I am surprised to see this feature disabled without any forewarning, not that being notified of the test ahead of time would have really made a difference. Killrights have been a big part of how I play the game; I will miss them while they are disabled over the next 30 days. CCP may not be able to (or it may be more trouble then it is worth) but it only seems fair to pause killrights or add 30 days to existing killrights to compensate for the time it is disabled.
This was explained as an attempt to help identify optimization opportunities for the eve client, not to fix or remove a broken game mechanic. I look forward to providing feedback on how to improve the system should CCP solicit it (It is fun but not a perfect mechanic).
I seem to remember the same thing, hence mainly aiming that comment at the crippling lag in large low sec fights; however knowing ccp I wouldn’t be surprised if they just disabled half the system and the server still makes ghost calls for sec rating but just doesn’t check them against anything or perform extra calculations. You’re probably right though, just always springs to mind when crimewatch related issues are mentioned.
Blackout died because Null-Sec folks dropped subscriptions and their large alliances are better organized to lobby CCP to change things they don’t like.
People should not draw comparisons between any implied similarities between HighSec players who complain about being ganked and the Nullsec folk who quit over blackout. Not the same thing at all.
Scamming will always by active, but somehow the killing rights were at least reducing some of the ganking in HS. As you see in the posts, a lot of feedback is about the kill rights and the HS ganking.
This should have been disabled when another solution was in place.
The worst TiDi I experienced was in X47 in 2018. I think I dropped out of fight after 12h - 14h, because I had to go to work. Had some other TiDi experiences, but that was the worst. I agree with trying to fix the problem for big fleet engagements, but not by removing a protection for HS without giving something in return.
Turning off bounties was the priority. This is, after all, a test. I don’t think they’re going to commit the resources to a permanent solution unless they know for sure it needs to be done.
Full stop. There won’t be any other solution, just say good bye. Or do you honestly think they have the guts to set to old tidi because of that? Only if the test miserably fails.
The large alliances didn’t ‘lobby’ anything. CCP saw what the numbers were, and changed course. Look at the Q4 earnings statement from PA, you’ll see plenty of reason we didn’t have to lobby a damned thing.
But—more importantly—the statement wasn’t about saying highsec players are just like nullsec players. They statement was about the fact that CCP’s coded systems should not actively impair other peoples’ gameplay.
Yeah I have swept battle sites before, so you get exact return to build everything that was lost, eh? You must be better at janitorial services than I am, good for you.
The question has always been whether the bounty system does have an appreciable impact on these big fights. Players seem to think it does, but the data isn’t conclusive. This will be the first time they’ll be able to see what happens with the bounty system off in a big fight. Once we get a few of those big fights worth of data, they’ll be able to come to a final conclusion.
Not at all. I love it when I get TIDI in lowsec on account of some massive fight Null - my gameplay is in no way impaired - just like (clearly) the high folk enjoy losing their kill-right system to make those fights work more efficiently.
I’m pretty sure you’re full of crap because cleaning up after a wreck primarily gives you Salvage, which is only useful for rigs. So unless you’ve figured out a way to build ships out of nothing but Rigs and salvage, you’re just pulling junk out your ass.
Modules, Ammo and Drones are always stripped from the wreckages. The only thing you’re left with are cap booster charges and salvage (if that).
This is a “Machiavelli” answer. The purpose doesn’t justify the means…
You just say that you don’t care about HS if this improves just a little bit the TiDi in NS.
I was in INIT. on and off for years. I expected just a little bit more from the person supported by INIT for CSM knowing how Sis is, and the old guys from STK.
The purpose was to test whether turning off bounties would relieve server resources during massive scale TiDi fights.
The means is literally turning off bounties to see the effect on server resources.
How else are you going to test it out? Wait for nullsec to declare a war, convo the FCs and ask them “hey, we’re gonna test something out, mind delaying this massive escalation until after downtime while we turn off bounties?”