151

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Martha Stuart wrote:

Thank you for proving my point with sexism.

Self-righteous presumes to be of higher moral authority. Usually this type of person likes to dictate to others, making black and white determinations of what should and should not be.

Based on multiple forums posts, I'm very comfortable accusing you of self-righteousness. Sexism? WTF are you talking about?

Crymia River rents boats this time of year.

Martha Stuart wrote:

You are a credit to your corp.

Thank You. I'm sure my corpmates do not join me in all my thoughts, and I do not represent their opinion, only my own. But I'm quite confident that the individuals who would fit into our culture would laugh at the butthurt in this thread.

Zoom, you should close this pointless thread.

152

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Martha Stuart wrote:
Arga wrote:

Perp is played world wide. Just linguistically, words don't mean the same thing, let alone phrases or idioms that are perfectly acceptable in some regions. There are also colloquailisms that are wholly accepted within some contexts.

For example, if in America I tell you to 'get your fanny moving', that's perfectly acceptable and considered a polite way of telling you to move your ***. However it's very rude in England and could probably even be a bannable offense.

There is no "LINE", at best there's a very wide grey streak.

Yes, there is a line.  Just because in certain countries it is legal to beat your wife, does that make it right or acceptable?  I know that example is taking things further than they are here, but the point still stands.  No matter if you come from a backwards *** country or not, there are things that are right and there are things that are wrong, and there are lines you just don't cross.  Racism is never right, no matter where you live.  No one should have to deal with that.

The funny thing here is that the vast majority of stuff people say in game that is considered offensive they would never say in public, because they know that it is not acceptable.  But the internet offers some people a false sense of anonymity.  So they think that they can act however they want.

I honestly don't care about the smack talk, or the name calling or whatever.  Get as vulgar as you want, and you will not offend me.  But the racism, and other stuff that some people seem to think is acceptable is not.  That needs to be moderated.

I don't care if you go with a tier system or warnings or however you do it, but it needs to be made absolutely clear that it is not wanted, accepted, or tolerated in any way shape or forum.

It has been said before by many.  DEV's  Enforce your EULA or don't but you have to be clear and consistent about it.  That is your job.

Westboro Baptist Church is accepting applications, I hear. They could use a self-righteous woman like you, Martha.

153

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

Tux wrote:

I am trying to find what options we have that the devs could implement in the next 30 days so they can launch it by the end of May.... there are lots of good ideas but if it involves implementing a LOT of new things i do not think it will be done.

Having the Devs custom craft every gamma i do not think is an option.

Understandable. But IF its a viable solution to design Zones into existing islands it could operate in tandem with the future design of new islands. And IF it is a viable option would it not be better to take the time, rather than risk a one-size-fits-all approach that has caused so many problems to date?

I'm not talking about different Mechanics per Zone, just different Shapes and Sizes. If two Zones are too close to each other effectively blocking island passage, make them smaller. If a Zone is too close to a TP, make it smaller or move it. If someone creates a big *** in a zone, reset the Zone not the Game. Customizations like that.

154

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

Tux wrote:

Zoom: Can you please spell out in detail what the Developers Goals & Intents are for gamma. Here is just an example list:

1. All gammas islands  need to be accessible to all players looking to roam them for industry or pvp needs.

2. Gamma colonies are designed to be about 2 x 2 KM in size, they are not ment to spider across the island and control all entry to the island.

Would be nice if Zoom answered this basic question about intent. Would be better if these two Concepts became Reality.

155

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

Crepitus wrote:
Tux wrote:

You cant block vicinity outright

But you can not click the window

Vicinity is a waste of space in my chat channel lineup. I would remove it if I could.

156

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

Dazamin wrote:
Rage Rex wrote:

New Zone Terraforming Concept ...etc etc etc

Not sure about all of it, but the general idea is pretty good.

I'm only Selling the general idea as a starting point. The specifics are an entirely different thing. But I do believe this could be strong basis for solving two BIG issues with old Gamma Mechanics
1.) Permits Island Accessibility for all
2.) Limits Terraforming monstrosity to fraction of Gamma, while preserving large sections of the islands original design.

I do believe that Devs want the 50% slope rule to limit ugly monolithic creations tossed sporadically around an island. I think the monoliths would not be nearly as bad if forced into designated sections of the island. In fact Creative Character should NOT be limited if they are constrained to Zones.

Added bonus is that with custom Terraforming Zones, perhaps Devs can set them up independently in the code to make balancing adjustments Zone by Zone, Island by Island. So if there are issues (e.g turrets reach TP or TP effectively blocked), rather than reset everything everywhere, they can customize the particular problem zone.

I hope you're reading this Zoom.

157

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

Every island is shaped differently with different numbers of TPs. Some are within peninsulas, others on wide open shores. If you want ONE size fits all KM requirement you will not solve the Island Accessibility Problem effectively. Some TPs, particularly peninsula TPs may still be effectively blocked.

Devs need custom constraints per island. See my post above on Zone Terraforming

Terminal Limits will not matter if you can only build bases in specific Geographic Zones customized on each island by Devs. As long as Dev ensure:
Zones not near TPs
Zones not near each other to bottleneck island passage or effectively make navigating island impossible or near impossible

Tux wrote:

A good balance will be if bases are stronger but the island is weaker.

I agree. Weaker Island, Stronger Bases (Zones).

158

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

High threshold.
Tiered warning system.
Perfect enforcement.

Otherwise the Offendee could abuse the system in retaliation. Just look at the actors in this drama. Same opponents as usual.

Account banning is so over the top I'm a little shocked it's a suggestion. If you feel account bans are a solution you should GTFO of the game. It's not yours and it never was.

Is "GTFO" offensive? Where is the line?  So much potential for abuse!

159

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

roll

160

(86 replies, posted in Q & A)

When writing your petition include precise times, names of the offenders, and  quotes of the exact language used. It's also good practice to expand upon your feelings. What emotions do these remarks elicit from you? The more detailed you describe your pain the more likely justice will be served.

And always... Be Excellent!

161

(45 replies, posted in Bugs)

Shadowmine wrote:

Wow, having to actually control the movement of your robot is gamebreaking?! Eve has made you lazy! smile

It's a broken mechanic and it's always been broken. Vets are just so used to it we don't mention anymore. But nice way to *** on the OP.

You want the Full EP pool for 2 "characters" so you can have a more diverse experience. But you think it's wrong that you need 2 "Accounts" to accomplish that goal. And you're willing to still pay for that "character"

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. But if it makes you feel better...

Xelanthol wrote:

Exactly that, doesn't necessarily have to be one-time.

It would require a bit of reworking. Perhaps that character slot could not pool EP with another.

Other then that that is exactly what I mean.

Or ... you could just purchase another account tongue

Ummmm, is your TLDR this?

... "Devs, create an option for One-Time Purchase of "Special" character slot on one account whereby EP generates independently for two character slots, but cannot be shared."

So how much do you want to pay for it?

Does this now mean you cannot spread EP to that 3rd character slot left?

165

(26 replies, posted in Testing server)

Old 100% Minus Model
So far it seems all ideas and suggestions still revolve around the concept that practically ALL of Gamma should be subject to Terraforming and Base Building MINUS certain limitations (e.g. terminal caps, minimum distance to terraform around teleports, cpu & grid constraint, etc).

Perhaps Devs should begin at an entirely new starting point.

New Zone Terraforming Concept
Others have mentioned creating designated spots on Gamma where terminals are placed. I believe this idea stems from the issues with terminal caps. But dictating an exact spot for base and terminal placement leaves little room for creativity. Expanding on this concept however, perhaps entire geographical zones can be designated on Gamma where it's essentially free-for-all base building and terraforming. These zones can be 'islands' within the island.

As long as the Island Zones are themselves large enough and spaced away from each other it should allow for Creative Design and ample Defense of the Zone, while still permitting non-resident Pirates and Hostiles to enter the Gamma Island freely and roam for miners and whatever.

Under this Concept Model only ~30% of Gamma would be terraformable, maybe less. But there needs to be plenty of room for aggressors. And even if defenders walled off every zone an aggressor need only dig far enough into one corner to place his own terminal for offense.

No terminal caps necessary. Nor are slope limitations as important. Keep both single tile and beacon terraforming. And forget the CPU/Grid limitations ...if Defender wants 1000 turrets to protect his Island Zone, so be it as long as he cannot effectively Turtle the WHOLE Gamma Island and block Teleports.

Further, Zones should still be on Peninsulas and Shorelines (for better defense) as well as smack in the middle of the island (for refuge and logistics).

If you Devs have your own Vision for what you want Gamma to look like, then design the islands how you want them and then add pockets of sand for us to shovel.

Shadowmine wrote:

But again I want a mining tower to be needed at any mineral field you mine, not just colixium.

All that being said, I vote for everything else Rage Rex says.... smile

Thanks Shadow I knew you'd come around eventually.

I don't like the whole mining tower concept. It just incentives building terminals and defenses around mining spots that could otherwise be roamed. Pirates gotta eat, too.

Zone Terraforming Concept

Gamma Terraforming does not have 100% island-wide minus some arbitrary radius limits around teleports or whatever. You Devs do not want to see your ENTIRE islands Terraformed into a *** or some other ungodly monstrosity.

So create the islands of beauty that you desire then within those islands designate areas for terraforming and base design. Some areas are larger than others. Some islands have more area designated than others.

Then don't worry about CPU and Grid constraint calculations, or terminal cap numbers etc. Those are constraints on the old 100% Terraformable island model. On the new Zone Terraform islands there will be no way to create Turtle Island unless your zones overlap coastlines and teleports.

And as long as an invading force can terraform enough into a zone to place a Terminal, well ...Game On!

Does this concept make sense to anyone?

and I swear if some STC guy looks at my name or tag and says this is politically motivated or some *** ...I'll ...uh ...RAGE!

Goffer wrote:
Cassius wrote:

Limit terraforming to within 3km of Terminal.

Most locations require you to terraform before you can set terminal on ground.

Surely there are a handful of creative exceptions that can be made to Terraforming Mechanics for this problem.

Example idea: Prior to any terraforming or putting down any terminal designate an "Anchor" spot. Once designated you can terraform that location freely as if there is an existing Terminal. Balance to avoid exploitation, like not being able to place any other terminal until this one is placed.

Generally I like the idea of 3k limit around terminal for terraforming (or some other reasonable radius). We should be able to freely roam Gamma without being locked out by OP terraforming.

Really the only thing I did not like about terraforming was that you could do it ANYWHERE on the island. Just lease that *** in so island access is always possible and leave it creative for both offense and defense.

--------------

Devs you have so much creative leeway in design of your islands. You can create zones where terraforming is possible and not possible. People can build bases or not or place 3 or 6 terminals as long as it's within the zones. Perhaps Ore and NPCs don't spawn in those zones so you have to go out.

Make it CREATIVE and ACCESSIBLE.

Good luck.

169

(71 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

That's pretty sick.

And it's clear Zoom ain't in a hurry to eliminate coordinates from Killmails.

What about gamma when it reopens? You gonna just show default island or will it include dynamic Terraforming?

Shadowmine wrote:

Ya gotta love Arga... Making well thought out and eloquent written posts on topics he has zero hands on experience with in the past 3 years. Has never seen an ewar tuning or a battle in perpetuum ever? Or at least in 3 years? But never the less, does a great job of derailing the actual topic at hand into a debate over minutia that has really nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Well done sir. I salute you. smile

Gotta hand it to Shadowine, unable to ever compose well thought out arguments he instead degenerates to Ad Hominem attacks upon those that do.

Jita wrote:

I think you could fix any and all ewar problems by increasing the effectiveness of ECCM by 30%.

-30

Good OP. Too bad you were not there for the Threadnaught.

Spark TP still OP, and should probably be removed from game completely. Game still needs rework of Highways, TP network, Contracts System, and Remote Market (& maybe Production) Mechanics. We should have an acronym for this list by now.

Perhaps even throw in TP option at the terminal for Combat Missions.

Or micro TP module. Same short distance (jump) result. Different concept without new graphics or 2/3D issue. That and list of about 10 new bots. Holding my breath.

But still change terraforming

174

(94 replies, posted in General discussion)

WHITE!?!?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Please at least give us option of choosing a color (BLACK).

And thanks for removing the repetitive icons. Layout looks good and will really shine ...in BLACK

I was surprised to find no other NPC in the training zone but Arkhes. Since people can try out mechs and skill up to max (it seemed) I think a few Orange spawns would be helpful.

I get the concern for griefing in a training zone, but I don't see how orange NPCs could be used for grief.