Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Sleepkevert
Amarr Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 15:16:00 -
[1]
Guess what, I think CCP is implementing some sort of battlegrounds >.>
While I was looking to map a hotkey to undocking due to the black screen of death on login, I found this little setting
Which in turn activates a loading bar like this while in station. Sadly, it looks like it's still broken and doesn't do a thing after that, though the idea of battlegrounds in EVE is strange to say at least.
Discuss.... _
Add your own line! |
juduzz
Amarr Atomic Battle Penguins The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 15:58:00 -
[2]
Straight after the new 700mb patch yesterday the combat simulator butten was on the station services, but hitting it did the same.
Then server went down next uptime was gone.
|
Sader Rykane
Amarr Midnight Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 16:57:00 -
[3]
That would certainly make learning how to PvP a lot less painful to learn. Though, I can see the outcry from the "hardcore" pvp'ers.
I for one would do this just to learn tactics etc and how my ship fairs without having to loose 100mil+ BC's to do it.
In the end this would actually end up making me PvP more in the "real world". ...
|
juduzz
Amarr Atomic Battle Penguins The Darwin Award Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sader Rykane That would certainly make learning how to PvP a lot less painful to learn. Though, I can see the outcry from the "hardcore" pvp'ers.
Most of the time the "hardcore" pvpers moaning about it seem to be ppl who just want to farm n00bs.
If done right combat simulator could rock.
|
MJ Maverick
IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.02.14 17:03:00 -
[5]
Sooooo, what's it supposed to do?
--------------------
|
Zantei
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 13:31:00 -
[6]
As long as the environment is toned down and looks very much like a scene from Tron. That is to say, the real thing should always look better, the simulator needs to look artificial.
|
Car A'Carn
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 14:15:00 -
[7]
could it be related to the rts minigame ccp was planning for ambulation?
|
Vitelius
Decorum Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 14:27:00 -
[8]
Now, a combat simulator that would allow you to simulate large fleet engagements with AI, enabling you to simulate the usage of different tactics, would be pure awesomeness... also a hell of a lot of work I bet so I'm guessing that's not it.
---
|
ReallyDeadKenny
Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 14:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Vitelius Now, a combat simulator that would allow you to simulate large fleet engagements with AI, enabling you to simulate the usage of different tactics, would be pure awesomeness... also a hell of a lot of work I bet so I'm guessing that's not it.
Needs lag built in tbh
|
Impolite Andevil
The Shadow Knights Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 16:16:00 -
[10]
A combat simulator that would let you test fittings vs. an AI or practice tackling, etc. would be FABULOUS.
|
|
spud maur
Gallente Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 16:18:00 -
[11]
does this thing actuly work on sisi atm?
|
|
CCP t0rfifrans
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 18:00:00 -
[12]
You have stumbled across a feature that was planned for Apocrypha but was ultimately cut due to time and technical constraints. These in fact were "virtual" combat arenas where you could engage in one-on-one consensual ranked PVP combat. The code had to be shelved as the server code doesn't allow for anything virtual within EVE. For instance, every ship that gets destroyed, is destroyed in "reality". Of course it's a little more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to.
So like a patient rejecting a liver, the EVE software architecture rejected the feature and changing the software architecture to make it work was well beyond the scope of Apocrypha. Thus it was cut. May well find its way into the game some day later, but will need a lot of work if we feel it is something we want to do.
|
|
Valandril
Caldari Isks R Us
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 18:04:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Valandril on 22/02/2009 18:04:13
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans You have stumbled across a feature that was planned for Apocrypha but was ultimately cut due to time and technical constraints. These in fact were "virtual" combat arenas where you could engage in one-on-one consensual ranked PVP combat.
What ? Instanced safe lossless pvp in eve ? Are you nuts ?
I mean seriously, this goes against all that eve is about. ---
|
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 18:19:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans planned for Apocrypha but was ultimately cut due to time and technical constraints.
Why would you▓..hjj.k.. intHE firstt place. @.33 I don't even███-as..ser█rr.. .. MIND.REJECTS _______
◕◡◕
|
John Grimm
Amarr Rendili StarDrive Yards
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 18:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans the EVE software architecture rejected the feature
Proof that the created is some times more than the Creator.
All bow to the EvE servers for being so wise and intelligent in their decision to reject this abomination from being added to the game universe.
|
Random Womble
Minmatar Master Miners Electric Monkey Overlords
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 18:34:00 -
[16]
While it does make some sense in terms of for example testing tounament setups or something this would basically make real eve PvP in many areas pointless i mean why go out and PvP somewhere possibly losing my ship when i can just organise endless simulated combat fights with people. 0.0 you might have objectives but low sec/empire would die off alot
|
puckohontas
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 18:43:00 -
[17]
sisi is enough for that, if it would be some sim, i think its better if the person looses the thing for real, so it would only be like an arena or something. where you for sure know none is gonna intervene
|
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:02:00 -
[18]
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans You have stumbled across a feature that was planned for Apocrypha but was ultimately cut due to time and technical constraints. These in fact were "virtual" combat arenas where you could engage in one-on-one consensual ranked PVP combat. The code had to be shelved as the server code doesn't allow for anything virtual within EVE. For instance, every ship that gets destroyed, is destroyed in "reality". Of course it's a little more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to.
So like a patient rejecting a liver, the EVE software architecture rejected the feature and changing the software architecture to make it work was well beyond the scope of Apocrypha. Thus it was cut. May well find its way into the game some day later, but will need a lot of work if we feel it is something we want to do.
I really hope you NEVER release that.
________________________________________ [img]http://www.atlas-alliance.com/killboard-new/sig.php/4652/alliancerank/signature.jpg[/img |
DanMck
Amarr Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:05:00 -
[19]
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans You have stumbled across a feature that was planned for Apocrypha but was ultimately cut due to time and technical constraints. These in fact were "virtual" combat arenas where you could engage in one-on-one consensual ranked PVP combat. The code had to be shelved as the server code doesn't allow for anything virtual within EVE. For instance, every ship that gets destroyed, is destroyed in "reality". Of course it's a little more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to.
So like a patient rejecting a liver, the EVE software architecture rejected the feature and changing the software architecture to make it work was well beyond the scope of Apocrypha. Thus it was cut. May well find its way into the game some day later, but will need a lot of work if we feel it is something we want to do.
what a left of that was
the test server is for that
"can i challenge you to a duel ?" what a joke
please don't change this game so it is like SWG and break it ?
never wondered why people still sign up as it is good the way it is
wormholes is starting to sound far too much like an instance, if you change this game much more you will lose people.
|
Rhohan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:22:00 -
[20]
I also think this goes against the nature of Eve. Sisi is enough for this. Don't make it a feature in the game.
My thoughts anyways.
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:23:00 -
[21]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 22/02/2009 19:25:36 whats wrong with that? make it so you only use it within an alliance.
I for one would welcome this feature.
Lets say you have an alllaince tournyment coming up, or just wants to show your stuff. Well it's not like you'd blow up an alliance mate anyways, you would stop at armor or whatever, but that's not real a real PvP test. So you face off in a virtual setting. members of an allaince can check to see ranking and be lik e"that guy is good at pvp, that guy isn't.
I think this would be a wonderful replacement to shooting your corpmates just down to something that seems like you win. Now if you could figt ANYONE, that would be a different situation.
but for testing set ups with people you wouldn't ill anyways? sure why the hell not.
no honestly, someone tell me why corporate/alliance mate only simulator would be ok/useful.
Quote: I don't care about the advantage I may have over someone else. It's a stupid advantage.
I think most players do this on TQ daily. "Hey help me test my tank" or does not taking a sec hit for fighting a corpmate "break eve"
|
Nullity
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:32:00 -
[22]
Originally by: John Grimm
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans the EVE software architecture rejected the feature
Proof that the created is some times more than the Creator.
All bow to the EvE servers for being so wise and intelligent in their decision to reject this abomination from being added to the game universe.
Nicely put. I have to agree, EVE Battlegrounds is a terrible idea. Such a feature should really never be added.
|
Aya Sin
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:32:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Aya Sin on 22/02/2009 19:34:07
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans So like a patient rejecting a liver, the EVE software architecture rejected the feature and changing the software architecture to make it work was well beyond the scope of Apocrypha. Thus it was cut. May well find its way into the game some day later, but will need a lot of work if we feel it is something we want to do.
I'd be interested to know why adding a "return" right before the shipdestruction, pod- and wreckage spawn was not an option. Terminate the simulation on killing blow impact prior to branching down into the despawn code and restore previous hull, armor and shield values.
Would have been a cool feature for new players
|
cyno here
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:33:00 -
[24]
As for testing feature, sure thing i like it (no more sisi-chopping for that) but as we've been told, it will be ranked 1:1 wow-style thingy which is no-no.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Nullity
Originally by: John Grimm
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans the EVE software architecture rejected the feature
Proof that the created is some times more than the Creator.
All bow to the EvE servers for being so wise and intelligent in their decision to reject this abomination from being added to the game universe.
Nicely put. I have to agree, EVE Battlegrounds is a terrible idea. Such a feature should really never be added.
unless it's just a corp tool.
|
Valandril
Caldari Isks R Us
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:36:00 -
[26]
Meh meh wrong char, cyno here is teh me ---
|
Aya Sin
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:38:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Aya Sin on 22/02/2009 19:39:58
Originally by: cyno here As for testing feature, sure thing i like it (no more sisi-chopping for that) but as we've been told, it will be ranked 1:1 wow-style thingy which is no-no.
Would you say the same if that other game didn't have that feature?
I'm opposed to making it ranked though. CCP would start to balance their game on this one aspect, like it happened in said other game. It would also take aways from real PvP. I don't see the harm in a limited combat simulation though. No ranking, no killmails, no loot, money. Nothing. Pure training grounds. I also liked the idea about making it look a little bit VR-like.
|
Valandril
Caldari Isks R Us
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:41:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Aya Sin
Originally by: cyno here As for testing feature, sure thing i like it (no more sisi-chopping for that) but as we've been told, it will be ranked 1:1 wow-style thingy which is no-no.
Would you say the same if that other game didn't have that feature? Also, why would you neccessarily make it ranked? I'd be opposed to that, too because CCP would start to balance their game on this one aspect, like it happened in said other game. It would also take aways from real PvP. I don't see the harm in a limited combat simulation though. No ranking, no killmails, no loot, money. Nothing. Pure training grounds. I also liked the idea about making it look a little bit VR-like.
I still would hate it, doesn't matter if other games have it or not because it WILL lay that final blow on any point in cruising around looking for 1vs1. And well read dev post, they want it to be 1:1 wow-style ranked arena, if it would be testing playground - i'm in. ---
|
Marie Duvolle
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:41:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Valandril Edited by: Valandril on 22/02/2009 18:04:13
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans You have stumbled across a feature that was planned for Apocrypha but was ultimately cut due to time and technical constraints. These in fact were "virtual" combat arenas where you could engage in one-on-one consensual ranked PVP combat.
What ? Instanced safe lossless pvp in eve ? Are you nuts ?
I mean seriously, this goes against all that eve is about.
Agreed, that is the WRONG way of doing things, unless ofcourse you want to sell out long term in order to get cash short term.
Don't stir the hornet's nest |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 19:45:00 -
[30]
ITT: The cancer killing Eve.
Great find sleep.
I podded a Scot and I liked it <-- hot smartbomb action |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |