Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 14:39:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 14:43:04
Quote: Checking whether a system is stuck/loaded prior to your being allowed to undock or jump into it (if it is, then your autopilot will deactivate and leave you at the gate).
I just read this patch note and i guess this will not be good for the game.
-> blobs can cause other players to be unable to jump into a system. This means this can be misused for easy ganks or in alliance warfare to secure an area by getting a full system with hunderets of players that cannot be attacked anymore. It¦s the option to close a gate for an alliance - cannot be ok that a blob can close a system and all systems behind it.
-> a -10.0 player travelling in a shuttle in highsec will get killed by Concord if he is not able to jump due to a crowded system. This nearly makes it impossible for -10.0 pirates to change their location. Cannot be right that a -10.0 player is totally stuck in a low-sec-system he cannot leave anymore or at least not leave without a really big risk to get killed by instalocking and cheating Concord ships.
-> gates to stuck systems will be heavily camped because people with instas will warp to the gate, then they cannot jump and can easily be killed even if they had an insta. Pirates could use this to their advantadge.
DEVs should re-check what they did here. But as usual i promise that TDG will adapt to this. If it stays we¦ll use it to our advantadge. But don¦t blame it on us pirates if this will cause a lot of carebear-crying-topics.
My opinion is that there is only one way to solve blob- and hub-problems: being in an area with many other players must have disadvantadges. This means big gangs need disadvantadges and not gang bonuses. And factory or lab prices of hubs must really go extremly high with open end, up to millions and billions of ISK to get crowded hubs emptied. Only my 5 cent.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Mort Sinious
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 14:41:00 -
[2]
Didn't they say that your autopilot will inform you of closed gates while plotting courses. Way BEFORE you start your travel?
|
Alessia Charm
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 14:42:00 -
[3]
You are an idiot. Only the autopilot refuses the jump, you can still jump manually.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 14:47:00 -
[4]
Quote: You are an idiot. Only the autopilot refuses the jump, you can still jump manually.
I am not an idiot - and you should learn to watch your language. It allready happened that we could not jump or undock and got the message that the system is crowded or stuck. I don¦t know exactly how it will work after the newest patch, but i guess if the autopilot disables you also wont be allowed to jump. Even if you are allowed to jump - if you relly on your autopilot and you¦ll see after 3-4 seconds that it wont jump because the system has become crowded meanwhile, you will allready be killed before you can click "jump".
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Alessia Charm
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 14:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lifewire
-> blobs can cause other players to be unable to jump into a system. This means this can be misused for easy ganks or in alliance warfare to secure an area by getting a full system with hunderets of players that cannot be attacked anymore. It¦s the option to close a gate for an alliance - cannot be ok that a blob can close a system and all systems behind it.
Or they could use those hundreds of players to do something useful instead of lagging themselves into uselessness
Originally by: Lifewire
-> a -10.0 player travelling in a shuttle in highsec will get killed by Concord if he is not able to jump due to a crowded system. This nearly makes it impossible for -10.0 pirates to change their location. Cannot be right that a -10.0 player is totally stuck in a low-sec-system he cannot leave anymore or at least not leave without a really big risk to get killed by instalocking and cheating Concord ships.
Concord dont podkill and a shuttle is hardly a big loss. Also broke systems dont stay broken forever, you can just come back and try again later
Originally by: Lifewire
-> gates to stuck systems will be heavily camped because people with instas will warp to the gate, then they cannot jump and can easily be killed even if they had an insta. Pirates could use this to their advantadge.
Traffic advisorys only really occur in high sec hub systems.
Originally by: Lifewire
My opinion is that there is only one way to solve blob- and hub-problems: being in an area with many other players must have disadvantadges. This means big gangs need disadvantadges and not gang bonuses. And factory or lab prices of hubs must really go extremly high with open end, up to millions and billions of ISK to get crowded hubs emptied. Only my 5 cent.
Get out
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 15:35:00 -
[6]
Quote: Or they could use those hundreds of players to do something useful instead of lagging themselves into uselessness
It¦s a fact that alliances use blob-warfare. They will also use this to close systems.
Quote: Concord dont podkill and a shuttle is hardly a big loss. Also broke systems dont stay broken forever, you can just come back and try again later
You were never -10.0 so you have no clue about how it looks when Concord attacks: lag lag lag. It¦s nearly a 100% podkill if you crash or cannot jump in a highsec-system because any traveller will pod you, not Concord.
Quote: Traffic advisorys only really occur in high sec hub systems.
You should start to think big. EVE will grow. And there are hubs/stuck systems close to low sec systems. Hubs can also be "created" with a bob. It also does not only have effects on piracy - corpware camps would be close to these stuck systems...easy kills.
Quote: Get out
Nice argue
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Kin'Tarr
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 15:44:00 -
[7]
I agree fully with Lifewire, i travel a lot in 0.0 albeit looking for people to kill and i heavily rely on auto pilot to make the jump since i rarely use instas and only fly ceptors (ap helps when your travelling 4km/s towards a gate).
My problem as lifewire mentioned is the fact that auto pilot turns off at every possible chance when a system along your waypoints/destination have a traffic advisory - even a system that is 15 jumps away ap still turns off.
|
Rimac
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 16:10:00 -
[8]
Then what if say, a system locks up at 300 people. Now let's say 300 people in that system dock. But the notes also say you can't undock in an overcrowded system... wouldn't that lead to an unresolvable situation? No one can get in but no one can get out because they can't undock either...
PS: I'm not stupid, I know it's not likely to happen that everyone docks (but if it can happen it WILL happen) and I know some people will eventually log freeing up the queue etc etc. But that's the way the patch notes read. The point is, I can't imagine they implemented it the way it's written... That would be a very bad design decision indeed.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 16:12:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 16:12:49 I simply think it¦s better to get stuck than to get killed by blobbers that close a system with their blob and have a gankteam at the warpin-gate. And i guess, no i know, that aliances will use this feature to defend their territory. All they need to do is to create a corwded hub with their alts somewhere in 0.0. This system and all behind will be absolutly secured and closed for neutral travellers. This cannot be ok.
But lets see first if a jump can be done manually if the autopilot disables - don¦t know this yet. Maybe a DEV can answer if the manual jump would still work or not.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Jinx Barker
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 16:25:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Lifewire Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 16:12:49 I simply think it¦s better to get stuck than to get killed by blobbers that close a system with their blob and have a gankteam at the warpin-gate. And i guess, no i know, that aliances will use this feature to defend their territory. All they need to do is to create a corwded hub with their alts somewhere in 0.0. This system and all behind will be absolutly secured and closed for neutral travellers. This cannot be ok.
But lets see first if a jump can be done manually if the autopilot disables - don¦t know this yet. Maybe a DEV can answer if the manual jump would still work or not.
Naww. Jumps cant be done manually. Ship just hangs there like a limp.. uhmm turkey.
And I agree this will get exploited to the fullest degree. I dont think most people realise how absolutley vital it is to be able to jump and travel properly, especially if you are operating in 0.0 or low security zones.
|
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 16:31:00 -
[11]
Quote: Hubs can also be "created" with a bob
Just read what i wrote lol - i meant can be created with a blob... No offense to BOB here
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
pony2slow
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 16:52:00 -
[12]
Now you have some good points Lifewire but half of them have already been in place for months..
Hub systems..-- If i remeber correctly when the offices and labs and whateveer stay fully booked up the price for the office/lab/facotry does rise and gets rather rediculous in price until openings are made.
Blob warefare -- Face it you know it and I know it the days of the small gangs are gone. The future and past of this game has been set on massive warefare. 100v100 50v50.. You should not penalize gangs for palying the game how it was intended to be played on a much larger scale then you would like.
Like I said I dont completly diagree with you but some of you ideas are just to biased to even bear the thought..
|
ponieus
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 16:53:00 -
[13]
err stupid alt.. that was me.. sry..
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:04:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 17:11:16 @ponieus:
Unfortunatly you are right and EVE tends to be a blob-warfare-game more and more. But to show you what i meant i made a little grafic. See link/pic below:
Sorry forum-admins, pic is slightly too big, reduced size, but still little to big - don¦t baaaaaaaaaaaan me .
However - this will make EVE absolutly stupid. An area like Fountain can be secured with 3 of these stuck-defences. Only capital ships would be able to jump in. This is the death to all smaller groups in 0.0 and maybe the end of good PVP at all. Blobwarfare and boredome - if we want this future for EVE, ok go on.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:20:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lifewire Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 16:43:55
Quote: Hubs can also be "created" with a bob
Just read what i wrote lol - i meant can be created with a blob... No offense to BOB here
I want to add how i would defend my alliance territory if i would be aliance leader:
Lets say TDG creates and alliance and has 1000 members. Roundabout 500 of them have 2 accounts and 2 pcs. I would order these 500 alts to go into a system i want to shutdown. Especially if there is only one way into a certain area, this defense would be absolutly effective. At the jumpgate to this shutdown system i would place a guard-team 23/7 that is equipped with some bubbles and 10 gunships. Meanwhile 990 members can go and make ISK in 0.0 absoltly safe. Even if another alliance would attack with large ammounts of ships, they¦ll have big problems entering this stuck system. And at any time the alts causing the stuck system can be replaced with a massive jumpin-camp.
So - blobs are a problem. And the newest solution just makes it harder to solve it. What we need are real anti-blob-features.
I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
|
Sherkaner
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:26:00 -
[16]
Originally by: hamishoo7 I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
You're right.
From the EULA:
Quote: 7. CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct [...] 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
So, intentionally filling a system to the point of blocking would make some GMs very angry
Besides, with the new TQ hardware I think you need more than 500 alts
|
Adjodlo
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:26:00 -
[17]
Im vehemently opposed to any restrictions on free travel in eve. I think this game is supposed to be all about the freedom to explore and travel as you see fit. If a player finds away to interfere with that thats fine as there is always a way around that. Now, when the game mechanics prevent me from traveling around space at my leisure because a couple other people got there first, I'm going to be upset. This feels alot like a 3 hour wait to login for WoW, and long lines to grind in some stupid quest. I thought the lack of this and the freedom to explore an entire continuous universe was one of eve's selling points?
|
EXZODIER
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:31:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sherkaner
Originally by: hamishoo7 I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
You're right.
From the EULA:
Quote: 7. CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct [...] 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
So, intentionally filling a system to the point of blocking would make some GMs very angry
Besides, with the new TQ hardware I think you need more than 500 alts
I dont see how this could be considred an exploit - unless gm's close the system to every 1 in wich case jobs done any way - or they put a limit on people in a sysstem - job still done - how can u say some 1 cant make an uber gate camp - and if it casues a gate shut down then well what can u do -
HMMMMMMMM the end ? i think not |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:34:00 -
[19]
Quote: I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
Blobbing was never considered as ¦sploit. It was done often before and destroys good PVP, boredooming all involved players in both fleets. CCP might solve this with calling it an exploit - they should! But in the end the real solution is to make blobbing useless and to spread out the players among the galaxy with a good balancing.
At the moment player numbers decide who wins and who looses in alliance warfare. Sooner or later even smaller alliances will have problems to defend their player owned station against bigger alliances that simply have more capital ships and a bigger fleet. The end is that only big alliances will survive. I am pretty sure that this is not wanted by CCP and also not wanted by the player-comunity.
We talk here about territory. A skirmish warfare corp like us does not own territory. We infiltrate it and terrorize it and that¦s ok how it is. But now consider what happens to smaller alliances (100-200 members) that setup their first POS in 0.0. There is no way for these people to get their own territory. The big fishes will eat the small fishes and the end is mega-mega-alliances or maybe one 1 alliance lol.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:39:00 -
[20]
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:42:00 Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:40:20
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote: I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
Blobbing was never considered as ¦sploit. It was done often before and destroys good PVP, boredooming all involved players in both fleets. CCP might solve this with calling it an exploit - they should! But in the end the real solution is to make blobbing useless and to spread out the players among the galaxy with a good balancing.
At the moment player numbers decide who wins and who looses in alliance warfare. Sooner or later even smaller alliances will have problems to defend their player owned station against bigger alliances that simply have more capital ships and a bigger fleet. The end is that only big alliances will survive. I am pretty sure that this is not wanted by CCP and also not wanted by the player-comunity.
We talk here about territory. A skirmish warfare corp like us does not own territory. We infiltrate it and terrorize it and that¦s ok how it is. But now consider what happens to smaller alliances (100-200 members) that setup their first POS in 0.0. There is no way for these people to get their own territory. The big fishes will eat the small fishes and the end is mega-mega-alliances or maybe one 1 alliance lol.
Yes but blobbing is using the advantage of numbers to defeat your opponent within the confines of the game, what you're proposing would be to deliberately try to overload a system to the point of shutdown.
Anyway, with 200 ships in a system I'm sure you could easily set up a camp that was going to let very little through anyway so if alliances had that number of people to spare I'm sure they could think of better things to do with them.
I do see the issues with stopping at gates however, but pirates with -10 deserve to be shot at wherever they go in my opinion.
You reap what you sew.
Edit: After seeing above post - the carebears (as you call them) aren't making a conserted (sp) effort to close the system. What you're proposing is.
Edit: Spelling
|
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:43:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 17:45:07
Quote: but pirates with -10 deserve to be shot at wherever they go in my opinion
I know, we shouldnt be allowed to play EVE and Concord should instantly kill us when we log on until we create a new nice mining carebear character.
Quote: After seeing above post - the carebears (as you call them) aren't making a conserted (sp) effort to close the system
And this would be exactly the answer an alliance could give to a GM: "we dont want to shut down the system, it¦s our alliance hub where we trade and mine ore "
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote: but pirates with -10 deserve to be shot at wherever they go in my opinion
I know, we shouldnt be allowed to play EVE and Concord should instantly kill us when we log on until we create a new nice mining carebear character.
You're a carebear pirate?
Carebear industrialist definition: a miner/industrialist who doesn't want to be hassled with the pressures of pvp/low sec ganking
Carebear pirate definition: wants to be able to shoot who he likes but face no repercussions when travelling through high security thereby bypassing legitimate game mechanics by using insta bm's.
Your post, a bit hypocritical in my opinion.
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:50:00 -
[23]
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:51:13 Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:50:19
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote: After seeing above post - the carebears (as you call them) aren't making a conserted (sp) effort to close the system
And this would be exactly the answer an alliance could give to a GM: "we dont want to shut down the system, it¦s our alliance hub where we trade and mine ore "
At which point the totally gullible gm would say, 'oh i'm sorry. please take this navy apoc for your trouble and don't worry i'll see myself out' [/sarcasm]
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 18:05:00 -
[24]
Homishoo7, GMs never banned people for blobbing - that¦s a fact. And they will never ban a blob of 500 players because 500 x 10 $ per month is a lot of cash.
I did not demand anything that makes travel for a -10.0 character easier in high sec. But i demand that the gates work when i try to jump because Concord gives you 0,5 seconds - the time a shuttle needs to warp or to jump with autopilot enabled. Any other ship will be tackled - including ceptors with nannos fitted. If you think that -10.0 characters should not be allowed to travel freely anymore, then you want that pirates are nailed somewhere and are imobilized and this shows your true carebear-nature. Sorry, but you demand of CCP that pirates cannot leave a low sec sector like Aunenen anymore and are nailed there for ever. You are a carebear and a big one!
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 18:08:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote: So, intentionally filling a system to the point of blocking would make some GMs very angry
So why didn¦t GMs ban all those carebears in Jita???
It's about intention, if you fill up the system just to make it crash it's bannable but if you fill it up for some other reason and it has the side effect of crashing the system it's not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 18:17:00 -
[26]
Quote: It's about intention, if you fill up the system just to make it crash it's bannable but if you fill it up for some other reason and it has the side effect of crashing the system it's not.
How do you prove "intention"? You understand? You cannot prove an aliance that they want to shutdown a system. And: GMs will never ban an alliance...think real: 2000 players banned x 10 $ per month. Come one, lol. I want to see this GM.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/ Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 18:19:00 -
[27]
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 18:20:25
Originally by: Lifewire You are a carebear and a big one!
Carebear or not it's the same for everyone - corps who have been war declared could face the exact same situation. It's a change that will affect more than just pirates and I don't think it's a particularly bad one.
Originally by: Lifewire Homishoo7, GMs never banned people for blobbing - that¦s a fact. And they will never ban a blob of 500 players because 500 x 10 $ per month is a lot of cash.
Regarding blobbing a system to the point of it being unenterable you're right that they won't instantly ban 500 people but warnings and the threat of bans are enough to make most people think twice.
Although I wasn't around to see it what you're saying will happen resembles when someone (think it was m00?) effectively cut the map in 2 by taking on concord at a choke point in high sec space. Now I'm not sure if people were banned at that point but I don't believe it's happened since...
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 19:17:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Hoshi
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote: So, intentionally filling a system to the point of blocking would make some GMs very angry
So why didn¦t GMs ban all those carebears in Jita???
It's about intention, if you fill up the system just to make it crash it's bannable but if you fill it up for some other reason and it has the side effect of crashing the system it's not.
Utterly incorrect.
The rules do not state that. The rules state: "You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System."
There is no word "intention" in there. Consistant enforcement is GOOD. If the rule is bad, change it rather than applying it inconsistantly.
As for the op's topic, yes, this is why I will simply refuse to PvP in *any* form of lag. I do not mind dying to a player or even NPC's. I DO mind dying to "systems" which I cannot detect (there is no time to set autopilot in the middle of combat when sprinting for a gate, FFS).
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Entreri Finwe
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 19:19:00 -
[29]
Quote: If you think that -10.0 characters should not be allowed to travel freely anymore, then you want that pirates are nailed somewhere and are imobilized and this shows your true carebear-nature. Sorry, but you demand of CCP that pirates cannot leave a low sec sector like Aunenen anymore and are nailed there for ever. You are a carebear and a big one!
Isn't that the point with the sec status system? If being -10 is so bad, just stop at -4.9 and bring it up towards 0.0... ---
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 19:23:00 -
[30]
The point of being -10.0 is not that CCP randomly stops you jumping, getting you podkilled.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |