Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:20:00 -
[1]
CCP Greyscale's newest blog is on the changes to the previous proposed Deep Space Bookmarks proposal. Read it all here.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:23:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Bellum Eternus on 16/04/2010 21:29:47
This should be good... also, first.
Edit: I've done the impossible- in before Chribba. :) -
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. |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:27:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Chribba on 16/04/2010 21:29:56 Wheeee
"The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun." <-- Thfs happen to be one of the old "system" bookmarks? Seeing asi ti would be virtually impossible to make this one manually using the old technique...? Just asking since it would be cool to actually know if they had a max limit, as my POD only warped some 3,000AU with its cap back in the days.
Secure 3rd party service | my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' |
|
Mystrin Micro
Gallente Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:27:00 -
[4]
I'm ok with this.
And wow at the furthest BM out.
|
Broderick Cahal
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:29:00 -
[5]
Sounds good and yeah lol at the furthest BM.
|
Rokkit Kween
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:35:00 -
[6]
Can we get some clarification on a couple of things:
1. will points outside the new 20AU boundary be bookmarkable? 2. Will points outside the boundary be warpable?
I'll quote the blog to show where the confusion arises:
Quote: No restrictions will be made on warping, module activation etc.
I ask because in the original 'solution' it would seem to have been possible to warp to a point just inside the boundary and then move across it, rendering your ship basically invulnerable whilst still being visible on d-scan and able to be probed. Has this possible exploit been addressed?
Also: First page! Yay!
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:41:00 -
[7]
Bloody hell that's a long safespot... that would take about a day to warp to in a blummin transport ship.
Anyway, I still think that bookmarks up to the new border need to be creatable, unless of course CCP has fixed the 'non loading grid' lag. ------------- Rough Necks Alliance
BOOST FALCONS. Nerf whiners.
|
Ryas Nia
Minmatar Veto.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:43:00 -
[8]
posting to confirm that Ops is infact awesome!
|
Jimer Lins
Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:45:00 -
[9]
Maybe I'm doing the math wrong, but 5.9 billion AU in a max-skilled covops with T2 warp speed rigs comes out to 8.8 years, assuming you were going 24/7 (no downtime).
How did anyone get that bookmark?
Blog and Podcast - Twitter: DeclareWar
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:45:00 -
[10]
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.
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.
|
|
|
CCP Lemur
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:47:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rokkit Kween Can we get some clarification on a couple of things:
1. will points outside the new 20AU boundary be bookmarkable? 2. Will points outside the boundary be warpable?
Yes, if you feel like burning your mwd for months to make a new bookmark you can do so. The space outside of the barrier which isn't a barrier is like any other space. Apart from there being nothing
|
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:49:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jimer Lins Edited by: Jimer Lins on 16/04/2010 21:47:09 Maybe I'm doing the math wrong, but 5.9 billion AU in a max-skilled covops with T2 warp speed rigs comes out to 8.8 years, assuming you were going 24/7 (no downtime).
Edit: Also assumes infinite cap and no rewarping, so in reality MUCH longer.
How did anyone get that bookmark?
I'm guessing that it dates from very early in EVE, when it was possible to open the map, right-click and create bookmarks at points 'between' stars. Perhaps someone zoomed out as far as possible before right-clicking? --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Ashina Sito
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:49:00 -
[13]
Looks good to me.
The resonable complaints of the old plan have been resolved.
Also Tryanis provides a bunch of loot pinatas! My CSM post from the last CSM Election Ashina for CSM
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:51:00 -
[14]
any chance you guys can wait with implementing this until you have fixed it so ppl can jump into a system in fleet fights and not die while staring at a black screen?
|
William Caldon
Caldari Golden Cross Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Caladain Barton 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.
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.
So in other words, because ppl keep lagging the system out, you say its ok for a mechanic to exist which isn't an "OK" mechanic and is basically a hack of the game? Stop fooling yourself. I've never used this mechanic b4 and I won't miss it when its gone. Eve isn't safe and this is not a good thing to keep in-game.
|
Rokkit Kween
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:55:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29 @ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?
Edit: Wow two posts on the first page, Epic win :D
|
Crystal Starbreeze
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:55:00 -
[17]
This is a lot better than before; but I would still like a legitimate way of deeper safes to be supported by CCP.
A warp beacon (bookmark) probe launched like a moon probe with a specific lifetime (perhaps it can only be launched within a certain distance of a celestial object).
I want a REASON for the 256AU deep safe probes (I used to have a reason because of stuff that is out there, now it won't be :( ).
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:55:00 -
[18]
Originally by: William Caldon
Originally by: Caladain Barton Some food for thought:
So in other words, because ppl keep lagging the system out, you say its ok for a mechanic to exist which isn't an "OK" mechanic and is basically a hack of the game? Stop fooling yourself. I've never used this mechanic b4 and I won't miss it when its gone. Eve isn't safe and this is not a good thing to keep in-game.
Having a grid out 1000au doesn't lag systems. Stop showing your bear status. DSS is a workaround for Evil Grid Lag.
Otherwise, fleets blackscreen on jumpin..you get slaughtered before you load system. Stop Trolling
|
notreallyachar
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:56:00 -
[19]
I think of all the things to remove, keep that BM and make it a public warp point ha ha!
|
Lord Helghast
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:58:00 -
[20]
CCP Fallout: will the grid load issue to make deep safes unneeded for tyrannis release?
|
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:58:00 -
[21]
Quote:
# There are around 2,300 items outside the 20AU boundary # Around 60% of these items are ships # Around 25% of these ships are unpiloted
How many of those 345 ships are shuttles?
Also will you monitor for new deep safes being created in case you missed a non-published way of making them?
|
William Caldon
Caldari Golden Cross Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:58:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Caladain Barton
Originally by: William Caldon
Originally by: Caladain Barton Some food for thought:
So in other words, because ppl keep lagging the system out, you say its ok for a mechanic to exist which isn't an "OK" mechanic and is basically a hack of the game? Stop fooling yourself. I've never used this mechanic b4 and I won't miss it when its gone. Eve isn't safe and this is not a good thing to keep in-game.
Having a grid out 1000au doesn't lag systems. Stop showing your bear status. DSS is a workaround for Evil Grid Lag.
Otherwise, fleets blackscreen on jumpin..you get slaughtered before you load system. Stop Trolling
No, I'm saying you should quit lagging out the systems. Something, btw, that CCP is working on and cannot fix when you ppl continue to stack 100s and 100s of players into it. DSS shouldn't be a workaround for you. Quit blobbing and maybe you'd quit having lag issues. I'm just sayin.
|
Th0rG0d
Pilots From Honour
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:59:00 -
[23]
Wow. 95,000 Light years! That must be some warp. Let's see, @ 10 A.U./s is 2.6M hours?!
(9,500,000,000/10)/360=2638888.889 Is my math right?!
Good to hear the positive changes to your plan! Who says you don't listen or care about us?!
Adrift in New Eden |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:00:00 -
[24]
Awh. I kind of miss the cold harsh destruction of everything outside the bounds of the system. It was a very EVE-like solution!
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:02:00 -
[25]
Originally by: William Caldon
Originally by: Caladain Barton
Originally by: William Caldon
Originally by: Caladain Barton Some food for thought:
So in other words, because ppl keep lagging the system out, you say its ok for a mechanic to exist which isn't an "OK" mechanic and is basically a hack of the game? Stop fooling yourself. I've never used this mechanic b4 and I won't miss it when its gone. Eve isn't safe and this is not a good thing to keep in-game.
Having a grid out 1000au doesn't lag systems. Stop showing your bear status. DSS is a workaround for Evil Grid Lag.
Otherwise, fleets blackscreen on jumpin..you get slaughtered before you load system. Stop Trolling
No, I'm saying you should quit lagging out the systems. Something, btw, that CCP is working on and cannot fix when you ppl continue to stack 100s and 100s of players into it. DSS shouldn't be a workaround for you. Quit blobbing and maybe you'd quit having lag issues. I'm just sayin.
You fail to understand a basic concept:
The number's we're currently fielding are *exactly* the same as pre dominion.
It was workable pre-dominion. Dominion came and the Evil Grid Lag came with it. When/if they fix lag, FC's won't use DSS. Fleet sizes won't go down..if anything they'll just get larger. When CCP screws up something unrelated and it brings back Evil Grid lag, DSS allows 200 man fleets to get in system.
|
Mr Pikey
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:07:00 -
[26]
"The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun."
Well you keep telling people to 'go back to WOW' he did and took his ship with him .
|
Sub Trader
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:10:00 -
[27]
what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:11:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Mr Pikey "The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun."
Well you keep telling people to 'go back to WOW' he did and took his ship with him .
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:12:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Lemur
Also, thanks for the slightly more upfront explanation as to what's been going on in the dev blog. More explanation is always better..technical and non-technical
|
Jattzia
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:12:00 -
[30]
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Are the DEVs too ignorant understand this? Maybe, but some reply to the lag workaround issue raised about 500 times in the last thread would have been nice.
I imagine that what's really going on is that you're *hoping* Tyrannis will magically cure lag, but aren't sure so have a lips-sealed policy at this point.
...
I think you're underestimating how many people are sick of not getting good fights in 0.0, and what affect that is going to have on their subscriptions if it isn't robustly addressed in Tyrannis.
|
|
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:13:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Rainus Max on 16/04/2010 22:16:03
Quote: Wow. 95,000 Light years! That must be some warp. Let's see, @ 10 A.U./s is 2.6M hours?!
(9,500,000,000/10)/360=2638888.889 Shocked Is my math right?!
Good to hear the positive changes to your plan! Who says you don't listen or care about us?!Wink
Yes your a tad off.
95,000 LY = 5,900,000,000 AU
5,900,000,000/10/3600/24/365.25 = 18 Years to warp that distance. (Call it about 20 years in EvE up-time)
Or 276 years in a freighter.
EDIT: CCP - if you found yourself at this bookmark and you lit a cyno in a "nearby system" would you be able to jump to it?
|
Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:21:00 -
[32]
Pouring out a cold one for my GARPA homies.
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:23:00 -
[33]
Well, the decision not to arbitrarily delete ships is the only change/improvement I see. I still don't see a solution to grid load fail. And if items are moved closer to "unsafe" spots, then unexpected losses could occur from vultures waiting for eventual logins. But I guess there is at least some chance of escape for those pilots that return to the game, or to that character (if they read devblogs and are ready for the onslaught).
And too bad that "deep space" is essentially going away rather than becoming a legitimate part of EVE. An explanation of why that is, exactly, would be helpful for us to understand. For me it's a loss of possibility, but for some who dwell out there, it's obviously gonna still tick them off.
In any case, I'm sure glad I didn't train Astrometrics to V yet!
|
Makar Kravchenko
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:32:00 -
[34]
I see what CCP did there. |
FluorosulfonicAcid
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:32:00 -
[35]
well, there goes my plans for a 10.0001 AU out TCU to screw with people :(
I bet within a few hours after the change I will be back to making my now more profitable then ever Deep safes.
Thanks this is really the best way to handle it.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:38:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff on 16/04/2010 22:39:13
Dear CCP,
Thankyou for your newest new blog. However, I must repeat my original question - What is the point of the Deep Space Probes I trained up for? There are only a handful of systems that would require DSPs after your change. Is there some extra benefit being added to DSPs to compensate for the time wasted (now) on training up to Astrometrics V?
Taxman IX: Risky Venture
|
YT Forever
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:44:00 -
[37]
Can someone please check my understanding of safe spots post Tyrannis in low sec or 0.0 where there are no convenient mission locations to bookmark:- 1.Warp between two celestial objects bookmarking mid warp 2. Repeat this between two different object 3.Warp between the two new book marks and bookmark mid warp 4.You get an ôin-systemö safe spot But by using this method you can only make bookmarks within the plane of the planets and within a boundary out lined by the celestial objects within that system which means that 99% of each system will be totally unreachable without sitting for hours on end burning a MWD. Or is there another way that safe spots can be made?
And if I am right then what matters if the bookmark limit is 1au or 200000au past the last celestial object û how the hell will you get there? On a final note if all those people are out there at DSS and get moved back to the +20au border, can they then make new book marks for these locations û but no they must not û or then they will have book marks that no one else can get to û and the new players will be sad and CCP will get upset again !
|
Yazus Kor
Naraka Holdings
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:45:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Ahem: wygisygaingw
"Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God and he awaits you just beyond the last theorem." |
Hertford
Ars ex Discordia Here Be Dragons
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:47:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Sophie Daigneau Pouring out a cold one for my GARPA homies.
'Sup.
Quote: A defect reared its ugly head right at the end of last year
At least it hasn't been around for half a year or more. |
EdTeach
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:48:00 -
[40]
Edited by: EdTeach on 16/04/2010 22:49:32 Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.
How about well within probe range but still limited?
A. 100AU from farthest celestial orbit bookmark limit. You can go farther, but NOT bookmark farther.
B. Directional Warp-to-Distance feature. Example ... click on space, right click menu to set warp bubble collapse range, warp. Non-BM ranges will not be accepted into nav comp.
This might allow much easier use of the full volume that WILL be allowed. Getting more out of the Z axis and other areas not near celestials, but still within the new limits may help the situation.
----------
|
|
Jattzia
Gallente The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:52:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Yazus Kor
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Ahem: wygisygaingw
Hr Hrm: ghhvaerbyaerygh
|
Lecom
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:52:00 -
[42]
Someone help me. I seriously fail to see the point of this. Guess I'll head to my favorite system and fire up the combat scanner and make a killing.
|
Nova Tiempo
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:54:00 -
[43]
Can someone poke holes in this theory?
I assume that the primary reason for removing these deep safespots is to remove a mechanic whereby a player can be effectivly "safe" and immune from detection or destruction. IE trying to ballence some fairness in.
To avoid the rats nest of problems or new exploits that will crop up with a iron clad "x AU" limit beyond which you warp into a myserious brick wall, (hang on... the jovians have stuck dyson spheres up around each star with a jumpgate?!) why not change a mechanic involved in scanning?
Anything out beyond the "x AU" limit, make easily scannable by scan probes. If theres an unpiloted mothership or whatnot lying out there, have it detectable by a deep space probe, which picks up objects not witin x AUs of a planet due to the lack of interference. Removes the safety inballence while allowing the infinate sandbox stratagies intack.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:02:00 -
[44]
Quote: (from the new blog):
"The move script will locate all items (physical objects including ships, cans and structures - anything you can collide with is an item) and bookmarks that are more than 20AU further from the sun than the furthest celestial. It will then move them towards the sun until they are exactly on the 20AU boundary for that system. No physical items will be deleted. No restrictions will be made on warping, module activation etc."
Well, at least this is fair. :) Thank you. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
Cadde
Gallente 221st Century Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:03:00 -
[45]
Here's an idea i just had. It might be awfully stupid and full of holes but i still want to throw it out there in-case someone picks up on it or a similar idea. Create a new anchorable item!
Small/Medium/Large shield:
Deployment time = Instant Duration = 3/6/9 minutes Shield HP = 250,000/500,000/1,000,000 (250k/500k/1mil) Resistances = None Radius = 20/35/50 km Target price per = 10/25/50 mil Volume = Enough to fit inside a typical cyno trigger ship.
Note that i only use the above stats as a guideline and haven't actually done much calculations or likewise to see if they would work well.
OK, so here is how deployable shields would work. The cyno ship would deploy a shield and then set up his cyno. The fleet cyno's in and lands inside this shield. At this point the enemy fleet is already on it's way and would land outside this shield barrier (or further if they choose to) but to give the fleet cynoing in some time to load grid and get organized the shield will take any potential incoming fire, this so that if the grid takes extra long to load.
Here's the downsides...
Anything INSIDE the shield cannot move, target or activate any modules. Nor can they launch drones, cyno out or anything at all beyond just sit there and watch the overview. Anything going from the outside of the shield to the inside will share the same fate, immobile and locked down. Shields have (depending on the size of the enemy fleet) relatively low hp and can be taken out rather quickly. Once a shield is taken out the guys inside will have to wait 30 seconds before deploying a new shield (time flux reason garbage) as to not make them capable of having an endless observation post in someones system.
------
That's basically it for my explaination. If in doubt, think positive about the implementation. Problems with the idea are meant to be SOLVED, not picked on.
Carry on!
My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:06:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Cadde Here's an idea i just had. It might be awfully stupid and full of holes but i still want to throw it out there in-case someone picks up on it or a similar idea. Create a new anchorable item!
Small/Medium/Large shield:
Deployment time = Instant Duration = 3/6/9 minutes Shield HP = 250,000/500,000/1,000,000 (250k/500k/1mil) Resistances = None Radius = 20/35/50 km Target price per = 10/25/50 mil Volume = Enough to fit inside a typical cyno trigger ship.
Note that i only use the above stats as a guideline and haven't actually done much calculations or likewise to see if they would work well.
OK, so here is how deployable shields would work. The cyno ship would deploy a shield and then set up his cyno. The fleet cyno's in and lands inside this shield. At this point the enemy fleet is already on it's way and would land outside this shield barrier (or further if they choose to) but to give the fleet cynoing in some time to load grid and get organized the shield will take any potential incoming fire, this so that if the grid takes extra long to load.
Here's the downsides...
Anything INSIDE the shield cannot move, target or activate any modules. Nor can they launch drones, cyno out or anything at all beyond just sit there and watch the overview. Anything going from the outside of the shield to the inside will share the same fate, immobile and locked down. Shields have (depending on the size of the enemy fleet) relatively low hp and can be taken out rather quickly. Once a shield is taken out the guys inside will have to wait 30 seconds before deploying a new shield (time flux reason garbage) as to not make them capable of having an endless observation post in someones system.
------
That's basically it for my explaination. If in doubt, think positive about the implementation. Problems with the idea are meant to be SOLVED, not picked on.
Carry on!
Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.
|
Cadde
Gallente 221st Century Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:12:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Caladain Barton Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.
1) Adjust the HP of the shield. 2) Enemy fleets capable of crushing your shield before you have a chance to load would decimate most of your fleet anyways before you have a chance to get organized. 3) Divide and conquer, use more cyno pilots. (Why insist on bringing 100 or more pilots in one basket to the same explosive situation?)
One more thing, when jumping through a gate one should be able to set AUTO DEPLOY on his shield so that even if he can't load the system. The shield will deploy the moment his ship enters system.
My opinions belong to me, you can't have them!
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:21:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Cadde
Originally by: Caladain Barton Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.
1) Adjust the HP of the shield. 2) Enemy fleets capable of crushing your shield before you have a chance to load would decimate most of your fleet anyways before you have a chance to get organized. 3) Divide and conquer, use more cyno pilots. (Why insist on bringing 100 or more pilots in one basket to the same explosive situation?)
One more thing, when jumping through a gate one should be able to set AUTO DEPLOY on his shield so that even if he can't load the system. The shield will deploy the moment his ship enters system.
1.) Maybe 2.) Nope. 200 man fleets killing 700 man fleets stuck at log in. This is a fail idea, as it won't actually accomplish the goal of loading system for a fleet. The reason we cyno at 1000au is to limit the amount of crap on the grid. Less things on grid, the more likely you'll load. 3.) Already do, doesn't help much.
|
Hellvin
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:23:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Cadde
Originally by: Caladain Barton Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.
1) Adjust the HP of the shield. 2) Enemy fleets capable of crushing your shield before you have a chance to load would decimate most of your fleet anyways before you have a chance to get organized. 3) Divide and conquer, use more cyno pilots. (Why insist on bringing 100 or more pilots in one basket to the same explosive situation?)
One more thing, when jumping through a gate one should be able to set AUTO DEPLOY on his shield so that even if he can't load the system. The shield will deploy the moment his ship enters system.
Deployable shield is a cool idea. Since its duration is time-based, its HP can be huge. Perhaps make an adjustable tradeoff of HP for minutes for strategic use.
Of course, if even considered by CCP, it would be two or three expansions away, so it wouldn't solve immediate issues.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:26:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Rokkit Kween Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29 @ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?
Yes.
The two changes mentioned at the end of the blog are the only differences we're currently planning between pre-Tyrannis and post-Tyrannis in this specific regard. All other measures mentioned in the previous blog have been dropped.
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze I want a REASON for the 256AU deep safe probes (I used to have a reason because of stuff that is out there, now it won't be :( ).
Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.
Originally by: EdTeach Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.
As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.
|
|
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:29:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Cadde
Problems with the idea are meant to be SOLVED, not picked on.
And sometimes the best way to solve a problem with an idea is to pick on it. :P
Seriously, though, way I see it, your idea just adds complexity, and only leads to unresolvable, highly-arbitrary logic. So, in this scheme, does every jack get his own personal "ha-ha-you-can't-shoot-me" deployable shield? Or only 1 per fleet? And what exactly is a 'fleet'? One guy coming thru the cyno? 20? 2,000?
Hontou ni, CCP will just have to solve the lag. Cropping the warpable universe to 20AU from the farthest-out sun, having to fill out a form before doing a large fleet op, so they can quickly add some bandwidth and/or additional hardware, these are all stopgap measures to an underlying problem few devs dare face: that, sooner or later, EVE will have to be divided over several, separate servers. We're not there yet. But the current trend of nerfing the known universe, as it were, to 'solve' the lag, somehow really doesn't feel like a solution at all. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
Facepalm
Amarr Battlestars Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:31:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Are the DEVs too ignorant understand this? Maybe, but some reply to the lag workaround issue raised about 500 times in the last thread would have been nice.
I imagine that what's really going on is that you're *hoping* Tyrannis will magically cure lag, but aren't sure so have a lips-sealed policy at this point.
...
I think you're underestimating how many people are sick of not getting good fights in 0.0, and what affect that is going to have on their subscriptions if it isn't robustly addressed in Tyrannis.
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Star Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:31:00 -
[53]
Dear CCP, tell me: What exactly was the problem of having DSS in the first place? Unscannable ships? There was a thread on this here while ago, where someone recalled how a corpy of his found people with relative ease at distances of up to 600 AU. It was NOT impossible to scan out ships there. In any case it certainly seems as if this was something that was worrying you at CCP far more than the players because I have never seen any player complain about it, only people asking how to do it themselves.
You didn't even think about ships sitting out there, and you're the guys who write the game!
And the time that you wasted on this could have been spent on fixing rockets, improving account security, getting rid of the 100km look limit etc. You know, things that your customers (yes, us, the sheep) want? Didn't occur to you either, did it?
"Significantly r e t a r d ed" sort of sums it up well.
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:36:00 -
[54]
I thought the Test server lag tests said it was a fleet interface and Overview Refresh rate problem...
So just drop fleet before the big fight, no wait...
Making fleet finder generate a separate fleet window and then close it's self when you join fleet and rigging the Overview to drop frames reflexively under stress until it reaches 1 refresh per 0.7 seconds sounds kinda like the answer.
Unless the overviews are querying once per ship on them. Then you could figure out a way to make them query once for all of them.
It may be a month till release but the problem isn't insurmountable.
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Star Bombers
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:40:00 -
[55]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale .... We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time. ....
Yes, this is the time you spent on making crap like your upcoming Google Earth in space. Plus points for using buzzwords like development bandwidth when you find time to do rubbish like this but not fix bugs rockets, finally do something with WiS etc.
Glad you guys got your priorities right.
|
Greg DaimYo
Caldari Biotronics Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:40:00 -
[56]
My baselineresponse is: Good job on a remap of your plans. Let's be honest: The initial plan was not an option.
As the stats show, the number of pilots, that chose to actually park and logoff out there is relatively small (an alt of me is included in there).
The effect on TQ will be relatively minor because of the change, because there are basically two ways that DSS are used at all atm:
1.: Parkinglots for Super-Caps: Still a viable option (which is good, since they have no other place to hide).
3.: Cynobeacon for Fleetbattles: That point isn't covered yet. I can understand, that you want to shut down this "exploit", but the timing leaves a bad feeling with me. Before Dominion I've participated in Fleetbattles that were just plain awesome. Obviously the patch has broken something. Why not wait with the fix, until the actual gamebrakeing problem is solved?
Just saying.
Have a nice weekend, Greg
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:42:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Sub Trader what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?
0.0 peeps were anchoring sovereignty structures at deep safes, making the system sovereignty very difficult to challenge.
The nerf has nothing to do with grid lag or large fleets. The new sov features suddenly made deep safes a game-breaking issue. That's why it is so urgent to nerf DSS as soon as possible.
Why they don't just confine sov structures to the 20AU limit is a question I'd like to know the answer to. My guess is it just isn't possible with the current server code to tag an item with a maximum-distance-anchorable-from-the-sun parameter and have it actually work. -- Nah, that's just my Asperger's kickin' in.
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:45:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Is there some extra benefit being added to DSPs to compensate for the time wasted (now) on training up to Astrometrics V?
No, and there is no precedent for one to expect such compensation. SB pilots that trained Cruise Missiles did not get any compensation when SB were changed to use Torpedoes. My SB pilot does not have any BS skills, so his Cruise Missile skill was rendered totally useless to him.
-- Nah, that's just my Asperger's kickin' in.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:46:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Sub Trader what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?
0.0 peeps were anchoring sovereignty structures at deep safes, making the system sovereignty very difficult to challenge.
The nerf has nothing to do with grid lag or large fleets. The new sov features suddenly made deep safes a game-breaking issue. That's why it is so urgent to nerf DSS as soon as possible.
First honest and lucid answer I heard on the matter in a long while! :) +1 for upmod.
-- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:47:00 -
[60]
|
|
ElvenLord
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:54:00 -
[61]
Much better solution :D
thanks Noah, and thanks Grayscale
|
Crystal Starbreeze
|
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:58:00 -
[62]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze I want a REASON for the 256AU deep safe probes (I used to have a reason because of stuff that is out there, now it won't be :( ).
Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.
I have found items (abandoned fighters) which were successfully retrieved at 700 au away from the sun.
The method used was get 150au from the solar system; launch one deep space 256AU probe; shift drag it, launch second, shift drag it. If you start dropping probes at about 150AU the client auto-scales so the solar system is fairly small in the end you get a nice brick of 256AU's approximately 500AU x 250AU x 250AU, then shift drag them around in a quadrant heading out. Best bets for searching are finding a straight line of two long distance objects then going out from there. Keep on expanding and presto you find your target.
I highly doubt most people have ever tried Or have the skills to do it; but it is possible. Yes it took me about an hour to finally narrow in, but it CAN be done.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 00:23:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Sub Trader what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?
0.0 peeps were anchoring sovereignty structures at deep safes, making the system sovereignty very difficult to challenge.
The nerf has nothing to do with grid lag or large fleets. The new sov features suddenly made deep safes a game-breaking issue. That's why it is so urgent to nerf DSS as soon as possible.
Why they don't just confine sov structures to the 20AU limit is a question I'd like to know the answer to. My guess is it just isn't possible with the current server code to tag an item with a maximum-distance-anchorable-from-the-sun parameter and have it actually work.
See Greyscale.. AGAIN a player has to tell us WHAT the possible reason for this is. That is embarrassing.
Cause, 2,300 objects with 1,700 of them ships can't be THAT problem. I bet there are more objects within EACH solar systems new 20AU boundary than that which can't even be probed down. Conclusion: this has nothing to do with freeing up resources.
So any possibilities we could hear a "We do this because OF <xyz>" from you guys?
|
Jurai Talar
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 00:36:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Jurai Talar on 17/04/2010 00:36:37 Edited by: Jurai Talar on 17/04/2010 00:36:29
Originally by: Tres Farmer
See Greyscale.. AGAIN a player has to tell us WHAT the possible reason for this is. That is embarrassing.
So any possibilities we could hear a "We do this because OF <xyz>" from you guys?
I am guessing that CCP was trying to avoid pointing out a possible exploit until it have been fixed. In this case however, they needed to tell the playerbase what they were doing so that we could move our stuff away from DSS. The result: they told us WHAT they were doing but not WHY. |
Veliria
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 00:37:00 -
[65]
5.9 BILLION AU? Wtf...what is the point of having that. If you tried warping to it....dear lord... |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 00:38:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Sub Trader what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?
0.0 peeps were anchoring sovereignty structures at deep safes, making the system sovereignty very difficult to challenge.
The nerf has nothing to do with grid lag or large fleets. The new sov features suddenly made deep safes a game-breaking issue. That's why it is so urgent to nerf DSS as soon as possible.
Why they don't just confine sov structures to the 20AU limit is a question I'd like to know the answer to. My guess is it just isn't possible with the current server code to tag an item with a maximum-distance-anchorable-from-the-sun parameter and have it actually work.
See Greyscale.. AGAIN a player has to tell us WHAT the possible reason for this is. That is embarrassing.
Cause, 2,300 objects with 1,700 of them ships can't be THAT problem. I bet there are more objects within EACH solar systems new 20AU boundary than that which can't even be probed down. Conclusion: this has nothing to do with freeing up resources.
So any possibilities we could hear a "We do this because OF <xyz>" from you guys?
Sorry, yes - I didn't outline the reasons in this blog because Lemur and I covered them briefly the previous one:
Quote: 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.
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.
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.
In brief: the defect was fixed, a tidy-up was suggested, and we agreed that it was a good idea, mostly in order to level the playingfield going forward. |
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 00:52:00 -
[67]
You don't get it, do you?
Have you, ccp, fixed gridloading issues? If yes, okay, go ahead.
If not, what the heck is wrong with you?
Also, it seems that you didn't notice a gaping hole in your implementation. It will not be possible to create "deep" space safespots above/under the sun. Most systems are planes, but your bookmarkable zone is spherical.
This means that any 200something AU bookmarks, which are possible in a lot of systems due to their diameter, are still possible to warp to, but not possible to create, ever.
So in effect you're killing a lag mitigation technique which relies on 500+AU bookmarks, while further widening the gap between older and new players by making certain bookmarks impossible to acquire post patch. Which, kinda, conflicts with your stated goal..
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 00:54:00 -
[68]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.
The CCP version of "future" tends to be a bit more long-range than most players prefer. Not to mention the caveat of "may find". For the moment I'll just chalk those skill points up as completely wasted.
Taxman IX: Risky Venture
|
YT Forever
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:06:00 -
[69]
So I did a quick check and I think the fastest ship with all the goodies and a pilot with the best implants and in local a suitable gang boost - the best you can get is about 18km per sec If 1 au = 150,000,000km then to get 20 au past the furthest celestial body would take you 5.5 years ! Got to ask again - what the hell is the point in setting a 20au limit when there is no way in getting there! And as pointed out above by Batolemaeus "Also, it seems that you didn't notice a gaping hole in your implementation. It will not be possible to create "deep" space safe spots above/under the sun. Most systems are planes, but your bookmarkable zone is spherical. This means that any 200something AU bookmarks, which are possible in a lot of systems due to their diameter, are still possible to warp to, but not possible to create, ever" So please do not BS us with comments about how much space we have to play in and that it is a volume issue when we canÆt get to 99% of that volume!!! ô As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.ö
|
ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:08:00 -
[70]
95 thousand lightyears?
...but I thought you couldn't go to Jove space...
~The~ Blatantly Obvious |
|
Ra Vhim
Black Bag Ops
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:31:00 -
[71]
Don't make this change, please. It seems like every time some kind of minor problem occur and it is decided that it must be fixed, you Devs seems to respond with finding ways to nerf or remove things instead of improve or add things. It will only make the game less then what it is. Apparently there are two reasons for this coming change:
- Hard to scan down pilots in deep safes. Why not take a look on how you can make it easier to scan down people that are far away? It is understandable that some kind of limit can be needed, but that would rather be 500-1000 AU then the current suggestion.
- New players vs Old players Why not make it easier to make deep safe spots? Seriously, why not make it so players can warp anywhere they want, like the way you move probes in the solar system map. It should be doable and a limit on how far you can "freewarp" can be set (100 AU perhaps). The limit could be based on the ship's sensor strength.
The best argument to why deep safes should stay in game is because of lag. You seriously need to consider this. Even if the lag is fixed we all know from experience that it only takes one expansion to get the lag monster back with a vengeance.
We 0.0 players have accepted deep safes as a solution to the problem. It isn't the solution we hoped for, we much rather would have the possibility to hotdrop enemy fleets, but right now deep safes is the only option. You guys at CCP should celebrate that we can use deep safes, it makes players PvP even when game breaking lag would make it impossible.
If it is possible to make a change somewhat like my suggestions above, it should solve a lot. If fleets have the ability to cyno in hundreds of AU away, they may get the time they need to load the grid and fight. If probes can be changed so it is easier to get some kind of basic deep space scanner hit then you don't need to worry about the troubles of scanning people down. If everyone can freewarp XX AU then both new and old players can make deep safes. An added bonus is that there will be less need to have dozens of safespots to bounce between in systems likely to be hotspots.
If the lag gets better then less people will cyno in at a deep safe. If the lag gets worse again after an expansion, players can use deep safes when entering a system. What is the option? Should we stop fighting because we can't enter the system without sacrificing pretty much the whole fleet?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:47:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 17/04/2010 01:47:47 Actually, let me make a counter proposal.
I don't have a problem with moving everything back into the system. So this can stay.
However: 1) Implement an official (and documented!) method to create semi deep safespots. I don't care if some skills play a role in it, but it should be available to anyone.
This means that we won't have to worry about any future exploits allowing the creation of said bookmarks, and also avoid any problems with legacy bookmarks that can't be created post patch.
2) Enlarge the bookmarkeable area to +50AU(or even 100AU) from the farthest celestial from the sun.
This means that it is possible to get at least far enough that portaling in is possible without dying immediately, plus it is far enough that sling bubble placement is a realistic choice. Warp time will be long enough to make it possible to gangwarp most ships to a better safespot. It is also easily covered by deep space probes and realistically covered by normal probes.
3) Make it impossible to bookmark things outside of the sphere. You're still left with the problem that whenever a new bug appears that makes it possible to go further out, you either have to prevent warping beyond the border (which makes for other hilarious exploits, like bookmarks just on the edge and flying past it), or risk having the same issue again, just with npc corp alts logged off 1,2 or even 10k au from the sun as warp anchors. Scrapping the entire "fix" you proposed, and simply boosting deep space probes to cover _everything_ would solve all issues too..
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:47:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Merouk Baas on 17/04/2010 01:54:01
Originally by: YT Forever Got to ask again - what the hell is the point in setting a 20au limit when there is no way in getting there!
They're giving a 20 AU margin of error because agent missions create bookmarks somewhat at random, and these bookmarks COULD be beyond the outermost planet by 1 au or 2 or 10. So, rather than having to check that no mission will give a bookmark outside the range, they decided to just add 20 AU margin of error.
Batolemaeus: using the word "deep" is just making them cover their ears and say "lalala can't hear you". I don't think they want to allow anything past the 20 AU range, period. However, they MAY be willing to let us create bookmarks up and down from the sun, within the 20 AU sphere limit. By moving a probe-like pointer around, for example. So much space within each solar system not being used...
Currently, if you're a smart player looking to profit from this change, making yourself a nice set of bookmarks up and down from the sun, but within the 20 AU range, is the way to go. Because, nobody will be able to make such bookmarks soon. And, since they're within range, they won't get "moved". There will be pretty high demand for these bookmarks.
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:49:00 -
[74]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
In brief: the defect was fixed, a tidy-up was suggested, and we agreed that it was a good idea, mostly in order to level the playingfield going forward.
Respond please to using Deep Safe's as a work around to game crippling lag, and that taking them away *$&^s over Fleet fights.
You've already admitted you didn't fully think through this change. Have you guys sat down and talked about nuking the only way to get a fleet in system to have a fight?
What "CCP approved" method will you be giving us to get around the lag if you take away DSS?
|
Lecom
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:52:00 -
[75]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
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.
In brief: the defect was fixed, a tidy-up was suggested, and we agreed that it was a good idea, mostly in order to level the playingfield going forward.
Thats a little more that a tidy up. IMO your reasons are a little ludicrous. There are many have and have-nots in this game. There are many things original players have that newer players do not have. There are many things that are very difficult (but not impossible) for a newer player to obtain.
Such an aweful waste of space...
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 01:55:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Batolemaeus This means that it is possible to get at least far enough that portaling in is possible without dying immediately, plus it is far enough that sling bubble placement is a realistic choice. Warp time will be long enough to make it possible to gangwarp most ships to a better safespot.
You're unfortunately wrong on the minimum cyno distance to prevent fleet death. 250au minimum, 300-500au is the safe money, 1000au when bringing in lots o'people with caps and such. Otherwise warp time is faster than the load time, and the fleet is slaughtered.
|
Miss President
Caldari SOLARIS ASTERIUS
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:00:00 -
[77]
ok so old 10AU is now 20AU
no where in the blog it is talked about deep space probes 256AU and reimbursing skills points.
Care to comments?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:02:00 -
[78]
With a radius+100AU you'd be able to create 200AU spots away from the enemy fleet most of the time, which is reasonable enough if you combine it with sling bubbles.
I obviously pulled some numbers out of my rear. The actual radius of the sphere should be big enough to make it possible to 200AU+ from your enemy.
|
Mack Bane
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:02:00 -
[79]
ehm, just so i get this straight.Somebody made a bookmark, you need to "overshoot"warp to the furthest planet from this system for what? 18.69 YEARS to reach it? How is that even possible? the game is not THAT old. Or was it at one point in history possible, with ultra-fast ships? or did the Universe expand?
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Angels Of Death EVE Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:04:00 -
[80]
First off. WOOT thanks for addressing several of the concerns of players
I hope it means you're looking to address more of them but couldn't mention those changes in this dev blog.
However since the devs seem to be looking i'd like to propose an alternate solution to the lag problem so many are worried about.
*puts on flame suit*
A lot of lag in this game is caused by a simple truth: One node can not process the power of several hundred high speed connections at the same time. The capability doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in Anarchy online it hasn't existed in other games it doesn't exist in WoW which is why they have omgwtf 329847290374 servers.
There's very little lag in jita but lets face it you cant reinforce every node in the game like Jita is. Anyway the reason for the collision of hundreds of high speed connections is one of two reasons. Trade (which you cant do anything about as the game is dependent on it) or Player owned Structures: These objects take obscene amounts of damage and time to destroy under the best of circumstances. In my opinion TOO DAMNED MUCH! The amount of damage required to destroy a POS requires a fleet of hundreds of ships. A ton of capitals a lot of stacked range battleships and scouts. The problem players in this thread refer to usually occur because Jumping onto a grid puts them too close to a tower battle. The deep safes allowed them to jump on a grid in the theater of battle but not be completely decimated by lag. Allowing an effective counter strike force if they were behind. The other scenario is the reverse where the defense is ready and waiting in a system and the offense has to use a deep safe to have a chance of dealing with the enemy.
My solution to lag: Weaken POS. Not just by a little...a TON make it so a large structure doesnt require more than ten capital ships to take down in a reasonable timeframe. (10-20 minutes or 1-2 siege cycles) Why do this? Because the size of the defense fleet is usually proportional to the attacking fleet. If we base this on proportion then a defense fleet will not send everything it has to deal with a threat. Leaving a field of maybe 60 ships going at it with out all that much lag. This in turn would bring about more open field tactics. Turning what was a game of castles shooting at each other into a mobile run and gun scenario. This would allow those with the proper minds to execute tactical maneuver based warfare among systems due to the fact players would be freed up to do other things. Simply put the less required to take the POS the more that can be put into other POS's in other systems.
End the reason lag exists and lag will lessen. for what a lot of people are clamoring for would probably take a Cray Supercomputer. And you cant put one of those on every attackable POS system in Eve.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
|
Merouk Baas
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:04:00 -
[81]
It used to be possible to rightclick on the map and "make bookmark there."
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:23:00 -
[82]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale In brief: the defect was fixed, a tidy-up was suggested, and we agreed that it was a good idea, mostly in order to level the playingfield going forward.
Ok, thanks for the reply - highly appreciated.
|
Ra Vhim
Black Bag Ops
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:34:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama Words
The simple truth is that the game handled large numbers a lot better before the latest expansion. Also, it is the loading time when entering a system that is the big problem, normal battle lag hits both sides (sometimes equal to both sides, sometimes not). Finally, if you have 300 players that really wants to PvP and hurt the opponent, then you will use those 300 players when you defend your resources, even if the opponent only bring 50 pilots to the fight.
|
Mynxee
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:34:00 -
[84]
Much better approach this second time around, and also EXTREMELY IMPROVED communications with us players in this thread. Thank you, CCP.
My Blog: Life In Low Sec |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:37:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama First off. WOOT thanks for addressing several of the concerns of players
My solution to lag: Weaken POS. Not just by a little...a TON make it so a large structure doesnt require more than ten capital ships to take down in a reasonable timeframe. (10-20 minutes or 1-2 siege cycles) Why do this? ...
May I be the first to disagree? Rather vehemently, rather.
A few posts earlier I already voiced my concern over CCP effectively more and more looking into ways to dismantle the existing EVE universe, just to keep things running. While I fully understand the rationale behind it, I think this is still a very bad road to go down on. What is next? Nerfe my Accelerated Ejection Bay, or my Bay Loading Accelerator rigs, just because my missiles are firing a bit too fast for CCP to keep up with? Or add more or longer 'forced-waiting' counters in the game? The game is supposed to get better each time, not worse! And yes, I suppose nerfing the heck out of what we have can be considered a form of making things 'better' too; but that's, ultimately, a rather warped reasoning (way beyond the 20AU barrier).
So, now we're gonna 'solve' the lag by needing just a handful of ships instead of a huge fleet? Tada! NOT! Honestly, I find it rather terrifying that people might now think this is actually a good idea. Please, CCP, don't. If you have to, pull some folks off the Dust 514 team, and fix EVE first. And, for Pete's sake, nerfe your own nerfing! It's unnerving. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Angels Of Death EVE Free Worlds Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:37:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Kuseka Adama on 17/04/2010 02:45:29
Originally by: Ra Vhim
Originally by: Kuseka Adama Words
The simple truth is that the game handled large numbers a lot better before the latest expansion. Also, it is the loading time when entering a system that is the big problem, normal battle lag hits both sides (sometimes equal to both sides, sometimes not). Finally, if you have 300 players that really wants to PvP and hurt the opponent, then you will use those 300 players when you defend your resources, even if the opponent only bring 50 pilots to the fight.
Assuming equal numbers if it only takes 50 people to knockout a POS your going to send your other pilots to hit other sites and those 300 players defending will probably be dispatched to other sights to defend as well. I know there are flaws in my proposal and what you state is one of them. But i try to work on equal grounds. Because quite frankly you cant make everything fair and making it fair on equal grounds is hard enough.
Quote:
May I be the first to disagree? Rather vehemently, rather.
A few posts earlier I already voiced my concern over CCP effectively more and more looking into ways to dismantle the existing EVE universe, just to keep things running. While I fully understand the rationale behind it, I think this is still a very bad road to go down on. What is next? Nerfe my Accelerated Ejection Bay, or my Bay Loading Accelerator rigs, just because my missiles are firing a bit too fast for CCP to keep up with? Or add more or longer 'forced-waiting' counters in the game? The game is supposed to get better each time, not worse! And yes, I suppose nerfing the heck out of what we have can be considered a form of making things 'better' too; but that's, ultimately, a rather warped reasoning (way beyond the 20AU barrier).
So, now we're gonna 'solve' the lag by needing just a handful of ships instead of a huge fleet? Tada! NOT! Honestly, I find it rather terrifying that people might now think this is actually a good idea. Please, CCP, don't. If you have to, pull some folks off the Dust 514 team, and fix EVE first. And, for Pete's sake, nerfe your own nerfing! It's unnerving.
Unfortunately i'm having this conversation on multiple levels so your not the first. However. I fully understand why you say what you are. And honestly in a perfect world i'd love to be able to have a 500 on 500 dogfight. The world aint perfect by any means and i'm just trying to find a temporary solution to one of the worst problems in the game. Open smaller based combat is a lot of fun. It really is. Even without direct ship controls you can still have a blast in such a scenario and skill wins the day. The situation isn't something you can throw omgwtf power at. And lets face it no MMO is EVER going to introduce a purely bug fix expansion. Not now not ever. So we're left with either *****ing about something that could take a year or more to fix and delaying everything CCP has. (and turning incarna to vaporware status) Or adjusting the scale to something the system can manage while CCP works on fixing the situation. This lag situation has already cost capital fleets and is a goddamned server exploit. I've stated that in multiple threads time and time again. CCP does not officially agree with my position. I dont know if they unofficially agree either. (given how -A- is allowed to operate in provi I can only assume they dont.) Regardless accept the fact that what you want will not happen. It simply wont. We'd all love to see it but no MMO company has the balls to do it. Not CCP not blizzard not Funcom not NCsoft not anyone.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Facepalm
Amarr Battlestars Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:42:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Facepalm on 17/04/2010 02:43:26
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Sorry, yes - I didn't outline the reasons in this blog because Lemur and I covered them briefly the previous one:
Quote: 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.
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.
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.
In brief: the defect was fixed, a tidy-up was suggested, and we agreed that it was a good idea, mostly in order to level the playingfield going forward.
Still relying on that 'legacy' argument are we? I'm glad to hear T2 BPOs will be out along with DSSs then. They've been legacy in this game for a long long time now, been an unfair and unbalanced advantage, completely bypass an entire intentional sink and gameplay mechanic, and been a source of major beefs from industrial folk for a while now. Yay, no more T2 BPOs!
|
Erichk Knaar
Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 02:50:00 -
[88]
Quote: 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
You guys should really consider keeping just this one for posterity. Thats pretty damn impressive.
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:00:00 -
[89]
I'm confused.. if they are just moving items in towards the sun until they are within [largest-orbit] + 20au, then what if that resultant point is outisde 10au from a celestial? will it all be blowed up and make much whinage?
:-) Sorry.. couldn't help it.
This is a better solution...
Also, to those complaining about the lag, how many of you have participated in the mass testing events? THIS is where you can help FIX the problem. Intel/Nomad |
Samuel Samson
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:06:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Facepalm Still relying on that 'legacy' argument are we? I'm glad to hear T2 BPOs will be out along with DSSs then. They've been legacy in this game for a long long time now, been an unfair and unbalanced advantage, completely bypass an entire intentional sink and gameplay mechanic, been a source of major beefs from industrial folk, and completely impede anyone "new" from getting into the T2 production business in all but just a few areas. Yay, no more T2 BPOs!
Good Gawd.. if you think T2 BPO's are so game-breakingly valuable, then go freakin buy one. Trust me, they aren't, which is why most veteran owners have long since parted with them, not long after invention's introduction. I don't suppose you can figure out WHY that is... No.. I guessed not...
|
|
Erichk Knaar
Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:11:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Hontou ni, CCP will just have to solve the lag. Cropping the warpable universe to 20AU from the farthest-out sun, having to fill out a form before doing a large fleet op, so they can quickly add some bandwidth and/or additional hardware, these are all stopgap measures to an underlying problem few devs dare face: that, sooner or later, EVE will have to be divided over several, separate servers. We're not there yet. But the current trend of nerfing the known universe, as it were, to 'solve' the lag, somehow really doesn't feel like a solution at all.
No, I disagree. Eve will cease to be Eve if we move to multiple servers. The people are why I still play this game. Honestly, CCP seem like a nice bunch of people who care about what they are doing. I'd much rather give them my money, so they can R&D a way to solve numerous CompSci problems they face in solving these kind of problems, than some huge multinational corp.
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:17:00 -
[92]
Seeing as this has evolved to possible ways of fixing the lag or creating a work around, why not just let people light cynos inside a pos? perhaps at a cost to the pos shields hit points, or perhaps removing the pos's ability to go into reinforced mode.
Fleet is safe until they load, but the existing occupants to the system before the cyno get an advantage that they can destroy the tower, perhaps with the fleet that just cynoed in inside it. vov
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:48:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Erichk Knaar
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Hontou ni, CCP will just have to solve the lag. Cropping the warpable universe to 20AU from the farthest-out sun, having to fill out a form before doing a large fleet op, so they can quickly add some bandwidth and/or additional hardware, these are all stopgap measures to an underlying problem few devs dare face: that, sooner or later, EVE will have to be divided over several, separate servers. We're not there yet. But the current trend of nerfing the known universe, as it were, to 'solve' the lag, somehow really doesn't feel like a solution at all.
No, I disagree. Eve will cease to be Eve if we move to multiple servers. The people are why I still play this game. Honestly, CCP seem like a nice bunch of people who care about what they are doing. I'd much rather give them my money, so they can R&D a way to solve numerous CompSci problems they face in solving these kind of problems, than some huge multinational corp.
Not saying I like what I think is coming, but it seems sadly inevitable. Don't worry, though; I wasn't thinking of separating people from their buddies. :)
What I'm thinking of wouldn't have to be a full split; could be some form of load-balancing, between, say, 2 main servers. This is, in essence, how EVE currently works too. Typically (very simplified), player increase works quadratic: with 2 player on the field you need to send 2 packets to 2 players (2^2). With 3 players 3^3, etc. The (upload) bandwith of the EVE server would have to be astronomical to be able to serve all players in the same room. EVE still works, because, naturally, not everyone interacts with everyone at the same time. :) You are, at any given time, already inside a compartmentalized box, like, say, a solar system. And these individual 'boxes' interact with each other, when needed (like when someone jumps a gate; or a market transaction takes place).
In principle you could also treat 2 entirely separate EVE servers like those individualized 'boxes' that just need to exchange info every now and then. Not saying it would be easy. For one, these two 'hemispheres' would need a VERY highspeed connection between them; and you'd still wind up having to synchronize a lot. But essentially the entire population of each hemisphere would reside in its own box. Until you fly to the neighboring box (in what would have to be a reasonable seamless transission) and you hop worlds, as it were. Like, say, Jita being located on one IP, and, say, Rens, on another. Which would mean the EVE client would have to reconnect you to a different IP address when you cross borders; this could be accomplished without you even realizing it.
Again, not saying it will be easy; but I think it could be done. Or, rather, I think at some point it will just *have* to be done. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
Bodega Cat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:56:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Erichk Knaar
Originally by: Ranka Mei
In principle you could also treat 2 entirely separate EVE servers like those individualized 'boxes' that just need to exchange info every now and then. Not saying it would be easy. For one, these two 'hemispheres' would need a VERY highspeed connection between them; and you'd still wind up having to synchronize a lot. But essentially the entire population of each hemisphere would reside in its own box. Until you fly to the neighboring box (in what would have to be a reasonable seamless transission) and you hop worlds, as it were. Like, say, Jita being located on one IP, and, say, Rens, on another. Which would mean the EVE client would have to reconnect you to a different IP address when you cross borders; this could be accomplished without you even realizing it.
Again, not saying it will be easy; but I think it could be done. Or, rather, I think at some point it will just *have* to be done.
You are right. They could easily make this work though by tying it with content thats designed to leverage it entirely. Talking about new "areas" of the sandbox that are supposed to feel detached, remote, and even more distant. Something like deep deep wormhole space or something. Or Jove space.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 04:20:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Ranka Mei post about already implemented stuff..
New Eden is ONE PERSISTENT WORLD, period. The problem we face here has nothing to do with 10,000s of players crammed into this one world. The problem we got here surfaces when (at the moment) more than 600 peeps decide they want to hammer each other at just a handfull of grids. There is no need to split the persistent world. It already runs as decentralized as CCPs code & gamemechanic-design-decisions allow it.
Would be nice to get an update on that parallel-computing/infiniband/split-up of sol system processes thing CCP where talking about nearly 2 years ago.
|
Maverick Ice
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 04:34:00 -
[96]
All this fancy location determination code, and you still can't provide us with which POS modules are attached to our POSes in the API, nor what their status is....brilliant.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:21:00 -
[97]
Quote:
# 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
what the hell?
How was that one made? and how would you even get to it? just rough calculations but that would take something like 10 years to warp too. ------------------------------ God is an afk cloaker |
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:32:00 -
[98]
The 'inevitable split' discussion has been had in the past, by devs.. The limitation currently rests with the processor speeds. The current architecture requires a system to only be able to be handled by a single node (core). Unfortunately, a heavily utilized system ends up with more than that node can handle, especially if that node is also used elsewhere (that's where the pre-battle notification helps). I think they've been testing for years now a system where they can split a system among different nodes, but as you can imagine, there is a lot of complications involved in doing so. However, it's something that will eventually HAVE to be worked out, as processor speeds have pretty much stalled for a number of years now (going to higher core counts instead, which doesn't really help eve's current architecture). Would be nice to get some sort of update on if this project is still in the works, but I am not goint to hold my breathe on the update (and won't threaten to emorage if they don't give it). Intel/Nomad |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:36:00 -
[99]
Quote: 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.
I still don't get it.
Deep safe bookmarks are essentially the only way to do 0.0 sov warfare at the moment. Whenever something important comes out of reinforcement, the system will be blobbed and the inital jump-in lag will such horrendous that it will be total suicide to jump in. Once you are in the system at some other spot and then warp in to the blob, the grid load is not nearly as bad as the jump-in lag. Deep safe spots gives you the time to load the system before the enemy can utilize the lag to wipe out the attacker. So, deep safe spots are essential to current 0.0 large scale warfare.
Instead of removing them you should have added a viable game mechanism to scan them down and to create them in a defined way.
Introduce really LONG RANGE scan probes and only remove the grossest things.
It is a good start that you listened to your players in the other thread :-)
|
Tasha Voronina
Caldari Caldari Navy Reserve Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 05:53:00 -
[100]
First of all, thank you for addressing our concerns. Second, Ops is indeed awesome .
However, we still have the problem of "dominion lag" - removing a band-aid is always a bad idea before the wound itself is healed. Delay deployment of this particular bit of code until the lag is at least down to pre-dominion levels, please?
Now for the part which probably would be better served being in a different forum section, but since we're on the topic of making bookmarks here..: regarding the "have/have not" argument. Allow any ship to enter a kind of an emergency warp. What it would basically do is have your ship warp in the direction it was aligned prior to this emergency warp, a random direction if no alignment was present. Limit emergency warp to not allow it to take your ship further from the sun than the 20 AU if needed... (though many here, I suppose, would much prefer something more along the lines of 200 AU) and throw the "cannot warp any further due to CONCORD-imposed safety limitations" message in for those of us caring about background. As for how this emergency warp would work - simple: it would drain your capacitor in one go and warp you as far as it can with that power. Maybe have it take ten times the usual amount of power needed to initiate a warp. Just, please, allow us to utilize all that space within the solar system - it's woefully neglected right now (I mean the space above/below the planetary plane). --- Sig will be updated shortly |
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 06:36:00 -
[101]
I assume once you got the move script, you'll just re-run it every time another bug allowing deep safe spots to be made is squashed?
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 06:39:00 -
[102]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe any chance you guys can wait with implementing this until you have fixed it so ppl can jump into a system in fleet fights and not die while staring at a black screen?
This. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
greeny knight
Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 06:46:00 -
[103]
Edited by: greeny knight on 17/04/2010 06:46:06 now that deep space probes are in my expert cov op pilot scanner ( someone missing a pod yesterday on a 100 au spot ) are nearly usseless
you can change the deep scanner probes to discover afk cloackers that realy buggs everybody that is in 0.0 space , and i remember a blog not long ago ,that whith the new sov changes the fleets that people orgenizing shold be smaller , well you as ccp faild missable in doing that . are there changes on that front ?? . because i don't see smaller alliances going to 0.0 because they are stopped on the border by the monster alliance ,that now upgrade the entry sys to 0.0 with verry deep 0.0 high grade minerals creating a sov border created by the powerblocks.
when i started to play this game 6 years ago 0.0 whas a open vast space no outposts no posses some npc station now its over seeded with outposts and only 1 alaignment north vs south no east vs west anymore and unplayable fleet fights with 1000 and more in 1 system i. i agree with aloyt of people that say first fix these issuws before intreducing more in the bi anually patches ,use thase patches to fix firsat those problems and bring new contint in once a year you gonna have alot of more happy customers [gold]http://www.funnet.be/greeny1.gif |
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:01:00 -
[104]
Enough with the, "But deep safes is the only way to do fights in 0.0" crap. I have seen both sides duke it out from jumping thru gates to fight each other, titan bridge in at a pos, at a planet, etc. I have seen this well more than this whole, 'pop cyno at a deep safe in order to get a fleet into a system to fight another fleet' crap.
So stop saying that deep safes are the only way to fight in 0.0. You are not fooling anyone.
Everyone has received the short end of the stick on the lag monster.
I have not witnessed a TCU being anchored at a deep safe myself, but I would not put it past anyone on either side to exploit a deep safe like that anyways. I thought they had to be at a planet or something anyways in order to be allowed to anchor, but whatever, not my specialty.
In 0.0 you use any possible advantage you can in order to win. Via meta gaming, abusing things till CCP fixes it or deems it exploit, propaganda, whatever. You get the idea.
The end goal, is of course is the tears. Your happyness is dependent on others sadness. It is constant arguing over who is making who mad more, and the sheer idea that two sides having fun at the same time is just blasphemy in 0.0.
With thousands of players always looking for the next FOTM thing to abuse, I am sure the deep space nerf will be forgot when they move on to the next thing to abuse.
I for one, could care one way or another, because I will always find a way to extract those tears. Via jumping into you, you jumping into me, log on trap, RR, black ops, drakes, bombers, new whatever, old whatever, **** that just has not been done to you yet. There will always be a way.
So dry your eyes folks, and get to pew pewing again.
|
coolzero
Gallente Dutch Federation Player Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:06:00 -
[105]
Edited by: coolzero on 17/04/2010 07:06:28 if 25% of those ship are not piloted and be move to within the solarsystem...does that mean probers gonna have hell of a profit making thing here :)
?? Jack of all trades, master of none...
|
Mynas Atoch
The Salmon of Doubt Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:27:00 -
[106]
Answer the question.
Why are you removing the most effective way we have found to get into lagged out systems?
Do you even understand what we mean?
Myn
|
Centura
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:27:00 -
[107]
We have greater things wrong with EVE than this **** for you Devs to focus on. Get your fcken head straight on what matters.
|
EYEDOLL
Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:34:00 -
[108]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O?
No because WE CAN'T LOAD WITHOUT DEEP SAFES
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 07:58:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Marlona Sky I have not witnessed a TCU being anchored at a deep safe myself, but I would not put it past anyone on either side to exploit a deep safe like that anyways. I thought they had to be at a planet or something anyways in order to be allowed to anchor, but whatever, not my specialty.
They show up on the overview regardless of how far someone is from them. There's no real tactical advantage of having a TCU so far out, so I'm not sure how it's an "exploit."
Also, you can anchor a TCU pretty much anywhere as long as it's more than 50km from a POS.
|
Quesa
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:06:00 -
[110]
Great, you guys fixed a somewhat arbitrary part of the game that is basically classified as "undesirable". Yet for the past 5 months, players have been playing in experience crushing lag with no more than the token "we are working on it" or "we may have found the problem" with no real gains.
So lets recap.
You implement the largest change to the game in years. This change creates unacceptable amounts of lag.
Then you... ... nerf deep safe spots.
Of course I'm not counting the ability to, again, suck resources out of another undepletable resource or implementing CCP's version of a social networking site.
All of this, every last line of code or shiny that you implement/add to the game will be blotted out by the black hole of horrendous server stability, your lackluster and extremely time consuming attempts to remedy the situation and the severe lack of communication about the problem, what you have found and a realistic allotment of time it will take you to fix it. While I understand that creating a time line for a fix is extremely difficult to quantify, must we wait an entire year for you to fix a programmed default?
Do I think you are not working on it? No, not at all. However, the appearance of apathy you portray when you virtually ignore pleas for information and communication concerning the worst problem Eve has had to deal with in years is an insult to the thousands of paying customers. Furthermore the length of time it is taking to remedy the server stability problem increases the player bases' already negative perception of your Q&A and Dev teams.
Correcting this problem needs to be at the top of your "to do" list. Along with that, you must begin to communicate with your paying customers with more than the arbitrary "we are working on the problem" comments found sparsely scattered around your forums. The last blog I have found concerning this problem was over two months ago. Being, what should be, the most pressing issue to date, the perception you give is that of "we have more important things to do". Returning now to the removal of deep safes and yet another example of the CCP team appearing out of touch with it's own players and the actual state of the game.
Things need, no, they must change.
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:11:00 -
[111]
Originally by: coolzero if 25% of those ship are not piloted and be move to within the solarsystem...does that mean probers gonna have hell of a profit making thing here :)
??
"No more deletions! Things will be moved at some point!" - CCP <-- Answer is yes.
Originally by: Mynas Atoch Answer the question.
Why are you removing the most effective way we have found to get into lagged out systems?
Do you even understand what we mean?
Myn
Maybe because they are a contributing factor to the lag? v0v
Originally by: Centura We have greater things wrong with EVE than this **** for you Devs to focus on. Get your fcken head straight on what matters.
Stop being mad and find something else to exploit.
Originally by: EYEDOLL
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O?
No because WE CAN'T LOAD WITHOUT DEEP SAFES
I load just fine. Maybe you need to reset your router.
Originally by: Seth Ruin There's no real tactical advantage of having a TCU so far out, so I'm not sure how it's an "exploit."
It takes only the slightest bit of imagination on how a defender can use this as an advantage. But please, keep the tears flowing. They are durlicious!
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:12:00 -
[112]
The excuse about deep safes being the only way to get around lag is so pathetic...
If EVE has shown us anything, it is that players will blob to the limit of what the server can handle, then bring 50% more people!
The less laggy a fight will be, and the more chance that a fight will happen, the more people show up. More lag and less chance means that more people couldn't be arsed!
Using the deep safes to get in just increase the number of players, thus increasing the lag....
Why don't you go attack somewhere else if a system is too crowded. If all the enemy is in that system blobbing it, every other target is vulnerable, and your enemy will have to jump into you...
CCP obviously has some reason other than the have/have not argument, probably something with the database choking because of all the grids it has to keep track of. Most likely this change is PART OF the need for speed initiative, and what you're actually complaining about is CCP trying to reduce lag.
Grow up! CCP are capable enough to understand your complaint, and if they decide to go ahead anyway they most likely got a damn good reason!
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.
|
Clb
The Intersect
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:14:00 -
[113]
Still ignoring the issue of bookmarks that are within the limit but would have been impossible to create if the previous methods of creating them had not existed.
So there is still no point in what you are doing.
The only improvement in this is that the person who decided that destroying the ships outside the limit was a good idea has sobered up.
So, still a gap between the "haves" and "don't-haves". No way to cyno into empty grids. Still a failure.
Do it right or don't do it at all.
---
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:22:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Quesa
Correcting this problem needs to be at the top of your "to do" list. Along with that, you must begin to communicate with your paying customers with more than the arbitrary "we are working on the problem" comments found sparsely scattered around your forums. The last blog I have found concerning this problem was over two months ago. Being, what should be, the most pressing issue to date, the perception you give is that of "we have more important things to do". Returning now to the removal of deep safes and yet another example of the CCP team appearing out of touch with it's own players and the actual state of the game.
There are currently 300k+ paying customers if more then 1-2% of those accounts participate in fleet battles that have serious amounts of lag, it would really surprise me. The 'problem' is that most of that 1-2% is also very active/vocal on these message boards and Dev posts.
You also can't have 50 mechanics working on your car (at the same time), the same is true with most bugs in programs. There's an optimal amount of people that can work on a given problem, any more and it's only counter productive. I can also understand why they don't communicate more over this issue, it partly involves the problem, it partly involves the behavior of the affected players (if you know what I mean).
While I agree that lag should be eradicated as soon as possible, I also find things like interaction with planets and even Eve Gate more interesting than the lag some large fleet fights might have.
Also, after the deep space nerf you can generate new deep space bookmarks, but everyone is now on equal footing. As a 'solution' to the lag problem both parties could agree not to attack until everyone is in place or until a certain time. It is a game after all...
|
Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:23:00 -
[115]
Hey don't worry guys come the patch if you buy a special dell pc with lights on it it will flash a special colour when your out of cap in your lvl4 mission.
I'm declaring this a good use of developers time and budget and look forward to which colour they use to depict 'you just lost your ship without loading grid'.
I'm going with black to match the screen.
|
Quesa
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:30:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Cergorach
Originally by: Quesa
Correcting this problem needs to be at the top of your "to do" list. Along with that, you must begin to communicate with your paying customers with more than the arbitrary "we are working on the problem" comments found sparsely scattered around your forums. The last blog I have found concerning this problem was over two months ago. Being, what should be, the most pressing issue to date, the perception you give is that of "we have more important things to do". Returning now to the removal of deep safes and yet another example of the CCP team appearing out of touch with it's own players and the actual state of the game.
There are currently 300k+ paying customers if more then 1-2% of those accounts participate in fleet battles that have serious amounts of lag, it would really surprise me. The 'problem' is that most of that 1-2% is also very active/vocal on these message boards and Dev posts.
You also can't have 50 mechanics working on your car (at the same time), the same is true with most bugs in programs. There's an optimal amount of people that can work on a given problem, any more and it's only counter productive. I can also understand why they don't communicate more over this issue, it partly involves the problem, it partly involves the behavior of the affected players (if you know what I mean).
While I agree that lag should be eradicated as soon as possible, I also find things like interaction with planets and even Eve Gate more interesting than the lag some large fleet fights might have.
Also, after the deep space nerf you can generate new deep space bookmarks, but everyone is now on equal footing. As a 'solution' to the lag problem both parties could agree not to attack until everyone is in place or until a certain time. It is a game after all...
You are completely missing the POINT of the post and misinterpreting the content. Furthermore, it's not only 0.0 residents that are affected by this. Anyone that ventures outside a high traffic node that has it's own special server, will notice a performance drop with only minimal pilot spike.
Furthermore, the intent wasn't to get their entire Dev team to work on it but highlight the effects of them not communicating their progress.
Last, the creation or use of DSS don't concern me. My experience with them is pretty limited and have only been used, as of late, to bridge into a system with more time to load before hostiles arrive at your location.
|
schwar2ss
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:54:00 -
[117]
Great news CCP. Thx for taking our thoughts into consideration and finding a suitable solution.
Now bring me the MWD, I need new ds sp ;)
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:24:00 -
[118]
Thanks CCP for considering our input, even if it was at some times a bit inflamed.
Together we keep this the best game ever!
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:28:00 -
[119]
Restricted star system radius? Ok fine.. But please, look at that: picture
Basically, all your possible waypoints are restricted to the triangle between points 1,2,3. That is where you can create bookmarks using standart warp-bookmarking mechanics.
You can go outside the triangle only if: 1. you have scanned something (complex, anomaly, wormhole), wich are not very far from planets 2. you have an active mission there, wich can be created at some random location 3. you have a carrier with fighters 4. logoff exploit (most effective) - fixed 5. maybe there are some other ways, but idk about them
Where are our freedom in space? Why you don't want to create a nice way of creating bookmarks?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:39:00 -
[120]
Good call on extending the possible safe spot boundary beyond the reach of onboard scanners .. maintains a minimum of usefulness.
Now put everything you have into fixing the DOM lag bug so this doesn't end up being another 12-gauge to the foot
|
|
Jamie Banks
Gallente Wasted and Still Mining
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:51:00 -
[121]
Originally by: YT Forever Stuff
Please for the love of God, stop blaming people for your lack of knowledge in the game. If you knew how to use Google you would have answered your own Questions.
Good compromise CCP.
Join in-game Channel 'Aussies' |
Fiery Redhead
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:57:00 -
[122]
Good compromise.
|
Ban Doga
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:59:00 -
[123]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Rokkit Kween Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29 @ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?
Yes.
The two changes mentioned at the end of the blog are the only differences we're currently planning between pre-Tyrannis and post-Tyrannis in this specific regard. All other measures mentioned in the previous blog have been dropped.
Does that mean it will still be possible to create a bookmark beyond the 20 AU boundary and it's just going to be harder to get there?
Sorry if this was covered somewhere in between and I missed it...
|
PeHD0M
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:01:00 -
[124]
DSS will be created again, but before that: Astrometric 5 - wasted SP (also Survey 5).
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:06:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 17/04/2010 10:10:59
Quote:
See Greyscale.. AGAIN a player has to tell us WHAT the possible reason for this is. That is embarrassing
Dear Einstein, you know that since this second of that info being revealed, everyone and their dog will exploit it, and there's still 1 month before anything can be done?
Oh the surprise, that CCP don't want to entice mass exploiting.
Quote:
CCP does not officially agree with my position
And they are right. All of your pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo does not even mention about the UI limitations. Something is deeply wrong at how "notifications" of new ships etc. arrive at the overview, something extremely bad is in the brackets, they seem interpreded code overlaid on an underlying "regular" 3D view and the result is that they have to be removed to make the game anywhere playable. The crippled grid loading used NOT to be so crippled before Dominion so your "analysis" is wrong. Limitations on bandwidth should not come *after* a period of the game working well.
What I have noticed is how low sec FW sucked very hard nuts because of bugs in the FW structures (too many checks that loop over themselves?) and now, guess what, new structures have a similar effect in 0.0. That is, instead of making FW like 0.0 "lag free" and quick loading, 0.0 became like FW.
Quote:
However, it's something that will eventually HAVE to be worked out, as processor speeds have pretty much stalled for a number of years now (going to higher core counts instead, which doesn't really help eve's current architecture).
Imno they have to do an operation that looks complicate and is complicate: make a "core manager" where every CPU core in the whole server farm (ie 4 cores off server 1, 2 cores off older server 2...) publish their number and load to a management server. The server balances the load across the single cores, not the single server clusters, with an embedded calculated penalty for using out-of-chassis cores per each server involved. (since cross-machine operations are more expensive, the penalty would prevent "barely out-of-chassis core need" situations). With this architecture, it's possible to evenly spread the load of the whole game over a fine grained array of CPUs. It's not even be needed to really pre-allocate servers for big battles any more, the central manager would detect the change in requirements and just allocate more distributed CPUs around the affected area.
Quote:
They show up on the overview regardless of how far someone is from them. There's no real tactical advantage of having a TCU so far out, so I'm not sure how it's an "exploit."
They pour the effort at placing TCUs down there because of no advantage. Seems logic.
Quote:
Then you... ... nerf deep safe spots.
Of course I'm not counting the ability to, again, suck resources out of another undepletable resource or implementing CCP's version of a social networking site.
Of course the VERY same devs coding in C++ are those designing the web site... That's really a contention in develompent forces we got there.
Quote:
Where are our freedom in space?
For the same reason you have jump gates and stations as choke points (besides the obvious servers architecture leading to that): CCP want people to clash, not to everyone sit in an unprobable ship in a private and never-touched place. Hopefully they'll also nerf unprobable ships next.
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Hyperforce99
Gallente GoldTech Mischievous Industrial Logistics Ltd.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:09:00 -
[126]
i forsee treasure hunting becoming a new (temporary) mini profession :P --------------------------------------------- Somewhere beyond happyness and sadness, I need to calculate what creates my own madness o/ |
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:17:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Kerfira on 17/04/2010 10:18:06
Originally by: Ban Doga Does that mean it will still be possible to create a bookmark beyond the 20 AU boundary and it's just going to be harder to get there?
I think you can still create them, but baring finding another exploit to get to deep space, only missions, exploration and perhaps lost fighters (dunno if this is fixed) will enable you to get out there, and those have limits to the range.
Originally by: PeHD0M Where are our freedom in space?
You can do EXACTLY as you want in space... CCP is not putting any limits on you at all!
What you can do in a GAME about space is entirely different, as it is governed by what the game implementation allows. In any software there has to be boundaries as to what users can do because otherwise you'd never be able to handle all contingencies.
You were never MEANT to access deep space, you are still not meant to access it, and CCP is just correcting that fault!
You're like a kid complaining that he wants to play on the motorway...
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.
|
Stratio
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 10:56:00 -
[128]
Hurrah, thank goodness for that!
Quote: The fun bit at the end
* There are around 2,300 items outside the 20AU boundary * Around 60% of these items are ships * Around 25% of these ships are unpiloted * There are around 430,000 bookmarks outside the 20AU boundary * 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
So 45% of the stuff they would have deleted were piloted ships. I'd love to know how many of those were alts in super-capitals.
Regarding the super-duper-deeep safe spot, I don't know how some people came up with their numbers, but as I figure it:
Flying at the max possible speed of just under 20AU/sec, it would take around 6,000,000,000 / 20 = 300,000,000 seconds to warp from/to the furthest BM.
300,000,000 seconds = 300,000,000 / (60*60*24*7*52) = 9.5 years!
_____________________
Poreuomai's Spokesman For Tribe and Honour! |
Daedalus II
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 11:08:00 -
[129]
So imagine that some new bug is created somewhere along the line, that allows for new deep safes to be created (not at all impossible imo). What stops this from happening all over again? As you don't remove the ability to create bookmarks outside the 20AU boundry there will be no last line of defense for these sort of bugs.
And what about the Carrier fighter drop thingie? I don't know how that works, but if you can create deep safes with it, isn't all this kind of a waste of time? People will just create new deep safes again right after the cleanup!
|
Shade Millith
Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 11:46:00 -
[130]
Quote: There was a thread on this here while ago, where someone recalled how a corpy of his found people with relative ease at distances of up to 600 AU. It was NOT impossible to scan out ships there.
This.
I'm still not terribly happy, DSS's out to 1000 AU's are scanable and findable. Make your little 'wall' if you wish, but the wall SHOULD be a good distance out (200+ AU's), and there be a way to get out there.
But at least you're not gonna **** people who are currently out there anymore ------------------------
|
|
Tester128
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:02:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Shade Millith
Quote:
But at least you're not gonna **** people who are currently out there anymore
That's a pity really, they should be eaten by things from outer space
|
Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:15:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Tester128
Originally by: Shade Millith But at least you're not gonna **** people who are currently out there anymore
That's a pity really, they should be eaten by things from outer space
That would be fun actually if you could probe "things from outer space" in extreme distances, would give a purpose back to deep space probes and exploration.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:25:00 -
[133]
Quote: And they are right. All of your pseudo-technical mumbo jumbo does not even mention about the UI limitations. Something is deeply wrong at how "notifications" of new ships etc. arrive at the overview, something extremely bad is in the brackets, they seem interpreded code overlaid on an underlying "regular" 3D view and the result is that they have to be removed to make the game anywhere playable. The crippled grid loading used NOT to be so crippled before Dominion so your "analysis" is wrong. Limitations on bandwidth should not come *after* a period of the game working well.
What I have noticed is how low sec FW sucked very hard nuts because of bugs in the FW structures (too many checks that loop over themselves?) and now, guess what, new structures have a similar effect in 0.0. That is, instead of making FW like 0.0 "lag free" and quick loading, 0.0 became like FW.
Your quote is of something i posted but i think someone else might have said that as well i didnt read everything.
But my problem with what I said is the fact that outfits like -A- and others are deliberately crashing systems by not filling out fleet reinforcement forms and storming in with so many people fighting back is impossible. The result is that a system is taken with relatively low resistance. AFAIC thats a flat out exploit.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 12:43:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama But my problem with what I said is the fact that outfits like -A- and others are deliberately crashing systems by not filling out fleet reinforcement forms and storming in with so many people fighting back is impossible. The result is that a system is taken with relatively low resistance. AFAIC thats a flat out exploit.
Unfortunately it is quite often not possible to do so....
What an alliance at war normally have, is a list of possible targets. There is often a preferred one, but the decision of where to attack is not made until you see what kind of a fleet you have, what your enemy is doing, and what targets of opportunity might arise.
You're also assuming that the alliance leaders HAVE such a list, which is often not the case... Alliance leaders quite often aren't as organised as you think...
Until game MECHANICS are changed so blobbing is not profitable, it'll continue to happen no matter what stop-gaps (like reinforcing) are implemented.
Instead of the "This target must be attacked at 12:23am when it comes out of reinforced!" blob-inducing game mechanics, the game would need to move to activity based gradual sov gain if lag is ever going to be less of a factor. If peoples activity in an area determined sov, then the peak effort you now see when things comes out of reinforced would be replaced by a spread-out effort over a period of time over a greater area.
Unless something like this is done, 0.0 combat will continue to lag no matter what is done because people will always bring what the server can handle at those peak times, plus 50%!
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.
|
Atius Shinkan
UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 13:21:00 -
[135]
How about rather making some legit ways of getting deep safe's. Like some other have suggested, make rare plexes (like faction spawns) appear deep outside normal boundaries, this way the deep space scanner probes would actually be usefull.
this way it would be accessible to everyone, and actually some more content in the process.
|
Cemial
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 13:28:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Cemial on 17/04/2010 13:29:27 Why not leave a ship to remain invulnerable and invisible until the client loads grid and the pilot gets control of his ship?
It surely must be possible for the server to know whether a client has loaded grid and is responsive to the user's commands. Then make ships to remain cloaked after jumping (as when using a gate) for a variable amount of time based on the average grid loading time (in that system at that moment in time), or until the ship moves, and you reduce the chances of fleets getting slaughtered before they can even do anything about it.
If that works, it would make the use of DSS's to enter a hostile system unnecessary, because lets be honest, if you fix lag for 500 v 500, we will start fighting 1000 v 1000 and the lag is always going to be there.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:03:00 -
[137]
Quote:
But my problem with what I said is the fact that outfits like -A- and others are deliberately crashing systems by not filling out fleet reinforcement forms and storming in with so many people fighting back is impossible.
First of all, it's downright idiotic that *random gamers* have to inform a third party system administrator. They have to find a way to auto-allocate resources.
Second, as my wise corp leader in IT said: "always assume there are corp spies looking at all of this". First consequence, corp ops are decided by the directors with a series of possible targets and the actual target is randomly picked while already in space and sometimes changed without any preadvice. This is EvE, the game of spies and smart opportunism. Publishing a day in advance where to hotdrop your cap fleet is not advisable at all. It basically works only when you have a fixed priority target, like a POS. Also, the enemy is prolly not going to sit there, they might decide to warp somewhere else. Can't invite the CCP personnel in fleet so that they reinforce the right nodes while we jump.
Quote:
It surely must be possible for the server to know whether a client has loaded grid and is responsive to the user's commands
A consequence of this would be severely exploitable to gain a massive advantage. Not going to happen. - Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Zerakix
Minmatar LEAP Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:10:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Zerakix on 17/04/2010 14:12:06 It is entirely possible CCP is hoping/planning to have a gridload fix as part of the patchday roll out but doesn't want to commit to it just yet but want to get the news/warnings on the other likely changes posted asap and then make a call on keeping them closer to release based on how the fix for the gridload is looking.
CCP in all likely hood have a fix now but they want to keep testing and reviewing it more and it probably needs a full patch day downtime to fix the grid fubar and since they will be going to for a path day soon enough they can use the extra time to make sure it's fixed.
I hope thats why at least. I fail. |
Sister Megarea
Atlas Incorporated
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:20:00 -
[139]
Here is a possible, temporary, solution to the grid-load problem when large fleets are jumping in (puts on stellar temperature resistant flame suit):
Lock the system down until the fleet jumps in.
If the node sees >$X ships jumping in, a system-wide message goes out, something like "A massive flux in the space-time continuum has been detected! Time is slowing down for everyone in $Y system until the continuum stabilizes!"
Stargates would be locked down while the system stabilized.
There is a huge pro and a huge con to this, obviously, but I would think it balances out until a better grid lag solution is found:
Con: It alerts absolutely everyone in system that a massive mother of a fleet is warping in.
Pro: It prevents insta-death of large fleets of uber-expensive ships and much frustration.
Perfect solution ? Not by a long shot. I would imagine that it would prevent quite a lot of tears of frustration, though.
|
StinkRay
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:46:00 -
[140]
Edited by: StinkRay on 17/04/2010 14:49:03 I don't get it.
Why don't you instead make the boundary 20 off any planet/sun instead?
ie, check distance to sun and all planets. If none is within 20 AU, place object at a distance of 20 AU of the closest celestial
That would solve your volume problem.
|
|
Clansworth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:22:00 -
[141]
Originally by: StinkRay Edited by: StinkRay on 17/04/2010 14:49:03 I don't get it.
Why don't you instead make the boundary 20 off any planet/sun instead?
ie, check distance to sun and all planets. If none is within 20 AU, place object at a distance of 20 AU of the closest celestial
That would solve your volume problem.
Wow.. i was joking earlier when I brought this into this thread... but I still don't get why there's confusion here.
There is no 'volume problem' that they are trying to solve. the system load is based on what is in the system, and what those things are doing, not thhow much empty space there is. System performance has nothing to do with this change. There is no 'volume problem' that they are trying to solve. A system's load is based on what's in it, not how m uch empty space there is. Intel/Nomad |
Mavric
Viscosity Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:40:00 -
[142]
The 2 things I get from this are system volume and leveling the playing field.
System volume has much less to do with system load time as the number of people in the system. Jumping into x-70 has the same load time as jumping into a system 1/4 its size with the same number of people in it. So how is this whole volume argument even an argument?
As for leveling the playing field.. The only thing removing DSS will do is give a tactical advantage to the people already in system and a disadvantage to those trying to enter. How is this leveling anything?
|
YT Forever
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:01:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Jamie Banks
Originally by: YT Forever Stuff
Please for the love of God, stop blaming people for your lack of knowledge in the game. If you knew how to use Google you would have answered your own Questions.
Good compromise CCP.
Good to see some constructive input! Thank you ôJamie Banksö
So looked on Google û wow you can find loads of stuff on there! Awesome û never knew about it before now!!! But did find the thing about using mission generated BMs to get some movement out of celestial body plane and maybe into the Z above and below the sun. Oh and the thing about using a carrier in low sec and playing with the drones û but I guess to do that I would have to have a carrier û oh but that would make me a have not a have not. So if you have a practical way of getting to the new limit (furthest celestial body from the sun + 20au) above the sun û then please feel free to share, as I am not the only person on here who has asked the question.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking Yggdrasill.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:10:00 -
[144]
Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 17/04/2010 16:13:53
This is better than deletion.
If CCP could move our bookmarks too, that could be great (because if items move, associated bookmarks should move too).
Originally by: CCP Lemur
Originally by: Rokkit Kween Can we get some clarification on a couple of things:
1. will points outside the new 20AU boundary be bookmarkable? 2. Will points outside the boundary be warpable?
Yes, if you feel like burning your mwd for months to make a new bookmark you can do so. The space outside of the barrier which isn't a barrier is like any other space. Apart from there being nothing
lol, there's others ways CCP ~ OSEF |
Quesa
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:17:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Then you... ... nerf deep safe spots.
Of course I'm not counting the ability to, again, suck resources out of another undepletable resource or implementing CCP's version of a social networking site.
Of course the VERY same devs coding in C++ are those designing the web site... That's really a contention in develompent forces we got there.
I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
|
Cyxopyc
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:12:00 -
[146]
good - Announcing the change 30 days or more beforehand. good - Adjusting the plan some after valid player input and dev brains applied.
bad - CCP has more important things to fix and improve with EVE. == Support fixing the EVE UI |
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:18:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Cyxopyc good - Announcing the change 30 days or more beforehand. good - Adjusting the plan some after valid player input and dev brains applied.
bad - CCP has more important things to fix and improve with EVE.
QTF - priceless
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:30:00 -
[148]
Thank you CCP Devs!
While the solution isn't perfect to me, it is a lot better in many ways. I'm aware that players/devs will never see eye to eye on any issue, people will always have a different view of things. So while I'm not -completely- happy with this, I am much, much happier about several things.
1) You listened to the players that 10AU was too close, 20AU at least puts us outside the onboard scanner range.
2) You listened to the players that said "destroying stuff is a bad idea!" and took the time to implement it properly. Proper implementation is -always- better than quick.
3) We can still go out past and warp to objects farther than the 20AU limit. While it'll probably be unreasonable to get much farther out than this, I like knowing I can, there's no walls on my space! A small detail, but one that makes me happy.
4) Dev blog's that have pictures are best dev blogs! =D seriously, this saves so much confusion
5) There were devs around answering questions for the first few pages. Thanks!
In short, you listened to the players, and found time in an already busy deployment schedule to properly implement a change. You then took the time to make a clear image of whats going on along with a clear description, and took the time to answer questions that popped up afterward. We know you guys are busy, but taking this kind of extra time means a lot to the player base.
So thank you again, this is the CCP that I like to see!
|
Sapphire Andromeda
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:03:00 -
[149]
As always, everyone make sure you have a long skill set up to train on Patch Day.
A couple of thoughts on fleet movement and combat:
The common wisdom is bring what you need to fight the battle and fifty percent more to quickly escalate the stakes when needed. We all know something in Dominion borked the ability to have large scale battles, but what if space combat were different?
What if there was no auto-broadcast local chat (like wormholes), and no predetermined reinforced timers (random failure after fuel is expended)?
While it probably doesn't kill alarm clocks ops, alliances would have to be cognizant of the time zones of members they recruit. "The target will be vulnerable to attack any time after XX:00; we must keep watch." Scouts take turns posting guard. You leave a fleet logged off in the system, but are limited to the amount of alliance resources you were willing to sacrifice. While the armada is away, home systems are vulnerable to the next attack. This forces you to either keep the important assets centralized, or keep fleets spread out, co-ordinating separate attacks/defensive blockades simultaneously. Spies and secrecy also become vitally important.
This was grossly off-topic, but the direction of the discussion had already moved to fleet warfare, in my defense.
|
Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:48:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Yaay on 17/04/2010 19:52:09
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Rokkit Kween Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29 @ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?
Yes.
The two changes mentioned at the end of the blog are the only differences we're currently planning between pre-Tyrannis and post-Tyrannis in this specific regard. All other measures mentioned in the previous blog have been dropped.
Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze I want a REASON for the 256AU deep safe probes (I used to have a reason because of stuff that is out there, now it won't be :( ).
Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.
The fact that you just quoted that system makes me think you have a vested interest in this happening for one side or the other of a current conflict. If that's the case, 1, you should be fired, and 2 you should at least remove yourself from this fix that nobody wants.
Deep safe's have in no way hindered this game's performance or given an advantage to 1 side of a conflict that was absent to the other side.
Removing them with the current game performance is just going to **** people off and make this game even more playable.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
|
DaiTengu
Gallente GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:55:00 -
[151]
Edited by: DaiTengu on 17/04/2010 19:55:47
I'm curious as to what's going to happen to the titan wreck memorial in C9N-CC, as, if memory serves, it's like 100au out from the furthest celestial.
Will it be moved? Is it considered a celestial object itself?
|
Lobster Man
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 19:59:00 -
[152]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: EdTeach Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.
As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.
While I can appreciate the whole spherical volume argument, I've never really encountered much "above" or "below" the ecliptic of any given solar system...aside from some systems which have stargates way above or below.
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 20:17:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Yaay The fact that you just quoted that system makes me think you have a vested interest in this happening for one side or the other of a current conflict. If that's the case, 1, you should be fired, and 2 you should at least remove yourself from this fix that nobody wants.
Or he is just using the system that the majority of the whiners are currently fighting in to give a point of reference...
...be careful not to let the tinfoil hat slip off your head...
Originally by: Yaay Deep safe's have in no way hindered this game's performance....
So you have a copy of EVE's code and know everything about what does and doesn't affect the game's performance?
Originally by: Yaay Removing them with the current game performance is just going to **** people off and make this game even more playable.
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.
|
Princess Almira
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 22:49:00 -
[154]
even though I m not using deep space safe spot, it was obviously bad approach to fix things. good job ccp at steping back and accepting your mistake
|
Alynna Nechayev
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:20:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Yaay The fact that you just quoted that system makes me think you have a vested interest in this happening for one side or the other of a current conflict. If that's the case, 1, you should be fired, and 2 you should at least remove yourself from this fix that nobody wants.
Or he is just using the system that the majority of the whiners are currently fighting in to give a point of reference...
...be careful not to let the tinfoil hat slip off your head...
Originally by: Yaay Deep safe's have in no way hindered this game's performance....
So you have a copy of EVE's code and know everything about what does and doesn't affect the game's performance?
Originally by: Yaay Removing them with the current game performance is just going to **** people off and make this game even more playable.
You realize how stupid you are? a BM is just set of 3 stored values (probably double type): x y and z to denote coordinates in 3D environment.
Whether they are within system boundaries or not does not effect the game lag. What Yaay refers to, is them being used to bridging fleets into system with 500 ppl already in it (without dying while your grid loads) - CCP consistently refused to address this issue on both threads.
At least they are consistent about something!
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:34:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Alynna Nechayev You realize how stupid you are? a BM is just set of 3 stored values (probably double type): x y and z to denote coordinates in 3D environment.
Whether they are within system boundaries or not does not effect the game lag.
Ah... so you got a copy of the code too... That explains your knowledge
To rephrase your question: You realise how little you know about the game code?
In the other thread, it was conveyed that a CCP dev, on Sisi, had told what the real problem was. It was that when something was left in space, it created a grid which was stored in the database, AND SEARCHED EVERY TIME things like scans were done! This included PERMANENT grids stored when players logged out of the game in space, even if they logged out a year ago! It is quite plausible that something like this is what CCP want to quell, because those extra stored grid creates lag.
You or Yaay has absolutely no idea about what you're talking about, and quite possibly I'm off the mark too. That is the point however! The only people who know why this is being done is CCP, as they are the people with the code and experience. If they feel this is needed, it is!
Originally by: Alynna Nechayev What Yaay refers to, is them being used to bridging fleets into system with 500 ppl already in it (without dying while your grid loads) - CCP consistently refused to address this issue on both threads.
I of.c. knows what he is referring to, and so will CCP.... That they choose to ignore this fact shows that there must be pretty important reasons why they want deep safes eliminated!
Both of you just whine away about something you haven't got a clue about. People like that are referred to as idiots...
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.
|
Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:36:00 -
[157]
Just a couple of of questions.
Quoting from your new Devblog
"The move script will locate all items (physical objects including ships, cans and structures - anything you can collide with is an item) and bookmarks that are more than 20AU further from the sun than the furthest celestial. It will then move them towards the sun until they are exactly on the 20AU boundary for that system. No physical items will be deleted. No restrictions will be made on warping, module activation etc."
Using that explanation and the following scenario;
System X has a gate 100AU from the sun on the celestial plane. Your script will bring everything from the "Deepsafes" to a distance of 120AU from the sun. This includes BMs. Player Z created a Deepsafe 600AU out at 90degrees to the system plane. Following the script run his BM is now 120AU out still at a 90degree angle to the system plane.
Since no one else can use the "exploit" to create a similar 90degree safespot how does this "level the playing field going forward?"
Players without such repositioned BMs will be limited to making BMs that are created by warping from one celestial to another and dropping a BM along the path, then warping back to that dropped BM and warping to either another BM or a celestial and dropping another one. Regardless of how they do it all the BMs that can be created post "nerf" without using a repositioned BM will have one thing in common. Not a single one will be outside of the celestials in the system! Still leaves a "unfair" advantage to people who used the various methods and exploits to create those repositioned BMs in the first place.
I do have a suggestion to make that would actually level the playing field if that is truly of interest. Have your script programmer create a script that moves all objects to a location on the system plane within the boundaries of the celestials and then delete any BMs that are outside of the system plane.
This would truly "level" the playing field as no one would have BMs that are not within the limits of the system as defined by the celestials both on the system plane and the system verticals as many systems have celestials above or below the system plane.
Accepting that part of the reason for this "nerf" was to prevent Sov holder from anchoring TCUs at some ridiculous distance from the sun. That raises the question, if it is possible to limit the anchoring of POSes to moons, why not limit the anchoring of TCUs to the Sun?
Finally I have to ask that since CCP is interested in "level the playing field going forward" and I have an alt that does T2 BPC invention when does CCP plan on removing the T2 BPOs?
|
Jan Fjallrav
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 23:50:00 -
[158]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.
Volume is of no importance if a system is flat, as is the case with most. Providing a means for arbitrary (if limited - I like the suggestion of the helioshock disrupting warp travel - even if it's sort of technobabbly) warp would make the whole of scannable space meaningful. |
riverini
Gallente Reliables Inc Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 00:47:00 -
[159]
ATTENTION!!!!! RIVERINI IS GOING TO MAKE A POST!!!!
SOOO, IF BEING IN A DEEP SAFESPOT IS ONE WAY TO BE INVULNERABLE, THAT MEANS THAT INFINITE CLOAKING HAZ TO GO TOO RIGHT??? BECAUSE A CLOAKED SHIP IS BASICALLY INVULNERABLE TOO!!!!! RIGHT!!! UHHH!! RIGHT!!!!!?????????????
CCP!!!! YOUR MOVE!!!
German Shrugs!!! riverini.
|
Punkt Landung
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 00:53:00 -
[160]
Thanks for listening CCP, for not blowing up people's stuff (particularly any serving soldiers,sailors, airmen etc), for leaving deep space where it is and not impacting on Eve grand scale. I'm aware that there will continue to be concerns about this process but now that there is genuine discourse between all interested parties, I'm sure a workable compromise will be achieved.
Good luck with the expansion and taming the lag beast!!
|
|
BeanBagKing
Ch3mic4l Warfare
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 03:55:00 -
[161]
Edited by: BeanBagKing on 18/04/2010 03:56:04
Originally by: Nikita Takeaway
Since no one else can use the "exploit" to create a similar 90degree safespot how does this "level the playing field going forward?"
It doesn't
Originally by: Nikita Takeaway
Finally I have to ask that since CCP is interested in "level the playing field going forward"
See above. CCP listened to reason in the last thread and is no longer interested in leveling the playing field, only cleaning up space. Life is harsh, unjust, and unfair. If I have been playing longer than you, then I have stuff you more than likely never will. There are those that have stuff I won't ever have, like the T2 BPO's.
Futhermore, the argument with T2 BPO's was that while you may never have some, you can buy them. Guess what, you can copy and buy/sell bookmarks too! So no, you may not be able to use the same "exploit" to create new ones, but if you really want them, I have some I'll sell you
tldr - Life isn't fair, CCP fixed the majority of the issues with the last one (mainly just deleting stuff). New fix is better.
|
Htrag
The Carebear Stare Hydroponic Zone
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:08:00 -
[162]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.
Honestly I think 100AU would be more appropriate.
|
FlameGlow
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:22:00 -
[163]
This is better then the last one, though 20AU is still not that much and easily covered with combat probes, what are deepspace probes for then? Make it 75-100AU, just out of reach of combat probes placed somewhere inside system |
Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:44:00 -
[164]
Originally by: BeanBagKing Edited by: BeanBagKing on 18/04/2010 03:56:04
See above. CCP listened to reason in the last thread and is no longer interested in leveling the playing field, only cleaning up space. Life is harsh, unjust, and unfair. If I have been playing longer than you, then I have stuff you more than likely never will. There are those that have stuff I won't ever have, like the T2 BPO's.
Futhermore, the argument with T2 BPO's was that while you may never have some, you can buy them. Guess what, you can copy and buy/sell bookmarks too! So no, you may not be able to use the same "exploit" to create new ones, but if you really want them, I have some I'll sell you
tldr - Life isn't fair, CCP fixed the majority of the issues with the last one (mainly just deleting stuff). New fix is better.
I have plenty of out of system plane deepsafes of my own thanks. Just raising the point that CCP needs to drop the specious reasoning of "leveling the playing field", as this fix does not level it in any way, shape or form. The "Haves" still haz stuff that the "have-nots" don't.
As far as buying bookmarks goes I see a huge scam potential there.... time to give my trading alt all those random safespots in lowsec and nullsec I have. Yarrr! Let the buyer beware!
|
Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 06:55:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Punkt Landung Thanks for listening CCP, for not blowing up people's stuff (particularly any serving soldiers,sailors, airmen etc), for leaving deep space where it is and not impacting on Eve grand scale. I'm aware that there will continue to be concerns about this process but now that there is genuine discourse between all interested parties, I'm sure a workable compromise will be achieved.
Good luck with the expansion and taming the lag beast!!
CCP won'T be blowing up your ships, players will, if you parked your mom/titan at a deepsafe and left it to sit there empty. You will be safe if your pilot is in it until you log in the next time. Any empty ships will be fairly easy to probe down in most systems as the fix will define the exact volume anything has to be within. I foresee some wicked KMs following the expansion. Oh, just remembered one of the other fixes coming with tyrannis is the insurance fix. IIRC the insurance value for titans and supercarriers is dropping to around 10% or so. HAPPY DAYS :)
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 09:18:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Marchocias on 18/04/2010 09:23:08 You say the reason is to prevent sovereignty structures from being anchored out in deep space, making sovereignty difficult to challenge.
So why ditch deep safes? Why not make it possible to warp out that far, but not possible to anchor anything out that far, and only move the anchored objects inwards? This way, everyone still has their nice 0.0 fleet-lag work around, sovereignty structures are fixed, and people stop shouting at you very rudely.
Speaking of which... the "Haves-vs-Have-nots" reason is ABSOLUTE HORSECRAP. Eve is ALL about Haves-vs-Havenots. Tech 2 BPOs are a clear example where CCP has stated that they do not mind unfairness. In fact, deep safe spots CAN be given to another player without the original player losing anything, whereas T2 BPOs cannot be, therefore T2 bpos are a more obvious problem. So, do us a favour CCP, and don't insult our intelligence by trying to claim this is a reason; it simply isn't logical. By doing so you make yourselves, and your playerbase, look very foolish indeed.
So, er, get a grip on reality before allowing your devs to post any more devblogs of such spurious quality - it shouldn't be down to the playerbase to pick out such glaring faults in your plans.
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 09:24:00 -
[167]
Originally by: CCP Lemur Yes, if you feel like burning your mwd for months to make a new bookmark you can do so. The space outside of the barrier which isn't a barrier is like any other space. Apart from there being nothing
If this is the level of knowledge CCP is working off it's no wonder their first (and latest) ideas were so poorly thought out.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 12:18:00 -
[168]
So, what happens if I create an off-plane deep safe that falls within the new limit, but is still a very long way from the nearest celestial? In some larger systems, that would still potentially be very hard to find. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Artemis Rose
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 12:27:00 -
[169]
Dear CCP.
Answer one question that won't make anybody in this thread cry, whine or mega moan.
How in hell did somebody create that 95K light year bookmark
Thanks. *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Grikath
Caldari SWARTA
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 12:40:00 -
[170]
that's been answered before .... you used to be able to click on the Map and select "create bookmark" , some selective zooming would allow you to get quite far out. I do wonder if someone has actually made the mistake of actually trying to warp to the thing though, and if he/she is still travelling into Oblivion... ;)
All the other Emotears are classic. CCP is Touching Your Stuffz, and Not Doing It The Way You Want To... [insert 5 yr old footstamping and Dramaqueening]
- The grid lag issue is irrelevant to this and is being worked on. Stop wanting it Nao!!
- The system lag issue due to load will always be a problem, given that overloading a system to cause lag is seen as a valid tactic in 0.0 blob warfare. FC's will try to fluff the numbers until a target system cracks, period.
- Deep Deep Saves are to be a thing of the Past. Live with it, and get creative. Stop bloody whingeing.
|
|
Sejanus Petreaus
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:37:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Grikath
- The grid lag issue is irrelevant to this and is being worked on. Stop wanting it Nao!!
- The system lag issue due to load will always be a problem, given that overloading a system to cause lag is seen as a valid tactic in 0.0 blob warfare. FC's will try to fluff the numbers until a target system cracks, period.
I agree, asking for a game to work as intended is a little over the top, the devs are humans after all.
The fact that it worked decent pre-dominion patch has nothing to do with the complaining about the lag issue
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:53:00 -
[172]
Originally by: riverini crap deleted
next time more smilies and exclamation marks.
|
Kallieah
The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:55:00 -
[173]
I like the changes. Still allows some flexibility, though there isn't as much space out there as I'd like and if all the mechanisms to get to it are done away with, it'll make the universe feel a lot smaller, but at least peoples' ships won't be deleted. However, it does make hidden assets a lot more 'stealable' doesn't it?
|
Alathus Christensen
Caldari Blue Sun Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 14:52:00 -
[174]
"Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time."
TL;DR - If you took the time to train Astrometrics V (thank god I didn't..) - which is by no means a "short" skill. Sorry for your lots.
"...(Insert apparent lack of a response to players query regarding grid load issues in 0.0 warfare, thus ensuring that the best way to win a war is still to 'crash nodes'.)"
TL;DR - If you want to participate in 0.0 combat, and you're trying to do so with too many of your friends - again, sorry for your lots.
...Many of these changes don't even affect *me* as a player, and still I see a major need for some prioritization.
CCP - Fix the lag, listen to your player base, and prosper as a company. Without addressing the issues that your players raise - and allowing futility to prosper, you only insure the end-game failure of the product we all love.
TL;DR - We have a voice. Please, listen to it. -=- -=- Onoes! Space Miens! -=- -=- Alathus Christensen |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 16:02:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Marchocias
Speaking of which... the "Haves-vs-Have-nots" reason is ABSOLUTE HORSECRAP. Eve is ALL about Haves-vs-Havenots. Tech 2 BPOs are a clear example where CCP has stated that they do not mind unfairness.
What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example). Sure, indy corps possessing those have an advantage; it's just not the sort of thing you can take away easily. Watch how people (myself included) scream foul over CCP wilfully destroying propery at deepsafes. Now imagine what will happen if they start to destroy T2 BPO's; then multiply your estimation by two. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
EdTeach
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 16:32:00 -
[176]
I am still confused.
I saw the reply from the Dev that explained the volume as being the relevant variable for the 20AU decision.
Ummmm....
What volume???
There is at present no way to access any part of the volume that is not in between two warpable objects... which places all possible BMs in or very near the plane of the planetary orbits.
That makes for a small slice of a spherical volume, so your math is in error re: usable volume.
Without a game mechanic that allows warp access to every area of the allowed volume(see my suggestion in earlier post), this change does not seem to help anything.
If CCP is not going to allow WARP access to the full volume, then do not use that volume in your decision making process. It is intellectually dishonest/flawed thinking.
Either make probes warpable targets, or implement some way to get into the Z axis areas.
It doesn't matter what you do though, without a new way to park their caps, a lot of cap pilots will be losing their ships soon. I am aware that the items will no longer be destroyed, but there will be a massive "easter egg hunt" on patch day to get kills on parked ships from cap pilots on deployment averseas.
The week after the patch will be a great time for popcorn and watching the tears on the forums. Plus the extended line of tears when military types come home from deployment to find billions gone. It almost smells of a tactic to increase turnover. Get older players to emo rage quit, so the newer players won't feel so overwhelmed.
I see what CCP is trying to do in regards to deep safes, and it is a good intention. However, it needs a lot more thought and implementation time, which CCP is not going to give.
The line I saw re: some coder using "his" time to write the move script made my jaw drop. CCP priorities need adjustment if an employee has to devote private time to something that obviously means a lot to the customer base.
Stop adding content until you fix the content that is present.
BTW - This is just an academic exercise for me, as I have no items at risk, and you couldn't pay me to live in nul until the lag is fixed. If I see something that looks like a service provider is not doing their job properly, I still feel a need to comment.
|
Nikita Takeaway
T-Wrecks
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 17:43:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro So, what happens if I create an off-plane deep safe that falls within the new limit, but is still a very long way from the nearest celestial? In some larger systems, that would still potentially be very hard to find.
Well I know folks doing exactly that making safespots at high angles to the system plane. The thought being that if the have a BM outside of the limit come deployment day, that BM wil now be at the system limit on the Z axis. Once again giving the "have" something the "havenots" do not.
Even though I have deepsafes that are outside of the 256AU range of a probe, I could care less if they delete them. I would just like CCP to stop giving specious reasons for the change. If CCP wants to do this because it has an impact on the database or the lag issue, FINE. If they want to do it because they just want to, also FINE. As it has been stated in both this thread and the original one, the level the playing field reason is bogus. If they choose to level it then there are better places to start. To really level the playing field delete everything everyone has, delete the characters and make everyone start over from scratch. Oh wait that won't work either because on deployment day +1 there will be people who are have-nots again so we would have to do it all over. I am planning on being online immediately after DT on deployment day with a covert and sisters deepspace probes searching all the lowsec and nullsec systems nearby for ships and items that are no longer way out in space.
Personally if I don't want to be found in game, I use a cloak or a ship setup in such a fashion that it cannot be probed. Usually a T3, that is much more enjoyable than a deepsafe. People can see the juicy T3 on the directional scanner and go nuts when they cannot get a probe it out after trying for 45+ minutes. T3s are by no means the only ships that can be setup this way either. MUCH more enjoyable, especially if you faction fit it and then link the fit in local and watch dozens of probes being deployed. All the while knowing that the probers are wasting their time.
On a final note seeing as I am a pirate, I will be online as soon as the servers return to service following deployment of Tyrannis to do 2 things.
1. Claim some planets to make the inhabitants slave for me. 2. Probing all the nearby lowsec and nullsec systems for the newly repositioned goodies.
YARRRRRR!!!!!
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 19:50:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2010 19:52:13
Originally by: Ranka Mei What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example).
There are a couple of ways CCP could restrict T2 BPO's apart from simply removing them:
- Make them into 1000-run BPC's (for ships) and more for modules/ammo. They'd still be good, but would die out eventually.
- Raise the standard ME for invention BPC's to 0. BPO's would still have the advantage as they could be researched, but the big advantage they have in production price would be reduced.
- Allow BPC's to be researched in some way (ME/PE). It shouldn't be very expensive, but should take time and require a research slot.
I'm not saying CCP should do any on this, just that they could.... I don't personally give very much of a damn since I don't think the BPO's make all that much difference except perhaps for command ships.
As for the last idea up there, I just had the thought that drones could be changed to drop materials enabling this research instead of minerals. You'd get a reduction in mineral production, and another complexity in the game. Complexities are good
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.
|
Punkt Landung
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 20:35:00 -
[179]
T2 BPOs are off topic but if anyone reading this wants one - work an extra shift at ChickenShack and turn said dollars into many billions of isk through plex then buy a T2 BPO from the forums here.
If they are such an 'I-win button' why are they always for sale?
Seriously, even people with low paid jobs could buy one with 8 hours work - why do people see them as such a big deal?
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 20:37:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2010 20:00:12
Originally by: Ranka Mei What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example).
There are a couple of ways CCP could restrict T2 BPO's apart from simply removing them:
- Make them into 1000-run BPC's for ships and more for modules/ammo. They'd still be good, but would die out eventually.
- Raise the standard ME for invention BPC's to 0. BPO's would still have the advantage as they could be researched, but the big advantage they have in production price would be reduced.
- Allow BPC's to be researched in some way (ME/PE). It shouldn't be very expensive, but should take time and require a research slot.
I'm not saying CCP should do any on this, just that they could.... I don't personally give very much of a damn since I don't think the BPO's make all that much difference except perhaps for command ships.
As for the last idea up there, I just had the thought that drones could be changed to drop materials enabling this research instead of minerals. You'd get a reduction in mineral production, and another complexity in the game. Complexities are good
I think trying to compare the two is nothing that will yield any great results.. Even now, invention has some HUGE positives over bpo's. I have tech2 bpo's that are not profitable to produce with, and guess what, I cant ever sell any product because people invent and build. Invention has allowed a lot of people to get into production when they have little understanding of what the full cost is, sure they run agents, do mining, and have alliance members that sell them moon product at lower cost, but those players are not smart enough to know they could sell the minerals, coponets, datacores, and everything else for more profit than the tech2 product!... A good example is that you can have a Rhea for 40 mil!!!! over all of it's base cost.. 40 mil!!! for something that (on it's cheapest) takes about 4 weeks to build.
User numbers in eve are increasing, and seasond players quit the game. So as the userbase goes up, and some tech2 bpo's get put in storage (or, deleted/destroyed) then invention will see it's natural progression to be the only componet to building tech2. I own a lot of tech2 bpo's and understand the risk. I also know guys who make the same sort of income as me but by doing less overall production, and using invention!. Tech2 bpo's = unfair?... Nope...
Some markets cant cope with invention AND bpo's (those markets cant actually cope with EITHER invention or bpo's). Many people mix up dead markets with killed markets. Most dead markets are not through player-driven events, they are through the items just being crap. I miss the days where only "Elite" players had tech2 stuff, and only the hardened rich guys had faction gear. As ccp makes this game easier (like they have just done with scanning!) then people just keep asking for more and more handouts.
When invention yields 500 runs with the worst decryptor, and has stats of +100/+100 at worst, then people will still moan ;)...
----------- Never Forget the joy of finding a main to link to a scammer alt. N-y-p-h-u-r ! ! |
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 21:16:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Are the DEVs too ignorant understand this? Maybe, but some reply to the lag workaround issue raised about 500 times in the last thread would have been nice.
I imagine that what's really going on is that you're *hoping* Tyrannis will magically cure lag, but aren't sure so have a lips-sealed policy at this point.
...
I think you're underestimating how many people are sick of not getting good fights in 0.0, and what affect that is going to have on their subscriptions if it isn't robustly addressed in Tyrannis.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Northstar Cabal OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 02:08:00 -
[182]
Kerfira
I would be foolish to assume that the major alliances do not have that type of list. You do not go to war without a battleplan. Even if its a simple priority list of targets.
Game mechanics will never be changed to not benefit blobbing or so everyone seems to believe. I pray that happens at some point.
Vaerah Vahrokka:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA This coming from the same faction that got the greatest source of dev help in the history of MMOS!
Lets not pull any punches here. IT is the Reformed BoB the same BoB that got help from CCP employees in ways most cant begin to imagine. I'm not going to sit here and rehash the past with you but i will say you do bring up a somewhat valid point.
My problem is this. Everyone expects a game with the following technical info happening on a second by second basis to be streamed to their computers at the same time.
Assuming the largest viable fleet battle i've ever heard of 500 on 500. If every ship is mounting 1 weapon. That accounts to 1 million calculations.
How do i arrive at this number? 1000 weapons being fired being transmitted 1000 times. You heard me. Transmitted ONE THOUSAND TIMES! Wether you see it or not that data MUST be transmitted to each computer in the battle. Now lets make it a bit worse. Battleships only, a big mother of a battle. 6-8 weapons per ship in most cases. Dragging that number to 6-8 million transmissions of data every few seconds possibly even shorter.
Now we are unfortunately not talking about 2+2 kinds of numbers. We're talking calculus level equations to figure out damage. Lasers being the easiest. Missiles being about the middle and Projectile/hybrid as the hardest of all. these calculations are difficult enough under simple circumstances. Throw in reppers of various kinds, resistance modifiers, rigs, transversal velocities, traveling speeds and such your talking about an equation that is very difficult to solve on paper.
That is 6-8 million equations transmitted from a single node to all over the world at a rate of 1-10 seconds depending on the firing rate of the weapon your dealing with which is the biggest variable. I haven even gotten into UI/graphics yet. Which brings up its own set of problems in loading. Finding a spot for each ship to jump in effectively on a single mass jump is a strain on the server. Now then back to my original point: Can a solid computer do these calculations. Sure can a server? Most definitely. But the problem comes in no small part from TRANSMISSION of said data. And here is where people are screaming.
These transmissions come in the form of packets to us. These packets vary in size and in some cases have to go a pretty damned long distance of fiber-optic cable. But in these packets you must include, graphics data (all the ships moving around because no one just sits still) Chat Data, (more data that adds strain to the server don't believe me? Check out Chribba's latest thing about jita) POS Data if its a POS strike The aforementioned numbers don't involve drones so throw that in as extra ship data. All that data is coming from one source. It was easier before this latest patch in part because of the optional graphics. Now everyone's running the super graphics which only increases the data being transmitted. And now this is just the stuff being transmitted to the player. Lets not forget what the player is transmitting back and what other things he might be doing with his connection. Eve voice adds another layer or another voice comm setup. In some cases more than one to boot. Not to mention all the other processes a player has going across the net at any given time.
The problem can not be fixed just by raw horsepower. It must be fixed at the tactical level. Blobbing is the single greatest problem this game has and has had for quite some time. The removal of the standard DD's have made it even more profitable to blob. Fixing this situation is not going to be easy. and its going to upset people in its method.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
QUicKie NicKy
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 02:30:00 -
[183]
On the off chance that the Devs can't see red or something...
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
EVE since Dominion has transformed into a huge checker board so far as numbers above 50-100 are concerned. You can only move to a square(grid) that is open and if someone else manages to fill up the squares that you could move to conventionally, either you jumped to a deep safe or you were pretty much frelled. With the deep safe nerf, you're just plain old frelled.
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 02:42:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Yet, surprisingly, this is not a large number.
You see, they are not using TCP/IP to transmit the data. Updates and information flow from the client, to the server (who, with a modern server, very easily crunch these numbers coming in, do all the calculations in real time, and format the outgoing messages), who then broadcasts out the updates (without doing checking on the packets..thus rubberbanding and various lag illnesses, but full TCP/IP handshake and data verification would kill the connections.
More than likely they are using a form of (or just plain) UDP. No bit checking on transmission, no handshakes, or CRC.
Also ignored is the fact that 500v500 battles *were working*. No joke, honest. Patch comes out, 200v200 doesn't work. *blinkblink* Since things were working, and now they aren't, we can safely point the finger at something that was changed causes the issue.
*IF* CCP is sending these updates out in this style: Person A shoots gun2 at Person B. (next message) Person A shoots gun3 at PersonB. Then *maybe* they might run into a transmission bottleneck. More than likely they are sending update "packets" that contain more than one update per packet..at say, oh, i don't know, a couple ten thousand per minute, or 400hz or so. Even with 1000v1000 this shouldn't be a problem in the slightest. In this case, i sincerely doubt it's the server hardware, and the blame is more than likely square on the software's shoulders, and, if i was a betting man, on the buffer subsystem in the incoming message handling subsystem. I'm betting it's getting starved for resources or mutex's..and dropping things on the floor.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Northstar Cabal OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 02:55:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Caladain Barton
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Yet, surprisingly, this is not a large number.
You see, they are not using TCP/IP to transmit the data. Updates and information flow from the client, to the server (who, with a modern server, very easily crunch these numbers coming in, do all the calculations in real time, and format the outgoing messages), who then broadcasts out the updates (without doing checking on the packets..thus rubberbanding and various lag illnesses, but full TCP/IP handshake and data verification would kill the connections.
More than likely they are using a form of (or just plain) UDP. No bit checking on transmission, no handshakes, or CRC.
Also ignored is the fact that 500v500 battles *were working*. No joke, honest. Patch comes out, 200v200 doesn't work. *blinkblink* Since things were working, and now they aren't, we can safely point the finger at something that was changed causes the issue.
*IF* CCP is sending these updates out in this style: Person A shoots gun2 at Person B. (next message) Person A shoots gun3 at PersonB. Then *maybe* they might run into a transmission bottleneck. More than likely they are sending update "packets" that contain more than one update per packet..at say, oh, i don't know, a couple ten thousand per minute, or 400hz or so. Even with 1000v1000 this shouldn't be a problem in the slightest. In this case, i sincerely doubt it's the server hardware, and the blame is more than likely square on the software's shoulders, and, if i was a betting man, on the buffer subsystem in the incoming message handling subsystem. I'm betting it's getting starved for resources or mutex's..and dropping things on the floor.
You could well be right, but i want people to understand the full scope of the issue. I personally think its a graphics problem more than anything else. And i don't mean that its happening client side. The effects are obviously NOT client. I think the strain of the enhanced graphics forced on the server since the last expansion is a HUGE cause in what is happening. There is imo no one source of lag in this issue. I still maintain that blobbing is a huge problem in this game and the fact you cant dogfight in large fleet fights is a disaster as far as i am concerned.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 03:20:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Originally by: Caladain Barton
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Yet, surprisingly, this is not a large number.
You see, they are not using TCP/IP to transmit the data. Updates and information flow from the client, to the server (who, with a modern server, very easily crunch these numbers coming in, do all the calculations in real time, and format the outgoing messages), who then broadcasts out the updates (without doing checking on the packets..thus rubberbanding and various lag illnesses, but full TCP/IP handshake and data verification would kill the connections.
More than likely they are using a form of (or just plain) UDP. No bit checking on transmission, no handshakes, or CRC.
Also ignored is the fact that 500v500 battles *were working*. No joke, honest. Patch comes out, 200v200 doesn't work. *blinkblink* Since things were working, and now they aren't, we can safely point the finger at something that was changed causes the issue.
*IF* CCP is sending these updates out in this style: Person A shoots gun2 at Person B. (next message) Person A shoots gun3 at PersonB. Then *maybe* they might run into a transmission bottleneck. More than likely they are sending update "packets" that contain more than one update per packet..at say, oh, i don't know, a couple ten thousand per minute, or 400hz or so. Even with 1000v1000 this shouldn't be a problem in the slightest. In this case, i sincerely doubt it's the server hardware, and the blame is more than likely square on the software's shoulders, and, if i was a betting man, on the buffer subsystem in the incoming message handling subsystem. I'm betting it's getting starved for resources or mutex's..and dropping things on the floor.
You could well be right, but i want people to understand the full scope of the issue. I personally think its a graphics problem more than anything else. And i don't mean that its happening client side. The effects are obviously NOT client. I think the strain of the enhanced graphics forced on the server since the last expansion is a HUGE cause in what is happening. There is imo no one source of lag in this issue. I still maintain that blobbing is a huge problem in this game and the fact you cant dogfight in large fleet fights is a disaster as far as i am concerned.
I must be dumb - WHAT has graphics got to do with server lag? Server tells client to shoot missile or laser blast. The graphic settings on the client determine WHAT you see (good/crap graphics). As long as the client is communicating with the server, lag won't come from "enhanced graphics forced on the server since the last expansion" as that is not something the server handles. Lag WILL come from the server failing to process messages in time... Also the data will be grouped into packets so less messages are sent over the wire.
BTW - your million messages would be on a P2P model X x X messages sent. This is server based. So for X ships there are 2X messages surely - X to the server. Messages are then processed. Server sends replies to X clients. What is your computer science/programming background to justify your arguement?
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 03:24:00 -
[187]
Dude, It's Fleet Finder. Try doing 500 vs 500 without being in fleet.
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente Northstar Cabal OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 03:43:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Hack Harrison
I must be dumb - WHAT has graphics got to do with server lag? Server tells client to shoot missile or laser blast. The graphic settings on the client determine WHAT you see (good/crap graphics). As long as the client is communicating with the server, lag won't come from "enhanced graphics forced on the server since the last expansion" as that is not something the server handles. Lag WILL come from the server failing to process messages in time... Also the data will be grouped into packets so less messages are sent over the wire.
BTW - your million messages would be on a P2P model X x X messages sent. This is server based. So for X ships there are 2X messages surely - X to the server. Messages are then processed. Server sends replies to X clients. What is your computer science/programming background to justify your arguement?
Question 1: Server has to transmit enhanced graphics to the player. There is other reasonable explanation on some of what's being experienced. Because I've had similar issues in other games Anarchy Online being the most prevalent in my mind on this particular issue. Your computer has to process the extra graphics and because of an MMO's permanent spherical view that means it transmits everything. A grid loading those kind of graphics. Most gamers at this point are at least running 250's or their equivalents/better but even with an 8800 GT you'd still have no performance issues with this game. Otherwise there is something else completely at play here bordering on the Boot.ini error and given the time its taken to figure out i cant believe its anything that nuts. Heck i could be wrong but what the player sees has to be transmitted too doesn't it?
As for the background? I don't have much honestly. But to go with what you insinuate is that every thing is 'rolled' IE predetermined or 'grouped' and not allowing for independent damage. And combat logs specifically show that just isn't the case. Because its independent messaging i have to believe that everything is independent. If i'm wrong someone show me where CCP announced that kind of change because that ain't minor in the grand scheme of things. Regardless i just take what i see analyze it and make a few guesses.
Taking names and kicking ass. All in the search for Bubblegum. |
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 05:12:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Question 1: Server has to transmit enhanced graphics to the player. There is other reasonable explanation on some of what's being experienced. Because I've had similar issues in other games Anarchy Online being the most prevalent in my mind on this particular issue. Your computer has to process the extra graphics and because of an MMO's permanent spherical view that means it transmits everything. A grid loading those kind of graphics. Most gamers at this point are at least running 250's or their equivalents/better but even with an 8800 GT you'd still have no performance issues with this game.
Okay, two seperate things here. Classic Client Server model. The Server does not render anything graphics related. It sends in a packet a series of commands (messages) to the client letting it know what's happening (plain text). The client takes these commands (plain text descriptions in essence) and then interprets what to display on the screen. A classic form of this would be a laser beam, or the client getting conflicting messages on "where" your ship is due to lag..the rubber banding effect (where the client shows you arriving, then you reverse course and repeat the last thing you "saw" twice or three times before finally staying on grid.)
This is why when the new graphic's engine came out (and everything got pretty) we *had* to download a new client. Don't take my word for it..google or MIT's lectures should say the same thing about good design. On the Client Side (your computer), you can experience lag rendering these instructions. Thus, in major battles, if you've got all the bells and whistles turned on, you get three frames of pictures a second. This is why in all major engagments, we tell everyone to turn off every graphical "pretty" option we can, and to turn off brackets. Everything that has to be rendered by the client, thus allowing it to "ignore" some of it's duties and preform better.
Me? I've got a monster machine and play 30 frames a second rendering in massive battles with brackets. It's very pretty when there is no lag. (i still turn off a bunch of things normally as i don't like to test my luck, but the couple times i have...WOW)
Originally by: Kuseka Adama Otherwise there is something else completely at play here bordering on the Boot.ini error and given the time its taken to figure out i cant believe its anything that nuts. Heck i could be wrong but what the player sees has to be transmitted too doesn't it?
Nope, you're completely wrong. The only thing sent from your client to the server is when you give new commands to your ship and some UI elements (offline a tower, etc). Pretty explosions, etc, the server doesn't care about. The client only transmits messages when you target someone (start targeting), shoot someone, etc. The client doesn't even know how much capacitor you have. That's why the "fleet fits" are so cap-unstable..in major lag the server prioritizes what info gets transmitted, and 9/10, the cap info gets dropped. Thus, you get to fight without draining your cap. You also have trouble exiting siege for a similar reason..most embarrassing to be stuck on grid for 9 cycles not consuming fuel (but shooting at sieged damage levels.
Originally by: Kuseka Adama As for the background? I don't have much honestly. But to go with what you insinuate is that every thing is 'rolled' IE predetermined or 'grouped' and not allowing for independent damage. And combat logs specifically show that just isn't the case. Because its independent messaging i have to believe that everything is independent. If i'm wrong someone show me where CCP announced that kind of change because that ain't minor in the grand scheme of things. Regardless i just take what i see analyze it and make a few guesses.
Just because the messages are grouped together doesn't mean they don't have individual statements.
<Continued on the next message>
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 05:17:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
As for the background? I don't have much honestly. But to go with what you insinuate is that every thing is 'rolled' IE predetermined or 'grouped' and not allowing for independent damage. And combat logs specifically show that just isn't the case. Because its independent messaging i have to believe that everything is independent. If i'm wrong someone show me where CCP announced that kind of change because that ain't minor in the grand scheme of things. Regardless i just take what i see analyze it and make a few guesses.
<Continued> You could send each sentence as a seperate sealed, mailed letter. The same information would get there, yeah, but it would flood the connection (Postal Service) for no reason. Now imagine everyone doing it. The Postal service would have millions of messages and die horribly.
Okay, bad example slighty as computers can do that. But if Eve was sending each action as an individual "letter", then it *would* be a bad architecture design.
Instead, you put all the sentences into a letter (containing multiple statements) and shove it out the door.
In a good design, the server would stack up a pre-determined number of messages (say, 50 or 75) and mail them out to everyone at once. The sever doesn't check to see if they have arrived, it just shoves them out the door because it's busy.
In a bad design, it would send out 50 or 75 messages.
Now, these messages get sent out regardless if anything is happening. Thus, in 1v1 battles..yeah, it might be a single action per message. But in mass engagements, each message is stuffed full before being shoved out the door. make some sense?
|
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 05:42:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
You could well be right, but i want people to understand the full scope of the issue. I personally think its a graphics problem more than anything else. And i don't mean that its happening client side. The effects are obviously NOT client. I think the strain of the enhanced graphics forced on the server since the last expansion is a HUGE cause in what is happening. There is imo no one source of lag in this issue. I still maintain that blobbing is a huge problem in this game and the fact you cant dogfight in large fleet fights is a disaster as far as i am concerned.
Lag is a catch-all term. Like Cancer.
There are many types of Lag. We all know and love Graphical lag (rubber banding, detonations on your ship when you're not being fired at, Gal large towers spazzin out). This is client side. Everything related to graphical glitches or rendering rate (which depends on how powerful your machine is) is client side. *IF* your client is maxing out your computer..it *might* be hard to send out a client->server message..say..you try and shoot someone. This only effects you though.
Then there is server lag. The server is late sending out a message, or sends out duplicates (or you recieve duplicates via the wonderful thing called UDP and the interwebs) causing rubber banding on your client. Nasty things happen in server lag land...this is real lag. Messages don't get sent out (due to bad coding) but the server things they have been, messages arrive garbled (UDP does that sometimes), etc. The sever may be *able* to crunch all these things and do the right thing, but that relies upon the correct logic to have been programmed into it.
Some dev changed something and broke part of that logic. Now fleets don't get "registered" inside the server software when they attempt to "join" a grid..like they used to be able to. The server hiccups, and probably thinks it sent the "okay, you all loaded grid, here's what you see" message. It doesn't hear anything back from the client for X amount of time (client is sitting there) and then drops the client (while still keeping the ship and stuff on grid..nifty bug eh?). It then merrily processes the damage done to the ships, and kills them rightly so.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 06:01:00 -
[192]
Originally by: QUicKie NicKy On the off chance that the Devs can't see red or something...
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
EVE since Dominion has transformed into a huge checker board so far as numbers above 50-100 are concerned. You can only move to a square(grid) that is open and if someone else manages to fill up the squares that you could move to conventionally, either you jumped to a deep safe or you were pretty much frelled. With the deep safe nerf, you're just plain old frelled.
As you say The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Oh deep safespots you serve us so well, At times of lag when servers go towards hell.
I call it a mechanic you call it a bug, The forums a panic from dominions drink jug.
So look at the problem and not at the cure, You idea is iratic and offtrack I'll assure.
The deep-safe patch prayer:
Your idea, which farts in space, flawed be thy name; thy deepsafe gone; thy will be done; in lag as it is in space. Give us this day our daily sanity, as we forgive them that patch against us. And lead us not into lag; But deliver us from lag. For thine is the system, the stability, and the soverenty, for ever and never. Aye CCP
|
chadwill
Gallente Fleet of the Damned Honourable Templum of Alcedonia
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 06:58:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Zenst
Oh deep safespots you serve us so well, At times of lag when servers go towards hell.
I call it a mechanic you call it a bug, The forums a panic from dominions drink jug.
So look at the problem and not at the cure, You idea is iratic and offtrack I'll assure.
The deep-safe patch prayer:
Your idea, which farts in space, flawed be thy name; thy deepsafe gone; thy will be done; in lag as it is in space. Give us this day our daily sanity, as we forgive them that patch against us. And lead us not into lag; But deliver us from lag. For thine is the system, the stability, and the soverenty, for ever and never. Aye CCP
+1 internets for you my good sir
clap clap
|
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 07:17:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Julius Rigel on 19/04/2010 07:25:05 Ahem...
2 300 items? Not 230 000? Not 23 000?
I don't get what the big issue is?
I think it's time for one of those signatures pointing out fairly stupid decisions brought on by who knows what horrible combination of players whining and dining at CCP HQ and on the forum.
|
AeonOfTime
Minmatar Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 07:29:00 -
[195]
Awwwww, and what about the cans in the EVE Gate system then? Will there be one big heap of cans at the 20AU limit then after the move? -- Read the captain's log at eve.aeonoftime.com The solo player's corporation - Syrkos Technologies |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 07:34:00 -
[196]
Quote:
So, what happens if I create an off-plane deep safe that falls within the new limit, but is still a very long way from the nearest celestial? In some larger systems, that would still potentially be very hard to find.
Phase 1 will be about finding out and killing the ships that were auto-moved to 20 AU at patch day.
Phase 2 will be about finding out and killing the ships that were moved to off-plane deep safe spots (but within the new limits) before patch day.
I predict a fair number of people will believe to be smart and unique snow flakes at parking their stuff off-plane, others will just use of that knowledge.
Quote:
On a final note seeing as I am a pirate, I will be online as soon as the servers return to service following deployment of Tyrannis to do 2 things.
1. Claim some planets to make the inhabitants slave for me
Why "pirate" seems connected with "slave for me"? All you need to be like that, is to roll Amarr and pretend to be righteous :D
Quote:
Raise the standard ME for invention BPC's to 0. BPO's would still have the advantage as they could be researched, but the big advantage they have in production price would be reduced.
No, no, no. T2 materials are the only economy that seems still to work (because of obscurity, not because of good game mechanics), putting invention to ME 0 would give a bad kick to the kidneys to it. It's less damaging to keep T2 BPOs than that.
Quote:
Allow BPC's to be researched in some way (ME/PE). It shouldn't be very expensive, but should take time and require a research slot
It is... somehow. T2 is fine, the only thing that annoys me being the "random" chances.
Quote:
Vaerah Vahrokka:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA This coming from the same faction that got the greatest source of dev help in the history of MMOS!
IT <> BoB. It kept known faces and some of the old "core" but other things changed and hopefully for their best.
Quote:
Assuming the largest viable fleet battle i've ever heard of 500 on 500. If every ship is mounting 1 weapon. That accounts to 1 million calculations.
Actually what's very heavy weight are the setting up and the database queries. IE logging in is very intensive in both (and why we can get queues even with low numbers logged in). The other heavy cost operation is switching system, even more so if there's a large number of people in that system's warp in grid. This is why of the issues at grids not loading: the stress off them interacts with some Dominion born bug (I can think it's the same bug happened with FW structures, "ported" into 0.0 + TCU). What you say is the cause of part of the module lag. The calculation is a very small part of it, the rest being congestion in the TCP / IP pipes and database updates (IE every time a ship or drone pops and even when a new wrecks appears, a nice amount of database updates has to be done).
Quote:
Can a solid computer do these calculations. Sure can a server? Most definitely. But the problem comes in no small part from TRANSMISSION of said data. And here is where people are screaming
It can, 50% of the issue is caused client-side by the craptastic "quasi-interpreted" UI that can't keep up with the continuous refreshes to update the overview and even less update the brackets. In fact it's so bad that just to gate camp and kill frigs and cov-ops (that is, in a 4-5 ships scenario! Not 500) it becomes faster to hide the overview and manually target on screen. It's how some of my corpies could scram interceptors. Half was their "almost zero" lag connection, half was to get rid of the slow UI parts.
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 07:40:00 -
[197]
Quote:
Now everyone's running the super graphics which only increases the data being transmitted
No, it's client affected, the servers send the same stuff.
Quote:
Eve voice adds another layer or another voice comm setup.
1) Voice sucks and is usually dumped by every worthwhile corp and alliance. TS and ventrilo get used instead. 2) Voice is hosted on a third party (non CCP) server farm, EvE just notifies that server farm about you having logged in. After a while of not using it you even get logged off and then the "weight" is zero for everyone.
Quote:
Fixing this situation is not going to be easy. and its going to upset people in its method.
Fixing it is easy, it's the consequent teeth-gnashing and crying and rage-quitting that is the only obstacle to it.
Quote:
*IF* ccp has their source under source control (Please, by all that is holy and good in the world, you DO right ccp?) narrowing down *what* got changed should be as easy as running a diff against the old version.
They apparently started with a very, very "messy but works" spaghetti code and later they switched to agile programming. Now, agile programming (I think they chose SCRUM) has very, very defined and strict practices. This would almost impose a complete re-engineering of the "before agile times" source, but this is impossible because the game cannot be paused for a year. So if they are confronted with the same challenges my own team was confronted in the past, they are using the "ancient code" as a black box, the new code just wires in and "feeds" the new features to that. As long as no low level changes are done, the approach works, but when something as basic as grid / sov management gets touched, the consequences and collateral effects cannot be predicted and then sh!t happens. Usually in the form of "ugly hack to do, which WILL impact on something unrelated, basic and important else".
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Stratio
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 08:29:00 -
[198]
FYI:
[Proposal] Make the 95000 light year deep safe a landmark
_____________________
Poreuomai's Spokesman For Tribe and Honour! |
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 08:51:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Originally by: Hack Harrison
I must be dumb - WHAT has graphics got to do with server lag? Server tells client to shoot missile or laser blast. The graphic settings on the client determine WHAT you see (good/crap graphics). As long as the client is communicating with the server, lag won't come from "enhanced graphics forced on the server since the last expansion" as that is not something the server handles. Lag WILL come from the server failing to process messages in time... Also the data will be grouped into packets so less messages are sent over the wire.
BTW - your million messages would be on a P2P model X x X messages sent. This is server based. So for X ships there are 2X messages surely - X to the server. Messages are then processed. Server sends replies to X clients. What is your computer science/programming background to justify your arguement?
Question 1: Server has to transmit enhanced graphics to the player. There is other reasonable explanation on some of what's being experienced. Because I've had similar issues in other games Anarchy Online being the most prevalent in my mind on this particular issue. Your computer has to process the extra graphics and because of an MMO's permanent spherical view that means it transmits everything. A grid loading those kind of graphics. Most gamers at this point are at least running 250's or their equivalents/better but even with an 8800 GT you'd still have no performance issues with this game. Otherwise there is something else completely at play here bordering on the Boot.ini error and given the time its taken to figure out i cant believe its anything that nuts. Heck i could be wrong but what the player sees has to be transmitted too doesn't it?
As for the background? I don't have much honestly. But to go with what you insinuate is that every thing is 'rolled' IE predetermined or 'grouped' and not allowing for independent damage. And combat logs specifically show that just isn't the case. Because its independent messaging i have to believe that everything is independent. If i'm wrong someone show me where CCP announced that kind of change because that ain't minor in the grand scheme of things. Regardless i just take what i see analyze it and make a few guesses.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions - you have no computer programming understanding, so you are talking crap. No game sends graphics over the internet (which is what you are saying). They send instructions on what to display. If your machine is slow, it may take time to process the instructions and your game will lag. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY HAVE BIG FLEET BATTLES (everyone lagging). You get the same instructions sent to/from the server regardless of if you have full graphics or bare bones turned on...
<tl;dr> You are talking out your backside, hypothesising about one of the most complicated computer programs in existence without any knowledge of computer programming or system design...
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 10:00:00 -
[200]
Edited by: Ranka Mei on 19/04/2010 10:03:57
Originally by: Hack Harrison
BTW - your million messages would be on a P2P model X x X messages sent. This is server based. So for X ships there are 2X messages surely - X to the server. Messages are then processed. Server sends replies to X clients.
If 500 ships are fighting, the server still has to send out a total of 250,000 (500 x 500) packets per update cycle. After all, each of those 500 ships needs to know about the changes of all those other 499 ships; so each client receives 500 packets.
250,000 doesn't seem like a lot, but it is. I have a small private gaming server, with an upstream capacity of 10Mb/s. Which in practice means I can roughly host 20 or so folks at one time, before out game start to lag too much as the server pipe gets crammed.
Having said that, I'm sure it's not a bandwidth issue, really. CCP's servers should be able to handle (500 x 500) UDP packets easily. Since CCP requires folks to fill out a form now before doing large battles, it would appear they add extra hardware to do, yeah, what exactly? Get better database response? Could be that's true. CCP itself says they're thinking the lag is caused by a bogged overview system. So, for now we simply don't really know. -- Gorgeous, delicious, deculture! |
|
Singion Hawk
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 10:26:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Are the DEVs too ignorant understand this? Maybe, but some reply to the lag workaround issue raised about 500 times in the last thread would have been nice.
|
Camios
Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 10:29:00 -
[202]
Since
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
We could try to find a cheap solution. A possible one is
make it possible to light a cyno inside a pos forcefield if the system sov is contested.
|
Den Dugg
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:40:00 -
[203]
Deep safe spots are not a prob in my opinion. if u have over 200 employees workin on EVE Online fix the problems after this expansion and stop adding garbadge.. tyranais (however its spelled) looks kool but we keep tellin u things that are wrong and each expansion u barly touch them.. ppl who reply on fourms spend to much time in ur game to be ignored..and fix this ------------ CCP. my mineing slave pilots an orca. the ship can hold 56k m3 or in cargo hold, and there is corp hanger, ship maintainace bay and ore hold . flown next to my armagedon the ships are almost the same size... wtf lol? the armagedon can fit in the orca wth!?! still love this game but their are other games that will take this genre from u in the works if u dont un frak ur game.
|
ArmyOfMe
Resonance. RED.OverLord
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 15:11:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Camios
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
Are the DEVs too ignorant understand this? Maybe, but some reply to the lag workaround issue raised about 500 times in the last thread would have been nice.
I imagine that what's really going on is that you're *hoping* Tyrannis will magically cure lag, but aren't sure so have a lips-sealed policy at this point.
...
I think you're underestimating how many people are sick of not getting good fights in 0.0, and what affect that is going to have on their subscriptions if it isn't robustly addressed in Tyrannis.
|
James Razor
Amarr The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 15:48:00 -
[205]
Tbh. atm i often ask myself if i realy want to log in into Lag Online if there is new big fight supposed to happen.
And i am allready pretty ****ed by A LOT of things CCP did in the past. I still think that the guys from art department that changed the faction BS deserve to get skined alive.
Oh and btw to all that hope that lag will get better: Planetary interaction will cause even more server load which will result in even more lag as they have to somewhere get those resources from.
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 18:08:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: Marchocias
Speaking of which... the "Haves-vs-Have-nots" reason is ABSOLUTE HORSECRAP. Eve is ALL about Haves-vs-Havenots. Tech 2 BPOs are a clear example where CCP has stated that they do not mind unfairness.
What exactly did you have in mind that CCP do with those T2 BPO's? Destroy them, and deprive legitimate owners of property worth possibly hundreds of billions? (think T2 Hulk BPO, for example). Sure, indy corps possessing those have an advantage; it's just not the sort of thing you can take away easily. Watch how people (myself included) scream foul over CCP wilfully destroying propery at deepsafes. Now imagine what will happen if they start to destroy T2 BPO's; then multiply your estimation by two.
I don't propose anything... I rather like the game being unfair... I'm merely pointing out that it is inconsistent to claim that fairness is a reason for the deep safe nerf, given the continued existance of T2 BPOs.
Personally I think both T2 BPOs and Deep Safes should be kept in, but just make deep space un-anchorable, to avoid issues with sovereignty.
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 18:23:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Hack Harrison ... No game sends graphics over the internet (which is what you are saying). They send instructions on what to display.
Checkout OnLive. Astonishingly they're doing exactly this.
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 19:26:00 -
[208]
Quote:
If 500 ships are fighting, the server still has to send out a total of 250,000 (500 x 500) packets per update cycle
No, CFR 2009 posts about WH on IGN forums for the theory behind that.
The theorethical number can be squashed to "small" numbers like 2 x N or a function like that.
An old example:
http://www.usenix.org/event/nsdi06/tech/full_papers/bharambe/bharambe_html/main.html
where the "area-of-interest" would be an EvE grid and in secondary order, the influence sphere around each ship. Also notice the way EvE server implements damage application and motion prediction AND (unlike other games) seems to perform game data loss in case the same TCP / IP request is sent "too soon" (ie modules recycling).
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Liol Wongsta
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 19:41:00 -
[209]
It seems to me that there is a fairly simple method to remove the "real" reason for this, make it so sov structures can only be anchored within a set distance from a planet - similar to pos towers and moons.
Simple fix and removes the issue of anchoring things 500+ au away and making sov battles nearly pointless.
Let the deep safes exist.
Fix the fleet lag, making it no longer necessary to USE deep safes, just to have a hope of seeing your enemy in a fight.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 21:21:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Liol Wongsta It seems to me that there is a fairly simple method to remove the "real" reason for this, make it so sov structures can only be anchored within a set distance from a planet - similar to pos towers and moons.
Simple fix and removes the issue of anchoring things 500+ au away and making sov battles nearly pointless.
Let the deep safes exist.
Fix the fleet lag, making it no longer necessary to USE deep safes, just to have a hope of seeing your enemy in a fight.
I really doubt the TCUs had anything to do with this. I still don't see what the "issue" is with placing a TCU in a deep safe. Anyone can see it on overview, anyone can warp to it. If it were a clear strategic advantage to have a TCU 500AU away, you'd see a hell of a lot more of them in deep safes. In all likelihood, the real reason for anchoring a TCU 500AU away is just "because you can."
|
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 21:35:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Camios make it possible to light a cyno inside a pos forcefield if the system sov is contested.
So my alt alliance can contest the system and I can cyno right into total, complete safety? Sweet!
|
Gamer4liff
Caldari Metalworks Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 00:21:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Gamer4liff on 20/04/2010 00:21:37 Somebody give whoever made the 5,900,000,000 AU BM a medal. -----------
Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Capital Construction Research Pioneer Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 01:44:00 -
[213]
"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"
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 |
Hack Harrison
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 02:02:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Marchocias
Originally by: Hack Harrison ... No game sends graphics over the internet (which is what you are saying). They send instructions on what to display.
Checkout OnLive. Astonishingly they're doing exactly this.
Just looked at the site - got a nice fancy video without anything explained - it basically looks like CITRIX for gamers - not a good option for people in Australia who have to pay for bandwidth. But my statement still stands as best as I can tell - they run the client (graphics still not being sent from the server) and then send the rendered output to you.
|
Valkerias
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 02:05:00 -
[215]
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.
As for the farthest BM... 5.9 BILLION AU! That's INSANE! Some pilot must have worked REAL hard to get that one.
|
Kavin Alavandar
Extropy Dianoetics
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 07:00:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Valkerias As for the farthest BM... 5.9 BILLION AU! That's INSANE! Some pilot must have worked REAL hard to get that one.
I don't even understand how it's possible. It would take longer to warp that distance than EVE has been online.
My understanding is that even an interceptor totally dedicated to warp speed mods can only get up to 13 AU/s. Even at 13 AU/s, that's over 14 years of warping.
Hell, even at 20 AU/s, if it were possible, that's still over 9 years. _______________________________________________ 'The illiterate of this century are not those who cannot read and write; but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.' |
Carniflex
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 11:31:00 -
[217]
What about deep safespots as the only working solution when bridging into hostile system under heavy lag (caused by the current sov system where everyone and his granny had to pile into one system to have fighting chanse) ?
You assume the lag will go away ? Or that if someone has crammed 300 guys into system it is supposed to be turkey shoot while other guys are scratching their balls and loading the grid ? What about heavy lag AND bombers ? You can currently jump in, load grid and GTFO before bombers land in deep safe, if you are 20 au from celestial then bombers will be landing before you load the grid even if there is only moderate lag.
I can ofc symphatezise with the stress of having too big system for your tastes, but you guys are breaking my sandbox here.
I am not pleased with your solution. You should be able to do better.
|
James Razor
Amarr The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 11:39:00 -
[218]
Well, CCP does not care about the lag it seems or that we can not fight any longer if the Deep Safes are gone because we can not get into a system.
If we stop fighting, CCP has less work cleaning up the mess they did.
(Yes, i am bitter and ironical. But look what CCP does and tell me i dont have good reasons for that.)
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 12:56:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Hack Harrison
Originally by: Marchocias
Originally by: Hack Harrison ... No game sends graphics over the internet (which is what you are saying). They send instructions on what to display.
Checkout OnLive. Astonishingly they're doing exactly this.
Just looked at the site - got a nice fancy video without anything explained - it basically looks like CITRIX for gamers - not a good option for people in Australia who have to pay for bandwidth. But my statement still stands as best as I can tell - they run the client (graphics still not being sent from the server) and then send the rendered output to you.
Yeah... its a lot of hype at the moment. Cool idea though... except if the video compression is too agressive then I imagine the mpeg artifacts might be a bit unpleasant to play with.
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 13:17:00 -
[220]
Originally by: chadwill
Originally by: Zenst
Oh deep safespots you serve us so well, At times of lag when servers go towards hell.
I call it a mechanic you call it a bug, The forums a panic from dominions drink jug.
So look at the problem and not at the cure, You idea is iratic and offtrack I'll assure.
The deep-safe patch prayer:
Your idea, which farts in space, flawed be thy name; thy deepsafe gone; thy will be done; in lag as it is in space. Give us this day our daily sanity, as we forgive them that patch against us. And lead us not into lag; But deliver us from lag. For thine is the system, the stability, and the soverenty, for ever and never. Aye CCP
+1 internets for you my good sir
clap clap
Thank you Sir, glad it was appreceated
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 14:23:00 -
[221]
Quote:
Well, CCP does not care about the lag it seems or that we can not fight any longer if the Deep Safes are gone because we can not get into a system.
If we stop fighting, CCP has less work cleaning up the mess they did.
It's apparent that the devs trying to fix the lag issues are on another and independent team than the ones working on the next expansion "other features" and this is the indeed untimely result.
But there's an obvious question that I can ask to the players and it's as nasty as asking CCP why they don't fix lag before DSS:
"Once fixed the lag and 300 v 300 becomes viable again, deny with a straight face that the following escalation will happen: FCs strong with the knowledge that 300 v 300 works, will just bring in 500 v 500 and then 1000 v 1000, till the node crashes".
Basically this is a problem with game design. No DSS removal, no lag fixing will prevent the blobs to always escalate up to the next notch till the game chokes again.
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Alex Link
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 16:14:00 -
[222]
how about the other defect that allows people to blow up things inside pos shields, including pos modules, while the shield is active?
will that defect be fixed too?
will the ******ed GM's reimburse the ship losses caused by this?
|
Chaldia Ishta
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 17:52:00 -
[223]
Ok, so the only thing that is changing is that all old stuff and bookmarks are being moved to (furthest object+20 AU) from the Sun of each system. As being a rather new player compared to the ones who are affected by this I will not comment if this is good or bad. However I do agree with what "I think" the Dev's are trying to accomplish (trying to read their minds and such).
Noting what the messages tell me in game, a warp drive has to be locked onto a point to warp to it and can't just warp off in any direction. This point being objects, fields, ships, etc., and just bookmarked locations. This makes knowing where your going Valid. The Ships use water-like physics to move when not in warp, ie. thrusters turn off, your ship stops instead of continuing forever. Using these we build a model that helps us explain their new system.
Making size of systems anchor-able locations based on the strength of a Star which can be measured by the furthest object from it, which is due to some kind of field or something emanating from the star. This would give a physical reason for:
1. Anchor-ables can only be anchored (furthest object+20) AU from the star because they rely on the field to remain in place. This keeps the sov. system stuff in a range that can be scanned within reason and still leaves a good range of possible locations to place it.
2. Bookmarks are limited to(furthest object+200 or more) AU from the Star because of the same field. Anything past that can't be bookmarked because the field is to weak to create points. This also wouldn't stop people from being able to fly outside of that range, it just makes it harder. Also, I wouldn't know a actual good distance for this so all you that play out there can probably give a reasonable number here.
3. This field is what stops our ships in space and is why things are able to be "Anchored" in the first place. I have not read up on the back story of eve or their explanations of why things work the way they do, so if this has been explained, Ignore it. I would assume our Warp-drives never really turn off and are reacting with the field or something. But it would make sense for all these things that it seems the Dev's are trying to accomplish. I noticed that they haven't stopped us from going out there but they have made it harder. As I read it, if you can get one ship out to DS then you can still get get others there and light your cyno's or anything else you guys need to do to have those large fleet battle. I'm just trying to offer my own thoughts to whats going on.
Now, tell me why I'm wrong cause I know I am (and I know I explained it better in my head that what I typed, read my mind)
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 19:36:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Chaldia Ishta <SNIP see above for full user posting>
Making size of systems anchor-able locations based on the strength of a Star which can be measured by the furthest object from it, which is due to some kind of field or something emanating from the star. This would give a physical reason for:
1. Anchor-ables can only be anchored (furthest object+20) AU from the star because they rely on the field to remain in place. This keeps the sov. system stuff in a range that can be scanned within reason and still leaves a good range of possible locations to place it.
2. Bookmarks are limited to(furthest object+200 or more) AU from the Star because of the same field. Anything past that can't be bookmarked because the field is to weak to create points. This also wouldn't stop people from being able to fly outside of that range, it just makes it harder. Also, I wouldn't know a actual good distance for this so all you that play out there can probably give a reasonable number here.
3. This field is what stops our ships in space and is why things are able to be "Anchored" in the first place. I have not read up on the back story of eve or their explanations of why things work the way they do, so if this has been explained, Ignore it. I would assume our Warp-drives never really turn off and are reacting with the field or something. But it would make sense for all these things that it seems the Dev's are trying to accomplish. I noticed that they haven't stopped us from going out there but they have made it harder. As I read it, if you can get one ship out to DS then you can still get get others there and light your cyno's or anything else you guys need to do to have those large fleet battle. I'm just trying to offer my own thoughts to whats going on.
Now, tell me why I'm wrong cause I know I am (and I know I explained it better in my head that what I typed, read my mind)
Well if we take away the role-played idea of some arbitary feild which has no grounding in real life science then points 1-3 you are making are wrong.
Bottom line this change is a complete labotamy of an idea concieved by somebody on some designed drug. Why, well because its a chnage that is not only not needed but actualy extreemly insulting to players because:
1) It ignores the problems the players actualy have. 2) It breaks a work-around to an issue that casues people to lose ships and not get them reinbursed like expense fitted titans that the players dont even see load in system. 3) Nobody has come up with one single valid reason for this change. 4) No player who this effects actual wants this change. 5) It shows a utter contempt for players in that it shows a complete misunderstanding of what problems the players have and as such highlights a out-of-touch sentiment with reality
There are more but thats just of the top of my head. Bottom line this suggestion makes IceSave a viable option for investment today.
Its wrong, so wrong that I can only assume that its the lets spin them something so crazy and insulting and insane, leave them to get angry over it and then withdraw the idea and everybody will think we care without us having to do a thing beyond a crazy dev-blog. Marketing style tactics more suited to politics than a games company.
I mean what next - tall fury creatures that live on a gas-planet -- that does not make sence!
|
YT Forever
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 01:04:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Chaldia Ishta <SNIP see above for full user posting>
I mean what next - tall fury creatures that live on a gas-planet -- that does not make sence!
Your right it would not make sence!!!
Gas planets = squid like creatures the fury ones would be on the ice planets ! d'oh
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 11:21:00 -
[226]
Holy crap:
Quote:
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
|
Mehang Zheng
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 12:30:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
And may I ask - Why should the game be rigged on side of invader? Dominion did already improve the advantage of invading forces.
I think lag is showing some benefit for defenders. And for your case, CCP has GIVEN you way to limit lag - but for "some" reason you invaders decided intentionally NOT to use it. You should inform CCP to reinforce systems you are planning to attack.
Thus, stop the fraking complaining why your way of averting rules should be okay. Start following rules.
Yours Mehang Zheng
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 13:59:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Mehang Zheng
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
And may I ask - Why should the game be rigged on side of invader? Dominion did already improve the advantage of invading forces.
I think lag is showing some benefit for defenders. And for your case, CCP has GIVEN you way to limit lag - but for "some" reason you invaders decided intentionally NOT to use it. You should inform CCP to reinforce systems you are planning to attack.
Thus, stop the fraking complaining why your way of averting rules should be okay. Start following rules.
Yours Mehang Zheng
GO TROLL ELSEWERE YOU MUPPET YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOUR ON ABOUT
|
Stratio
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 14:06:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Hack Harrison they run the client (graphics still not being sent from the server) and then send the rendered output to you.
Eh? So they do send the graphics from the server. _____________________
Poreuomai's Spokesman For Tribe and Honour! |
Urraka
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 14:54:00 -
[230]
Once again CCP GM/Devs prove they don't know a single thing about how stuff actually works in their own game.
Lets delete safe spots altogether, probes? wtf you need probes for .. increase on board scanner to do system wide scan and detect. Hell might as well give ships AIS and ARPA signals and they is no need for any ssafe spots.
Jump in, warp to target! GO GO GO !
|
|
Urraka
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 15:00:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Carniflex What about deep safespots as the only working solution when bridging into hostile system under heavy lag (caused by the current sov system where everyone and his granny had to pile into one system to have fighting chanse) ?
There is no lag! CCP owns the best equipment and XI in the world. buy a new internet connection! buy a better graphic card! hell buy a FO directly to the servers in UK.
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 22:41:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Zenst EDIT ADD: Reason I'm calling you a troll is that you have been in a noob starter corp for 2 years and as such have no experience of 0.0 mechanics from a personal perspective - THIS CHANGE EFFECTS 0.0 hugely. This and you go on about things that dont exist - ego you dont have a clue. this makes you a clueless troll and thus I'm calling you out as one.
Posting in reply to a noob who hasn't discovered that there are 3 (three!) characters on an account!
If you look at MZ's character sheet, you'll see all the indications that this is a non-training alt. No standings at all except 10.0 to the intro agent (as all characters get)...
Quite a few people (me too) doesn't like their forum posting spilling over into the game. As such, we use our alts...
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.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 02:56:00 -
[233]
Edited by: Zenst on 22/04/2010 02:57:27
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Zenst EDIT ADD: Reason I'm calling you a troll is that you have been in a noob starter corp for 2 years and as such have no experience of 0.0 mechanics from a personal perspective - THIS CHANGE EFFECTS 0.0 hugely. This and you go on about things that dont exist - ego you dont have a clue. this makes you a clueless troll and thus I'm calling you out as one.
Posting in reply to a noob who hasn't discovered that there are 3 (three!) characters on an account!
If you look at MZ's character sheet, you'll see all the indications that this is a non-training alt. No standings at all except 10.0 to the intro agent (as all characters get)...
Quite a few people (me too) doesn't like their forum posting spilling over into the game. As such, we use our alts...
It still dosn't excuse the fact that he is talking out of the lower orafice instead of the upper orafice; If anything it compunds it. he's still a clueless troll who's hiding behind a alt :p
Seriously though - him saying this offers an advantage to the attacker is bull**** and the fact that there isn;t a mechanic at all that counters the lag - indeed more than 200 on the gate and anybody jumping in is doomed - reinforced node or not. And for what - sorry logs show nothing and yet there aware of the problem. That does not make sence and is insulting to players.
But thank you for pointimng out that he is an alt - still dosn't imply he has done 0.0 alliance fleet warfare at all.
|
Darlon Shae
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 05:15:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Zenst
Well if we take away the role-played idea of some arbitary feild which has no grounding in real life science then points 1-3 you are making are wrong.
Okay, even if the game does not follow Newtonian physics - nor Euclidian - there is still ingame reason.
Solar systems DO have boundary. It is called menopaus where the solar wind is no longer able to keep dust away. Thus, make limit this. Make that weird area something nobody can fly into.
Solar Systems shoudl have boundaries, but we have bunch of pirates using Deep safes as beach heads to invade systems whining when some gamist reason changes. They hate it when they lose some advantage they have.
Like someone said, lag is there. It will never go away. Why? Because nobody who isn't roleplayer wants to play it fair. I wonder why reinforced nodes are not used by Goons or -A-? Because their tactics include metagaming. They do not give a **** - or rather they would take all "stupid roleplayers" from behind because they do limit their own abilites for RP reasons. Insane for such sociopath people.
Removal of Deep Safes is good thing. Since they cannot be created, they are exploit nowadays. They were exploitation of a bug. I am still wondering WHY CCP doesn't use its previosu tactics for such thing - announce it exploit and then ban everyone who still uses it.
And fighting lag? Best way is start asking CCP to reinfoce nodes. And I think CCP should start logging who did crash the node - send warning after first, and second time, and ban for third. You, CCP, have given a proper way to reinforce node. Force those people who DO NOT want to play by rules to use it.
Yours Mehang Zheng
|
Darlon Shae
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 05:23:00 -
[235]
Edited by: Darlon Shae on 22/04/2010 05:26:09
Originally by: Zenst Edited by: Zenst on 21/04/2010 14:17:19
Originally by: Mehang Zheng
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
And may I ask - Why should the game be rigged on side of invader? Dominion did already improve the advantage of invading forces.
I think lag is showing some benefit for defenders. And for your case, CCP has GIVEN you way to limit lag - but for "some" reason you invaders decided intentionally NOT to use it. You should inform CCP to reinforce systems you are planning to attack.
Thus, stop the fraking complaining why your way of averting rules should be okay. Start following rules.
Yours Mehang Zheng
GO TROLL ELSEWERE YOU MUPPET YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOUR ON ABOUT
EDIT ADD: Reason I'm calling you a troll is that you have been in a noob starter corp for 2 years and as such have no experience of 0.0 mechanics from a personal perspective - THIS CHANGE EFFECTS 0.0 hugely. This and you go on about things that dont exist - ego you dont have a clue. this makes you a clueless troll and thus I'm calling you out as one.
Okay. YOu should stop that. Mehang Zheng is my alt. I used to use Mehang to FOrum posting relating game mechanics because those mails are out of character. Okay. I shoudl not send them to tired, thus I come out of closet. This is no RP mail, and I do not meddle with such thins - I'm a roleplaying character and this is out of game thread. And, would you tell me WHY reinforcing nodes does not work, instead of claiming I am a troll. And no, my main is not in 0.0 sec. He isn't stupid enough to get into mafia wars of 0.0 call "politics".
I think you are a good troll who wants to announce that anyone differing in your opinion is a troll because you do not want to talk of it. Give me reason WHY reinforcing the nodes does not help? Oh, I know. Because if node is reinfroced those who do not abide rules gets MORE people in. See my next post of banning such offenders.
Oh yes, it does change 0.0 sec game. No ****. Why didn't you while of removal of Gallente POS exploit the same. It did change 0.0 sec a lot too. The way to create these Deed Safes has been bug. Would you tell me WHY fruits of that bug should be okay while POS exploit was not? This exploit gives similar advantage allowing enemy fleet to jump into system in area where friendlies cannot reach them. That is a BIG exploit. Or like someone said, the defenders can setup the sovereignity control bunker into such location hostiles cannot reach.
Of course it changes 0.0 sec, because from forum posts, it seesm 0.0 sec relies on exploits of bugs. Nobody plays fair, but metagame is way to go.
And.. to continue on other person - yes.. Honestly, even if my main sues cloak, I think cloak should have duration. Infinite cloak is too powerful. Make cloak use cap little and neutralize cap regen completely when it is online. That would force cov. ops to emerge to regen cap after warping around.
Yours Mehang Zheng
|
Kerfira
Audaces Fortuna Iuvat
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 07:32:00 -
[236]
Edited by: Kerfira on 22/04/2010 07:33:47
Originally by: Zenst It still dosn't excuse the fact that he is talking out of the lower orafice instead of the upper orafice; If anything it compunds it. he's still a clueless troll who's hiding behind a alt
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean their opinion is not a valid one. Since he is paying the same as you to play, his opinion is EXACTLY as valid as yours!
By saying that he's a troll and talking BS, you're EFFECTIVELY saying that so are you. This follows from his opinion having the same intrinsic value as yours.
Now, you'll probably brand me a troll as well....
I understand completely why CCP is fixing this bug. Simply because different teams work on different things, and it is not always possible to coordinate them. I also suspect there are some untold technical issues that makes CCP think this needs to get fixed asap.
The 'benefit' you're talking about just adds to the lag and system instability at the moment, since it enables battles to take place that otherwise wouldn't. These battles are too big for the server to handle (we all know that), and quite frankly it is better they don't take place at all. This is of cause seen from a server stability point of view and not from the involved alliances.
If you can't get into a system the enemy is attacking, attack one of his systems instead and then take your own system back when he goes to save his...
While the jump-in problem is a serious one, it doesn't warrant letting other bugs not getting fixed.
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.
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 08:19:00 -
[237]
the furthest BM out, does it happen to be the one that is actually in jove space? can't remember the name of the guy, but a few years back someone tried to go to jove space by using the (now revamped) probe system. iirc it took him a week or so of constant probing ahead & warping to the probe to accomplish this. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 13:58:00 -
[238]
^&^To the posters replying to my posts above (i'm posting this instead of replying to all 3) THANK YOU. Thank you for pointing out in detail your points and also for correcting any misconceptions I had of your stance - most apprecieated and I do acknowledge I was wrong calling you a troll.
I will say though the reinforced nodes are not exactly as robust as advertised due to grid limitations which I'm sure your aware of and the deep-safe cyno was the only way to saftly get people into a system and alas still is under those situations. It is this aspect that grates me due to the way CCP handles lag loss's. Which I believe we ALL agree is unfair. Its also that there doing this change and not made any assurance of how there lag fix's have progressed or indeed any assurances that are solid. Indeed Dominion was supposed to allow better fleet fights - this it does not and was actualy a huge step backwards.
If we had a choice I'm sure we would prefer laggier systems with solid assured logging than any other change they could muster. At least things would be fair. AS for pirates using deep safes - well its not an issue as most will cloak anyhow and you can probe them. As for the limit there imposing its still too short (X-70 springs to mind) for some systems and I suspect it will cause more problems than not. As for imposing some arbitary limit due to some limitation its not the case and hold no model upon real life as otherwise how would anybody get to one solarsystem to another without a star-gate and as such how were the original stargates laid out if that was the case -- given that it as a whole does not make sence.
But i shall respect that some people disagree on some of the details/finer points and accept and appologise if it was percieved that I assumed nobody had a valid point. Albiet I'll disagree with those points.
Either way it is hard not to feel that CCP are not addressing the core issues and spending time on those aspects the players feel they should.
|
Mehang Zheng
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 05:02:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Zenst ^&^To the posters replying to my posts above (i'm posting this instead of replying to all 3) THANK YOU. Thank you for pointing out in detail your points and also for correcting any misconceptions I had of your stance - most apprecieated and I do acknowledge I was wrong calling you a troll.
I will say though the reinforced nodes are not exactly as robust as advertised due to grid limitations which I'm sure your aware of and the deep-safe cyno was the only way to saftly get people into a system and alas still is under those situations. It is this aspect that grates me due to the way CCP handles lag loss's. Which I believe we ALL agree is unfair. Its also that there doing this change and not made any assurance of how there lag fix's have progressed or indeed any assurances that are solid. Indeed Dominion was supposed to allow better fleet fights - this it does not and was actualy a huge step backwards.
Lag is unavoidable - because like many have said, the metagaming tactical issues are used on regular basis on null sec strategies - or do I have got wrong impression how 0.0 sec works. And due this metagaming side, lag is always sought by many if not most 0.0 sec powers. It is powerful tool. And there is no way CCP can avoid that lag - like many have pointed out, because if there is no lag, one side starts using dirty tricks to enlarge the number of items. This forum more proves and disproves the mafia mentality of 0.0 sec - anything goes as long CCP does not ban you and even it is viable option.
For defending side - this upgrade will actaully make game more realistic in strategywise, because your numbers would limit how many systems you can defend. You moan because it makes the strategy different.
CCP could make incoming ships through jump invulnerable until they have loaded the grid like ships who use gates.
Originally by: Zenst
But i shall respect that some people disagree on some of the details/finer points and accept and appologise if it was percieved that I assumed nobody had a valid point. Albiet I'll disagree with those points.
Either way it is hard not to feel that CCP are not addressing the core issues and spending time on those aspects the players feel they should.
There is no real life reference for spaceships having maximum speed in space - the game uses atmospheric flight mechanics for space like so many other "space" games. There is no real life physics example for forcefields. There is no real life examples for containers which are larger inside than outside. Shall I continue? This game has nothing to do with realistic model anyway.
And there is real life boundary for solar system - Astronomers calls it the area outside which solar wind pressure no longer can push the interstellar gas out. Thus, there is IN-GAME reasons for such.
And.. Core issue? Most of characters live in hihg sec - how huge blob battles can be core issue? Just because you are 0.0 sec dweller makes 0.0 sec way more important than anything else? And, no, you arne't low sec dweller.. You yourself are on NPC corp, and your own comments seems to indicate that means you are newbie troll. Did I do something wrong when I applied your own argument against you?
Even as highsec dweller, I would prefer that metagaming would be limited. Make logout not warp back where you were when you logged out - that takes care of login traps. Inside POS forcefield should be exception of this. Make cloaks to have duration to prevent people sitting on system safe.
I am one of those rare players who do assess changes on behalf of game, not on behalf of my own exploitation and gaming power. For example, the drone bandhwith update did hurt me a lot, but I do still think it was necessary and good change. How many of you 0.0 sec dwellers can do such thing? Assess things on neutral perspective instead of childish assessing how much this hindres your own gaming and advantage. Yes. that is childish behavior if you did not know. MZ
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 13:00:00 -
[240]
My main concern with this change is that it now limits attackers to being exposed to the lag jump-in issue more than they were with the deep-safe cyno workaround. This makes it harder without offering anything thats balances it. Lag/logs show nothing ship loss's should not be a tactic/part of 0.0 fleet fights or any fights.
What can be done to make things more balanced/fair:
1) The control units you have to place at the gates - these should be placed on the incomming gate and not as they are in the outgoing gate to the system. This spreads the defence across systems more and due to the spread out affords a fairer form of play instead of concentration across one single system.
2) Jump-in timer - (I already suggested few times - first 3 years ago) Instead of the fixed 30 second timer one shoe fits all approach it should be a minimum of 30 seconds and for every player in the system over say 30 it gets increased 1 second. So If your jumping into a system with 100 people you have a 100 second invulnebility timer.
3) Logging - player would rather have a slightly slower server and better logging than not. A Form of local logs acceptable would be great - PKI, logservers. There are options that can be exlored.
4) Formation fleet warps - ie you have a formation fleet warp option along with fleet warp as per normal but the formation one will warp people as normal but they land instead of were the gang leaders lands but in the same relation to the gang leader that they were when the formation warp was initiated. This would afford people better tactics and also means there will be less client/server interaction involved in repositioning after gang warps as well as negating any potentual desyncs from mad bounces as and when they present. just makes sence.
I'm sure there are more great idea's.
Tacticaly all I can suggest if this change goes ahead is to use a blackop to bridge in a bloackage runner with covert op cloak into the system and get that to deplay large bubbles over all the spots in relation to were you plan to drop your cyno so that when you drop a cyno for people to bridge into a system anybody looking at warping to that cyno and picking of ships in a turkey shoot as well as lag-blocking the grid will initialy land in the bubbles at a safe distance. Also you do the cyno on a grid-line so that some of your fleet will land on a another grid. This is the best tactic I can think of beyond everybody in stealth bombers and recons using blackops.
Either way I agree things need to be fairer and for that changes that reduce blob interaction on one single front are needed, especialy when there initial interactions (ie jump-in/cyno into system) instead of aiding them further.
Though I still feel this change is wrong.
|
|
Commander TGK
Gallente The Deep Space Armada Rising Phoenix Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 14:05:00 -
[241]
This is killing the sandbox, please don't nerf the DSSs. They have tactical use, both to make it a challenge to scan things down, and to avoid lag. Since when is space forced into a tiny "area of play"? That definitely takes away a certain level of immersion and reality. We already have deep space probes that make it possible to scan them down, we have the means, why not leave them as they are? Or at the very least leave the current bookmarks out there, they could become valuable over time.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 11:17:00 -
[242]
STICKY?
I noticed this thread nolonger stickied - has it been superceeded again in new thread I missed or are we to take it that CCP is not interested in our feedback upon this matter and are going to Nike it thru?
|
Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 04:00:00 -
[243]
I'm guessing either the Dev's were silenced, or just don't care.
I wouldn't care much if Greyscale just flat out said "we hear you, but trust us, nuking these DSS won't effect your 0.0 battles" or said "we're checking this thread periodically" or some such. But it seems to be a pattern over the last few dozen dev blogs of a single round of dev replies, and then silence.
So.. :welp: i dunno. It's sad though and doesn't help CCP's rep, which used to be awesome. They used to give both technical reasons and laymen reasons, even if they were bunk, and talk to us. I even remember a few times where CCP gave a reason, and then listened to the player base on a better implementation ;-)
Oh well. :CCPDevs:
|
seregakz
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 18:22:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Commander TGK This is killing the sandbox, please don't nerf the DSSs. They have tactical use, both to make it a challenge to scan things down, and to avoid lag. Since when is space forced into a tiny "area of play"? That definitely takes away a certain level of immersion and reality. We already have deep space probes that make it possible to scan them down, we have the means, why not leave them as they are? Or at the very least leave the current bookmarks out there, they could become valuable over time.
I completely agree with this statement. I think DSS is a good example of players creatively using game mechanics to broaden their tactical options. Just because devs did not intend for this tactic to exist, does not mean that it is invalid or an exploit. If the volume is a problem, let's reduce maximum range to, say, 500AU. Something like that seems to be a much more fair compromise.
|
Nyx Spire
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 11:39:00 -
[245]
Simple solution shame i am so many pages deep. adjust the Cyno beacon mechanic's.
Cyno char clicks Cyno beacon button. new mechanic it consumes the fuel, but the Cyno doesn't pop. units bridge gap to board cast Cyno local spikes said units are stuck in a jump gate like cloak cant be uncloaked by items near by or ships for a similar 30 second window like a jump gate. upon the first ship moving a big Cyno VFX goes off and as it hits each cloaked Cyno'ed ship littler VFX's go off. at that point the Cyno beacon appears on overview and additional/slower forces can use Cyno as well.
What this means giant blobs can cyno jump in they can directional scan survey, hold cloak don't have enemy warp to them and have the same functional mechanics as a jump gate. if you lag out for 45 seconds you safety warp. blobs transverse systems by pass loading lag. both enemy and enemy have a time out period before the initial engagement. the surprise element is still there but it Doesn't take too much away from the covert Cyno which i think should grant covert Cynoed ships a 15 seconds unconditional cloak after jumping allowing ships to move with out decloaking to maintain there choose your fight superiority.
|
Natasja Podinski
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 10:02:00 -
[246]
this will destroy the game a little bit more for me! thanks ccp. why dont you just turn it into a tetris game .
personally i think this should be a platform game so if u start to implement small changes every week for some years eve will become a platform game!!
****ing morons!! Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Adida |
Praesentius
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 14:55:00 -
[247]
Edited by: Praesentius on 29/04/2010 14:55:33
Originally by: Chribba Edited by: Chribba on 16/04/2010 21:29:56 as my POD only warped some 3,000AU with its cap back in the days.
That distance is still approximately correct.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 16:53:00 -
[248]
I am just excited for the easter egg hunt that is going to occur once the new system goes live.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.05.02 08:22:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Zenst STICKY?
I noticed this thread nolonger stickied - has it been superceeded again in new thread I missed or are we to take it that CCP is not interested in our feedback upon this matter and are going to Nike it thru?
Confirming CCP is done listening to feedback on this, err, feature.
|
EdTeach
|
Posted - 2010.05.05 21:58:00 -
[250]
Edited by: EdTeach on 05/05/2010 21:58:20 I am still confused(no surprise). I am going to show what I believe is happening, and please tell me where I am going wrong. I most likely have some measurements wrong, so speak up please.
I cannot use any kind of 3d graphics apps, so I am going to have to try this with words.
Think of a sphere. This is the "allowed' area of a system.
Slice all the way accross the sphere parallel to the Orbital Plane, approx. 7 AU above the Orbital Plane(most warpable points are there i think.. plexes/wspace sites, etc).
Slice again 7 AU below the Orbital Plane.
Erase all of the sphere that is outside the area between the two Slices.
Draw a catbox around the remaining area.
Draw a Cat squatting over this.
The new emergent sandbox is now truly six inches deep and filled with cat poop.
Please tell me in the year I have been playing I have missed some legal, well-known way to make warpable BMs in all that massive +Z and -Z area.
Please.
If there is no way to accomplish this at present... there jolly well should be now don't you think?
Warp-to-probes comes to mind as a quick fix, but I am most likely missing all sorts of game breaking reasons that is a fail concept.
Call me a newb all you want in any replies, just explain what I am missing.
---------
|
|
Sunbird Huy
Caldari WEPRA CORP Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 15:17:00 -
[251]
Let me recap this...
RECAP A) : CCP announcement: we will F**K you, and WE WILL DO IT HARD. aka. erase your deepsafes, your stuff at deepsafes, mess you up even more by podding you and such. Playerbase : FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU CCP!!! NO ! YOU WILL NOT. Let us try to play without your motherfING DOMINION LAGG... CCP announcement: *cough*cough* think we got spanked by our sheep...errr...respected customers...
RECAP B) : CCP devblog: ok, ok we got it...We WILL F**K you only a little bit...WELL, not really, WE WILL STILL F**K U HARD MWAHAHAHA, just without the podding/deletion and mass genocide of those properties in deepsafes. And it's a stenching piece of crap, but this time we wrapped it so nicely... PLAYERBASE : FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU CCP...SAME **** DIFFERENT WRAP!.
my recap: Basically, your whatchamacallit-move****-script will bring those titans/moms/caps/cans in scannable range...good luck suckers, coz once the ships are in scan range, they be better off just being deleted in the first place, coz now everyone and his mother will be able to find those items by probing them out - and board/loot/shoot them.. LOL CCP... SERIOUS-****ING-LOL...
RECAP NO.godknowswhichonebynow... Google translator does not work in ICELAND. Otherwise, CCP, by now, you WOULD HAVE FiNG realized and understood, 50k PEOPLE SUFFER FROM LAGG ISSUES, NOT FING HIDDEN SHIPS 5,000AU away. Who the FOCK CARES how far they are.
Oh, and an important question... How much time/resources have you spent trying to find your OWN workaround for lagg since the Dominion fiasco, as opposed to your titanic efforts in nerfing playerbase workaround for it? HERE are some possible answers: a)none b)lol wut? c)well...you know...we thought about it...man the beer was so good... d)VOLCANO IS TO BE BLAMED, I SWEAR... e)all the above? f)ah, we're fixing it by writing devblogs and turning your attention away from playing the game(as laggy as it is) by our lvl 0 PR skills.
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 15:26:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Sunbird Huy Let me recap this...
RECAP A) : CCP announcement: we will F**K you, and WE WILL DO IT HARD. aka. erase your deepsafes, your stuff at deepsafes, mess you up even more by podding you and such. Playerbase : FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU CCP!!! NO ! YOU WILL NOT. Let us try to play without your motherfING DOMINION LAGG... CCP announcement: *cough*cough* think we got spanked by our sheep...errr...respected customers...
RECAP B) : CCP devblog: ok, ok we got it...We WILL F**K you only a little bit...WELL, not really, WE WILL STILL F**K U HARD MWAHAHAHA, just without the podding/deletion and mass genocide of those properties in deepsafes. And it's a stenching piece of crap, but this time we wrapped it so nicely... PLAYERBASE : FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU CCP...SAME **** DIFFERENT WRAP!.
my recap: Basically, your whatchamacallit-move****-script will bring those titans/moms/caps/cans in scannable range...good luck suckers, coz once the ships are in scan range, they be better off just being deleted in the first place, coz now everyone and his mother will be able to find those items by probing them out - and board/loot/shoot them.. LOL CCP... SERIOUS-****ING-LOL...
RECAP NO.godknowswhichonebynow... Google translator does not work in ICELAND. Otherwise, CCP, by now, you WOULD HAVE FiNG realized and understood, 50k PEOPLE SUFFER FROM LAGG ISSUES, NOT FING HIDDEN SHIPS 5,000AU away. Who the FOCK CARES how far they are.
Oh, and an important question... How much time/resources have you spent trying to find your OWN workaround for lagg since the Dominion fiasco, as opposed to your titanic efforts in nerfing playerbase workaround for it? HERE are some possible answers: a)none b)lol wut? c)well...you know...we thought about it...man the beer was so good... d)VOLCANO IS TO BE BLAMED, I SWEAR... e)all the above? f)ah, we're fixing it by writing devblogs and turning your attention away from playing the game(as laggy as it is) by our lvl 0 PR skills.
Dont worry when they role this as it stands it will introduce a expliot that will make people cry even more. Coz I cant discuss it at the moment and its not live yet. But watch this space for some realy epic tears.
But hear is a thought if the closest object is 20au away and its a planet and nothing else is close and I fly a little bit further away, according to CCP nobody would be able to warp to me due to this change not allowing it! How would I be scanned down then if the scanner is unable to warp to me as I moved just of the edge so to speak. Does pose some serious WTF CCP you made it worse type comments too come.
|
AkJon Ferguson
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 17:07:00 -
[253]
CCP gets ridiculously few things right.
CCP got this right.
gj CCP
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.05.08 15:51:00 -
[254]
Originally by: AkJon Ferguson CCP gets ridiculously few things right.
CCP got this right.
gj CCP
Would you care to explain what exactly they got right?
Was it the fix to a problem that never existed?
Was it a change to a tactic to fix a problem they are ignoring?
Was it the introduction of a expliot with this change?
Was it the inability to grasp that not everything is 20au apart and some systems will have problems now due to this and them being so large (gate<>gate)
Was it there ability to ignore player requests to fix problems and to introduce more problems?
Was it the fact that they ignored feedback after the first round and burried this thread in a surge of blogs/fap-role-playing sticky content?
Please explain what they got right as I and others clearly can't see it and would be most grateful if you would enlighten us with what they actualy did get right on this change they are too railroad thru.
|
Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:23:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Zenst
Was it the inability to grasp that not everything is 20au apart and some systems will have problems now due to this and them being so large (gate<>gate)
I think your inability to grasp the actual mechanics of the change is a problem. :3
|
Zenst
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.05.12 20:56:00 -
[256]
Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Zenst
Was it the inability to grasp that not everything is 20au apart and some systems will have problems now due to this and them being so large (gate<>gate)
I think your inability to grasp the actual mechanics of the change is a problem. :3
Proof or STFU
All I shall say is X-7
|
Ceirah
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.14 20:33:00 -
[257]
So is it right that when your ship is moved to the 20AU exact border, you can burn out opposite side of the sun and it would be impossible to warp to you since you're 20.000000001 AU away? -------------------------------------------------- [2009.12.07 20:19:26] Tylr > atlas invade WI lol [20:22:32] Bobby Atlas > well i guess we will see you guys in a few weeks |
Jamie Banks
Gallente Wasted and Still Mining
|
Posted - 2010.05.16 07:57:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Ceirah So is it right that when your ship is moved to the 20AU exact border, you can burn out opposite side of the sun and it would be impossible to warp to you since you're 20.000000001 AU away?
No. Once you get out there, you can BM, you can warp you can do anything you want. But the 'only' viable way of getting out there is sub-warp speeds, so good luck AFK'ing an intercepter for a year to get a few AU outside the boundary. _____________________________
EVE - Everyone vs. Everyone Join in-game Channel 'Aussies'
Check my Bio in-game for good deals on Invention Packs |
Wedge Reskanor
|
Posted - 2010.05.25 19:17:00 -
[259]
Hay, does anyone remember the warp mechanic from the Homeworld series? I think CCP should implement something like that. I should be able to utalize the entire space in a stellar system. Of course the maximum range would be 20+ AU from the farthest planet like is bieng implemented. This would allow for far more tactical flexability while not making fleets overly difficult to locate.
|
Ganagati
Caldari Dark Ashes
|
Posted - 2010.05.25 20:25:00 -
[260]
Can someone clarify something for me: I was under the impression that after the move we would be able to go back and make new bookmarks- that this nerfed only CURRENT deepspace bookmarks. However, some folks are saying that from this patch forward you will not be able to warp past 20 AUs no matter what... which is true?
|
|
Konnore
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 15:16:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Ganagati Can someone clarify something for me: I was under the impression that after the move we would be able to go back and make new bookmarks- that this nerfed only CURRENT deepspace bookmarks. However, some folks are saying that from this patch forward you will not be able to warp past 20 AUs no matter what... which is true?
As far as I understood, you will be able to warp from and to a bookmark further than 20AU, but you will not be able to create that bookmark with probes
So if you like to create a BM at 30AU (e.g.) you'll have to fly there normaly for months!
(correct me if I'm wrong)
|
Shinma Apollo
Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 15:23:00 -
[262]
Dear CCP,
As you patch this into tranquility, I figure now's a good time to tell you: You pretty much once again shot yourself in the foot. You've not only not stopped deep safe book marks, but you've raised the barrier for entry once again to: People who have a carrier, people who have a black ops. Nothing prevents you from making new bookmarks beyond the limit, but it does prevent newer players from taking one well documented and publicly accessible way that wasn't skill point intensive, and supplanted it with another, far more elitist, less documented method.
Better luck next time.
|
Viglen
Gallente Taurus Inc Paradigm Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.26 22:18:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Viglen on 26/05/2010 22:18:51 OK, Who is responsible for this!
I honestly thought TomB's nerfbat was lost in an the a expedition to Jove space!
This is just to extreme imo, make it 250au!
|
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.05.27 18:40:00 -
[264]
Delayed cyno safe spot still work. I'm very happy LOL
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 11:58:00 -
[265]
To whom it may concern:
Deep Safe Spots are STILL in game. CCP only eliminated those situated on the horizontal plane, vertical safes are an "intended feature" (yes I bug reported one).
Probably not that many compared to those that were nuked, but if the have/have not argument is to be used ..
Vertical truly is > All
|
Libin Herobi
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 20:47:00 -
[266]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida To whom it may concern:
Deep Safe Spots are STILL in game. CCP only eliminated those situated on the horizontal plane, vertical safes are an "intended feature" (yes I bug reported one).
Probably not that many compared to those that were nuked, but if the have/have not argument is to be used ..
Vertical truly is > All
I'm beginning to refuse to believe that all this fuzz and "we crush everything - no, we only change everything - no, we only change some parts - well since not enough people hated the latest suggested change we will go with a new one that most people will hate for sure" can actually happen by accident. No one is that confused, distracted and unorganized to produce one OOPS after the other.
CCP play drama queen with us. C/D
|
Zelot Blueice
Gallente Colonial Defense Agency
|
Posted - 2010.07.24 08:50:00 -
[267]
This is just ****ing bull****. I mean CCP you guys are ****ing idiots ya'll know that? I would ****ing love to watch you all perform under a producer at Activision, cuz they would ****ing love you. But we wont and I dont think many other people like you even now. Just give us our **** back so we can continue the game. Also I would like reimbursemnt for the SP needed for deep safe probes cuz i dont need them anymore. Now, give me my ****ing SP back for a pointless ****ing skill and btw, ..i.. you
|
sm1thy
|
Posted - 2010.08.01 07:42:00 -
[268]
Originally by: notreallyachar I think of all the things to remove, keep that BM and make it a public warp point ha ha!
This....
Also place a small jove refueling station
and release word that once a month a jove industrial filled with 'deadspace - faction' rare modules will dock / undock there ... lol.
|
grrfsweld
|
Posted - 2010.08.02 22:44:00 -
[269]
Why are BURN EDEN ELITE PVPERS still using deep safe spots in NC CAREBEAR systems, do people need to petition this or how is IT(pun intended) handled. Is BURN EDEN ELITE PVPERS maybe operating in a greyzone(pun intended)?
See the conclusion next time on Star Mist Deep Space Safespot. Terrible alt poster. EVE Forum Police - keeping mods at bay |
Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 15:15:00 -
[270]
Really removed ? Check it again, because Deep safes still working.
|
|
Noran Ferah
Red Sky Morning
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 16:17:00 -
[271]
Nerfbat cometh Aug 10.
PREPARE MAH PROBES!
|
cBOLTSON
Reaction Theory Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 17:10:00 -
[272]
Yay! My bday on the 10th whoot!
But seriously CCP, what the **** is the point really. I hope your boundary system fails and people find a new way to make cheeky bookmarks :)
You guys should sort out your priorities.
|
Candente
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 17:59:00 -
[273]
Originally by: cBOLTSON Yay! My bday on the 10th whoot!
But seriously CCP, what the **** is the point really. I hope your boundary system fails and people find a new way to make cheeky bookmarks :)
You guys should sort out your priorities.
Maybe CCP is doing this to punish the chronic forum whiners :D
But seriously, since people has to exploit the game mechanics to get deep space safespots, it should be obvious that it's fair game to have those removed at any time.
------------- rawr~ |
Im Blue
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 19:47:00 -
[274]
i seam to have missed the rest of the bugs that are to be fixed along with this. can soemone list them please
|
Loki O'Grady
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 20:09:00 -
[275]
Confirming combat probes loaded, ready for the treasure hunt!
|
Grez
Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 20:26:00 -
[276]
Confirming the EVE community acts like a spoilt brat. ---
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 21:03:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Im Blue i seam to have missed the rest of the bugs that are to be fixed along with this. can soemone list them please
Being able to get ships into a crowded system at all will definitely be fixed - can't have big fights for the next 17 months after all.
|
tasman devil
Amarr Imperium Galactica Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 21:09:00 -
[278]
I would like to know more about that 95k ly bookmark! :D
Tell us more! :D ---------------------------------- Even if you don't belive in God, Be prepared to meet him anytime... |
Lolion Reglo
Interstellar Waffle Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 21:24:00 -
[279]
so that spot that is 95,000 light years away from the sun... wouldn't that be a completely different solar system altogether? all be it another galaxy perhaps. lol.
|
capn gump
Caldari ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 21:56:00 -
[280]
Good to see CCP still focusing on trivial issues as a priority instead of fixing important things
|
|
bigpaxi
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 22:03:00 -
[281]
are these ships in high sec or low sec or where i am not sure of these unpiloted ships and what they are and where they are
|
Shamblingform
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 22:13:00 -
[282]
Originally by: capn gump Good to see CCP still focusing on trivial issues as a priority instead of fixing important things
Yeah! we need Ambulation NOW!!!! German Giggles! R
|
YarrMama
|
Posted - 2010.08.04 22:25:00 -
[283]
Screw working on lag - let's make it so all the ships have to be on top of each other and add to the lag. C'mon CCP fix the bugs and things that don't work, then work on these trivial things.
|
Dawn Harbinger
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 03:27:00 -
[284]
Quit crying like a bunch of babies, it's pathetic. So they took away safe spots that were never meant to be part of the game. Boo freakin' hoo
|
Noun Verber
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 04:04:00 -
[285]
I was expecting it to happen soon after the dev blog/with the next patch, why the long wait?
|
Guilty Man
Minmatar Guilty People
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 04:43:00 -
[286]
OK, OK, guys! This time FOR SURE! :D
|
Hun Jakuza
Roving Guns Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 05:47:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Noun Verber I was expecting it to happen soon after the dev blog/with the next patch, why the long wait?
Because Southern blob with IT attacked NC home systems from their deep safe spot. :D
|
Wiliiam Athalis
Caldari Line Ark Industries Section Eight's
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 05:57:00 -
[288]
Edited by: Wiliiam Athalis on 05/08/2010 05:59:41 Edited by: Wiliiam Athalis on 05/08/2010 05:59:11
Originally by: EdTeach Edited by: EdTeach on 16/04/2010 22:49:32 Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.
How about well within probe range but still limited?
A. 100AU from farthest celestial orbit bookmark limit. You can go farther, but NOT bookmark farther.
B. Directional Warp-to-Distance feature. Example ... click on space, right click menu to set warp bubble collapse range, warp. Non-BM ranges will not be accepted into nav comp.
This might allow much easier use of the full volume that WILL be allowed. Getting more out of the Z axis and other areas not near celestials, but still within the new limits may help the situation.
----------
Very interesting idea! Although if they were to do that I would like a better scan window which would also be a "warp navigation" window here is why: (some kind of grid which would have the 3 axis.) I would like to be able to choose my own coordinate for where to warp to. I also suggest to add some kind of skill following this to warp more precisely which mean that without this skill your ending point would be altered by a few AU or thousand of km. The general warp system would be the same. All default object (stargates, stations, moons, planets, known belt) would have a "beacon" which means your ship will always arrive at the specified range that you have preset when you engaged warp. But, I would like that when you "lock on" on a player ship or a space anomaly with a probe it give you the exact position of the ship and it coordinate so that you can warp to it but if you would not have train "the skill" which would allow you to do precise warp in the void, you might miss his ship from times to time from a few thousand km.So remove the astrometric pinpoint skill and change it with "Enhanced Warp Calculations"(idea of name for "the skill"). To me it make more sense that a ship will "overwarp", than 6 probes or so, miscalculated the position of a target. This will give a interesting new game mechanic for those who like to recon before battle and will allow player to avoid gate campers who are trying to get them. They could simply do a "blind" warp withing the system limit. Anyways with the new limit, as many players already said, the basic probe can already scan the whole area which make deep scan probe and astrometric lvl 5 optional except for the gaze moon probe. I suggest to scrap the deep space probes actual use and change it to something that would help for P.I. like more precise long range survey of planet. Finally, from what I have read in the blog, many ship are still "lost" in deep space so that could be a alternate use for deep space probe and also it could be a new space anomaly. From simple frigate to battleship maybe or a another idea would be to add broken ship debris which would be exclusive design that cannot be made(just as the special event ships), and haul them to a station to reverse engineer & repair them with a certain success rate.
|
Vaffel
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 12:39:00 -
[289]
Are the headlines realy this slow ? We have to dig up a dev blog and a dead issue from 4 months ago ?
|
Facepalm
Amarr Battlestars Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 13:17:00 -
[290]
So this means you've also fixed the lag which required fleets to use deep safe insertion? Are you sure this is the wisest decision given the players' feelings towards your treatment of the current game's issues?
|
|
Reiisha
Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 15:02:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
On the other hand, they may also be one of the causes for the lag. I can imagine a few ways how that could happen ;p
"If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 16:14:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Reiisha
Originally by: Jattzia The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.
On the other hand, they may also be one of the causes for the lag. I can imagine a few ways how that could happen ;p
I would love to hear how deep safe spots are any different from any other co-ordinate in space. Care to explain?
The official explanation (which could of course be crap, like a lot of stuff that comes from CCP) is that alliances were hiding sov structures out at very deep safe spots (600+ AUs) which were too hard to find for probers, especially after CCP had gone and catered to the hello kitty crowd and nerfed the skill requirements for probing, i.e. a career that nubs could be doing in big alliances since the only other thing they're doing is dying.
|
Cuchulain Spartan
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 16:41:00 -
[293]
Edited by: Cuchulain Spartan on 05/08/2010 16:43:18 Can you change it to the weekend? All the Eurozones are going to get a nice head start on the treasure hunt
Also, I have no doubt that your awesome QA department has thought of this already but can you double check the code to make sure that wormholes, missions etc dont appear outside the new boundry and therefore become unwarpable.
PS /me Really looking forward to the unforseen random side effects of totatly unrelated problems that this patch generates, Id love to see a few POS's moved out to 20 AU by mistake haha |
ViolenTUK
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 17:18:00 -
[294]
ArenÆt we grateful for CCPÆs continued diligence in removing yet one more of eve onlines fine features?
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente NME1
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 17:35:00 -
[295]
Just put our ships on frakking rails, like Earth & Beyond did. Get it over with already. This death-from-a-thousand-unwanted-nerfs crap is getting old. -- Sent from my douchePhone using Look@MEEEEE!
|
GankuVerymuch
|
Posted - 2010.08.05 22:38:00 -
[296]
With the rage around here about the fleet lag issue it's good to see CCP paying attention to the topics important to the player base.
NOT!!! Get real, THIS is the issue you choose to spend time on. No wonder people are quitting.
|
JGR Guinevere
Caldari Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.08.06 01:04:00 -
[297]
I really don't mind the idea of the nerf as much as its result. 20AU is too freaking close. It should be at least 40AU. If not then you should make the make the greatest scan probe range 16AU and give us a 4AU directional scanner.
|
Dray
Caldari Euphoria Released HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.08.06 01:52:00 -
[298]
Originally by: tasman devil I would like to know more about that 95k ly bookmark! :D
Tell us more! :D
Way back in the day you r/click in space and the system would be listed and you could warp to it, that 95k bm would've been done in a pod and with a lot of patience, I first discovered the trick in late 2003 or early 2004 when I was old SA when did it by accident in my Mega, I used to have a screen shot of the map after I'd played around with it, my location on the map was listed as GU-54G in southern stain but on the map my location was actually further away from GU- then a couple of the neighbouring systems, they removed that a long time ago, there is a few methods around today but they never get close to the early days when you had the option warp to the system you were in.
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.08.07 09:33:00 -
[299]
I must have missed the devblog where they said they fixed fleet lag...?
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
EaSy LouiSe
|
Posted - 2010.08.08 16:27:00 -
[300]
If I recall correctly, one of the reasons for this nerf was that it was unfair to new players because they no longer had the game mechanics in place to make deep safes. That this is a priority over Incarna and Dust means that fairness must rank pretty high on CCP's list.
Therefore, by CCP's own reasoning, the lack of ability to conduct 1000 man 0.0 fights as were possible in the past is also unfair to the new playerbase and must be nerfed. Same goes for being able to jump into an empty system without getting traffic controlled. Please proceed with placing a full halt on Incarna and Dust until said fairness is restored.
|
|
Stelianos
Minmatar Mythos Military Solutions
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 02:18:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Stelianos on 09/08/2010 02:18:53
Originally by: EaSy LouiSe Please proceed with placing a full halt on Incarna and Dust until said fairness is restored.
You act as if there's only one coder developing the entire game, when there's at least 100 people working in CCP's development teams. You can only have so many people working on one thing at a time; I'm extremely certain that they're working on plenty of other things at the same time.
ED: To those griping that CCP does no right: Why the hell are you guys even playing the game, then?
|
SkinSin
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 13:20:00 -
[302]
SO this gets done tomorrow.... What's the betting that they break something completely unrelated...
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.08.09 20:40:00 -
[303]
The blog also ignores that this will be done in downtime, and we all know what that means. Long skill in training queue.
|
KeliosKeres
|
Posted - 2010.08.10 00:16:00 -
[304]
Damn! 5,900,000,000 AU away from the sun?? From what I know of fastest warp time belongs to Interceptors at 13.5AU/sec. It'll take ~13+ -years- to warp back from deep safe to a gate. This is with an Interceptors with unlimited capacitor. Who has this safe spot? LOL
|
Jasmin 5
|
Posted - 2010.08.10 06:43:00 -
[305]
I was once in a mining outpost in the cloud ring and I heard that there was a un-piloted titan at that DSS BM - it had been left there by a lazy QA guy and everyone else at CCP was to busy to do anything about it.
Apparently, whoever rocks up there first can claim it for their own. Because it is a GM ship it doesn't need skilss to fly and it's fitted with these amazing mods.
The capsuleer who told me this was this 1/2 crazy guy just before he used his jump clone in the Amarr system. I later heard that there was some problem re innervating his clone and he never resumed consciousness. Something tho do with his scrambled neural networks.
Anyway I don't believe everything he told me - all that bull **** about ghost capsules.
|
Liliane Woodhead
Intergalactic Charwomen
|
Posted - 2010.08.14 00:15:00 -
[306]
Hmmmm...
A light-year is equal to about 63241.1 astronomical units and exactly 9,460,730,472,580.8 km.
So 5900000000 AU's are 93293.76 LY and not 95000. For this 1.796% error the Pioneer 10 spacecraft will take 40,949,459 years. A pink painted interceptor needs approx 138 days and 18 hours to cross this distance in warp.
Please excuse this nitpicking but the producers of a space game should know it better
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page] |