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 : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (28)

Author Topic

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:36:00 - [301]
 

I don't know if I am more disappointed about loosing deep safes or the Dev mindset that the decision to remove them reveals.

Right away, the removal of deep safes will hurt 0.0 warfare since they are the only way to load to safely load an already laggy system.

Now about that mindset thing CCP... Why does it bother you that people who have been your customers longer may have something that newer customers don't? We have been paying you from a time when there was less shiny content in the game - is that worth nothing to you?

Then the whole idea of shrinking systems - As others have said, a 200 AU warp really gives a sense of being in space, far better than jump gates do. You should be incorporating these distances into the game not removing them. Put some content way out there, make warp speed a bigger part of fleet tactics.

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:39:00 - [302]
 

Originally by: DJ BlackLight

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

500AU is reasonable to you?

A ship 500AU past a celestial is only going to be found, even with deep safes, if you happen to guess which direction they are in. The further out you go the more probes you need to have a hope of finding them.

Think about it - they could be 500AU in any direction meaning you'd need countless 256AU probes in an ever increasing cube lattice structure to even get a hit in the first place.

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:42:00 - [303]
 

HAHAHAHA

Thanx to living evelopedia Blazde I am presenting you old devblog about Deep safespots

system scanning and safe spots
reported by LeKjart | 2004.11.11 17:23:05


Quote:
With the introduction of the new system scanning in Exodus, it is clear that the word 'safe' in safe spot will be highly questionable. Now to make system scanning really a true gameplay addition, we must make sure that there are no spots which are _really_ safe from scanning, otherwise it would be a worthless feature. Currently on TQ, many have used F11 bookmarks to create safe spots (basically bookmarking a solar system in the constellation view of the F11 map). This is the result of a bug where the xyz variable were not initialized to any value, and thus hold some rubbish xyz value (typically many 1000 of AUs away). This loophole has been plugged in Exodus, but these bookmarks remain in the DB. We are planning to change them to legal solar system bookmarks (with no xyz values) before the Exodus release. Now the question arises what to do with any stuff that players might have left around those spots. We think that for most of the native F11 bookmarks, there won't be much, because they are too far away for people to have warped all the way there. On the other hand many have used these F11 bookmarks to warp to closer safe spots (warping as far as the capacitor permits) and bookmarked those spots. These might be anywhere from 100 AUs to 1000 AUs distance from the sun. For these bookmarks, we have plans to move them within solar system boundaries along with any stuff around them. This would mean that the bookmark will still work and bring you to your stuff, but the spot as a whole will be vulnerable for scanning, though it wouldn't be casually found. The moral of this story is that if you have any valuable stuff lying around at some safe spot, it would be wise for you to put it out of Harm's way before system scanning becomes a reality. We will also introduce items that have resistance with respect to scanning, so you will be able to keep stuff relatively safe. It would be nice to hear of any scenario where you think this will result in some catastrophe for you or your corp members.



The Wicked1
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:43:00 - [304]
 

I must agree with those who say that you should either

A: Delete T2 BPO along with the change you are proposing or
B: Have all the bookmarks still around, inside a certain maximum Au from a star maybe 50 Au from the furthest celestial body, and have new player acquire the BM from old players (read: As T2 BPO's are right now even though no one in their right minds would trade them)

Makar Kravchenko
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:44:00 - [305]
 

Doesn't make a lot of sense TBQFH. More people complain about post Dominion GRIDFAIL than deep safe spots.

C/D?

Rollback Apocrypha.

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:45:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Catari Taga on 13/04/2010 09:47:12
So to sum it up:

1. CCP wasting development time again to make the game worse rather than fix their bugs.

2. Inactive players gonna get it without lube.

3. If (edit: after Tyrannis) you anchor a TCU far enough outside of the warpable boundary it will be safe from all but fast ships.

4. People in this thread talking about "off-directional" seem to forget that you can very easily get off-directional spots by going vertical. So if your furthest celestial is 100AU from the star you will still be able to go 110 AU up or down (or anywhere else within that radius of the star). Gonna have to start making lots of bookmarks now, these will be worth good money after the expansion. CCP did want to give advantages to old players with this, right, right?

Missed anything?

Mighty B
PECK Online
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:47:00 - [307]
 

Are there Devs left that actualy play this game and have a clue what is going on.
Or are they all manager types that never ever played a game to begin with.

This is the most stupid idea ever, destroying ships outside the new range i mean some might not even able to move their stuff because they are afg for what ever reason. Some might think they are inside the range but are not, and i am sure CCP will **** up badly as ususal and destroy stuff that shouldn't be destroyed to begin with.

DJ BlackLight
Eve Radio Corporation
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:52:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: Durzel

500AU is reasonable to you?

A ship 500AU past a celestial is only going to be found, even with deep safes, if you happen to guess which direction they are in. The further out you go the more probes you need to have a hope of finding them.

Think about it - they could be 500AU in any direction meaning you'd need countless 256AU probes in an ever increasing cube lattice structure to even get a hit in the first place.


Yes, 500au is reasonable to me. To scan the full area, you wouldn't need "countless" probes. You'd need to be plotting things out with a careful and methodical plan in mind in order to cover that amount of space.

Roughly speaking - two ships with 10 DSP between them can cover an area, in the shape of a cube measuring 1500au across, in approximately 30-40 minutes. The new scanning mechanic made it a combination of player and character skill - ffs, make people work for their tactical advantage.

BlackLight

Shade Millith
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.13 09:53:00 - [309]
 

Edited by: Shade Millith on 13/04/2010 09:59:11
Originally by: Durzel

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)

There's only a limited amount of directions that DS's will be made from. Most systems don't even have 'up/down' warpable objects that have enough distance to get up to speed (If they do, then just place the probes along that line), and if they're using a deepsafe, then they're sitting there. Unless they're bouncing Deepsafes (Which is exactly the same thing as bouncing SS's is) they're not safe

- That the ship is "only" 121AU from the centre of the system

That wasn't the main point, any ship in that direction for 300 AU's I would have known about

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?

Yes, the exact way that it's a crap shoot doing ANY probing. The thing is, you just have to get ONE HIT with one of the probes, and you know where he is to within 64AU's (256 for DSP)

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.
Test if under 256 AU's
If not, then do 4-6 of these around the system
If he's uncloaked, and within 1000 AU's, you'll eventually get a hit, find which probe is getting the hit, and you've got an area to find him in.


(MSPaint FTW)


Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:00:00 - [310]
 

Number 1
Why you didnt see this comming?

I predicted something along the lines of this happening years ago when they first started to get rid of bookmarking and warping to probes and the sorts.

CCP Nerfing Pattern
Minor Nerf 1
Minor Nerf 2 discovered after players got around it
Minor Nerf 3 once again
Massive Nerf with no work around that everyone is going to cry about

Best recent example Nano Nerf

Number 2
Adapt or Die

And here I was thinking that smarter allaince's would embrace and utilize and actually think there is now a new depth to thier situations now. Everything from system control where to set up fortress worlds (ie those 20AU wide systems) to fleet preplacemnts and maintaing the jump on thier enemies. Remember eve rewards the creative and intellegent not the lazy and sloth, there is still room for prestaging post expansion if you are really worried about the fleet lagging to death on arrival dont be dumb and put a shoot me sign on you.

Number 3
Stop complaining about the lag, ccp is well aware of the problem and has tirelessly worked on eliminating it, the fact they're spending thier weekends trying to solve it with us and scratching thier heads about this proof enough. Who knows maybe deleting all those really old bookmarks out there however many thousands exists may elivate loading a system a bit.

Number 4
About the deletion stuff.

I mean yeah I'm was blind sided by the fact they wanna destroy everything beyond the 'boundries' which I think is unreasonable for people who are still in thier ships but I can see the technical difficulties behind all of this.

There is really no real clear or good suggestion to prevent
Exploits, Techncial Mistakes, Breaking without just nuking the whole thing.

Moving to station, last docked station, last clone station, last legal zone that ship is flyable in station, moving to within borders are all asking for a tonn of LOLs and whines. Im not sure if there is any other solution viable atm that will be fair to everyone all at once.

My best thoughts are deletion of all bms outside the zone, all anchorables put into your clone station, if its not allowed there then 100% reprocess. Move ship's warp into nearest border, and stuff that isnt anchorable or piloted be destroyed. But that may prove to be to difficult to automate.

None the less the game is still eve after this is said and done.

Tomcat
Gallente
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:02:00 - [311]
 

Quote:
CCP Lemur and CCP Greyscale when is the last time time any of you played in 0.0 a bit?

I am seriously concerned about sanity of you guys, if you spent even a 10 minutes of CCP resources on this while letting literaly dozens of other more urgent stuff waiting to get fixed.

Not to mention the complete lack of logic behind this change with current state of your game, but I cant wait to see the rightfull tears of the guys who are on 1+ month break for the game, or just dont give a feck for horrible devblogs like this one, and figure after new patch, they lost their ships and stuff cause of this "CCP Nozh style" change.

Seriously get a clue and stop playing with your customers.


Will you at least start buying us dinner before you **** us?

CCP Lemur

Posted - 2010.04.13 10:10:00 - [312]
 

Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.

This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.

More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:21:00 - [313]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.

This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.

More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.


Did you not think, even for a second, that that sort of clear, concise explanation should have been in the devblog? By not communicating clearly you are creating work for yourself and damaging your own reputation, and you only have yourself to blame.

You had this exact same problem - an inability to communicate effectively - in the original iteration of the citadel torp changes, leading to a 100-page threadnought of everyone telling you that sieged Dreads etc. couldn't be painted to receive full damage, simply because you didn't explicitly show that you'd already balanced their damage around that assumption. You might have expected that people would worked that out for themselves, but you ought to realise that people are stupid and need things explained to them very carefully, preferably with big pictures.

Clara Espion
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:23:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.

This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.

More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.


And why did we need a player of this game to make this picture?

Whynot123456
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:32:00 - [315]
 

Edited by: Whynot123456 on 13/04/2010 10:32:17
WTB Dev's that fix what they break
WTB Dev's that actually play the game
WTB Dev's that know what makes the customers tick
WTB Dev's that don't waste resources on stuff that isnt broken
WTB Public Relations Manager that can actually communicate
WTB Fleetwarfare that actually works
WTB Ability to actually use caps without the risk of massive losses due to "our logs show nothing" incidents
WTB Customer service that cares
WTB "Our logs do show something"
WTB Decent sov mechanics
WTB A MMO that is still fun to play
WTB .....

WTB Subscription to new space MMO?

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:32:00 - [316]
 

Jesus Christ, I havent seen this much emo in one thread since the NPC corp tax was implemented.

Not being able to bridge in fleets in occupied systems, is obviously a problem, and it needs to be addressed somehow, but deep safes were lame to begin with, it was just a matter of time till they got yanked. This "ohnoez, my sandbox backbone!" **** is just hilariously stupid.

Inactive accounts that were logged off in deep safes with capital ships and whatnot? Geez, deal with it. Imo they should move characters (and the ships they're piloting) that are in illegal spots, into the new 10AU range, instead of destroying them, but if you have unpiloted stuff lying around in space, well.. that's the chances you take.


/I'm totally down with changing t2 bpos into 100 run copies and removing learning skills all together also, it really is the only reasonable thing to do, to counter silly game-design from 6 years ago









Oasio
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:37:00 - [317]
 

A few comments, echoing people above:

-Do not destroy manned ships, move them.
Or be ready to deal with lots of angry petitions from players currently away-from-game.

-Are you really absolutely definitively sure that missions/explorations site cannot spawn outside the 10 AU limits ? Especially in very small systems ?

-Make very sure -nothing- can be done outside the system border. Or people will mwd there from Bookmark at 9.999999999999AU and anchor sov unit/cyno/assign fighters/... in absolute impunity.

-You may want to thrown a bone to people who trained for deep space probes...

Oasio





Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:37:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.

This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.

More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.


What about players who are able to cross the 10au boundary using non-warp methods (this is not impossible nor improbable), they will effectively be invulnerable.

sakana
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:38:00 - [319]
 

Good one guys, its great to see CCP are working hard to get to the core of the problems that are ruining this game.

All you hear on CAOD is people complaining about how "deep safes" ruined their fight, or how they couldn't risk using caps due to "deep safes".
"Deep safes" have been the cause of my losses before and I can tell you personally, I'm so glad you are tackling this issue.






FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:40:00 - [320]
 

Quote:
On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created. This will place us firmly into a situation where the only way to access locations outside the system proper will be via "legacy" bookmarks. This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player.

Now how about permanently deleting T2 BPOs according to same reasoning?

Jerppu
Minmatar
Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:42:00 - [321]
 

Man, CCP... come on! Fix the game and leave this BS alone.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:55:00 - [322]
 

I am just sad to see in which direction Eve goes.

Isn't there really nothing more important than removing deep safe spots which no one ever complained about but which actually HELPED a lot of people to get some fun fights in 0.0 because otherwise they couldn't enter the system?

And even if deep safe spots are really that game breaking, unfair and totally bad, isn't there really a better approach than 10 AU hard limit and deleting everything beyond it?!


Alice Celadon
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:56:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.

This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.

More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.


Oh, ok then. Just as long as you don't announce major hard and fast changes instead of floating ideas to an already dev-idiocy-weary player base when you haven't thought through what the ffff you're doing.

okcerg
Posted - 2010.04.13 10:58:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
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.

Nice quote for the next T2-BPOs-removal-thread pop

Question though: can we still go outside of limit via MWD or will we bounce on this new giant system condom? Twisted Evil

Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:02:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: okcerg
Originally by: CCP Lemur
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.

Nice quote for the next T2-BPOs-removal-thread pop

Question though: can we still go outside of limit via MWD or will we bounce on this new giant system condom? Twisted Evil

As has been said already it would take 170+ days in the fastest ship to travel 1 AU (in other words, it's a non issue).

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:03:00 - [326]
 

Originally by: Normin Bates
Where was CSM during this brainstorming session? :facepalm:

Unsurprisingly CSM were not consulted at all about this change. The first we knew about it was when the dev blog appeared...


The reasoning behind the removal of bookmarks (it being unfair on new players) is laughable because bookmarks can be copied freely in seconds. On the other hand T2 BPOs (copies take longer than making the item), learning skills (months of training), unique faction items even skillpoints in general are far more unfair than deep safe BMs.

Putting in a realistic hard cap (eg 250AU, or whatever the biggest system in eve is) and matching deep space probe range to this would be better. It would allow people who bothered to train for deep space probes to actually use them.


And destroying items outside the new "wall" including piloted ships - wow, just wow... Did the plot warp to a deep space such that you can no longer find it? (some might say lost it Rolling Eyes)


Seriously unimpressed...

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:04:00 - [327]
 

Originally by: CCP Lemur
Dear players, the blog was published after I left the office and I just finished reading through all 11 pages.

This man posted a picture explaining all of the "but what with spots between two celestials?" concerns.

More changes are in discussion right now and I'll let you know as soon as we reached a decision.

I already realised that and still it is a terrible idea.

This effectively makes it depend on the distance of the celestial furthest from the sun if you can make a reasonable safe spot. Protip, that is a nice image, but enough systems have celestials not further than 10 au from the sun, so then you pretty much cant make reasonable safe spots.

And it doesnt address the issue that you cannot enter a system anymore if the hostiles got there earlier.


Btw going to be fun not being able to warp to gates and missions that are too far from the sun (not all gates are at celestials)

Kayleigh Lothian
Minmatar
Obsidian Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:12:00 - [328]
 

Ok, so first of, as many have already said, this will make a president for when CCP kills the T2 BPOs. (haves and have-nots)

Second, removing stuff is kind of ireversible, right? And knowing how no mistakes has ever been made before there is nooooooo chance whatsoever that while removing stuff "out there" some other stuff would get nuked as well. No, that could never happen, and if it did all you had to do to check it would be to check your logs, right?

So, what is the third step?
1) Deep-safes
2) T2 BPOs (?)
3) ?
Skillpoint requirement? Newer players have less SPs after all, we out here does not get maxed chars with extra special skills for flying Polaris etc.
Wealth? Newer players have less isk, so since there are no longer any skill reqs to fly titans, why shouldn't they be able to afford buying one? (Also, if everything is free you fix the RTM problem, so that is a really good thing!)
Playerskills? Newer players have less knowledge of how the game works then the average older player. Scanning does require some player skills as well as the ingame ski..yea, we have removed the skill requrement, sry. But you need to do stuff with the probes to finds stuff. The newer players might not be as good as the older player in this regard, can we change scanning to a textbox where you type the site you want to find, no. A dropdown list where you can select the site you want to spawn.

What next?

Elendar
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:16:00 - [329]
 

This is a terrible terrible idea. and it won't even work. It might if eve space was 2D but oh, its not. If the devs actually played the game they might know this, and also know that a lot of systems aren't on a flat plane either

People will still be able to make deep safes by just going up and down from the centre of the system as far as the furthest celestial +10

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2010.04.13 11:18:00 - [330]
 

10 AU is not nearly enough range for bookmarks.

This is a major PITA for mission running - the bookmarking a wreck bit and coming back to loot/salv.
In practice you can then forget all about using a MWD while cleaning up.

You really need to increase it to roughly 20AU.
From my experience, missions always happen within 18AU of a planet/sun/moon.
Not always outside 10AU, but frequently in the 10-16AU range.

Of course there is the upside that loot ninjas and other vermin can't just BM you and check on the site later, if you are outside 10AU. They have to rely on keeping the scanresult open (no docking nor switching ships), while keeping track of all the other scan results.

To the CSM mobile everyone!

ps: this **** was predicted by us, in the testserver part of the forum a while back.
The only inaccuracy: we underestimated how much those put in charge of it would "overcompensate", aka nerf everything to the effin ground, with complete disregard for the consequences.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : 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