open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The not-so-great-after-all 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 (11)

Author Topic

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:13:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Rainus Max on 16/04/2010 22:16:03
Quote:
Wow. 95,000 Light years! That must be some warp. Let's see, @ 10 A.U./s is 2.6M hours?!

(9,500,000,000/10)/360=2638888.889 Shocked Is my math right?!

Good to hear the positive changes to your plan! Who says you don't listen or care about us?!Wink


Yes your a tad off.

95,000 LY = 5,900,000,000 AU

5,900,000,000/10/3600/24/365.25 = 18 Years to warp that distance. (Call it about 20 years in EvE up-time)

Or 276 years in a freighter.



EDIT: CCP - if you found yourself at this bookmark and you lit a cyno in a "nearby system" would you be able to jump to it?

Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:21:00 - [32]
 

Pouring out a cold one for my GARPA homies.

Hellvin
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:23:00 - [33]
 

Well, the decision not to arbitrarily delete ships is the only change/improvement I see. I still don't see a solution to grid load fail. And if items are moved closer to "unsafe" spots, then unexpected losses could occur from vultures waiting for eventual logins. But I guess there is at least some chance of escape for those pilots that return to the game, or to that character (if they read devblogs and are ready for the onslaught).

And too bad that "deep space" is essentially going away rather than becoming a legitimate part of EVE. An explanation of why that is, exactly, would be helpful for us to understand. For me it's a loss of possibility, but for some who dwell out there, it's obviously gonna still tick them off.

In any case, I'm sure glad I didn't train Astrometrics to V yet!

Makar Kravchenko
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:32:00 - [34]
 

I see what CCP did there.

FluorosulfonicAcid
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:32:00 - [35]
 

well, there goes my plans for a 10.0001 AU out TCU to screw with people :(

I bet within a few hours after the change I will be back to making my now more profitable then ever Deep safes.

Thanks this is really the best way to handle it.

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:38:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff on 16/04/2010 22:39:13


Dear CCP,

Thankyou for your newest new blog. However, I must repeat my original question - What is the point of the Deep Space Probes I trained up for? There are only a handful of systems that would require DSPs after your change. Is there some extra benefit being added to DSPs to compensate for the time wasted (now) on training up to Astrometrics V?


YT Forever
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:44:00 - [37]
 

Can someone please check my understanding of safe spots post Tyrannis in low sec or 0.0 where there are no convenient mission locations to bookmark:-
1. Warp between two celestial objects bookmarking mid warp
2. Repeat this between two different object
3. Warp between the two new book marks and bookmark mid warp
4. You get an “in-system” safe spot
But by using this method you can only make bookmarks within the plane of the planets and within a boundary out lined by the celestial objects within that system which means that 99% of each system will be totally unreachable without sitting for hours on end burning a MWD.
Or is there another way that safe spots can be made?

And if I am right then what matters if the bookmark limit is 1au or 200000au past the last celestial object – how the hell will you get there?
On a final note if all those people are out there at DSS and get moved back to the +20au border, can they then make new book marks for these locations – but no they must not – or then they will have book marks that no one else can get to – and the new players will be sad and CCP will get upset again !

ughughugh

Yazus Kor
Kotharat Logistics
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:45:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Jattzia
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.




Ahem: wygisygaingw

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:47:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Pouring out a cold one for my GARPA homies.


'Sup.

Quote:
A defect reared its ugly head right at the end of last year


At least it hasn't been around for half a year or more.

EdTeach
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:48:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: EdTeach on 16/04/2010 22:49:32
Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.

How about well within probe range but still limited?

A. 100AU from farthest celestial orbit bookmark limit. You can go farther, but NOT bookmark farther.

B. Directional Warp-to-Distance feature. Example ... click on space, right click menu to set warp bubble collapse range, warp. Non-BM ranges will not be accepted into nav comp.

This might allow much easier use of the full volume that WILL be allowed. Getting more out of the Z axis and other areas not near celestials, but still within the new limits may help the situation.



----------


Jattzia
Gallente
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:52:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Yazus Kor
Originally by: Jattzia
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.




Ahem: wygisygaingw


Hr Hrm: ghhvaerbyaerygh

Lecom
Hope and Change
INQUISITION.
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:52:00 - [42]
 

Someone help me. I seriously fail to see the point of this. Guess I'll head to my favorite system and fire up the combat scanner and make a killing.

Nova Tiempo
Posted - 2010.04.16 22:54:00 - [43]
 

Can someone poke holes in this theory?

I assume that the primary reason for removing these deep safespots is to remove a mechanic whereby a player can be effectivly "safe" and immune from detection or destruction. IE trying to ballence some fairness in.

To avoid the rats nest of problems or new exploits that will crop up with a iron clad "x AU" limit beyond which you warp into a myserious brick wall, (hang on... the jovians have stuck dyson spheres up around each star with a jumpgate?!) why not change a mechanic involved in scanning?

Anything out beyond the "x AU" limit, make easily scannable by scan probes. If theres an unpiloted mothership or whatnot lying out there, have it detectable by a deep space probe, which picks up objects not witin x AUs of a planet due to the lack of interference. Removes the safety inballence while allowing the infinate sandbox stratagies intack.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:02:00 - [44]
 

Quote:
(from the new blog):

"The move script will locate all items (physical objects including ships, cans and structures - anything you can collide with is an item) and bookmarks that are more than 20AU further from the sun than the furthest celestial. It will then move them towards the sun until they are exactly on the 20AU boundary for that system. No physical items will be deleted. No restrictions will be made on warping, module activation etc."



Well, at least this is fair. :) Thank you.

Cadde
Gallente
221st Century Warfare
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:03:00 - [45]
 

Here's an idea i just had. It might be awfully stupid and full of holes but i still want to throw it out there in-case someone picks up on it or a similar idea.
Create a new anchorable item!

Small/Medium/Large shield:

Deployment time = Instant
Duration = 3/6/9 minutes
Shield HP = 250,000/500,000/1,000,000 (250k/500k/1mil)
Resistances = None
Radius = 20/35/50 km
Target price per = 10/25/50 mil
Volume = Enough to fit inside a typical cyno trigger ship.

Note that i only use the above stats as a guideline and haven't actually done much calculations or likewise to see if they would work well.

OK, so here is how deployable shields would work.
The cyno ship would deploy a shield and then set up his cyno. The fleet cyno's in and lands inside this shield.
At this point the enemy fleet is already on it's way and would land outside this shield barrier (or further if they choose to) but to give the fleet cynoing in some time to load grid and get organized the shield will take any potential incoming fire, this so that if the grid takes extra long to load.

Here's the downsides...

Anything INSIDE the shield cannot move, target or activate any modules. Nor can they launch drones, cyno out or anything at all beyond just sit there and watch the overview.
Anything going from the outside of the shield to the inside will share the same fate, immobile and locked down.
Shields have (depending on the size of the enemy fleet) relatively low hp and can be taken out rather quickly. Once a shield is taken out the guys inside will have to wait 30 seconds before deploying a new shield (time flux reason garbage) as to not make them capable of having an endless observation post in someones system.


------

That's basically it for my explaination. If in doubt, think positive about the implementation. Problems with the idea are meant to be SOLVED, not picked on.

Carry on!

Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:06:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Cadde
Here's an idea i just had. It might be awfully stupid and full of holes but i still want to throw it out there in-case someone picks up on it or a similar idea.
Create a new anchorable item!

Small/Medium/Large shield:

Deployment time = Instant
Duration = 3/6/9 minutes
Shield HP = 250,000/500,000/1,000,000 (250k/500k/1mil)
Resistances = None
Radius = 20/35/50 km
Target price per = 10/25/50 mil
Volume = Enough to fit inside a typical cyno trigger ship.

Note that i only use the above stats as a guideline and haven't actually done much calculations or likewise to see if they would work well.

OK, so here is how deployable shields would work.
The cyno ship would deploy a shield and then set up his cyno. The fleet cyno's in and lands inside this shield.
At this point the enemy fleet is already on it's way and would land outside this shield barrier (or further if they choose to) but to give the fleet cynoing in some time to load grid and get organized the shield will take any potential incoming fire, this so that if the grid takes extra long to load.

Here's the downsides...

Anything INSIDE the shield cannot move, target or activate any modules. Nor can they launch drones, cyno out or anything at all beyond just sit there and watch the overview.
Anything going from the outside of the shield to the inside will share the same fate, immobile and locked down.
Shields have (depending on the size of the enemy fleet) relatively low hp and can be taken out rather quickly. Once a shield is taken out the guys inside will have to wait 30 seconds before deploying a new shield (time flux reason garbage) as to not make them capable of having an endless observation post in someones system.


------

That's basically it for my explaination. If in doubt, think positive about the implementation. Problems with the idea are meant to be SOLVED, not picked on.

Carry on!


Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.

Cadde
Gallente
221st Century Warfare
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:12:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Caladain Barton
Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.


1) Adjust the HP of the shield.
2) Enemy fleets capable of crushing your shield before you have a chance to load would decimate most of your fleet anyways before you have a chance to get organized.
3) Divide and conquer, use more cyno pilots. (Why insist on bringing 100 or more pilots in one basket to the same explosive situation?)

One more thing, when jumping through a gate one should be able to set AUTO DEPLOY on his shield so that even if he can't load the system. The shield will deploy the moment his ship enters system.

Caladain Barton
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:21:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Cadde
Originally by: Caladain Barton
Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.


1) Adjust the HP of the shield.
2) Enemy fleets capable of crushing your shield before you have a chance to load would decimate most of your fleet anyways before you have a chance to get organized.
3) Divide and conquer, use more cyno pilots. (Why insist on bringing 100 or more pilots in one basket to the same explosive situation?)

One more thing, when jumping through a gate one should be able to set AUTO DEPLOY on his shield so that even if he can't load the system. The shield will deploy the moment his ship enters system.

1.) Maybe
2.) Nope. 200 man fleets killing 700 man fleets stuck at log in. This is a fail idea, as it won't actually accomplish the goal of loading system for a fleet. The reason we cyno at 1000au is to limit the amount of crap on the grid. Less things on grid, the more likely you'll load.
3.) Already do, doesn't help much.


Hellvin
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:23:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Cadde
Originally by: Caladain Barton
Small problem. If the shield can be killed..it will be..and then the fleet jumping in gets slaughtered easy.


1) Adjust the HP of the shield.
2) Enemy fleets capable of crushing your shield before you have a chance to load would decimate most of your fleet anyways before you have a chance to get organized.
3) Divide and conquer, use more cyno pilots. (Why insist on bringing 100 or more pilots in one basket to the same explosive situation?)

One more thing, when jumping through a gate one should be able to set AUTO DEPLOY on his shield so that even if he can't load the system. The shield will deploy the moment his ship enters system.


Deployable shield is a cool idea. Since its duration is time-based, its HP can be huge. Perhaps make an adjustable tradeoff of HP for minutes for strategic use.

Of course, if even considered by CCP, it would be two or three expansions away, so it wouldn't solve immediate issues.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2010.04.16 23:26:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Rokkit Kween
Edited by: Rokkit Kween on 16/04/2010 21:55:29
@ CCP Lemur: So we will still be able to warp to objects beyond the boundary (that is not a boundary apparently, not confusing the issue at all)? Yes or No?


Yes.

The two changes mentioned at the end of the blog are the only differences we're currently planning between pre-Tyrannis and post-Tyrannis in this specific regard. All other measures mentioned in the previous blog have been dropped.

Originally by: Crystal Starbreeze
I want a REASON for the 256AU deep safe probes (I used to have a reason because of stuff that is out there, now it won't be :( ).


Have you ever tried to find anyone in X-7O? Beyond that though, yes, we recognize that said probes have somewhat reduced utility after this change (although the range of situations that they were previously useful in was fairly limited already - one reason for making this change is that issues of spherical volumes quickly made finding things in deep safes exceptionally difficult/time-consuming from the off). We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.

Originally by: EdTeach
Is there a reason for the seemingly arbitrary 20AU limit? Every probe has more range than that.


As mentioned in the previous reply, the issue is less range and more volume. A 150AU radius system has an "internal volume" of ~14m cubic AU (if my math is right). The 170AU sphere you get with the 20AU extension has a volume of ~20m cubic AU. If we punched that out to 50AU, it'd be ~33m. 20AU was a number we settled on as being "about right" in terms of not making it too constricted in small systems while also not making it excessively large in big systems.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:29:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Cadde

Problems with the idea are meant to be SOLVED, not picked on.

And sometimes the best way to solve a problem with an idea is to pick on it. :P

Seriously, though, way I see it, your idea just adds complexity, and only leads to unresolvable, highly-arbitrary logic. So, in this scheme, does every jack get his own personal "ha-ha-you-can't-shoot-me" deployable shield? Or only 1 per fleet? And what exactly is a 'fleet'? One guy coming thru the cyno? 20? 2,000?

Hontou ni, CCP will just have to solve the lag. Cropping the warpable universe to 20AU from the farthest-out sun, having to fill out a form before doing a large fleet op, so they can quickly add some bandwidth and/or additional hardware, these are all stopgap measures to an underlying problem few devs dare face: that, sooner or later, EVE will have to be divided over several, separate servers. We're not there yet. But the current trend of nerfing the known universe, as it were, to 'solve' the lag, somehow really doesn't feel like a solution at all.

Facepalm
Amarr
Battlestars
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:31:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Jattzia
The blog completely ignores that DEEP SAFE SPOTS ARE THE ONLY CURRENT WORKAROUND TO LAG.

Are the DEVs too ignorant understand this? Maybe, but some reply to the lag workaround issue raised about 500 times in the last thread would have been nice.

I imagine that what's really going on is that you're *hoping* Tyrannis will magically cure lag, but aren't sure so have a lips-sealed policy at this point.

...

I think you're underestimating how many people are sick of not getting good fights in 0.0, and what affect that is going to have on their subscriptions if it isn't robustly addressed in Tyrannis.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:31:00 - [53]
 

Dear CCP, tell me: What exactly was the problem of having DSS in the first place? Unscannable ships? There was a thread on this here while ago, where someone recalled how a corpy of his found people with relative ease at distances of up to 600 AU. It was NOT impossible to scan out ships there. In any case it certainly seems as if this was something that was worrying you at CCP far more than the players because I have never seen any player complain about it, only people asking how to do it themselves.

You didn't even think about ships sitting out there, and you're the guys who write the game! Shocked

And the time that you wasted on this could have been spent on fixing rockets, improving account security, getting rid of the 100km look limit etc. You know, things that your customers (yes, us, the sheep) want? Didn't occur to you either, did it?

Inappropriate comment removed. navigator

Kanatta Jing
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:36:00 - [54]
 

I thought the Test server lag tests said it was a fleet interface and Overview Refresh rate problem...

So just drop fleet before the big fight, no wait...

Making fleet finder generate a separate fleet window and then close it's self when you join fleet and rigging the Overview to drop frames reflexively under stress until it reaches 1 refresh per 0.7 seconds sounds kinda like the answer.

Unless the overviews are querying once per ship on them. Then you could figure out a way to make them query once for all of them.

It may be a month till release but the problem isn't insurmountable.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:40:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
.... We may find additional uses for the skill in future but we don't have development bandwidth right now to make any additional changes at this time.
....
Yes, this is the time you spent on making crap like your upcoming Google Earth in space. Plus points for using buzzwords like development bandwidth when you find time to do rubbish like this but not fix bugs rockets, finally do something with WiS etc.

Glad you guys got your priorities right.

Greg DaimYo
Caldari
Biotronics Inc.
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:40:00 - [56]
 

My baselineresponse is: Good job on a remap of your plans. Let's be honest: The initial plan was not an option.

As the stats show, the number of pilots, that chose to actually park and logoff out there is relatively small (an alt of me is included in there).

The effect on TQ will be relatively minor because of the change, because there are basically two ways that DSS are used at all atm:

1.: Parkinglots for Super-Caps: Still a viable option (which is good, since they have no other place to hide).

3.: Cynobeacon for Fleetbattles: That point isn't covered yet. I can understand, that you want to shut down this "exploit", but the timing leaves a bad feeling with me. Before Dominion I've participated in Fleetbattles that were just plain awesome. Obviously the patch has broken something. Why not wait with the fix, until the actual gamebrakeing problem is solved?

Just saying.

Have a nice weekend,
Greg

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:42:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Sub Trader
what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?


0.0 peeps were anchoring sovereignty structures at deep safes, making the system sovereignty very difficult to challenge.

The nerf has nothing to do with grid lag or large fleets. The new sov features suddenly made deep safes a game-breaking issue. That's why it is so urgent to nerf DSS as soon as possible.

Why they don't just confine sov structures to the 20AU limit is a question I'd like to know the answer to. My guess is it just isn't possible with the current server code to tag an item with a maximum-distance-anchorable-from-the-sun parameter and have it actually work.

Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:45:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Is there some extra benefit being added to DSPs to compensate for the time wasted (now) on training up to Astrometrics V?



No, and there is no precedent for one to expect such compensation. SB pilots that trained Cruise Missiles did not get any compensation when SB were changed to use Torpedoes. My SB pilot does not have any BS skills, so his Cruise Missile skill was rendered totally useless to him.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:46:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Sub Trader
what is the need for removing long distance bookmnarks anyway? bored programmers?


0.0 peeps were anchoring sovereignty structures at deep safes, making the system sovereignty very difficult to challenge.

The nerf has nothing to do with grid lag or large fleets. The new sov features suddenly made deep safes a game-breaking issue. That's why it is so urgent to nerf DSS as soon as possible.

First honest and lucid answer I heard on the matter in a long while! :) +1 for upmod.

Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2010.04.16 23:47:00 - [60]
 

Rolling Eyes


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

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