Bizmarkh wrote:

You should go play WoW Indian, that game was built for people who enjoy PvE as you seem to. Oh, and jettisoning your cargo in EVE was not like destroying it. If I wanted it, I could use my directional scanner and find it at a moon, not that hard to do.

Did you even read his post? How does NOT wanting special rules equate to playing wow?

Indian,

Don't bother argueing with Reef. He doesn't care about anyone's view but his own.

Reefpirate wrote:

You almost ganked a Termis last night

Key word being 'almost'. There were several Termis that could have been ganked last night. Two of them were legitimately protected (4 or 5 combat bots vs. a solo cameleon). One Termis was mining ridiculously close to the outpost and could just zap to safety no matter how many times we caught him with his pants down. Which was several times. Termis with no pants should be dead.

It's a simple idea, really. If you want to mine with a Termis on beta islands, then there should be no way to be 100% safe (without a proper escort).

I'm glad to know your vision is myopic. I will be sure to just leave afk a termis far from the station next time so it fits your style of game play.

Kroth wrote:

Combat flag isn't until you have a hostile action initiated, locking doesn't flag you. Means you have plenty of time to delete the cargo. Already seen it happen today. sad

So the fix didn't fix the issue, it just created more code and more things to complain about.

Don't worry, the next patch will make it 'on lock'.

The next patch after that will then make it if there are any agents on your landmark list.

And the next patch after that will just remove the ability to delete...

CoyoteTheClever wrote:
Jelan wrote:

All I read was whine whine whine from the op.

You want it all your own way, I'd have preferred the target to have to fit a self destruct device or something to be able to destroy cargo

I agree the new system isn't great but it's a start

That's actually a pretty cool solution Jelan big_smile. Lots of cool things could be done with self-destruct devices.

Or .. they could make the attacker mount something ... Um, no. It actually does make more sense for the cargo hauler to take that precaution.

"I don't know why she swalloed the fly..."

Now they have us coming up with ways to fix the fix they just made...

Reefpirate wrote:

Yes. Excessive whining from this one...

Mr. River, why don't you just delete your cargo in the usually extended period of time it takes for us to get from 1000m to optimal weapon range or demob range? This should not be allowed either, IMO, but you have that opportunity.

Does the combat flag go on when you are locked?

Plenty of bots out there moving 100kps+ with 500M + lock range. Gives the pilot about 5 seconds to see you, realize you are going to catch them, and execute a delete. Last night it felt like only a second from when I saw you enter the landmark window til you have me locked, but was probably more like 4. I don't think deleting cargo this way will be an issue.

Recall I was for removing the delete ability, I just didn't think it should be ONLY during combat. Either you can or can't delete cargo. I'm disappointed they chose to fix the delete issue with a special rule.

*picture carebears humping resources off in the wilds*

I need to get out more.

Reefpirate wrote:

I abuse the safe zone mechanics a lot on the beta islands, but I still don't like them. It's the most frustrating when you go through the trouble to organize ~20 people into a squad, head out to an opposing beta island and gank nothing except arkhes for a couple of hours.

Beta islands should be more unsafe. I like the timer ideas here (either one will do).

You almost ganked a Termis last night  smile

So making the Islands less safe is going to promote more PVP?

Gremrod wrote:

So we don't have any more of the "stand offs" on teleporters. Two enemy groups sitting at a teleporter safe zone doing nothing is stupid.

The stand off will just happen on the alpha side, but I see what you're saying.

I don't see this change promoting PVP. I do see it giving any alliance that can camp the beta side of a gate complete control of that gate, and the island, and stopping random roams.

Its like you say, the alliance isn't going to keep a force at the gate now, because there's no use; the enemy will just sit on the teleporter. Remove that safety, and every gate on every island will be camped, 24/7.

L1fe3looD wrote:

the question here is:

" If you wanted to play WoW, why the F**K are you here? "

Perpetuum has better cake?

Neoxx wrote:

They woudl still be able to scout free on the alpha side, but they would have to risk being killed if they wanted to jump to beta to see what the group was doing if the protection wore off completely before they could teleport off the island again.

How do you see the gate camping by the island owner effecting access and PVP by roaming corps?

Thanks for the clarification Neoxx.

The alliance that controls the island can still leave an arkhe sitting on the gate to let incoming friendlys know the gate is clear. If it gets popped they can always send out another.

Its intersting how making the porter not safe would effect the beta Island dynamic.

First, Alliances with the resources can now gate camp and effectively control any small roaming squad. A small squad won't jump through blind (they may one time and learn thier lesson) so even 1 actual combat bot on a gate will kill the scout and warn the alliance that somone is coming.

Alliances that can't gate camp will now have more small squads roaming. The scout will raise the alert level, but unless the alliance can gather a force to start immediately for the gate, the squad will come through, kill the arhke or single combat bot on the gate, and disappear off in some unknown direction.

Personally I hate it when the enemy sits on our gate, so being able to clear it would be nice, I'm just not sure if changing that dynamic is going to be an advantage for all beta islands, or just the ones that have the ability to keep a significant force on the gate (or able to respond immediately to the intrusion).

63

(13 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

The bug Lege is talking about is from upgrading, not a new installation.

What specific issue is this trying to fix? How exactly is a safe area killing PVP?

Is it the ability to leave a scout on the gate and report movements?

Is is players porting in, seeing a gate camp, and leaving?

Campana wrote:
Arga wrote:

I do hope the devs actually read thier own forums and not just 3rd party ones like MMORPG.

If you paid attention to these forums yourself you would realise that the devs do read their own forums.

/facepalm

I was alluding to the fact that this issue was discussed by Dev's on a 3rd party site. I was being a little trolly, yeah, but I think I took the 'loss' of the argument fairly well in general.

*sigh*

Well, not what I wanted, maybe I can make a better arguement on the next item.

I do hope the devs actually read thier own forums and not just 3rd party ones like MMORPG.

finish your bacon sandwich first, then we'll talk

DEV Zoom wrote:
Cestus wrote:

what happen to a corp if the CEO does a reset ?

You can't delete a character if he has any corporation roles, so you can't do a reset either. You will have to assign the CEO role to someone else.
This might also give you an answer to the question why don't we simply allow to reset accounts just like that smile


corrected, just a little confusing

Mmmm.. bacon

It sounds like there are game issues tied to deleting a character, like what happens to a corp if you are CEO?

I don't get it? Shouldn't have to save EP to delete... doesn't it just go negative if you have all your EP assigned?

20% of precentages are made up.

That was my thought too, not worth losing the Rep and Kernal research.

So, yes you will lose EP deleting the characters, but when you do the reset you will get your starting EP (20K or EA Amount) + 1/EP per minute to the point of reset.

If this is still not clear enough ask Neoxx to explain, he's better at being mean than I am.

Edit: Grammer correction, well, technically it was a typo... you don't really care  nm

Snowstyle wrote:

Still doesn't make it speculation. Wishful thinking though? Definitely atleast a little of that. Hopefully they do implement it.

I put speculation in because its on an unoffical forum.

But I'd be willing to swap to 90% wish.

If you look at all the posts from BoyC, it looks like he is legitimately a dev. But even Zoom posts unoffical stuff here on these forums, so until its in the patch notes, its just speculation... speculation by a highly informed source though.

Hey, quit flipping me off .... smile