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 : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (28)

Author Topic

Random27
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:39:00 - [61]
 

i can see the idea behind this, but why delete people's ships? Surely it would be just as easy to move such ships closer to the star, on a line between their location and the star, to the new 'edge' of the system? You could even notify the pilots/owner of those ships that they have been moved, and that they should then do their best to move them somewhere safer?

teji
Ars ex Discordia
Here Be Dragons
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:41:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: teji on 12/04/2010 21:44:29
Aww, I wanted to be ELITE like those who have T2 BPOs. Selling deep safes that I got for free to those who didn't subscribe to eve at the time.

Astro Glide
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:42:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: XoPhyte
Edited by: XoPhyte on 12/04/2010 21:00:10
So what happens to the Titan and SC pilots that are away from game and logged off in a deep safe (it's not like players read dev blogs on a daily basis).

Basically they used a perfectly valid method to insure safety while away from game (vacation, job loss etc.). and when they come back they are going to be in a pod due to a change by CCP? Sounds like crap to me...

Also, trying to create safespots now in a interceptor is going to be crap....

Wirrtuell
Caldari
Rennfeuer
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:43:00 - [64]
 

Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: •You will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)

Laruant
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:44:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Laruant on 12/04/2010 21:44:55
Saw this coming when it no longer worked on Sisi. Laughing

Kosa Mosapiel
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:44:00 - [66]
 

so on the one hand, space is going to be smaller. And on the other, umm nope, thats it.

oh wait, there might be some excellent tears when bitter vets resub to check out a new expansion and log in their mom alt to a pod in a station

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:45:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Wirrtuell
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: •You will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)

I draw a little diagram which I think might be what the devs had in mind.

Linky

Ga'len
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:46:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Bit heavy-handed, CCP, and taking away potential tears from those of us who like to liberate assets. From that perspective, I'd rather see the "bookmarkable" area of space be anything within deep space probe range of the furthest celestial--250 AU iirc.

Sure, go ahead and destroy non-scannable items like cans and possibly rookie ships and shuttles, but how about simply moving other kinds of ships (with or without pilots) from their deep safes to within 200 AU of the furthest celestial? That way they can be probed and killed/liberated by the opportunistic rest of us. Much more fun!

But, overall, whatever. I've never really used those deep deep safes anyway.



I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.

Yafn
Robbing You of Your Space Pixels
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:46:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Ga'len
Originally by: Mynxee
Bit heavy-handed, CCP, and taking away potential tears from those of us who like to liberate assets. From that perspective, I'd rather see the "bookmarkable" area of space be anything within deep space probe range of the furthest celestial--250 AU iirc.

Sure, go ahead and destroy non-scannable items like cans and possibly rookie ships and shuttles, but how about simply moving other kinds of ships (with or without pilots) from their deep safes to within 200 AU of the furthest celestial? That way they can be probed and killed/liberated by the opportunistic rest of us. Much more fun!

But, overall, whatever. I've never really used those deep deep safes anyway.



I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.


:effort:

Isaac Starstriker
Amarr
Frontier Venture
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:48:00 - [70]
 

Solution to "this breaks fight because of lag:"

QUIT EFFIN BLOBBING.

Solution to "I'm no longer safe!!!!"

Why should you be? Its EVE ONLINE, GO BACK TO HELLO KITTY!!!

That is all.


TechnoMag
Minmatar
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:49:00 - [71]
 

oh dear god ...my safespot at 9900 au in a2-v
spent a night warping and warping the pod 6 years ago .... dont remove it

Paknac Queltel
Baden's Army
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:50:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Wirrtuell
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: •You will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)

I draw a little diagram which I think might be what the devs had in mind.

Linky
This!!!!

Nice diagram, Mashie. I was this close to drawing it in Paint.

Vazsholik
Minmatar
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:52:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Vazsholik on 12/04/2010 21:53:07
CCP strikes again

Fix the **** before u expand it imo, or shall i say restricts it+

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:54:00 - [74]
 

Right now the deep safe cynos are the only way a bridged fleet can mitigate the gridload issues.

The discussion here should be about wheter or not any other mean to achieve this goal exists.

In my opinion, there is no other mean.
If you nerf deep safespot (and it's a good thing) you must either solve the gridlooading issue or give us an alternative not to be slaughtered while jumping in a system.

Since nobody knows when the performance issues will be fixed, only the second option is viable if you want to remove deepspace cynos.






Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:54:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Ga'len
I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.


Except for the ship types that can't dock in a hangar, for which some other reasonable solution should be found--especially since it sounds like those tend to be the massively expensive ones.

@Mashie Saldana: Great diagram. The lack of reading comprehension in this thread regarding how the walls will be closing in around us is a bit Rolling Eyes Your pic hopefully helps the "visual learners."

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:54:00 - [76]
 

Is it 1. April today or what?. NO WAIT, that was 12 days agoRolling Eyes.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:57:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Paknac Queltel
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
Originally by: Wirrtuell
Whats with this hypothetical Situation: Next Gate is 100 AU away, i drain my cap and fly 50 AU into Deepspace, between the Gates or whatever.
Devblog says: •You will no longer be able to issue a "warp to" command to any location outside this range
No "Warp to..:" from Combat Scan Probes to catch me up in 50-AU-Deepsave ?
:)

I draw a little diagram which I think might be what the devs had in mind.

Linky
This!!!!

Nice diagram, Mashie. I was this close to drawing it in Paint.

I did get that close Razz Excuse the crudity of the model, I didn't have time to paint it, or something Wink

No, I don't like the implementation either...

Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.12 21:57:00 - [78]
 

Awesome CCP. Is this like some kind of reverse-psychology?

Ga'len
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:01:00 - [79]
 

Edited by: Ga''len on 12/04/2010 22:07:17
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Ga'len
I have to agree with you. Simply destroying items that are that far out is exceedingly heavy handed. There is no reason why CCP could not simply move those items into your hangar. No reason at all.


Except for the ship types that can't dock in a hangar, for which some other reasonable solution should be found--especially since it sounds like those tend to be the massively expensive ones...


@ Mynxee, when a super capital that has been lost is petitioned and replaced under that petition, the replacement ship is placed in a hanger. Any non-dockable ship can be placed in a hanger by a GM or a game process. Back before Dominion was released, we all had titans in our hangers on the test server.

The best example I can point to of a super capital being placed in a hanger is the famous undock scene from the Clear Skies II bloopers real. You see in the beginning a Avatar class Titan being undocked from a station:

Titan undocking from a station

CCP could place these ships in hangers. I don't know the real reason why they are not doing it. The bitter side of me would say "It's the difference from providing customer service and providing 'Award Winning' customer service".

The twisted side of me wants to say, "YO! All you scrubs who have abused the game mechanics to put stuff in deep safes! Move yer junk or you loose it!"

Razz


Killa Bee
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:02:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Serj Darek
I hope you have a system to dock super caps when people take a few month break from Eve....


Or those who are fighting in Afghanistan or where ever for a few months and parked their Cap, Supercap or Titan in a deep safe.
Really good idea CCP, well tought out.

There are huge system several 100 AU in size and there are very very small ones of a few AU, this is just crap.
Get an outer ring of 50 to 100 AU or something, and make it possible to bookmark a spot in space using the Solar System Map.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:04:00 - [81]
 

LOL - I don't mind this at all. 10AU seems a bit close though... how about 20AU?

-Liang

Lirinas
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:05:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Lirinas on 12/04/2010 22:06:18
I like the change, but I agree with may folks here - the implementation could be a lot better.
  • Why destroy objects that far out? I see little reason why they can't simply be returned to the owner's hanger. Only if there is no owner anymore should they be deleted.

  • 10AU from the furthest celestial is a little small, and frankly a bit confusing to a lot of people. Some systems are very small in diameter and this would put the entire system in standard ship-scanner range. Instead use a nice, round number, say like 200 AU out? I'm not aware of many systems larger than 200AU in diameter. In addition, it would give those of us that can use Deep Space Probes more of a reason to actually use them.

  • Finally, there should be some alternative introduced for the loss of the Deep Safes. A deployable structure (that uses fuel) to reduce the signature strength of ships in it's AoE? Counter-intelligence probes that can jam all scanning in a system for a set amount of time? There's numerous possibilities that could be explored, and in fact should be - both for balance and simply for logic. With the way the scanning system works now, there's no way anything can "realistically" remain hidden, and some body or some empire would find a way around that.

Avenger1
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:07:00 - [83]
 

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.

Meno Theaetetus
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:08:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Meno Theaetetus on 12/04/2010 22:25:09
ARE YOU EXPLETIVE KIDDING ME?

I don't get it, what, exactly are you trying to fix here?

The game is damn near unplayable in anything more that a 200 man gang, go ask atlas, gc & cow. So instead of fixing the damn game you take out one of the workarounds that actually make getting into a system without being bombed to oblivion at a loading screen possible.

You then take it one step further and threaten to blow up peoples ships that are logged at deep safes.

I mean I've got to hand it to you guys, you must be pretty rich/****y/stupid to keep kicking end/middle content players in the balls repetitively and expect to continue to prosper.

Perhaps you should concentrate on fixing the game as it is, or are you not quite satisfied with how many ships blow up at the loading screen that you thought you blow some more up when there not even logged in.

edit: rage induced typos


Facepalm
Amarr
Battlestars
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:08:00 - [85]
 

LOL "Let's not only NOT fix Dominion lag, let's get rid of the only semi-reliable way to get large numbers into a system to fight each other (as we so fervently advertise is possible)."

Pasha Cracken
Caldari
The Maverick Navy
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:09:00 - [86]
 

no, just no

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:10:00 - [87]
 

Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 12/04/2010 22:10:27
Hm. "Further than 10 AU from the sun than the furthest celestial" is a bit problematic. Take the nice system of Teonusude, where one star gate (Magiko) is 93 AU from the star (horrible system, I hate it, and it's not even the biggest in EVE). Doesn't your metric mean that I can have a 103 AU deep save below the sun?

Maybe the metric needs reworking.

Also, I have a number of "deep safes" (15-16 AU from the closest celestial) from mission running. I didn't check how far they are from the sun, but is it possible that missions spawn outside of that "system boundary" you are defining there?

Edit: Sorry for the general grumpy tone in the post, I actually like the changes :-)

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:11:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Doesn't your metric mean that I can have a 103 AU deep save below the sun?


Yes.

Gil Danastre
Amarr
JAF-CO Exploration
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:21:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: TeaDaze

I did get that close Razz Excuse the crudity of the model, I didn't have time to paint it, or something Wink

No, I don't like the implementation either...


And for even a cruder representation, Here you go. Figures after I make it, I get to last page and see that 3 others beat me to the punch :P

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.12 22:23:00 - [90]
 

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.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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