EVE Search - When 0 km Autopilot ???

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

When 0 km Autopilot ???

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page

Author	Topic
Re'taka Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2008.08.09 18:18:00 - [241] Thing is this wouldn't help you avoid gate camps, as any good gate camp will cover both sides anyway, so all the whining people that say, we can't stop people in gate camps if they auto warp to 0, well guess what, you couldn't stop them if they sat at the pc either so I don't see the issue there. What is an issue, is a freighter pilot, or even an itty5 APing from jita to rens with a boat load of high value goods to sell, without ever having to "play" the game, load up in jita, undock, auto, dock, sell, fast easy isk. thats the unbalanced part. and why it should always be no, you want WTZ cheat and hope you don't get caught, or do what the rest of us do, sit at the PC and warp yourself. On a side note for you indy pilots, one of the devs, I don't remember which said you could jam the shortcut key on your keyboard to run an AB or MWD, it will auto start the mod every time you load a system.
Hesod Adee Militants of Xen	Posted - 2008.08.09 23:00:00 - [242] Originally by: soldieroffortune 258 the roleplaying reason could be that since your computer is Ap'ing your ship, it has safety protocols in place, and if you warped to 0m, you might hit the gate and die, so they drop you 15km from the gate to prevent collisions Sounds like a horrible safety system when a pilot can just override it under manual flight. Especially since manual controls would be less accurate than automatic, and if we are thinking about roleplay, the pilot can not go AFK. Lets do some math here. An AU is 149,597,870,691 ¦ 30 metres (source). Lets call that 150,000,000km to make calculations easier, since it won't have a significant effect on the outcome. Lets take a 3AU/s ship. So 450million km/s. Both the AP and manual flight accelerate and decelerate at the same rate, so to come out of warp 15km from the gate means it must start slowing down 15km ahead of where the manual flight player starts slowing down if they both reached full speed. So how many seconds is that ? 15/450,000,000 = 3.33... * 10^-8. Or 0.000,000,033,333,... You can do the math for other ship speeds. Now go take a stopwatch that measures to the 1/100th of a second. Reset it to 0, start the timer, then get it to stop at exactly 30 seconds. Every time you stop the timer, reset the stopwatch. For those of you who still think that humans can have faster reactions than computers (which can measure the small fractions of time), I want you to get it stopping at exactly 30 seconds at least 10 times in a row. Then tell me how long you had to spend practising. And we are only talking about an interval of 110^-2 here. It is trivial to write a program that can do it every single time. Quote:* HELL NO, if people could warp to 0, everyone would be AP'ing everywhere pretty much without fear of hitting a normal gate camp, would make the game WAAAY to easy as said already, if you want the benefit of getting through a gate camp alive, do it manually Lets look at the types of camp you may encounter: - Those you can warp away from without even caring how far you need to turn. No challenge here. - Those you have to pick your warp destination carefully, otherwise they scram you. Oh dear, the WTZ AP decloaked you before you even got a chance to figure out which direction was safe. Unless you get lucky and warp in a safe direction, the AP will get you killed here even if you are at the computer. It might save the pod though. - Those you need to use your modules (MWD, ECM, weapons, etc) correctly to escape from. AP doesn't use them and instead just tries to warp without even turning on the hardeners. When that fails, you die. - Those you can't escape from. The AP gets you killed without even trying to take one of them down with you. But if your on manual flight, you could take one down, or they could offer a ransom. So tell me, what exactly makes the AP get you through camps safer than manual WTZ ? Turning a full 180 is slower than going in the direction your facing. This can be the difference between being locked and scrambled, or getting out safely.
Xzar Fyrarr Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.08.10 04:08:00 - [243] Originally by: Tom Deal Is this the time of space travel traveling? Cloning? Brain augmentation? Why autopilots still warping within 15 kms? Is 0 km Autopilot technology arriving soon or what? Something does not fit TD ' No just no. You want to autopolit quickly you do it yourself. You don't want to do it yourself you get in a travel fitted ship and/or a shuttle and autopilot warp2 15km of gate
Tiberius Corvinus	Posted - 2008.08.10 10:51:00 - [244] Couple of simple suggestions: (1) Allow AP WTZ for shuttles. This gives them more of a reason to exist. They can't mount anything so no other changes would be required. And Hesod pretty much covered the issues with gatecamps. Originally by: Hesod Adee Lets look at the types of camp you may encounter: - Those you can warp away from without even caring how far you need to turn. No challenge here. - Those you have to pick your warp destination carefully*, otherwise they scram you. Oh dear, the WTZ AP decloaked you before you even got a chance to figure out which direction was safe. Unless you get lucky and warp in a safe direction, the AP will get you killed here even if you are at the computer. It might save the pod though. - Those you need to use your modules (MWD, ECM, weapons, etc) correctly to escape from. AP doesn't use them and instead just tries to warp without even turning on the hardeners. When that fails, you die. - Those you can't escape from. The AP gets you killed without even trying to take one of them down with you. But if your on manual flight, you could take one down, or they could offer a ransom. So tell me, what exactly makes the AP get you through camps safer than manual WTZ ? (2) Make the AP WT value a function of the security status. For example just use the security status as a percentage of 15km, so in 0.0 15km is as close as you get, 7.5km in a 0.5, 1.5km in a 0.9, and WTZ in a 1.0. For RP purposes you can say that the gate does beaconing and in safer areas the signal is stronger or less prone to interference or whatever. Then if you are concerned about AP WTZ making trade to easy, the only way it would be effective is if you set AP to 'safe' systems where you will get routes that are 15-20 jumps or more instead of 5. (3) Lastly, tack on some more 'orientation time' at the beginning or end of the AP function if you really think that getting through gatecamps faster in high-sec space is oh-so-terribly bad. There, now newbies are safe, shuttles are more useful, and gatecamping still works. What's wrong with this idea (and if you are thinking of responding with 'no' or 'do it manually' or any other knee-jerk response which doesn't require you to think and post a complete, cogent thought clearly stating WHY this is harmful to gameply, then don't bother)?
Wendat Huron Stellar Solutions	Posted - 2008.08.10 15:49:00 - [245] So you're proposing shuttles being the new noob alt recon ship to zip past camps getting their make without giving them the satisfaction of nuking you? These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade!
Hesod Adee Militants of Xen	Posted - 2008.08.10 20:02:00 - [246] Originally by: Tiberius Corvinus Couple of simple suggestions: (1) Allow AP WTZ for shuttles. This gives them more of a reason to exist. They can't mount anything so no other changes would be required. Interesting idea. But people who want to travel long distances with other ships (such as cargo haulers) still have to chose between getting their slowly, or being really bored. Quote: And Hesod pretty much covered the issues with gatecamps. (2) Make the AP WT value a function of the security status. For example just use the security status as a percentage of 15km, so in 0.0 15km is as close as you get, 7.5km in a 0.5, 1.5km in a 0.9, and WTZ in a 1.0. For RP purposes you can say that the gate does beaconing and in safer areas the signal is stronger or less prone to interference or whatever. Then if you are concerned about AP WTZ making trade to easy, the only way it would be effective is if you set AP to 'safe' systems where you will get routes that are 15-20 jumps or more instead of 5. Still doesn't solve the problem because you are still having the AP being slower than manual flight. And roleplay reasons are never going to work because as far as roleplaying is concerned, the pilot is always at the controls. But even if roleplay allowed AFKers, you still don't explain why the human pilot can magically do better than the computer. Quote: (3) Lastly, tack on some more 'orientation time' at the beginning or end of the AP function if you really think that getting through gatecamps faster in high-sec space is oh-so-terribly bad. What do you call orientation time ? Quote: There, now newbies are safe, No safer than they are now because the AP is still very risky in low sec Quote: shuttles are more useful, and gatecamping still works. Except you agreed with me when I said that gatecamping won't be hurt by WTZ AP because the AP would screw up camps that are easily escaped by manual flight. Quote: What's wrong with this idea ? It doesn't solve any of the problems that WTZ AP attempts to solve.
Tiberius Corvinus	Posted - 2008.08.11 15:40:00 - [247] Originally by: Hesod Adee Originally by: Tiberius Corvinus Couple of simple suggestions: (1) Allow AP WTZ for shuttles. This gives them more of a reason to exist. They can't mount anything so no other changes would be required. Interesting idea. But people who want to travel long distances with other ships (such as cargo haulers) still have to chose between getting their slowly, or being really bored. I agree. But isn't that one of the complaints against AP WTZ? My goal was to provide a fast means of transit and make shuttles more useful. I wasn't trying to expound the problems with AP WTZ. You just provided another reason to not provide AP WTZ for anything other than a shuttle. Originally by: Wendat Huron So you're proposing shuttles being the new noob alt recon ship to zip past camps getting their make without giving them the satisfaction of nuking you? How is this any different than using it (or any other ship for that matter) as a 'noob alt recon ship'? If I'm using a non-aggro'd alt to recon using a shuttle, right now, I still have no weapons and no defenses and I'm a neut. I also can't do anything more than get a quick count of how many ships are there -- MAYBE what kind, but no solid tactical info since there's no scanning ability. What I'm proposing doesn't change that. Hesod has already done an excellent job of addressing WTZ -v- gatecamp issues. Quote: Quote: And Hesod pretty much covered the issues with gatecamps. (2) Make the AP WT value a function of the security status. For example just use the security status as a percentage of 15km, so in 0.0 15km is as close as you get, 7.5km in a 0.5, 1.5km in a 0.9, and WTZ in a 1.0. For RP purposes you can say that the gate does beaconing and in safer areas the signal is stronger or less prone to interference or whatever. Then if you are concerned about AP WTZ making trade to easy, the only way it would be effective is if you set AP to 'safe' systems where you will get routes that are 15-20 jumps or more instead of 5. Still doesn't solve the problem because you are still having the AP being slower than manual flight. And roleplay reasons are never going to work because as far as roleplaying is concerned, the pilot is always at the controls. But even if roleplay allowed AFKers, you still don't explain why the human pilot can magically do better than the computer. 'Slower' is a relative term. I was looking to balance the concern of making AP flight avoid all virtually all contact. This would still be faster in anything, what, 0.25 or higher? Perhaps I should have started my suggestion with "I agree with Hesod that AP WTZ should be implemented. However, if you are concerned with it being used to avoid all contact between gates because someone wouldn't have time to lock, how about this idea..." Quote: Quote: (3) Lastly, tack on some more 'orientation time' at the beginning or end of the AP function if you really think that getting through gatecamps faster in high-sec space is oh-so-terribly bad. What do you call orientation time ? There's already a delay when coming through a gate and warping to the next gate in AP. I was suggesting another method of satiating the non AP WTZ factions. On second thought, you're right. Let's not add anymore delay. Quote: Quote: There, now newbies are safe, No safer than they are now because the AP is still very risky in low sec Yes, but still safer than they were before my suggestion. 0.0-0.25 space would still result in non AP WTZ. You can change the AP settings to give a course that avoids anything below 0.3 and then you can AP WTZ to your hearts content. Quote: Quote: shuttles are more useful, and gatecamping still works. Except you agreed with me when I said that gatecamping won't be hurt by WTZ AP because the AP would screw up camps that are easily escaped by manual flight. And why is my agreeing with you bad? ;)
Tiberius Corvinus	Posted - 2008.08.11 15:41:00 - [248] Originally by: Hesod Adee Originally by: Tiberius Corvinus What's wrong with this idea ? It doesn't solve any of the problems that WTZ AP attempts to solve. Not based on the extremes of AP WTZ or not. I was attempting to pacify and provide a balance. I much prefer your idea of just providing AP WTZ everywhere, all the time, for all ships. You've already addressed all the issues with it and pretty much neuted them, but that hasn't stopped the detractors. If they think that low-sec/0.0 (actually 0.0-0.25) would not be affected by this, they are less likely to argue against. For anyone against, how about just having the AP kick in any afterburner/MWD between leaving warp and arriving at a gate? Again, I'd rather just have AP WTZ and be done with it. In the case of EVE, it's the destination and not the journey that's the fun part.
Am Li Caldari Dominion Gaming	Posted - 2008.09.29 14:45:00 - [249] No instas, ruins the you play the game you actually get a bonus and just begs to ruin the traders market DOMINION GAMING, LAID BACK GAMING CLAN Recruitment Thread Homepage
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.09.29 20:00:00 - [250] Can some dev please educate this guy so we can put the topic to rest?

Msgerbs Gallente Imperial Assualt Guild Infused Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.30 03:10:00 - [251] Better idea: Don't use autopilot, or nano your ship. Problem solved. I dont want haulers being able to AFK through lowsec safely. And have the tutorial recommend NOT using the autopilot?
Hesod Adee Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.30 04:27:00 - [252] Originally by: Am Li No instas, ruins the you play the game you actually get a bonus Here is how one flys around in high sec (or low sec if you align fast enough): 1 - Warp to next stargate. 2 - Right click -> set as first waypoint 3 - Autopilot on 4 - Wait until you hear sound of you entering the next system. 5 - Repeat 1-4 until you reach your destination system. I think most people would call this the boring parts that exist between the fun parts. Quote: and just begs to ruin the traders market How ? For stuff players use we still have the same number of people making/mining them, and the same number buying them. Any problems this causes with the NPC trade goods can be fixed by changing the size of their orders. Originally by: Msgerbs Better idea: Don't use autopilot, or nano your ship. Problem solved. I dont want haulers being able to AFK through lowsec safely. Read through some of my posts in this thread then tell me exactly how a WTZ AP will make travelling through low sec safer than a WTZ manual flight. Especially my posts saying exactly why I think that a ship using AP in low sec is less safe than a ship using manual WTZ. Quote: And have the tutorial recommend NOT using the autopilot? There are two reasons for not using the autopilot: 1 - If something unexpected happens (like you jumping into a gate camp) the autopilot will break your cloak before you even get to see the camp. So even if you were at the controls, the autopilot just removed the time you would of had to decide your next move. 2 - The autopilot has to travel the 15km to the gate after leaving warp. Removing 2 will only effect camps that try to catch people warping to the gate, and I've only ever seen that outside of 0.0 once. And that one time was someone using smartbombs, meaning there was nothing I could do to save my inty even though I was using manual flight. A WTZ AP would not of saved me. But if I had been flying a ship with enough hp to survive the cycle of smartbombs, both what I use now and WTZ AP would of got me through the gate.
Hesod Adee Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.30 04:28:00 - [253] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Can some dev please educate this guy so we can put the topic to rest? If you want the devs to comment, go bring this up in the assembly hall.
chiisai sakana	Posted - 2008.09.30 11:49:00 - [254] seems that those who want the autopilot to 0km like it when things don't act like in real world when things go their way (like ammunition not hitting asteroids or other things that are in the way) but when things don't: autopilot warps to 15km, 100m CNR is really a normal raven, corp hangar emptied by ewful piwate, the lie about the cake etc. then they flock here to complain about a feature that is "working as intended"
The Vixen Gallente DataPipe Industries	Posted - 2008.09.30 11:53:00 - [255] Please god: Never Autopilot Warp to 0km.
W3370Pi4 Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.06 20:04:00 - [256] okay but only in empire in 0.0/lowsec you cant or your autopilot is disabled the highsec jump before if this can be done with the game mechanics ofcourse ******************************************** Vitreous Mercoxit ! What else ***************************************
Manos Soban	Posted - 2008.10.16 13:26:00 - [257] It's about time
Ignition SemperFi Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.10.19 19:00:00 - [258] NO.... and a big no to the empire only but not 0.0 ppl as this takes away part of the empire warfare aspect of pvp in highsec. This just allows alot of these afk corps that are wardeced to almost travel with immunity while they arent even paying attention. You want to use autopilot.... there are downfalls in the system. Live or die by them ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW"
Hesod Adee Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.10.19 23:41:00 - [259] Yet another person comparing the safety of WTZ AP with the current AP, even when most people use manual WTZ (not the current AP) in the areas he is talking about. How many times has this argument come up already ? Originally by: Ignition SemperFi NO.... and a big no to the empire only but not 0.0 ppl as this takes away part of the empire warfare aspect of pvp in highsec. This just allows alot of these afk corps that are wardeced to almost travel with immunity while they arent even paying attention. You want to use autopilot.... there are downfalls in the system. Live or die by them Pity that manual WTZ is so boring in the areas when a WTZ AP would help, even when under a war dec. Oh dear, I just jumped into a war targets gate camp in a shuttle what shall I do ? Oh wait, they have nothing that can lock me before I enter warp. So I'll just warp to wherever I was going to warp anyway. So the WTZ AP doesn't give any advantage. But the WTZ AP does have two major disadvantages over manual WTZ: 1 - If they could catch your ship, unless you do something smart, the WTZ AP will decloak you before you get to think about what action to take which could screw you over even if you were at the controls. 2 - If they are camping the end of your journey with manual WTZ you will be at the controls. But if your using WTZ AP, then you might be AFK. And if your AFK you become a target when your cloak runs out. ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues.
Ignition SemperFi Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.10.20 01:15:00 - [260] the point is you shouldnt receive the WTZ bonuses that actively controlled ships get by being afk. The main reason WTZ was even implemented was because everyone and there mother had thousands of bookmarks and it was killing the database... not to mention the lag from Bm copying and everything else. If your AFK why should WTZ help you... you still get where you are going with autopilot while by being AFK. This game is meant to be actively controlled. You want to play afk, you dont get some of the same benefits ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun. Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW"

Xzar Fyrarr Minmatar Shadow.	Posted - 2008.10.20 04:17:00 - [261] Edited by: Xzar Fyrarr on 20/10/2008 04:18:59 :S double post xD Sleepyness overtakes.
Hesod Adee Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.10.20 06:48:00 - [262] Originally by: Ignition SemperFi the point is you shouldnt receive the WTZ bonuses that actively controlled ships get by being afk. First of all, your argument was that WTZ AP would make things safer. Given that you are changing your argument, I can only assume you have conceded that point. When your in a ship that won't be caught in a camp, why is it a good thing to have to chose between repetitive clicking of buttons that only serves to keep you at the controls or taking longer to arrive ? If your in a ship that could get caught, the WTZ AP will still be more risky than manual flight. Quote: The main reason WTZ was even implemented was because everyone and there mother had thousands of bookmarks and it was killing the database... not to mention the lag from Bm copying and everything else. Another point that keeps being brought up. But CCP didn't need to bring in manual WTZ when the removed instas, they could of just forced everyone to warp to 15km. Quote: If your AFK why should WTZ help you... you still get where you are going with autopilot while by being AFK. This game is meant to be actively controlled. You want to play afk, you dont get some of the same benefits Why is having to chose between boredom or a longer travel time a good thing ? ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.20 09:45:00 - [263] No. Universe is way too small already.
Torin Corax Minmatar Dark Ashes Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2008.10.20 11:28:00 - [264] I don't like the idea of auto-pilot to zero, however I would be happy to give it my full support if the following mechanic (or similar) was implemented: Bribing the Gate Contoller 1) Upon identifying a possible APTZ pilot a player can right-click a gate and select the "Bribe" option. 2)In the dialog box that follows you enter the name of the pilot you wish to delay. 3) You receive a quote for the amount required to bribe the gate controller to place the incoming ship in a holding pattern. This quote would be based on three things, system security level, security standing of the target pilot and security standing of the would-be briber. 4)Accepting the quote will trigger a countdown, should the target warp to that gate during this countdown his/ her ship will be put in a 10 km orbit of the gate for 30 seconds before approaching and jumping. Any player caught like this would be able to disengage auto pilot and immediately resume their journey manually, either by approaching the gate and jumping, or by warping off. This could be one way to allow for faster travel in eve (a good thing imo) but without removing all the risk inherent in using autopilot. After all, if you really want to play afk then there should always be a way to make you pay
Ignition SemperFi Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.10.20 12:00:00 - [265] Originally by: Hesod Adee First of all, your argument was that WTZ AP would make things safer. Given that you are changing your argument, I can only assume you have conceded that point. When your in a ship that won't be caught in a camp, why is it a good thing to have to chose between repetitive clicking of buttons that only serves to keep you at the controls or taking longer to arrive ? If your in a ship that could get caught, the WTZ AP will still be more risky than manual flight. Another point that keeps being brought up. But CCP didn't need to bring in manual WTZ when the removed instas, they could of just forced everyone to warp to 15km. Why is having to chose between boredom or a longer travel time a good thing ? I never "conceded" on the point that WTZ AP makes things safer, it would there is no way you can argue against that. Also gate camps can work on the arrival gate as much as they can work on the outbound gate. WTZ ap takes that away. As far as your arguement that if your in a ship that wont be caught by a camp why must you click buttons repetivately... i guess your looking for the 1 click "i win button" One thing we both agree on is the travel system sucks, but it is still a neccessary part of the gameplay. And a ship with WTZ AP may be more risky than manual flight in some instances but on a whole it makes it too easy to avoid camps. You examples of a ships that wont be caught in a camp... any ship out there can be caught, its how its played but WTZ makes it harder to catch, but the reason they get that benefit is they are actually playing the game... a WTZ AP takes away from that ability. As far as WTZ AP being more risky than manual flight in a ship that could get caught... yes but no where as risky as it is with the current AP. Trying to negate that risk only furthers to dumb down the risk in this game. There is risk/reward in this game. You want the reward of traveling multiple systems without having to actually play the game, yeah there is gonna be some risk involved or extra time involved. Even to the ppl saying, "ya just in empire", it takes away from empire wars effectiveness. As far as the choose between reptitve clicking of buttons that servers to keep you at the controls or take longer to arrive... play the game ffs, stop trying to afk the whole eve experience. Either way im just going to have to agree to disagree with you. We differ in opinions and see gameplay differently. I play the game, even travel i consider playing, though a little less enjoyable than PVP is still very much apart of this game.
fightingblind	Posted - 2008.10.20 12:50:00 - [266] Maybe a skill that decreases your WTZ distance combined with ship systems (bigger slower ships have "better" pinpointing systems than smaller faster ships) freighters would automatically be able to WTZ (Thinks of the time it would take for a freighter to travel more than 1km as being insanity) level 5 of this skill would allow battleships, battlecruisers, and industrial haulers to WTZ and would have frigates and cruisers warp to like 3-5km of the gate. As for autopiloting I agree that 10-15km is a good downside for leaving your computer or doing something else
Hesod Adee Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.10.20 23:01:00 - [267] Originally by: Ignition SemperFi I never "conceded" on the point that WTZ AP makes things safer, it would there is no way you can argue against that. Also gate camps can work on the arrival gate as much as they can work on the outbound gate. WTZ ap takes that away. So how exactly does the WTZ AP make things safer than manual WTZ ? Comparing with the current autopilot isn't relevant because most people don't use it in the dangerous areas. And I don't care about the idiots that use the current autopilot in those areas, or the pathetic pirates that only prey on them. Quote: As far as your arguement that if your in a ship that wont be caught by a camp why must you click buttons repetivately... i guess your looking for the 1 click "i win button" So getting somewhere without being bored is somehow an "I win" button. Your standards for victory seem really low. Quote: One thing we both agree on is the travel system sucks, but it is still a neccessary part of the gameplay. And a ship with WTZ AP may be more risky than manual flight in some instances but on a whole it makes it too easy to avoid camps. How does decloaking before the player has a chance to size up the camp make it harder to catch him ? The best answer I have here is when the player would make the exact same steps as the autopilot. Making him equally hard to catch. So give me a scenario where the WTZ AP makes someone easier to catch than a person using manual WTZ. Quote: You examples of a ships that wont be caught in a camp... any ship out there can be caught, its how its played but WTZ makes it harder to catch, How does the WTZ AP, which does the same thing every time, make it harder to catch a ship than if it was piloted by someone who thought about his move ? Quote: but the reason they get that benefit is they are actually playing the game... a WTZ AP takes away from that ability. As far as WTZ AP being more risky than manual flight in a ship that could get caught... yes but no where as risky as it is with the current AP. Who uses the current AP in risky areas ? The only ones I hear about are people getting suicide ganked in freighters, which take so long to align that they should be very vulnerable on the outbound gate. Especially if the WTZ AP gets to the destination while the pilot is still AFK Quote: Trying to negate that risk only furthers to dumb down the risk in this game. I'm still not seeing any increased risk of WTZ AP over manual WTZ. Quote: There is risk/reward in this game. You want the reward of traveling multiple systems without having to actually play the game, yeah there is gonna be some risk involved or extra time involved. And where is this extra risk in high sec autopiloting currently when you aren't at war ? Quote: Even to the ppl saying, "ya just in empire", it takes away from empire wars effectiveness. Which idiots use the current autopilot while under a war dec ? Quote: As far as the choose between reptitve clicking of buttons that servers to keep you at the controls or take longer to arrive... play the game ffs, stop trying to afk the whole eve experience. Still waiting for an argument as to why repeating the same boring steps over and over is a good game mechanic. Quote: Either way im just going to have to agree to disagree with you. We differ in opinions and see gameplay differently. I play the game, even travel i consider playing, though a little less enjoyable than PVP is still very much apart of this game. We won't make you use the WTZ AP if you don't want to. ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues.
Hesod Adee Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.10.20 23:05:00 - [268] Edited by: Hesod Adee on 20/10/2008 23:05:12 Originally by: Torin Corax I don't like the idea of auto-pilot to zero, however I would be happy to give it my full support if the following mechanic (or similar) was implemented: Bribing the Gate Contoller 1) Upon identifying a possible APTZ pilot a player can right-click a gate and select the "Bribe" option. 2)In the dialog box that follows you enter the name of the pilot you wish to delay. 3) You receive a quote for the amount required to bribe the gate controller to place the incoming ship in a holding pattern. This quote would be based on three things, system security level, security standing of the target pilot and security standing of the would-be briber. 4)Accepting the quote will trigger a countdown, should the target warp to that gate during this countdown his/ her ship will be put in a 10 km orbit of the gate for 30 seconds before approaching and jumping. Any player caught like this would be able to disengage auto pilot and immediately resume their journey manually, either by approaching the gate and jumping, or by warping off. This could be one way to allow for faster travel in eve (a good thing imo) but without removing all the risk inherent in using autopilot. After all, if you really want to play afk then there should always be a way to make you pay And it gives pirates an advantage without requiring any skill on their part. ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues.
Torin Corax Minmatar Dark Ashes Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2008.10.21 01:04:00 - [269] Originally by: Hesod Adee And it gives pirates an advantage without requiring any skill on their part. Much like autopilot wtz gives afk pilots a huge advantage for even less skill. at least with the bribe the pirate has to part with some isk, not to mention taking a guess as to which gate the target is warping to. However a well organised squad with good scouts and a pilot on each gate would lower the margin for error, now the advantage is with the well prepared team, which is how it should be imo.
Hesod Adee Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.10.22 03:52:00 - [270] Originally by: Torin Corax Edited by: Torin Corax on 21/10/2008 01:32:24 Originally by: Hesod Adee And it gives pirates an advantage without requiring any skill on their part. Much like autopilot wtz gives afk pilots a huge advantage for even less skill. Except that manual WTZ doesn't require any skill in the first place. Quote: at least with the bribe the pirate has to part with some isk, The size of this bribe would effect this a lot. Any idea what size you want, or will you leave that up to CCP ? For instance, if it is too cheap we could easily get a group of players who sit on every gate along a major route, sending bribes for every player who looks like they are heading to the next gate. Too expensive and it won't get used. Quote: not to mention taking a guess as to which gate the target is warping to. However a well organised squad with good scouts and a pilot on each gate would lower the margin for error, now the advantage is with the well prepared team, which is how it should be imo. True for systems with several gates and stations. But in the systems with 2 or 3 gates and no stations it may be possible to just bribe both gates and hope the pilot isn't heading to a POS. Then there is the issue of how long a freighter will take to travel out to the 10km distance, turn around, then fly back. So how much time will a freighter pilot be held up at the gate ? What about if they were simply held within jumping distance of the gate ? On a roleplay note, why should this only effect people on autopilot ? Wouldn't this also give an advantage to players with longer names, because they take longer to type in ? Especially if they have non-English characters in them. (I'm not sure if we can use non-English characters or not in character names) Quote: On a more serious note, travelling long distance is something we all have to do on occasion. If you make a living as a trader/ hauler then the boredom is just the price you pay for the isk you make. True. But I'm expecting the shorter trips to reduce the profit per trip. I'm just not sure how it will effect profit per hour. Quote: Much as it would be nice to have faster It's only faster than the current autopilot. I don't speak for the others, but I'll be using a WTZ AP instead of manual flight. Meaning it won't save me any time. Quote: / safer travel Nor will it be safer for me. As I've said several times, I'm pretty sure that a WTZ AP will be less safe than manual WTZ for much of the time. And most traders stick to high sec anyway where there isn't much danger unless their cargo is too expensive for their tank. Quote: I for one think it would be just another step closer to "Dumb EvE". And I feel that a gameplay mechanic that consists of hitting the same 3 commands over and over is a dumber mechanic for Eve when all it does is keep people at their keyboards. Quote: If travelling is really that much of a pain then it is entirely possible to play eve without ever leaving a system, not much fun, but possible. Space is big. Travelling through it takes time. And for the lazy/ impatient or careless it is fatal. Working as intended as far as I can see. Given I already use manual flight to fly everywhere, I don't see my travel times being reduced. ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.