open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Great Deep Safe Nerf of 2010
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (28)

Author Topic

Lantanaa
Caldari
DEFCON.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:55:00 - [271]
 

This change better improves lag during massive fleet fight dramatically Evil or Very Mad

bnogo
Caldari
The Executives
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.13 07:56:00 - [272]
 

this has been stated, but needs saying again, if you are doing this cause it is unfair to new players, you must remove t2 bpo's, and all state issued/unique ships.

although the idea of removing the ability to make them is ok, and even removing the saved points is ok, the limit you have set + the method of removal is far too harsh.

I have lived through several patches including the feared boot.ini patch, and this is probably the only change that has truly made me question my subs.

or at least be honest why you are doing this. it is a quick fix for lag(removal of ss) and that is all. it isn't fairness, its laziness.

Bob Random
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:01:00 - [273]
 

I listen to other players opinions from in game, posted on the forums, MSN and real life discussions.

Over the past couple of years I have heard plenty of talk on areas of the game that, in an individuals opinion, affects their game play detrimentally.

I have never, ever heard anyone complain, moan, criticise or object to the presence of "deep safes".

I only have one question which I would appreciate an answer to:

Based on my previous comments, how has this issue come to be at the top of CCP's MASSIVE "to do" list?

Max O'Deel
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:04:00 - [274]
 

Originally by: Dan Sun
So what happend to the Sandbox?


Originally by: Avenger1
Sounds like CCP have gone OTT on politcal blandness, they dont like older players to have something some relative noob hasn't had the time the wit or wisdom to create/obtain themselves,
guess the sand box just got its instructions to conform and not to be to sand boxy after all cos it might be a bit too hard for somebody else.


it just got it's a*se smacked

BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:04:00 - [275]
 

WTB CCP's response to all this.

Othran
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:04:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Bob Random
Based on my previous comments, how has this issue come to be at the top of CCP's MASSIVE "to do" list?


Poseidon going public. Simple as that.

TheBlueMonkey
Gallente
Fags R Us
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:06:00 - [277]
 

I see this ending well

What about fixing it so that 200 players can jump onto a grid with 200 other players and the whole thing doesn't grind to a hault first?

If you insist on this removal what about just jumping everyone who's beyond 10au to a safe that's within 10au wether they're logged on or not?

That'll at least save some people who aren't around atm.

What about people who trained for them deep scan probes?
I thought they did some huge scan range and were kind of the point when it came to deep safe spots?

I guess level 5 skills and end game content isn't good for the "new player experience" though.

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:10:00 - [278]
 

Given the number of supercap pilots which are likely inactive and logged at safespots how about you just move everyone+there ships who is at such a spot to their clone station with the caveat that if said supercap pilot does anything with his ship apart from undock in it (and jump to lowsec/0.0 if he ends up in highsec) he gets banned. I mean there can't be that many of them to monitor. Or is this your way of limiting supercap proliferation by getting rid of a few dozen of them.

Tasha Voronina
Caldari
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:16:00 - [279]
 

I will chime in with the "CCP, this is a bad idea" crowd.

CCP, this is a very, very bad idea.

Here's why:

1. It goes against the sandbox ideal. In the past, you have looked at what players invented, and added that functionality to the game if it wasn't a game-breaking idea. Remember the introduction of the "alliance" structure?

2. The hard-handed approach will (and already has) antagonize a lot of players. Even players not affected by this - if they find out, they will not exactly be happy that the company they're paying their money to would have no qualms about deleting ingame assets that don't conform with the newest standard.

3. Dominion blackscreening on jump-in via gates hasn't been fixed (as far as I know). You do not want to be in a fleet jumping in via a gate into a blob. Blackscreens aren't pretty. In fact, they're ugly, very ugly. So are massacres. Both is going to happen.

4. This is inconsistency at it's best. T2 BPOs have been ingame for how long after the lottery was shut down? Right. Why are they still here? Why weren't they deleted yet? Valid questions, don't you think? If not, then don't go with the "haves" and "have-nots" argument - please.


On that note, to make this post full of constructive criticism...:

If you absolutely must impose limits on solar system size, there are better ways of going about that. You could, for example, make any object farther away from the sun than your limit begin to slowly take damage. The farther away it is, the faster the damage accumulates. In-character reason: interstellar radiation that gets deflected by the star's magnetic field. So those 10k AU (I'm exaggerating on purpose here) deep safes would still be possible... it's just, nothing would live very long out there. I assume that would be possible, no?

If you're still going with the "have - have-not" argument... just allow people to warp to their probes? Problem solved - newer players just have to train up for, let's say, deep space probes, place them where they want to warp to and, you know, just warp there. Combine this with objects taking damage beyond a certain range from the star, and you will have achieved the following:
a) maintaining a sandbox (or at least the illusion of one)
b) not antagonizing a lot of people
c) introducing a new way for people to run away when being followed (not that we didn't have enough of those already, but hey...)
d) enforcing a soft limit on solar system size. People will not want to stay that far away from the star for very long. Encouraging people to do something is almost always better than forcing them to do something.

If that up there is still not a viable alternative, then at least just move all offending objects to somewhere within the new boundaries (still a bad idea, these boundaries). Shouldn't be too hard, updating a set of coordinates - that's what, 3 to 6 operations instead of 1 for every object? I'm sure that all affected players would be willing to accept a slightly longer downtime for this to happen.


Threadnaught signed, one concerned customer Confused

Lord Zulu
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:16:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: Lord Zulu on 13/04/2010 08:23:10
Attention i got a mail from a dev

it reads
We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a **** We at CCP do not give a ****

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:18:00 - [281]
 

Does this mean you guys have fixed the lag so we can jump bridge 1 person into a system with more that 2 people in it and have the grid load in a resonable time?

If not its another whack in the face for 0.0 warfare with the current lag issues and to be quite honest I'm getting slightly ticked off with all the anti-0.0 moves.

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:20:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
It is truly enjoyable to watch this thread be filled by spam from people who fail at reading comprehension. It's not rocket science, not even the internet spaceship kind of rocket science.


I think it's pretty sad, actually. The first few were funny. Yet here we are 8 pages in and there are still people who can't comprehend or are too lazy to actually read (more likely, IMO) a simple sentence and think CCP is talking about being over 10 AU from the nearest celestial.

I think there should be a short quiz that you have to answer based on the DevBlog showing that you've read and understand what was said before you're allowed to comment on them.

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:26:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Baeryn
Wait, what? Why are these "deep safes" such a problem, and how do you explain their removal in the in-character world?

If I fly my uber-expensive faction-built-and-fit interceptor (with my snake implants) out beyond the edge of the solar system, why the hell do I lose my ship? **** those other guys if they can't keep up, that's part of the benefit of my ship choice.

Seriously, CCP, please -- reconsider this. The game mechanics are one thing, lag is another; but downright breaking immersion is entirely another.

At least let us manually fly out there, and return us to that location when we log back in. Sure, remove our ability to warp out there (lack of gravitational locks, or something), but by god - let me keep trying to reach the EVE Gate, or at least surprise me with some damage when I get to a certain distance.

What ever happened to immersion? You're going to lose your core playerbase if you keep cutting away at it like this.


Based on actually reading the DevBlog instead of just skimming it, I'm pretty sure you'll only have your stuff deleted during the deployment of Tyrannis. If, after that, you want to waste a few days flying out that far, I don't think anything will happen, but you won't be able to make bookmarks or set cynos, nor will anyone be able to warp to you.

In other words, it will be a one-time mass deletion. Your ship won't just suddenly explode upon crossing the threshold.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:35:00 - [284]
 

seriously. destroying supercaps etc that are sitting at deep safes were ppl logged off before going inactive is to put it mildly ****ed up.

and before you take away our option to jump into deep safes you should get your lazy asses at work with fixing the problems that caused us to have to do this in the first place.

all your doing now is making fleet fights even more impossible

Nareg Maxence
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:39:00 - [285]
 

I think you should just move the stuff closer instead of destroying stuff.

Sith LordX
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:42:00 - [286]
 

Recon, SB, blackops fleets are the future of large scale warfare after this expansion. As if you never want to be found, you need a stealth fleet, that can use cov-ops cyno's, and there for never be detectable.

Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see
Chained Reactions
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:47:00 - [287]
 

"On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created"

Sure.

Some questions.

If lets say planet X is the last planet in the System and it is 50 AU from the Sun, is it still possible to have a "not so deep savespot" 60AU vertical to the plane of the solarsystem or in the opposite direction of planet X?

Is this one of the 100 devblogs a new player has to read to actually understand how the game works? You destroy the whole player expirience with such limitations that are not explained or somehow limited do to a technology inside the game (Why should warp only be possible inside a sphere around the sun that depends on the farthest gate/planet?). In my eve life i had many of this very frustrating moments when i tried do something i thought this should work because there was nothing inside the game that gave a feking hint why in hell it should not work just to get a WTF moment and another player that shouts "you fecking noob should read devblog xy!!". Not exactly always that way, but i think you should get the point Smile

Eve players are usualy smart ppl and smart ppl usualy like consistent worlds. I hope eve is not on its way to become a patchwork of houndreds of rules that result out of many years of software history so a player actually has to find and understand all this rules and the history behind them to actually understand the game.

this is not very "sandboxi" and it also increases the lerning cliff even more.

Jamaican Herbsman
I Love You Mary Jane
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:48:00 - [288]
 

Why destroy the ships? Why not just move the players inner to the system or move them in the clone station in their ship? Or are those technically impossible, please elaborate.

What's the reasoning behind 10AU? Why not 20AU? We need information puhlease

Tyby
Nex Exercitus
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:53:00 - [289]
 

"Hi, we are CCP Lemur and CCP Greyscale and we want to talk to you about ..."

sry, english it's not my first language,maibe i don't really get his right, but... but, where is the part when you are actually "talking about"?

this "nerf" prove once more mister ccp, that some of you guys have no idea how this game it's actually working; i dare you guys just go with this nerf, let's see how's going to end Laughing

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.13 08:54:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Kyra Felann
Let's say you have a system called Example and in this system, there is only one planet, Example I, and that it is 500 AU from the star. The limit they're talking about is 510 AU from the star, not 10 AU from any celestial object. So in our simple example system, you could have a spot 10 AU, 50 AU, or 100 AU from the nearest celestial object with no problems--the only thing you can't have is a spot that is over 510 AU from the star.

Whilst what you say makes sense and that's how I read it too it also assumes that every solar system is perfectly circular.

Assuming a system were 200AU across it would be quite possible to still be <210AU from the star, but in a place far beyond any celestial by virtue of the fact that the system isn't circular, wouldn't it?

Excuse my crappy MSPaint..

http://img213.imageshack.us/i/deepsafeproblem.jpg/Please visit your user settings to enable images.

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:00:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: bnogo
this has been stated, but needs saying again, if you are doing this cause it is unfair to new players, you must remove t2 bpo's, and all state issued/unique ships.

New players can acquire both those things given sufficient ISK. How do you propose new players make deep safes when the means to make them is no longer available?

Shade Millith
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:07:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: Shade Millith on 13/04/2010 09:09:18
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
It is truly enjoyable to watch this thread be filled by spam from people who fail at reading comprehension. It's not
rocket science, not even the internet spaceship kind of rocket science.


I think it's pretty sad, actually. The first few were funny. Yet here we are 8 pages in and there are still people who can't comprehend or are too lazy to actually read (more likely, IMO)


You should train reading competance lvl4.
Most people are
- angry about people who DO have stuff out there that cannot get back online/do not read Devblogs. (There are a lot of supercap pilots that use those to logoff in)
- angry that 10 AU is a pitiful number.
- angry that it's HARDLY difficult to probe down someone even in a 500 AU safe and beyond.
- angry as currently with how they managed to screw up the nodes with Dominion, titan bridging in a fleet at 300+ AU's is the only way to get into a system relyably, without having the rather common "Didn't load grid, got shot by 200 enemies that nobody in my fleet saw"

And yes, I understand what the Dev blog said, and the reasoning they gave was bunk

Quote:
following the changes made to the scanning system last year they've become nigh-on impossible to locate.

Bunk Near total coverage to 300 AU's, into the 1000's for Deepspace probes


Quote:
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.

Bunk
T2 BPO's anyone? State issue ships anyone?

Quote:
thus forcing ships within a given system to use the other measures available (docking, cloaking, warping around an awful lot) if they want to avoid being shot at.

Bunk
Anyone sitting at a deepsafe not moving is not hard to probe out

Edit:
Quote:
New players can acquire both those things given sufficient ISK. How do you propose new players make deep safes when the means to make them is no longer available?

This wouldn't have BEEN a problem, but CCP decided to nerf being able to make them.

TheGreatDoc
Minmatar
Princeps Corp
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:09:00 - [293]
 

So.....no more deepsafespot, so, no more "safe" jumpin in a blobled system so, no more 0.0 WARS. Now, everybody will make anomalys bcoz cant figth and...WTF will happen if EVERYBODY in 0.0 starts to farm ISK and start to pay all accounts with ISK?

The idea is fu**ing BAD if the lag persist. But eh, we will start to see 400 frigate fleet defense? With that in a grid, dont think the other hand will load anything but will die sooooo quickly.

Fix the lag, then, f**k the deep safespots.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:10:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Durzel
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Let's say you have a system called Example and in this system, there is only one planet, Example I, and that it is 500 AU from the star. The limit they're talking about is 510 AU from the star, not 10 AU from any celestial object. So in our simple example system, you could have a spot 10 AU, 50 AU, or 100 AU from the nearest celestial object with no problems--the only thing you can't have is a spot that is over 510 AU from the star.

Whilst what you say makes sense and that's how I read it too it also assumes that every solar system is perfectly circular.

Assuming a system were 200AU across it would be quite possible to still be <210AU from the star, but in a place far beyond any celestial by virtue of the fact that the system isn't circular, wouldn't it?

Excuse my crappy MSPaint..

http://img213.imageshack.us/i/deepsafeproblem.jpg/Please visit your user settings to enable images.



I keep reading posts like this and I just don't think what CCP has in mind is sinking in. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt it.

Here's what I think will be happening:

While your diagram is correct in that the area involved will allow bookmarks inside the sun -> furthest celestial + 10AU radius, the key point that everyone seems to be missing is that CCP has eliminated entirely the existing procedure to produce bookmarks using the log on/log off trick.

So even though someone *could* have a BM at 150 AU from any celestial and from the star itself (if inside the envelope), they won't be able to make any new ones anyway after the patch because the 'bug' has been 'fixed'.

People seem to think that CCP is going to let the existing situation stand, save the elimination of deep safes, but I don't think this is the case. CCP are going to jack your safes, and they're also going to ass**** your ability to ever do anything similar to that ever again.

Edmund Khan
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:10:00 - [295]
 

Next titans are getting removed, because new players don't have them?

Just admit you don't have a clue what to do with all the empty space, instead of coming up with such a weak excuse...

EVE has like 99% of useless space - everything is happening at stargates, planets, belts, moons and stations... And instead of coming up with a plan how to make use of the 99% empty space - you're removing the ability to even move out there...

I guess also a way to fix it - just that it's the wrong one...

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:25:00 - [296]
 

Edited by: Durzel on 13/04/2010 09:25:03
Originally by: Shade Millith

Quote:
following the changes made to the scanning system last year they've become nigh-on impossible to locate.

Bunk Near total coverage to 300 AU's, into the 1000's for Deepspace probes

Your image presupposes several things:

- You already know exactly what direction their ship is in relative to the system (in your image it's "left", what if it happened to be above, below or whatever)
- That the ship is "only" 121AU from the centre of the system

Surely you can see that with 3D space the further you go out the more probes & luck you need to even get a hit on someone in the first place?

There comes a point when even with DSPs unless you happen to randomly guess which azimuth they happen to be on then you'll never find them. That's sortof the whole point of deep safes.

Kerdrak
GreenSwarm
Black Legion.
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:25:00 - [297]
 

CCP will release SPACE HIGHWAYS in Tyrannis also, so you can't war from planet 1 to planet 3 unless you warp to planet 2 before:

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Serpents smile
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:28:00 - [298]
 

Edited by: Serpents smile on 13/04/2010 09:29:04

Quote:
On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created.


Why was this "bad"?
What makes you think its a unwanted 'feature'?
Of all the whining, nerf this nerf that, fix this fix that on your forums, this (deep safes) where the least of your players base problems.

What suddenly changed making you go, chop chop?

DJ BlackLight
Eve Radio Corporation
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:29:00 - [299]
 

Edited by: DJ BlackLight on 13/04/2010 09:31:55
Okay - first off, yes I know that this is an alt - however, as this alt is more widely known than my main, it shall suffice. It is worth mentioning, however, that my main does in fact use deepsafes on a regular basis for the purpose of wardec avoidance, deepsafe scanning spots, and deploying covops guerilla fleets against... well.. whoever, really.

I caught wind of this devblog at around 10pm gametime last night and I still cannot believe the heavyhandedness with which this 'development' is being handed out to the playerbase. Okay, so yes, the Poseidon and cyno-jump-as-it-collapses techniques are technically exploits of the system, and exploits are "baaaad m'kay" but let's take a step back for a moment.

Remember all those lovely posts regarding massive fleet action, both in 0.0 and Faction Warfare on the front page of the EVE Online website?? You must do - they're the carrots that give the uninitiated the first twinkle of interest in them handing over their hard earned to CCP. They featured heavily in the 'Sandbox' video for Dominion, and in 90% of the fan-fic videos.

I would also say that within the last 12-18 months, they have all used this 'exploit' as a method to gain a fleeting moment of tactical advantage over their opponents at the time.

There have been countless posts in this thread already about the proposed changes making higher scanning skills useless, making it too easy to scan down everything with combat/core probes so I won't go in to that - but I do feel that this change is akin to urinating in the sandbox that the EVE Community holds so dear. It's what makes EVE Online unique in the current MMO list - CCP provides the tools, the players get on with it.

In my opinion, the 10au outer ring is pitifully small. Should there be a limit ? Hell, maybe. But 10au? Come on - let's be serious. There are so many mechanics that could be applied to this that would be better than an outright ban. Here's a couple of suggestions for you :

1. Apply a 'reasonable' limit of space outside of the elliptic - 500au sounds about right to me. (Applying a sane limit)

2. Give pilots a mechanic to make deepsafes within this 500au area without resorting to exploiting unintentional features of the code. Whether this is a "Warp 5-100 au directly ahead" or "right-click in system scanner and 'warp to here'" is irrelevent - that's down to the coders. The latter would probably make more sense to me.

3. Apply a 'fuzzy filter' to the limit above... Just throwing some numbers out there, say 'warp accuracy decreases over distance if you are not inside the mapped* area of the system' so that a warp to zero now becomes 'warp to within 100km of bookmark' or something. (Making things a little more cerebral and less of a gamebreaker mechanic)

* note : Mapped = 10au further than last planet/moon/roidbelt etc.

I am sure that someone posted above something along the lines of "See that figure waving and walking away in the distance? That's Fleet Warfare." Fleet warfare on massive levels is the carrot that gains CCP more customers. Without the support behind EVE Online, Dust514 will be a soft launch... why will people want to play an addon to a game that is having people leaving in droves?

It's all money at the end of the day... and in the current economic climate, how many people can you afford to annoy to the point where they stop wanting anything to play EVE?

Instead of swinging the gargantuan nerf bat and annihilating any reason for any of your long-term players (The ones on who's shoulders CCP has been carried to their current level) to want to play Eve any more, make the game better, richer, bigger and more exciting. For everyone.

This is a step too far. Nerf it if you will - but at least offer a proper solution to the problem rather than this.

+1 to the "THIS IS MADNESS" vote.

BlackLight

PS: Opinions above do not represent GRN / EVE Radio staff, and are entirely by me... blahblah usual disclaimers appl

Ed Rush
Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:29:00 - [300]
 

Concentrated cerebral palsy's stop drooling on the floor :D


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (28)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only