Jump to content


Photo

Poseidon is dead


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#26 Oli Geist

Oli Geist

Posted 13 April 2010 - 09:38 AM

When their own ex-employees are saying it's pretty stupid and there are non-exteme cases where this will burn "honest" users ...

Not putting this past the CSM - wut? Did they learn nothing from the Mothership storm? I know there's the chance of it leaking, but the CSM are supposed to be NDA'd and after Larkonisgate we know a close eye is kept on them.

Someone contracted a serious case of the dumb. I hope they get cured before it spreads.

#27 TarSky

TarSky

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:30 AM

woow .. what eve become ...
bla bla .. who the !@#% is reading this

#28 Tea

Tea

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:41 AM

If you have an eve account, support this thread (tick the support box) to register your dissatisfaction with the proposed changes...

#29 Draelor

Draelor

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:44 AM

I am fully in the belief that it's just to get people to spend the money to activate dormant accounts and move things so as they don't get deleted. In other words, it's all about forcing people to resub for a month, regardless of their ability to play and properly make use of that sub, for short term gain. Seeing that deep safe cynos are largely used to bring in things and help avoid some of the initial lag, therefore making fleet battles possible, and that CCP seems to think there IS NO LAG, it's as if they're intentionally trying to kill large cap/super cap/generally large fleet battles for the foreseeable future. After all, if there's nobody doing it, there's nobody to point out the lag or anything else they don't want mentioned about their general ineptness. CCP has now officially made FunCom (Anarchy Online, Age of Conan) look like responsible developers.
"Who the F is this knob?"

#30 Silas

Silas

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:56 AM

CCP has now officially made FunCom (Anarchy Online, Age of Conan) look like responsible developers.

Now... Sir! That may be a little harsh...

Posted Image

In wildness is the preservation of the world,

so seek the wolf in thyself


#31 Carenthor Loon

Carenthor Loon

Posted 13 April 2010 - 12:41 PM

If you have an eve account, support this thread (tick the support box) to register your dissatisfaction with the proposed changes...

I'm not sure how that forum works - any point supporting it from multiple accounts?

I suspect there will be no shortage of people supporting it anyway!
EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in
CCP Wrangler


#32 Tea

Tea

Posted 13 April 2010 - 01:10 PM


If you have an eve account, support this thread (tick the support box) to register your dissatisfaction with the proposed changes...

I'm not sure how that forum works - any point supporting it from multiple accounts?

I suspect there will be no shortage of people supporting it anyway!

I think it is probably per character not per account. If your alts feel strongly then maybe they should bump the thread in a day or so ;)

#33 Draelor

Draelor

Posted 13 April 2010 - 01:15 PM

Tea, this might prove of interest: http://www.eveonline...1300977&page=12 TLDR: It's alleged that it was mentioned at CSM, CCP decided to ignore you.
"Who the F is this knob?"

#34 Oli Geist

Oli Geist

Posted 13 April 2010 - 02:58 PM

My first ever post on the Eve-O forums is in support of the Assembly Hall thread. There isn't a facepalm big enough.

#35 Tea

Tea

Posted 13 April 2010 - 04:35 PM

Tea, this might prove of interest:

http://www.eveonline...1300977&page=12

TLDR: It's alleged that it was mentioned at CSM, CCP decided to ignore you.

Safes might have been mentioned in passing, but I would have remembered something this terrible being discussed and I don't...

#36 vissuddha

vissuddha

Posted 13 April 2010 - 05:17 PM

Hmmm After reading Cath's post about pilots not wanting to use their ships. I cannot help but think that maybe CCP was thinking "yeah it will bring back small ship warfare".

#37 Othran

Othran

Posted 13 April 2010 - 05:35 PM

Three possibilities occur immediately : 1) Were one of a cynical nature, one might conclude that this might bring a short-term boost in cashflow. Perhaps too cynical but looking at Iceland, UK and the PIIGS in the EU area perhaps not. Probably stupid but worth consideration - I don't know enough about the Icelandic economy to comment seriously; 2) The devs are making the game more newbie-friendly by nerfing the hell out of skills/etc. This is worth consideration. While PLEX is lauded as being a great idea it is rather dependent on new people taking up the game in a big way. For example I have two accounts and I no longer pay for either - haven't done for a good while. While I (personally) played the game from May 2003 to 2006 and have some prior experience, the Othran character is under 18 months old and has been in PvP since May 2009. In short its not hard to do and I'm fairly sure the RL money is coming from "younger" characters; 3) There is some sort of db issue occurring when deep safes are used. The publication of Poseidon has made this much worse. This is the most plausible as I would imagine that if a deep safe exists at 300AU then the grids between that safe and the nearest item (gate/planet/etc) would have to be created and maintained when the safe was made. I'd like to think that CCP weren't trying to create new grids "on the fly" towards deep safes but they must be doing one or the other. One thing for sure - I wouldn't trust CCP to run a "destroy all items outside celestial+10 range" script. Their QA isn't up to it. Never has been. Edit - they do it "on the fly". Mmmm I think I see the reasoning for this.
Today's word is :

MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.

#38 Tea

Tea

Posted 13 April 2010 - 06:42 PM

I don't like the idea of space walls, but I can accept that 2000AU safes are very silly. The deletion instead of returning to hangers/within range smacks of laziness (or trying to spike the number of subs when the expansion comes out due to people resubbing to move assets logged out at these safes) IMO a better solution would be to bring everything within range of a deep space probe and thus give people with astro V some buffing. Also a "legal" method for making safes could be added (say allowing you to warp in a random direction for 20-30AU off a celestial). Just enough to be off directional but not out of combat probe range. The excuse that it is unfair on newer players is utter bullshit because pretty much anything else in game is far worse to newer players :P

#39 Arkole Blake

Arkole Blake

Posted 13 April 2010 - 06:47 PM

What Tea said, pretty much exactly -Ark (evo thread supported)
Posted Image

#40 Othran

Othran

Posted 13 April 2010 - 07:10 PM

The deletion instead of returning to hangers/within range smacks of laziness


To be fair here I think that moving the assets into a random celestial+10AU area would introduce a far higher likelihood of error - plus a damn sight more petitions.

Moving assets into stations? Ummm the petition queue would last for 6 months+ just on this.

Personally I think the best idea would be to make all assets in deep safes "redeemable", just like PLEX are. You choose where you want it to appear and that's it. One time deal.

I think we're probably all looking at Dominion as the culprit (lag etc) here. I rather think not. There was a MS-SQL "upgrade" around the same time and as far as I am aware CCP still have an issue open with MS. It won't be fixed though.
Today's word is :

MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.

#41 Aether

Aether

Posted 13 April 2010 - 09:08 PM

ah well, more people fitting cloaks I suppose ...

Agony and their fucking cloaks and stabs, I tell ya.

just bemoaning that somebody might outcompete us QQ

cloaks, stabs, and unscannable T3 post-patch ftw

Anything outside this boundary will be removed during patch deployment.

CSM were not consulted about this change thus there has been no player input until now...

ah i get it now ... there's going to be invisible boundary in each system - thanks for the pic :D
Basic-2911082100 | Wolfpacks-2802091800 | Advanced -0404091800

it was only yesterday's sacrifices that made today's disappointments possible
"What is done out of lulz always takes place beyond good and evil" - Friedrich Nietzsche

#42 Pappy Stirling

Pappy Stirling

Posted 13 April 2010 - 09:18 PM

Not so much a boundary - it sounds like ships can still fly past the boundary, they just can't bookmark once inside it?
_________________________________________
"Any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with."
BASIC-1705081600 | WOLFPACKS-053120081600 | ADVANCED-061420081600 | BOMBERS-072620081600 | FLYBYS-20110212

#43 Aether

Aether

Posted 13 April 2010 - 09:41 PM

Not so much a boundary - it sounds like ships can still fly past the boundary, they just can't bookmark once inside it?

yep - an invisible boundary for bookmarking
Basic-2911082100 | Wolfpacks-2802091800 | Advanced -0404091800

it was only yesterday's sacrifices that made today's disappointments possible
"What is done out of lulz always takes place beyond good and evil" - Friedrich Nietzsche

#44 Ged Hawkins

Ged Hawkins

Posted 13 April 2010 - 10:56 PM


Not so much a boundary - it sounds like ships can still fly past the boundary, they just can't bookmark once inside it?

yep - an invisible boundary for bookmarking


With the scale of distances, it's also kind of unlikely that you'll realistically ever get to the boundary by slowboating.

For example, if you 'legally' get to a spot that's 0.1 au from "The Boundary Wall", it _sounds_ like it's close.

But, 0.1 au is 14 959 800 km, so even in a 10 km/s ship, it'll still take you 17+ days to traverse the 0.1 au.
Ged Hawkins - Ged Hawkins (AGONY)

[link=http://www.agony-unleashed.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?106169]Basic - 170120091500[/link] | [link=http://www.agony-unleashed.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?113601]Wolfpacks - 2802091800[/link] | [link=http://www.agony-unleashed.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?116729]Advanced - 0404091800[/link]

#45 Lord Gabriell (Acobar)

Lord Gabriell (Acobar)

Posted 14 April 2010 - 03:43 AM



Not so much a boundary - it sounds like ships can still fly past the boundary, they just can't bookmark once inside it?

yep - an invisible boundary for bookmarking


With the scale of distances, it's also kind of unlikely that you'll realistically ever get to the boundary by slowboating.

For example, if you 'legally' get to a spot that's 0.1 au from "The Boundary Wall", it _sounds_ like it's close.

But, 0.1 au is 14 959 800 km, so even in a 10 km/s ship, it'll still take you 17+ days to traverse the 0.1 au.


Hopefully they have a sign or something :)
Posted Image

#46 killa_bee

killa_bee

Posted 14 April 2010 - 08:44 AM

YAY :D


[blockquote]CCP Lemur
Posted - 2010.04.14 08:48:00 - [585] - QuoteReport
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've altered our plan addressing various concerns that you all voiced here in a reasonable manner. There will be a follow-up blog later today or tomorrow. [/blockquote]
http://www.eveonline...977&page=20#585
Posted Image

#47 Tea

Tea

Posted 14 April 2010 - 08:58 AM

I think we're probably all looking at Dominion as the culprit (lag etc) here. I rather think not. There was a MS-SQL "upgrade" around the same time and as far as I am aware CCP still have an issue open with MS. It won't be fixed though.

We were given a presentation about the "lag" at the summit, the TL:DR is *here*.

Specifically
* Dominion memory issue was fixed
* Database starvation issue was fixed
* Grid loading fix in sight

There was more but as it hasn't been published it is still under NDA, sorry :(

#48 Draelor

Draelor

Posted 14 April 2010 - 09:28 AM

"Was fixed" as in, already fixed live, or "was fixed" as in on Sisi for future deployment?
"Who the F is this knob?"

#49 Othran

Othran

Posted 14 April 2010 - 04:07 PM

I think we're probably all looking at Dominion as the culprit (lag etc) here. I rather think not. There was a MS-SQL "upgrade" around the same time and as far as I am aware CCP still have an issue open with MS. It won't be fixed though.

We were given a presentation about the "lag" at the summit, the TL:DR is *here*.

Specifically
* Dominion memory issue was fixed
* Database starvation issue was fixed
* Grid loading fix in sight

There was more but as it hasn't been published it is still under NDA, sorry :(


Thanks Tea.

I believe they have the same issue open with MS as a client of mine - someone I once referred to as the "Evil Empire" on vent when we were chatting about ISPs/routers/etc (if you remember that). Sadly that's NDA too but it doesn't appear to be progressing - not that I can tell anyway, but its peripheral to what I'm doing.

Back to making "legal" deeps again - I'm not convinced going vertical on the star is wise though. I'm using FW plex gates that spawn to give me unpredictable angles. Low-sec is probably OK for these "legal" deeps due to clutter and traffic but I think it'll be a different matter for a decent covops pilot in quiet systems. Put it this way - I've stocked up on Sisters deep-space probes and PvP will have to take a back seat until I work out how fast I can scan down Othran at a "legal" safe. I don't think it'll take very long, even allowing for the "I know where he is factor"

I need this nonsense like a hole in the head ~:(
Today's word is :

MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.

#50 Tea

Tea

Posted 14 April 2010 - 05:31 PM

Sov 0.0 space will be boned, NPC 0.0 and lowsec have missions available for off axis. I think the time has come to let people warp to probes so they can make safes anywhere in system...