| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
   |
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:16:00 -
[211] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I think breaking up the huge Alliances would be a great start, along with nerfing jump drives significantly. Doesn't some of the Alliance territory actually exceed that of the existing NPC empires? Getting rid of the ability to drop a structure and mostly forget about it in order to 'claim' the system would be great too.
What if the size of Null were to grow by a factor of X? By that I mean CCP opens up new stargates leading to an additional 100,000 new star systems? Multiple entry points from all over highsec and WH, allowing smaller corps and Alliances to get in on the fun. and how in hell doe shta thelp? They simply divide the SAME coalition in more alliances. The means to make it happen is to make large groups inneficient. Only way that happens is if therte are mechanics toa create internal distrust, MEchanic s that make you having many members just open you up to too many traitors possibilities.
You subdivide null sec into pockets again. With pockets you expand until you meet another entity that blocks your expansion.
From memory the systems were originally like this:
Image
It was beneficial to have a NAP with the blue and yellow but the red was so far away, you has to travel to low or through high to get to their area. There were only a couple of long regional jumps. Now everything is connected to everything else so there is increased reason to NAP everyone because they're threats if not NAP given ease of access.
Edit: also apologize for the really lame pic its 4:23am and got insomnia again :) |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
4757
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:17:00 -
[212] - Quote
If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.
Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow.
. |
TharOkha
0asis Group
775
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:30:00 -
[213] - Quote
Ive mentioned this in other thread.
problem with current sov mechanic is that everything is situated in one solar system. And that tends to escalate to 3800+ local fight.
Sov warfare needs to spread to whole constellation. If you want to destroy something in system X (like HUBs, TCU etc), you also need to destroy something in system Y and Z (some kind of "nodes" or "generators" linked directly to objects located in system X) and it needs to be destroyed simultaneously. This would spread all forces to several systems, not just to one.
Current sov warfare videos on YT looks like boring "blob AFK parties" (Someone already mentioned this..)
. |
Michael Escoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Stasis Leak wrote:All of the hurf and blurf in this thread is ridiculous.
Silly ideas about how you reduce the size of the engagements will go nowhere because they are not the reason for the failure.
CCP should be embarrassed and ashamed of their performance yesterday. They owe every single paying player who suffered the inexcusable lack of service a refund.
If it is true that the CFC staging system was put on the same node as the target system, then someone should be fired. How in the world can you justify that? It was obviously done on purpose, the question is why? Someone put some thought into it before doing it and I am fairly sure that reducing lag was not on the top of the list.
If your system cannot support thousands of capitals, dropping tens of thousands of drones, then you have to do something about how your system handles that, or you must do something that makes it much less likely that someone in game will use drones in that way.
In the end though, it's simple customer service. CCP offered a service, charged money for it, then failed to deliver. In any business the only response is to admit the failure and reimburse your customer for his loss of time and money due to your failure to deliver.
Beyond that, eliminate sentry drone assist. Make EVERY pilot target and fire his own weapons. It won't take anything away from the usability of drones as guns, it will simply force every gunner into the same rule set as the other gunners on the field. CCP never promised perfect 4000 man fleet fights without lag. They never even envisaged 4000 man fights. I remember them celebrating 50 vs 50 lol. CCP can't fix the player mentality. Everyone KNEW 100% you would be seeing 10% tidi in that fight. They undocked and went anyway. This is not an answer. It's an excuse. And a bad one at that. The only way to counter the current drone assist exploit is to overpower it. If it is not possible to get enough firepower into the system because "They never even envisaged 4000 man fights" then drone assist must be dealt with. The discussion about whether or not it is broken is no longer an academic exercise. It's a fact. I do not accept an excuse from any provider that they never envisioned that I would use their product exactly as it was intended (not to mention marketed) to be. If your internet provider suddenly went down and excused himself by saying "I had no idea you would be viewing so many web pages", would you continue to pay for the service?
Infinity gave a reasonable answer really, as there are limits on how computer hardware works. |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet
Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:32:00 -
[215] - Quote
Imagine if the fight took place in an asteroid belt with smartbombing battleships involved.  The server would have sprouted legs, tour off it's wires, and walked out with breifcase in hand.
Now with the jokes aside, people exercise caution and humility when posting. Nothing is perfect, instead of ranting like children who dropped their ice cream cone, realize that smart constructive posting is what gets their attention. Post solutions not complaints. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:34:00 -
[216] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:Ive mentioned this in other thread.
problem with current sov mechanic is that everything is situated in one solar system. And that tends to escalate to 3800+ local fight.
Sov warfare needs to spread to whole constellation. If you want to destroy something in system X (like HUBs, TCU etc), you also need to destroy something in system Y and Z (some kind of "nodes" or "generators" linked directly to objects located in system X) and it needs to be destroyed simultaneously. This would spread all forces to several systems, not just to one.
Current sov warfare videos on YT looks like boring "blob AFK parties" (Someone already mentioned this..)
There are examples of this sort of thing already in some games.
Anyone played Aces High? To capture an airfield you need to kill a town away from an airfield, you also have infrastructure such as HQ's that knock out radar, ammunition, ability to field fighters and there are npc convoys and trains that you can blow up to reduce resupplies.
Of course its no implemented very well and everyone just blobs the hell out of airfields but its a example of 'out of system' combat to achieve a main objective. |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2928
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:41:00 -
[217] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on. 24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported. Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings? Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges! Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant. Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet. Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much. Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant). The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.
The titan/jump bridge pilot isn't the one with the cooldown. The player that used the bridge (say, a dominix pilot), is the one that must wait 24 hours to bridge again. Players would only be able to bridge once every 24 hours, and would inherit a timer similar to the Jump Clone timer that can be seen through the character sheet.
This would keep bridging relevant, but not as overpowered as it is today, as one fleet could not bridge across the map in one sitting, but they could conceivably reach the next region over before needing to use stargates.
Would you support faction/player standings or security status having an effect on the amount of charges required to jump through a gate? It might give good reason to use more than the standard +/- 5 and 10s we see in current standings. You can graduate how badly you want your enemies to overpay for jumps in systems you own.
Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki
~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer
~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:47:00 -
[218] - Quote
Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone?
I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice.
However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them.
To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook.
There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters.
Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up?
I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it".
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
9892
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:53:00 -
[219] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.
Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow.
I suppose you could put a timer on changing where your clone is stored.
Not a fan of the 24 hour cap jump drive limit. 2 hours seems a fair bit better.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
RAIN Arthie
The Ascended Fleet
Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:55:00 -
[220] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone? I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice. However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them. To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook. There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters. Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up? I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it".
I like it. |
|
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1481
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:57:00 -
[221] - Quote
Stasis Leak wrote:Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone? I gave a suggestion on how the event yesterday could have been avoided. You probably didn't notice. However, that won't fix the underlying problem. The system, as it is designed, not only allows such large scale events, it drives them. To simply accept an excuse as to why your system won't do what it has to do to fulfill the requirements of it's design lets the company off the hook. There are two ways to fix this. Better infrastructure/coding or fixing the game design that forces groups in the game into these encounters. Here's another suggestion for you. How about making it impossible for a player who can't load grid to take any damage? Seems like a simple rule. How the hell did that get mucked up? I'm a retired I.T. executive. I worked in the business for more than 30 years, from the bottom to the top. Not once was I ever allowed, or inclined, to say "the system I built for you simply won't do what you want it to do, so suck it".
CCP are pretty straight up at acknowledging the lag issues. A very small amount of effort is required with a search engine prior to subscribing to EVE to find out just how bad the lag issues are in large scale engagements. CCP have never advertised huge lagless fleet fights afaik.
As for making it impossible to take damage you're assuming that the server has the capability to tell whether a ship has loaded grid on all the clients. Like the drowning guy that drowns his mate trying to use him for floatation, the servers in an obvious unstable state trying to share around all those calls in the one second it has... before the next second. |
Niding
Peg-legged Goats
Nihilists Social Club
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:57:00 -
[222] - Quote
Stasis Leak;
I think the fact that people keep posting suggestions/changes means they dont "accept excuses", and want "something done to enhance the gaming expirience".
As for your IT background (I assume private sector). Yes I do understand the aspect of customer service and doing your best to deliver (working in private sector myself).
CCP has improved performance since I started playing in 2006. Is it enough or have they gone about it the right way?
Judging by HED yesterday (and other fights); clearly no.
Hence we are sitting in this thread throwing off "ideas". I do assume that Im not the only without IT/Coding background, so wether our suggestions are possible, realistic, cost efficient etc is up to CCP DEVs/CSM to decide. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 17:59:00 -
[223] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Making players have consumables to take a gate is not the power projection nerf you are looking for.
Whatever mechanism, then, because soul crushing lag from Bloc A packing 2000 subcaps into a system, requiring bloc B to respond by bring 2001 subcaps isn't any less soul crushing than the lag caused by capitals or supercapitals.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:00:00 -
[224] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:If you guys really want to go down the 'only one use of a jump drive per day' route for capitals, then just tie it directly to the jump clone timer. Presto, now you have skills already in the game to affect jump drives and you don't have to worry about someone having the benefit of clone jumping to a second front, hopping in a capital ship and jumping somewhere else with it.
Of course the whole suicide your pod to travel would need to be addressed at the same time somehow. I suppose you could put a timer on changing where your clone is stored. Not a fan of the 24 hour cap jump drive limit. 2 hours seems a fair bit better.
Then you can do 12 jumps a day, Which means that Tueday's Branch fleet can easily save a timer in Immensea on Thursday.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:02:00 -
[225] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Malcanis wrote:To achieve this, CCP will have to truly radically reduce capital and supercapital movement. I'm talking about changes on the order of a 24 hour cooldown on capital jumps, requiring consumables for gate jumps, burning jump bridges to the ground, eliminating titan bridging and so on. 24 hour capital jump cooldown: Supported. Consumables for Gate Jumps: Tentative. How much? What kind of fuel? For what hulls? What security Status? Subject to sov/standings? Jump/Titan Bridge Removal: How about a 24 hour cooldown for whatever ships use a titan bridge or jump bridge, instead of removing them completely? This would allow a fleet to bridge only once, instead of several times. If you're concerned about jump range, lower the ranges! Consumables for gate jumps: the idea isn't to make it expensive, but to make it logistically difficult. To pick an example, suppose jumping a battleship hull through a gate consumed, say, a Cap 150 charge. That would mean that the ship would have to carry 60m^3 of cap charges in order to travel 10 jumps. (and another 60m^3 in order to return!) Well that would be pretty bearable, so local scope engagements wouldn't be much affected. But to travel 30 or 40 jumps jumps (ie to cross a region or two), then you're looking at 180 or 240m^3 each way, and the cargo requirements become rather more significant. Sure, fleets could bring haulers with more charges, but haulers are quite hard to protect, and losing your fuel truck could strand your fleet. Jump & Titan Bridges. Yeah There are 4-digit numbers of titans in the game. even a cooldown isn't going to slow them down much. Maybe limit alliances to 1-2 jump bridges total, or make them consume much more fuel (such that, again, the logistics requirement becomes significant). The prices details don't matter all that much tbh. What matters is that moving more then 10-12 jumps away from your home will need to become something that one no longer does casually.
How many ****** pubbie threads before you stop thinking your half formed opinion and ideas are ever actually relevant or good?
Is it less than ten? please be less than ten. |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
4757
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:03:00 -
[226] - Quote
Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.
So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths. We already have these new skills in regards to having more clones and lower time to clone jump. So re-tasking them to enhance the power projection pool can be done without introducing new skills players have to train.
This would mean players would need to actually be strategic how they wanted to spend this pool. Could be all at once with jumping a carrier a time or two exhausting it or moving several different clones to a staging system so they can be more flexible on hardworking to give them an edge in flying a variety of ships. Also it would have more meaning to podding someone who is far away from their medical clone station. Because you know they will not be jumping a Slowcat carrier on your face 30 seconds later. Podding some brought a cheap damp Celestis would not mean they would be right back via titan bridge with yet another Celestis moments later.
The only remaining matter is figuring out a balanced cap on the power projection pool.
. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
13583
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:06:00 -
[227] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Instead of the once per day deal for jump drives, it should be more functional in light years with a cap.
So everything that makes you go from one system to another without taking gates eats away at this pool of power projection. That includes jump drives, jump bridges, titan bridges, jump clones and even pod deaths. We already have these new skills in regards to having more clones and lower time to clone jump. So re-tasking them to enhance the power projection pool can be done without introducing new skills players have to train.
This would mean players would need to actually be strategic how they wanted to spend this pool. Could be all at once with jumping a carrier a time or two exhausting it or moving several different clones to a staging system so they can be more flexible on hardworking to give them an edge in flying a variety of ships. Also it would have more meaning to podding someone who is far away from their medical clone station. Because you know they will not be jumping a Slowcat carrier on your face 30 seconds later. Podding some brought a cheap damp Celestis would not mean they would be right back via titan bridge with yet another Celestis moments later.
The only remaining matter is figuring out a balanced cap on the power projection pool.
Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:07:00 -
[228] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
How many ****** pubbie threads before you stop thinking your half formed opinion and ideas are ever actually relevant or good?
Is it less than ten? please be less than ten.
Oh it's a lot more than 10, Bob.
So very much more.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:07:00 -
[229] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem
nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
|
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:08:00 -
[230] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:As for making it impossible to take damage you're assuming that the server has the capability to tell whether a ship has loaded grid on all the clients. Like the drowning guy that drowns his mate trying to use him for floatation, the servers in an obvious unstable state trying to share around all those calls in the one second it has... before the next second.
Yes.
I would assume that a system that is capable of clocking all of those kills is also capable of determining whether or not they were actually in HED or Jita.
Seems reasonable to me.
Maybe spending the last 12 years as an executive, demanding things, has skewed my perception. |
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
4758
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:12:00 -
[231] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
^^ #1 Fan of Malcanis
. |
Bob FromMarketing
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
266
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:15:00 -
[232] - Quote
I like you almost as much Marlona, I just wish you'd organize more useless community events |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2928
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:16:00 -
[233] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
WHAT ABOUT THE SHAREHOLDERS?! WHO'S HELPING THEM OUT, BOB?!
Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki
~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer
~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
13584
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:18:00 -
[234] - Quote
Bob FromMarketing wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Yeah that's a pretty good refinement, I like it.
herein lies the problem nobody cares about what godawful idea you like because chances are it's
- half formed
- lacks mental refinement
- has no basing in reality or basic logic
- totally backwards
- supported by verbose pubbies who enjoy running SOE missions and writing lengthy posts
- yours
I seem to have somehow upset you, whoever you are.
I can't tell you how bad your content-free crying makes me, because I like being truthful.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Seven Koskanaiken
Sons Of Saints
Circle-Of-Two
721
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:21:00 -
[235] - Quote
Niding wrote:Stasis Leak:
We all know CCP is struggling to maintain the game at a playable level when we get into the 3-4000 character range in one system.
So we "brainstorm" suggestions that hopefully will get CCP going with improvements to the mechanics.
Calling "hurf and blurf rediculous" isnt very helpful.
Try your hand on some suggestions YOU think will help. Calling CCP out for "bad service" just wont do it.
People annoyed with a laggy expirience can either stomp their feet and cry foul, or try to suggest improvements.
And agree that consumables at gates aint the powerprojection fix we are looking for as said by Marlona Sky.
As for CVA/Providence and the Jammer; I belive AAA have sbu'd ymp for lolz a few times and I guess Provis decided to have some structure fun themselves. With intresting consequences.
Butterfly effect anyone?
Apparently universities have degrees now in computer game design. CCP could perhaps find a person who has one and then pay them some money in exchange for ideas. |
Stasis Leak
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:26:00 -
[236] - Quote
Niding wrote:Stasis Leak;
I think the fact that people keep posting suggestions/changes means they dont "accept excuses", and want "something done to enhance the gaming expirience".
As for your IT background (I assume private sector). Yes I do understand the aspect of customer service and doing your best to deliver (working in private sector myself).
CCP has improved performance since I started playing in 2006. Is it enough or have they gone about it the right way?
Judging by HED yesterday (and other fights); clearly no.
Hence we are sitting in this thread throwing off "ideas". I do assume that Im not the only without IT/Coding background, so wether our suggestions are possible, realistic, cost efficient etc is up to CCP DEVs/CSM to decide.
Niding, I understand what you are saying. Clearly, I'm not charitable enough to give the company the huge amount of leeway that most people obviously do.
I've never seen a provider do better because everyone patted them on the back and said "good try!". I have, however, seem many instances where someone, under the gun for screwing up, suddenly pulled a rabbit out of a hat and became the hero of the day.
I don't think the c'est la vie attitude toward these failures do anything for the company. Rather than blaming the players for playing the game, how about taking a little bit of responsibility.
I don't care about whether or not the fix is cost effective or convenient for the company. I'm a discriminating consumer, and I want what I pay for. |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
1690
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
I wouldn't blame the numbers problem on force projection, I would blame it on the fact that here is usually only one important timer coming out at any given time.
If there were more timers that people had to show up to, suddenly power projection doesn't matter because now you have to choose what is most important to you (defending your stuff rather than helping out some random alliance because they are the enemy of your enemy), rather than showing up to everything because it's the only fight that matters that night. |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
4759
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:52:00 -
[238] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:I wouldn't blame the numbers problem on force projection, I would blame it on the fact that here is usually only one important timer coming out at any given time.
If there were more timers that people had to show up to, suddenly power projection doesn't matter because now you have to choose what is most important to you (defending your stuff rather than helping out some random alliance because they are the enemy of your enemy), rather than showing up to everything because it's the only fight that matters that night.
It is a combination of several factors. Like you describe, the current sov system and another major one is power projection. Basically the only bottleneck for the player being at the fight is if they want to or not. What they bring and when they bring it means very little given how easy it is to do it.
There needs to be more strategic choices. Right now, why bring an interceptor when I can bring a capital ship to an I-hub fight? Why stay and guard the walls to my territory when I know I can be just as effective showing up at the last minute before any harm is done? Why bother keeping an eye on assets in space when the moment someone looks at one wrong, I get a nifty little message telling me so instantly? The only exception so far has been the mobile siphon and that has only come about recently.
Bottom line is there is little to no reasons to not blob and to not bring the biggest ship you can find. Solve that, and you fix a lot of our problems. Everyone piling into one system onto one grid should have real penalties while you are not home.
. |
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
14
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:53:00 -
[239] - Quote
interesangt wrote:conclusion.. remove caps from game, sad to say this, but there aint no other way..
Yeah that will solve blabbing instead of a mix fleet if caps and subs, it'll just be how every many subcaps stuck staring at each other in 10% tidi |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA
C0VEN
313
|
Posted - 2014.01.19 18:55:00 -
[240] - Quote
Why not another bad sov idea.
Each TCU generates subspace bauble around Ihub and itself for each timer. ( not for station timers).
This subspace bauble can be accessed only by subcaps up to 50 people from attacking and defending force.
( we cloud use standing system here and for defending and attacking side only people having +10 could warp to this battle ).
This subspace bauble can be accessed only 10 minutes before reinforce timer - after 10 minutes it closes and players that are inside have to fight other side.
( no cloaks allowed)
Wining side can access acceleration gate that allows access to some structure.
It have 2 options:
- SBU signal scrambler - all sbu in the system cycle , so timer is won till they are online again , if you will be able to able rep structure.
- Shutting down subspace bauble defending TCU or Ihub - only then you can cyno in capital fleet on the structure
This is bad idea - but it is far more better than the current nonsense.
So 50vs50 on separate node BEFORE current nonsence.
TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS
Reactivation timers on : MJD and more.
Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |