00 -
[119]
Signed.
--
Everybody Panic! |
Toerstun
|
Posted - 2010.04.13 15:48:00 -
[120]
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |