EVE General Discussion

What you perceive as "tears" is actually just disappointment.

The fact so many of you people actually defend the position of this being an "intended feature" is beyond moronic.

There are very few things that are documented when it comes to how mechanics are suppossed to be. The mechanic in question is clearly documented as not an exploit. So who is the moron?

*broken game mechanic

yes, i lost my ship to a *broken* game mechanic. If this is an intended mechanic, then what is the lore reason for it? is there a reason why my ship sensors are limited to 60km today and not yesterday?

Why would dropping a jetcan near the edge my my ship's sensor range suddenly increase my ship's sensor range? Why can another player slowly shrink my ship's sensor range by dropping jetcans? What does Emperess Jamyl have to say about this? Isnt the Amarrian army concerned with the ability of capsuleers to manipulate their ship's sensors with jetcans?

How can I fly into a planet and not explode? How can I ram into a station at 3km/s and not explode? Because it's a video game with certain mechanics programmed in.

Also, one person losing a ship once because he didn't check d-scan and / or wasn't aligned doesn't make a mechanic broken.

I have a feeling you're taking this a bit too seriously. You might want to take a short break and then come back after you've cooled off a bit.

I think its more of a case of Stockholm Syndrome or something.

So i play this other game, Heroes&Generals. Sometimes assholes will glitch their way into a wall, so you cant see them or shoot them, but they can see and shoot you. All their developers need to do is create a list of "non-exploits" and label this a non-exploit, and everyone should just be happy and ignore it, right?

This is awesome. Thanks OP. This thread is brilliant.

We actually have... multiple times.

none of us can speak for CCP, so anything we offer is just useless opinion.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was an unintended side effect, but one that CCP decided was ok.

But that's purely a guess and just as likely to be wrong as it is to be right. You'd need to ask CCP directly if you want something factual as to why.

As to fixing it, as indicated in my first reply on this thread, work on grids is currently underway. That work will make this issue irrelevant even though it will still be possible.

I dont think so. I think the reason there are grids in the first place is a way to deal with the fact its all on one "shard". This is the spaceships equivalent of "clipping".

See, in FPS games, you can increase client performance, and decrease server load, by limiting what you process to things that are only visible to the players. When a player is behind a wall, we dont need to bother drawing that player, or anything else behind that wall. You can also save on bandwidth by simply not sending data to the clients about whats behind that wall.

In space, there are no walls, so instead we have "grids", artificial zones that act in the same manner. Anything outside of the wall of this zone is simply not sent to the client, because its too far away to be seen.

Its understandable even, that these grids would be variable, so that it can expand to deal with an ongoing fight that is drifting off away from where it started.

This is all fine and understandable.

The problem comes when a player is deliberately abusing this mechanic to shrink a grid so they can be 50km off a station and still be invisible. Im sure CCP did not intend for me to be able to make 5 separate grids around the station so i can break lockon just by traveling a few km in one direction, and then 5km more and im back on the previous grid, able to take another volley, and then back offgrid, and back on, etc etc


If CCP honestly intended for the ability to shrink grids to 60km off a station, and create several different grids around that station as well... that seems even worse than ignoring a bug in the first place. Because now you're teling me they've deliberately created this ridiculous gameplay mechanic, and provided absolutely no explanation as to why it would function that way.
I'd say its far dumber than even fozziesov was. But at least they admit fozziesov needs some work.