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 : ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28]

Author Topic

Hellvin
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.04.16 17:14:00 - [811]
 

Originally by: Merouk Baas
One issue that they seem to be trying to deal with is that keeping track of a volume of space increases with the CUBE of the radius, so, whatever they're doing, going from 64 AU to 256 AU for example will result in the size of the data being 60 times bigger.

The way they're so stringent with that 10 AU limit leads me to believe that they really really want to shrink the size of the database or whatever.

I don't believe they're going to go for making all solar systems 256 AU (the size of the deep space probe), simply because some systems are very small, and increasing all of them to 256 AU will result in a bigger data set than what they have now. And they're trying to reduce, not increase.



This just can't be correct. Your concept would be analogous to a bitmap image, where every pixel requires a bit of data, so increase the size of the image and the file size grows accordingly, no matter what the image is. If EVE space is run this way, then OMGWTF, no wonder there's lag! But no, EVE space must be defined more like a vector image, where algorithms and coordinates "code" the image with a small set of actual data. In other words, an empty system of 20AU and an empty system of 2000AU would require very nearly the same amount of data. Each point in the system is only a set of coordinates, generated on-the-fly as needed within the set boundaries.

What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2010.04.16 17:31:00 - [812]
 

Originally by: Herring
Originally by: Seth Ruin
So Deep Space Scanner Probes are now completely useless?


That would be correct.

Rolling Eyes


They would still be useful in systems with celestials 128-256 AU from the Sun. All four of them.

Zenst
Hall Of Flame
Chain of Chaos
Posted - 2010.04.16 18:39:00 - [813]
 

Edited by: Zenst on 16/04/2010 18:41:07
Originally by: Serpents smile
Originally by: Zenst
Originally by: Miss Pauli
Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current



Very well said indeed.


Wasn't going to post, waiting for the re-re-revised dev blog on this but reading skills aren't the best trained skills, are they?

Deep safes would become unfair *IF* CCP would fix the 'bug' that allows you to create deep safes.

It is currently not an imbalance, but it would be if deep safes no longer can be created.

But then again it was not the best worded/ thought out dev blog published here.



Rolling Eyes

IF you had quoted the whole post you would see in-context that your being a ****head.

" Originally by: Miss Pauli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never really felt the need to respond to a dev blog before, but the idea of removing the deep-safes is a little absurd. CCP wont (or can't) fix the lag issue in 0.0, so the players develop a solution of bridging or cynoing fleets in at extreme ranges so both sides can actually load system. Funny that this is removed before the lag is sorted. Also, why cant we have safes outside of max directional scanner range outside the system? I mean, you all do have those fancy deep space probes that require astro 5 for a reason right?

Lastly, the excuse about being over a level playing field is absurd, anyone can makes these safes at current, and in 0.0, they are frequently traded around to fleet members. T2 BPOs appear to be a much bigger advantage to players who were around for the duration of the lottery- now to get a T2 BPO, players have to spend billions of isk, this is an obvious advantage for the same reasons you all mentioned. Remove T2 BPOs, keep deep safes.
----------------------------------------------------------------"


Remember selective quote mining is for morons, dont act like one please with toss away insults due to your selective quoting.


Also the bug you seem to infer towards are Deep Safe Probes in themselfs that can be used to create a deep space bookmark aka deep safe - so not realy a bug IMHO.

Lets just agree that its a real real bad idea and a change utterly not needed and I'll put your misdermeners down to your anger of this change being proposed instead of fixing the problem of lagjumping into a system.

Personaly if they had a invulnibility timer of N+1 were the min was 30 seconds (current) and N being the number of people in the system, it can only go to help balance things for the players instead of silly idea's like this dev blog that shows somebody has been snorting too much volcano ash Embarassed


Reticenti
Loc-Nar
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:20:00 - [814]
 

This is STUPID!!! Do not nerf Deep Space SS!!!! WTF are u thinking

Zenst
Hall Of Flame
Chain of Chaos
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:29:00 - [815]
 

Just flagging another oversight by CCP with regards to this propossed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HIMPOSSED action.

What about players who have a suspended account, ie there on a break, parked up in a deep-deep safe. THIS is a totaly viable situation and I'd garantee there are a fair few chars on accounts that aint active currently in this very situation. IE:

1) ew its summer I'll reactivate my eve-online account
2) lala payed and logged in - ew the excitement
3) WTF were my ship, why am i in this station - what the heck
4) petition
5) ?????????
6) WTF account cancelled - never again

^^run that by marketing who can dig out your numbers - not everbody will have fair warning given this.

This also ignores the main issue of utterly failing to fix current issues and ignoreing players beyond what appears to be a select few who are perverting the game. Also utterly fail given celestical objects can be >20au apart in places - including gates so you have the potentual for this:

1) player warps the long warp between gates in his ship prior to DT
2) player runs out of cap so only warps half way on the long 100au warp
3) DT and new patch hits
4) player patches logs on and find he has no ship as due not being within 10/20au from a celestical object
5) petitions
6) ?????????
7) player quits and terminates his account forever


Is it fair on them when they come back to play again, say they only play during the summer holidays, does this action not only give them no warning but also blatantly discriminates against them as they will return and find they lost there ship and then spend many days petitioning a GM for something they shouldn't need to? Given this change and all factors, yes they would with this change.

There are many many arguments against this entire idea and I'm not seeing one valid one for it - why is that.

Now given you tried to do something like this a few years back and didn't as you came to your sences CCP, perhaps you can consider that this is not only so badly thought out but actualy insulting to players who already have a list of problem due to Dominion that are still issues and not being fixed and all your doing is rubbing salt into a large wounded player base who are seeing a game they love be labotamised right infront of there very eye's.

Bottom line a dev blog like this only shows that you have not only failed to grasp past mistakes but are blindly willing to compound them - wake up and smell the coffee as we the player don't forgive nor forget such lamentable affairs.

Now I'm still trying to think of ONE single valid reason to impose this change and even I cant thing of one. Not one single valid reason for this, period. Even if there was there would be a far better solution then this. This change is so full of fail that it realy is a huge insult to your customers on so many levels for so many reasons Shocked - WHYExclamation

Tarhim
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:40:00 - [816]
 

Originally by: Zenst

Also utterly fail given celestical objects can be >20au apart in places - including gates so you have the potentual for this:



All 28 pages of discussion, with pictures even, and you still do not get where the boundary is. You can't fall outside warping between celestials, ever.

That said, idea of destroying stuff being outside boundary is still very, very bad.

Fergus Blakra
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:52:00 - [817]
 

Originally by: Tarhim
Originally by: Zenst

That said, idea of destroying stuff being outside boundary is still very, very bad.


signed

Merouk Baas
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.16 19:56:00 - [818]
 

Originally by: Hellvin
What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.


The number of items in a solar system is a lot more dependent on the popularity of the solar system than it is on its size. It's not like people are crowding up small systems and running out of grid space, even in Empire.

The justification they gave for why they want to do this doesn't really make sense. They seem to want to limit the sky box to a small radius, and get rid of "clutter" that's supposed to be auto-destroyed after 30 days of inactivity anyway and thus shouldn't be there, but why doesn't make sense.

Hellvin
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:24:00 - [819]
 

Originally by: Merouk Baas
Originally by: Hellvin
What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.


The number of items in a solar system is a lot more dependent on the popularity of the solar system than it is on its size. It's not like people are crowding up small systems and running out of grid space, even in Empire.

The justification they gave for why they want to do this doesn't really make sense. They seem to want to limit the sky box to a small radius, and get rid of "clutter" that's supposed to be auto-destroyed after 30 days of inactivity anyway and thus shouldn't be there, but why doesn't make sense.


Agreed, I don't find the sense in it either. I can only imagine the fear of both large AND popular would be a factor on a decision to shrink space. The apparent existence of "deep space" communities could seem like a problem if they started popping up in systems everywhere, I guess. That's one reason I suggested that ALL "deep space" be 0.0, to make it less likely that empire space gets cluttered with comfortable deep space inhabitants and their flotsam and jetsam. But I don't really see much difference in the data load since the same player base would likely be on one side or the other of the line marking the deep space boundary. I certainly wouldn't be rushing to Jita just to hang out at 1000AU.

Actually, I'm not convinced that CCP has really considered such possibilities, and perhaps that's why an iron-fist approach to DSS was their first-blush response to fixing an "exploit" rather than seeking a way to utilize what players have found. A "Tyrannis" mind set indeed.

Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.04.16 20:25:00 - [820]
 

Originally by: Merouk Baas
Originally by: Hellvin
What is a factor on the database is the number of items contained within the system. A larger system has the potential to contain more items. If there is a technical "data size" reason to limit each system, I bet this is the reason.


The number of items in a solar system is a lot more dependent on the popularity of the solar system than it is on its size. It's not like people are crowding up small systems and running out of grid space, even in Empire.

The justification they gave for why they want to do this doesn't really make sense. They seem to want to limit the sky box to a small radius, and get rid of "clutter" that's supposed to be auto-destroyed after 30 days of inactivity anyway and thus shouldn't be there, but why doesn't make sense.


I think it's because someone QQ'd that some ebil pirate was using a deepsafe spot, he had to be officer!

I'd really like a full, honest reason. CCP Lemur, could you give us one? Remember the days when Dev's actually gave us the full, technical reason why they were doing things, along with a small "for everyone else" summary. Now we just get the summary.

CCP Lemur, and CCP in general..your game is played by a disproportionate number of software engineers. Don't worry..we'll understand you if you give it to us as you would a fellow CCP Software Engineer (or hardware, or mechanical, or EE...lots of Engineers in this game)

Valadeya uthanaras
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:08:00 - [821]
 

OMG new player might not have what old vet gets, NERF IT its evil ?

Humm, its not like you can't copy BM( if CCP remove the logoffski bug) , or in fact, just get in gang with older player that use such things ?

I mean, newer player will never get T2 BPO from lotery, but can buy one if he really want too ?

I am not a supercap pilot, and not involved in many big fight lately (viva la guerrilla warfare) but even then , I know how much lagtastic its been since the release of dominion, and see the legitimate point in using Deep safe to bridge in fleet .... cause all the other way will result in: your fleet got ****d, never fired a shot, server show nothing in the logs no reimboursement node was reinforced and should have provided enought juice to everyone (humm lovely black screen I like it) failcascade alliance defender always win(tm)


Stop thinking about changing something that was in game since the time of birth of the universe, maybe unintended, but with both side having access to it, both side using it, and newer player having access to it... we all know U have much more gamebreaking matter than deep safe, and if you really want to change something on those, zomg increase range of probe(its really hard i know...) Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes

DeODokktor
Caldari
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:10:00 - [822]
 

Originally by: Zenst


1) player warps the long warp between gates in his ship prior to DT
2) player runs out of cap so only warps half way on the long 100au warp
3) DT and new patch hits
4) player patches logs on and find he has no ship as due not being within 10/20au from a celestical object
5) petitions
6) ?????????
7) player quits and terminates his account forever




all gate<->gate travel will be safe...
On the day, the only type of travel that might not be safe would be Missions, if one throws you >10au outside the farthest orbit pattern, then time to worry..
To view the width, fly to the sun (ish) and view all planets/moons/stations/gates on overview, and then the highest number add 10.. that's how far away from the sun you can be...

I am sure there will be some variations on this, but your lack of understanding of how this works after sooooooo many pages, and crappy bitmap pictures, says that the blog was indeed not clear enough for everyone.

Mavric
Viscosity
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:16:00 - [823]
 

You know the best way to get to CCP is their pocket books. How about everyone stop shooting each other and just start farming isk. Everyone in the player base then starts supporting the accounts with Plex's.

What the hell.. They can have knee jerk reactions, so can we. YARRRR!!

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:29:00 - [824]
 

Originally by: Mavric
You know the best way to get to CCP is their pocket books. How about everyone stop shooting each other and just start farming isk. Everyone in the player base then starts supporting the accounts with Plex's.
and how would that actually affect ccp in the slightest?

Hellvin
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:38:00 - [825]
 

Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Mavric
You know the best way to get to CCP is their pocket books. How about everyone stop shooting each other and just start farming isk. Everyone in the player base then starts supporting the accounts with Plex's.
and how would that actually affect ccp in the slightest?


It would make CCP laugh as the "protesters" start paying more and more ISK per PLEX as the price skyrockets.

CCP Manifest


C C P
Posted - 2010.04.16 21:39:00 - [826]
 

For those that are following this thread, a new blog on the subject of deep safe spots is here.

Comments on the blog are going on in this thread.

Although we've been perhaps a bit to quiet here in this thread, me included most def, our community team has been following it and bringing the issues raised to all corners of CCP. Thanks for your constructive criticism, your humor, your ire and all the emotions inbetween.

As CCP Greyscale says in his blog: "Thanks to everyone who raised warning flags once the blog went out - we've caught our mistake with plenty of time to spare and we're implementing a better solution instead."

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:36:00 - [827]
 

Edited by: Ranka Mei on 16/04/2010 23:03:33
EDIT: Disregard everything I said; I just now read the new blog. ;)

Napro
Caldari
Simplistic Syndicate
Cha0s Theory
Posted - 2010.04.17 03:02:00 - [828]
 

Edited by: Napro on 17/04/2010 03:05:35
Quote:


1) ew its summer I'll reactivate my eve-online account
2) lala payed and logged in - ew the excitement
3) WTF were my ship, why am i in this station - what the heck
4) petition
5) ?????????
6) WTF account cancelled - never again

So people who were not playing for months quitting after 1 day hurts CCP's profits ,,, how?
edit: Read new blog. Now what will deepsafe *****s whine about? Rolling Eyes

Crotador
Minmatar
Burning Napalm
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:27:00 - [829]
 

FANTASTIC!!!

CCP you have done it again, fix something thats not broke!!!

Got a new one for you to try, FIX SOMETHING THAT IS BROKE!!! LAAAGGGG!!!!


August Risen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.17 20:11:00 - [830]
 

This thread is like the WoW forums every Tuesday.

Drazi1
Minmatar
The Knights Templar
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2010.04.18 11:03:00 - [831]
 

Originally by: August Risen
This thread is like the WoW forums every Tuesday.


hahahhaah nice quote :D

/me seconds that

Draco Carollis
Amarr
The Dead Canary Mining Corporation
Talos Coalition
Posted - 2010.04.18 21:50:00 - [832]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale


The furthest bookmark is 5,900,000,000 AU (95,000 light years) from its sun. This is roughly the same distance as the diameter of the milky way




Shocked

Who needs the Eve Gate to get back to terra?

(WTB ship with enough capacitor to do this warp...and the 20 years of continous playtime to complete it...)

Fab971
Posted - 2010.04.19 14:39:00 - [833]
 

Edited by: Fab971 on 19/04/2010 14:45:55
Edited by: Fab971 on 19/04/2010 14:43:51
Edited by: Fab971 on 19/04/2010 14:42:43
After the web nerf diwallowing small gangs and solo gates camping, but allowing fast ships to escape even easyer than before from a tackler.

After giving back (wtf?) efficient nanoships (dramiel, cynabal) in order to compensate the nerf of 95% of nanoable ships in eve (speed nerf was a very good idea imho), but adding even more specialized ships with specialized bonuses (i.e ashimmu, cruor for web strength), now you are giving pirates even more possibilities to escape.
Why ? Any pirate or wartarget, or just a target, will now have to warp and warp and warp in order to avoid being killed, or just... well .. just dock, which will be the only reflex they'll have if hunted.

Out of scan bookmarks are a very important part of pvp, whichever the zone, disallowing it will just kill even more the very good small gang/solo pvp. If you really want to disallow this feature you'll have to compensate by changing some other mechanics, for example the agression timers. Currently these timers, like jump/dock timers, are much too short. Raise these timers to at least 3 minutes, perhaps even 5.

to be honest, I ca't imagine a game where agressions, especially in low sec systems, have no consequence. I repeat, what you are doing is just telling pirates that they have to dock 1 minute after they ganked someone. It's just very, very sad if it's just what you really want.

Reiisha
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.19 16:10:00 - [834]
 

Originally by: Eucarid
For any ship subject to this destruction, they should move them to a point along the line between the deep safe and the sun at the maximum allowable radius. Or just move them to the sun. Destroying them is a lazy irresponsible act by CCP.


If people don't care enough about their stuff to pick it up with a month's warning, why move it and make it keep using system resources? Better just clean the stuff up properly.

The people with inactive accounts and deep space property will lose it either way. If they're moved within scanning range they'll be picked up anyway because people will be scanning for those things.

Valkerias
Posted - 2010.04.19 16:40:00 - [835]
 

Edited by: Valkerias on 19/04/2010 16:58:46
Edited by: Valkerias on 19/04/2010 16:42:08
Here's just a wild idea. Have the boundaries, but keep the deep safes. Create legitimate means of creating "deep safes" and instead of destroying the deep safes or the ships, set the capacitor recharge rate to anything in a "deep safe" outside the bubble boundary of the system to 0 except for ships that can NOT be docked, like super capitals, titans, rorquals, and even throw in the Orca for good measure.

Smaller ships, like interceptors, bombers, etc. may be able to warp IN to a "deep safe" but may find themselves not being able to warp out again because they've exceeded the maximum distance that they can gain power from the sun and they don't have on board reactors strong enough to make up the difference. In addition, these "deep safes" should be 0.0 regardless of what system they're made in, like wormhole space. It could open all sorts of possibilities. Rare ice belts (lightning ice anyone) with asteroids the size of small moons, "fueling stations" where players can get their cap recharged for a price, rare exploration sites like Jovians or something really bizarre. pirate staging areas, (those belt rats have to warp into the belts from somewhere, oort clouds (as someone mentioned earlier), nebula, being able to WARP from one system to another without using gates... the list goes on! CCP, you should have really given this more thought.

Edited for clarity.

PS, just read the new blog, 5.9 BILLION AU! That's INSANE! Some pilot must have worked REAL hard to get that one.

the plague
Anthraxus Defense Laboratories
Posted - 2010.04.20 04:34:00 - [836]
 

Edited by: the plague on 20/04/2010 04:41:16
Still not sure I see the sense in making space smaller.

Loko Crackhead
Posted - 2010.04.20 09:34:00 - [837]
 

Edited by: Loko Crackhead on 20/04/2010 09:43:48
Why do people believe that they should be able to find everything that is hiding in space is beyond me. Think hard enough about how big is the space and you could jam your brain.
I can understand that having people lighting grids all over the place and dropping stuff there is putting a load on the servers but erecting walls in open space is a lame way to deal with it. Maybe talking with a SF writer and inventing a "space monster" that eats unmanned stuff out of system perimeter (furthest+10AU) will be a more credible story Razz.
On a more serious note , let ppl have their deep space spots but clear unmanned things (not ships with characters in) dropped there during DT. Make a way for people to create those deep space BMs in a conventional way, expand the range of deep space scanning probes, and please make intys and dictors able to follow in warp if they have locked the target (that is a personal desire Very Happy ).

All in one: Baaad, bad CCP for trying to lock us down in space cells (non-sense), and for even thinking to destroy people hard earned assets (plain arrogance). Friends at CCP, you do know that our fun is your work, don't you. So when we stop having fun you stop having a workplace, keep that in mind and don't let the f****kos from the marketing department convince you that we are numbers in a statistical report. This could be the end of a lot of beautiful friendships Twisted Evil.

Cheers, Loko!

reons
Posted - 2010.04.26 08:46:00 - [838]
 

Hey I thought this was suppose to be realistic as possible? if the restrictions are placed? isnt that controling outcomes that are otherwise would be a natural occurance?
in real life there is no deep space restrictions! But it is a way to increase trade and interaction between players!!!


Pages: first : previous : ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [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