These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

DED Complex Changes
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ling Gong Chen
ALL THE LONELY PEOPLE
#41 - 2013-05-25 22:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ling Gong Chen
Johan Toralen wrote:


There are less sigs on Sisi because less players populate the server. The sigs also arn't exactly distributed evenly. Long stretches of nothing and then clusters of sigs in some places. I wouldn't draw any any conclussions for Tranquility from it.

It would have been damn nice tho if CCP had artificialy upped the number of sigs on Sisi so we can actualy test the things. Not waste most our time looking for them.


There is no straight evidence to prove the relationship between population and signature amounts. The wormholes are effected by players' activities but the no one ever proved that deds are also effected by population in the server. Unless this was clarified by CCP themselves I can't agree with what you said.
And I test about your cluster theory as well. In Tranq you can find many places clustered with abonomalies and other signatures but so far in SiSi I have never saw a system which would have more than 4 abnomalies or signatures after the penultimate patch released. And yes, before that patch applied the universe was clouded by signatures everywhere and I was so exciting looking for relic sites to play that mini game. Back then the mini game was still pretty difficult and bugged which can not be cracked, and there is no mini game in the data sites. Analyzers were not yet to be used.
Now I remember crystal clear. All these signature reduce things started from that patch deployed, but I guess they already made up their minds long before this. That patch was just making this official and realistic.
Ling Gong Chen
ALL THE LONELY PEOPLE
#42 - 2013-05-25 22:41:25 UTC
Solaris Ecladia wrote:

This is where you get told to adapt or die.

Welcome to EvE


Why did you make it sounds like that you are the only one who understand that?
Are we not swallowing the reality? Yes we have already swallowed it and that's the reason why we know how nasty it taste. And we still have the right to complain the chef even if we still have no choice but to swallow his "master pieces".
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-05-26 06:37:30 UTC
Roime wrote:
Maybe you'd realize that sandboxes don't have restrictions on how players can create gameplay.

Roime wrote:
ban T3s from hisec completely.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#44 - 2013-05-26 07:39:23 UTC
Derp. Like bombs, bubbles and capitals. Hisec is the tutorial area and has restrictions for the protection of new players.

.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-05-26 08:02:11 UTC
Bombs and bubbles are ban in any and all areas claimed by Gallente, Caldari, Minmatar, and Amarr form 1.0 to 0.0 areas.
So that has little to do with high sec.
Capitals are ban form high sec due to problems with concord iirc, back when a set amount of ships would spawn for concord a capital could tank it, now with concord spawning based on the DPS output of the attacking ship it would probably crash a node.

High sec is not a tutorial area, if it were there would be no hostile actions allowed, which is far from the case. Eve has no true tutorial area.

Like it or not high sec is just as much a part of the sandbox as sov is.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#46 - 2013-05-26 08:10:01 UTC
Roime wrote:
Hisec is the tutorial area

No, it's not. It's actually the place where the majority of the game happens. But of course you know this, every post of you in this thread has a strong scent of trolling.
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#47 - 2013-05-26 11:30:17 UTC
Roime you have a slightly skewed view of Eve. Hisec is not not the tutorial area. The handful systems where tutorial missions take place are. Noobs have additional protection there by no griefing rule.

And hisec isn't the only restricted area in Eve. Every area has his own restriction. I would go as far to say nullsec is the most restricted area as it's dominated by sov warfare mechanics and a wasteland in many places. It's like saying Somalia is the best place for capitalism to flourish because it's unrestricted.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#48 - 2013-05-26 11:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Nullsec is more restricted than highsec, by far.

"You can't scan down anomalies or do PI unless it's in systems X, Y and Z. Systems A-W belong to other corps in our alliance and you're not allowed to go there."

"When a CTA is issued, you'd better come if you're online or else we'll kick you from corp."

"You can't dock here because this corp or alliance doesn't like you."

In highsec, you can go anywhere you want. In nullsec, you have to contend with corp rules, alliance rules and the fact that you've got hostile entities who don't want you around at all.

All these rules. They're just so sandboxy, am I right?

Notice how you never hear about line members in nullsec doing anything emergent or amazing. It's always alliance leaders because everyone else has stupid un-sandboxy rules to follow.
Jexal Mirat
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#49 - 2013-05-26 11:50:05 UTC

There is no straight evidence to prove the relationship between population and signature amounts. The wormholes are effected by players' activities but the no one ever proved that deds are also effected by population in the server. Unless this was clarified by CCP themselves I can't agree with what you said.



Isn't that how the development indexes work? The more activity in a system, the more activity that is capable?

Like in a sov system, the longer you hold sov, the higher level of mods you can put in to your TCU. It's not population, but activity.
So in a system with a military index of 0 (like most systems on sisi are going to have) versus a heavily ratted and mined system on TQ. Of course there is going to be a direct difference in the amount of available sigs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Jexal Mirat
Riemannian Manifold Torus
#50 - 2013-05-26 12:05:46 UTC
Roime wrote:
Anabella Rella wrote:

Are you serious? Are you another of the zealot brigade that wants to nerf the living hell out of high sec in order to "encourage" people to move to low and null to be your target practice? Want to make high sec a newbie only starting place where no one can make decent money? Limit everyone to noobships and T1 frigs?


Blinded by your prejudices, bound by your narrow mind?

I want to make hisec safer and more rewarding for new players so they stay in the game long enough to understand it, and emphasize hisecs role as the tutorial area. I'd like new players to see low, null and wormholes as opportunities to experience the sandbox, complete and amazing with all it's intangible rewards, and look forward to the day when they are ready to handle it.

Hisec mechanics are necessary for creating a safe zone for new players who don't yet have any social contacts in the game. However, they also limit the gameplay options available. Operating within these limitations and chasing the rewards familiar from other, different games results in a shallow experience, I'd just like to improve the chances that everybody gets to taste the depth of this unique virtual universe.

Hisec as it is attracts players who want nothing to do with the sandbox, and the rift between this group and the core EVE playerbase is unproductive for everyone. CCP is stuck between their customers, who love their galactic sandbox and desire for more sand and others to build and destroy sandcastles with, and those who want just another generic MMO but with spaceships.

If you want to see low & nullseccers as evil zealots, I can't help you. It's up to you to open your eyes.






Yeah I get it. And every time I go back to null, I end up spending millions on jump fuel for my carriers, jumping other people to and from, only to be kicked out by the will of the null overlords. I've been to 5 different sectors. All 5 times been forced to move out by politics. I just get settled in, with the group of people that I like and can enjoy playing with, then "oh no you can't do that in our space". Or the shifting alliance politics. Or the endless war decs."
Pardon my language, but **** null.
I'm much happier not dealing with these assclowns.
I will put up my own research pos in empire, mine when I want. Not have to answer stupid cta's that get you killed in lowsec by gate guns or have you flying around endlessly looking for the guys who killed the idiot who was ratting in his carrier.
I loved big fleet actions, one of my alts is on a titan killmail. Awesome stuff.

But I actually have a better time playing on sisi where I can fly the **** I want to fly fitted the way I want to fit it. If I lose a big shiny ship in a ded complex or escalation or by attacking a hisec station for the **** of it I can.

Null is a lot less sandbox that you say it is.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#51 - 2013-05-26 16:00:40 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
In highsec, you can go anywhere you want. In nullsec, you have to contend with corp rules, alliance rules and the fact that you've got hostile entities who don't want you around at all.

All these rules. They're just so sandboxy, am I right?

Actually yes, if one kid in the sandbox builds high sand walls or enforces rules on the other kids that's sandboxy. The thing that makes a sandbox sandboxy is that there are no (or not many) rules imposed from the outside. So nullsec is definitely more sandboxy than highsec because there are less technical (i.e. outside) game mechanic restrictions.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#52 - 2013-05-26 17:14:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Rob Crowley wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
In highsec, you can go anywhere you want. In nullsec, you have to contend with corp rules, alliance rules and the fact that you've got hostile entities who don't want you around at all.

All these rules. They're just so sandboxy, am I right?

Actually yes, if one kid in the sandbox builds high sand walls or enforces rules on the other kids that's sandboxy. The thing that makes a sandbox sandboxy is that there are no (or not many) rules imposed from the outside. So nullsec is definitely more sandboxy than highsec because there are less technical (i.e. outside) game mechanic restrictions.


I suppose there are only two main "game mechanic imposed" restrictions in Empire.

You have CONCORD in highsec and you can't anchor sov-related things anywhere inside Empire space.


Other than that, player-enforced restrictions may be sandboxy by definition but they sure don't feel very sandboxy to the line member. When you build your sandcastle into a cage for other players, sure it may be sandboxy and fun for you but the only thing anyone else experiences is the cage. Cages aren't sandboxy, even if the rules that allowed them to exist are. More than one sov nullsec entity has fashioned their sandcastle into a cage, and your only options are to obey the rules of the cage or leave sov null entirely. NPC null may be an exception to this, although maybe not.

In the end, a cage is a cage. It doesn't matter if you made the bars out of iron or gold or sand or magical rainbow unicorn poo. You can say "but look how much freedom I had, being allowed to build this cage!" and it still won't make the fact of being inside that cage any less awful or any more sandboxy for the people inside it.

Cages suck. Nullsec has cages. I won't say nullsec sucks, but I will say cages suck and are not sandboxy.

I think I've repeated myself enough times in one post.
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#53 - 2013-05-26 17:28:32 UTC
Roime wrote:

You didn't read a single word, you make up stuff that was not written and you even managed to take it personally, and seem to be quite butthurt.

I didn't mention "forcing" once, I don't hate anyone playing the game differently and I don't value players by the amount they pay monthly however relevant that may seem to you.

Do yourself and look up the definition of sandbox yourself. Maybe you'd realize that sandboxes don't have restrictions on how players can create gameplay. Hisec has restrictions.

Oh and if I was judging, why the hell wouldn't I have the right? Do you think hiseccers have the right to judge suicide gankers and wardeccers- two groups that exist only because of hisec non-sandbox rules.


Butthurt? Obviously you have the vocabulary of a juvenile to match your intellect so, this will be the last reply I make to you.

I read every word of your biased screed before I replied. I simply disagreed with your prattle and explained why. You, on the other hand, haven't responded to any of my points in an intellectually honest way. You're just saying, "No U!" and spewing more crap.

You're either willfully ignorant, trolling or so extraordinarily bigoted and thus blinded by your own sense of rightness that no amount of further conversation with you will make a quantum bit of difference. Believe what you want but, understand that you are the small minority and (thank goodness) CCP doesn't share your beliefs.

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#54 - 2013-05-26 20:46:10 UTC
Ling Gong Chen wrote:
And I test about your cluster theory as well. In Tranq you can find many places clustered with abonomalies and other signatures but so far in SiSi I have never saw a system which would have more than 4 abnomalies or signatures after the penultimate patch released.


Just for your info i found a nullsec system with 4 anomalies and 27 signatures on Sisi. Something feels off tho. Not a single profession site in the last two hours. Only gas and combat sites.
WarpFr3ak
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2013-05-26 20:56:05 UTC
can some one give link to new ded ship restrictions by ccp, or it is troll?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2013-05-26 21:08:27 UTC
WarpFr3ak wrote:
can some one give link to new ded ship restrictions by ccp, or it is troll?

They never announced it, they have not acnoglaged it, provided any information on it, but on the test server it won't allow them.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#57 - 2013-05-26 22:05:39 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
WarpFr3ak wrote:
can some one give link to new ded ship restrictions by ccp, or it is troll?

They never announced it, they have not acnoglaged it, provided any information on it, but on the test server it won't allow them.


With the 4th rapidly approaching, and the release of Odyssey with it, I would hope some manner of confirmation is coming from CCP. To have this kind of a change simply appear unannounced will cause significantly more rage and gnashing of teeth than to announce it and explain why it's being done.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#58 - 2013-05-27 15:39:49 UTC
For real, CCP, trying to block t3's from ded's is going to accomplish little.

In fact, I'm mostly bothered that I'm no longer going to encounter any other t3's in those sites. They were one of the last and maybe only places in eve that people would actually spontaneously risk their shiny ship in without having some kind of backup.

It's one of the only places that actually DOES pit risk vs reward. Many explorers would risk their shiny t3 ship at the possible chance of some fat loot at the end. You won't see that ANYWHERE else in eve. In low or null, you'd be warping out of the site already to cloak up, because you KNOW there is a gang coming explicitly for you.
WarpFr3ak
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2013-05-27 16:01:31 UTC
this is lose case.
becouse only justification for this, is that gate have mass limit thrust, something like wormhole, and t3 have smaller mass then t1&t2 cruisers and battlecruisers. so...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#60 - 2013-05-27 18:42:06 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:


Butthurt? Obviously you have the vocabulary of a juvenile to match your intellect so, this will be the last reply I make to you.

I read every word of your biased screed before I replied. I simply disagreed with your prattle and explained why. You, on the other hand, haven't responded to any of my points in an intellectually honest way. You're just saying, "No U!" and spewing more crap.

You're either willfully ignorant, trolling or so extraordinarily bigoted and thus blinded by your own sense of rightness that no amount of further conversation with you will make a quantum bit of difference. Believe what you want but, understand that you are the small minority and (thank goodness) CCP doesn't share your beliefs.


Dear Annabella, you are throwing a tantrum like a butthurt kid. Sorry if my vocabulary disappoints you, it's just very fitting term for your reaction.

You didn't disagree with my post, you made up stuff that you wanted to read from it. You didn't present any arguments to be discussed. Feel free to iterate if you think I missed a relevant point in your post that was somehow connected to what I wrote.

Of course I'm in the minority, sandbox games aren't popular. Consumable, casual content is popular. CCP cares for their bottom line, and will never make EVE the game I'd want it to be. That doesn't affect my opinions.



.