Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

weight reduction containers & equus/firebirds

Alukat123 said:
Well, i see 2 Issues with ToS atm, despite it having the best time for EU players:
1.) no summon (?)
2.) what happens when you dc and get removed from guest list during dc? Do you end up on space station where you got removed or somewhere in lootable space?
Click to expand...

1) We always summon :)
2) We never remove any passengers from guest list during flights.

Hope that helps ;)
 
Alukat123 said:
Well, i see 2 Issues with ToS atm, despite it having the best time for EU players:
1.) no summon (?)
2.) what happens when you dc and get removed from guest list during dc? Do you end up on space station where you got removed or somewhere in lootable space?
Click to expand...

when u are removed from guestlist if you are currently online u get booted from ship at whatever location it is at... If you are offline you don't get booted from ship until you next log in and then get booted at that location which could be mid space etc.

not sure what you mean by no summon. I wish owner had a "Teleport to ship" option on deed like teleport to home on tp chips since were the only ones not able to be summoned.. be a kewl feature :) ok no more derailing =p
 
Alainax said:
1) We always summon :)
2) We never remove any passengers from guest list during flights.

Hope that helps ;)
Click to expand...

Hmm gives me idea for warp EVENT! Casino Russion Roulette super discounted warps!! Super cheap but.. Russian roulette and one person on GL gets removed mid warp.. you take yur chances! haha
 
mspatterson said:
If you are offline you don't get booted from ship until you next log in and then get booted at that location which could be mid space etc.
Click to expand...

and that sucks, especially because ToS doesn't have webchat to sort out such things.
 
Starkiller said:
certainly not worth noting that since 2015 when equuses were introduced you were indeed providing VIP services to people. It's figments of peoples imaginations. :laugh:
Click to expand...
We do indeed provide ViP services, but not at rockbottom prices. We scramble the crew, and pull out the Normandie, I will be first to admit we are not in the Budget ViP market. Hence Equus are not our sector, not our issue. Overall abuse is all of our issues though.
Starkiller said:
perhaps a 6th might make you bother? statisticaly speaking eventualy you will
Click to expand...

No, the more you paste the useless crap, the more you undermine your points.

Starkiller said:
You keep calling it a bypass bug whatever, yet the only people bypassing are log out people
Click to expand...
As stated several times, moot point here - you are arguing this with those who also wish for log out to be dealt with.
Starkiller said:
only MA decides whats a bypass, bug, whatever. Not us.
Click to expand...
Agreed. As per support case mentioned in OP, MA confirmed that if this was being used as JBK described ( which you have thankfully confirmed now in this thread) that it will now be fixed. Thank you for the clarification that it was :)
 
mspatterson said:
Hmm gives me idea for warp EVENT! Casino Russion Roulette super discounted warps!! Super cheap but.. Russian roulette and one person on GL gets removed mid warp.. you take yur chances! haha
Click to expand...
:laugh:
Alukat123 said:
and that sucks, especially because ToS doesn't have webchat to sort out such things.
Click to expand...
We don't remove passengers mid flight.
We summon, and the GL remains for the entire route. I think you are trying to create a bit of side spam that doesn't exist.:scratch2:
 
Alainax said:
:laugh:

We don't remove passengers mid flight.
We summon, and the GL remains for the entire route. I think you are trying to create a bit of side spam that doesn't exist.:scratch2:
Click to expand...

actually, since efa is no longer, i'd like to find some evening alternative to the in the middle of the night kronan ^^
So if you're concerned people may not use ToS that much, because of the whole luggage thingy, i just gave you some hints what may be the bigger factors.
 
Alainax said:
We do indeed provide ViP services, but not at rockbottom prices. We scramble the crew, and pull out the Normandie, I will be first to admit we are not in the Budget ViP market. Hence Equus are not our sector, not our issue. Overall abuse is all of our issues though.


No, the more you paste the useless crap, the more you undermine your points.


As stated several times, moot point here - you are arguing this with those who also wish for log out to be dealt with.

Agreed. As per support case mentioned in OP, MA confirmed that if this was being used as JBK described ( which you have thankfully confirmed now in this thread) that it will now be fixed. Thank you for the clarification that it was :)
Click to expand...

You keep dissecting yet I am sure If Id make a resume of this whole topic, as I did 5 times, one will conclude you circle the issues with "other issues" and just dissect whatever to make statements have sense. Don't see the point, but I am sure that the devs will provide an answer (coincidentaly they replied to my ticket as soon as Ludvig posted here, so this method seems to work splendidly.

So you basicaly agree on the same thing you call crap :scratch2: confusing to say the least, maybe if you had bothered to read pages ago, the repeating could've been avoided, yet none of my posts with facts have been answered

As for the useless crap stuff: Another man's trash is another man's treasure. According to the attention this matter took and feedback I received, it wasn't useless crap. To you maybe, since it didn't interest you one bit, as proven by the uninformed replies, but to others it mattered.

It's definitly not a moot point as you liberaly use terms in order to influence people's thoughts on issues. So no, not moot, and in fact misleading to a lot of people, which is the reason I even bothered to reply initialy. If you had bothered to read any of it.
 
Ludvig|MindArk said:
I have forwarded this issue to the design team to examine.

Mature, constructive discussions and debate are healthy, and the primary reason for PCFs existence. However, personal attacks and petty arguments are not, so please refrain from those while continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate this being dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Mega said:
I'm sorry my responses are limited, you must ask the right questions.
Click to expand...
Great film!

If the dev team looks at this issue (and this thread), then the development history may play a role. The introduction of the weight-limit warp-capable ships was at a time when space development intended to have cargo missions. Crates were also introduced for a few mats that could be then not be looted in lootable pvp, possibly to protect these as part of the galactic mission. I dunno about oils, but sweat is so insanely 'heavy' in crate form, that no amount of nesting will allow an equus/firebird to transport these, I believe, nor be transported by a sane fee by the AH.
My suspicion is that not all apparently stupid things are actually done out of stupidity; some are workaround fixes for features. Thus, it may just be that anti-gravs were known about, but especially sweat should be kept restricted to whichever planet it was sweated from. I assume the original plan was to also do something with MS and privateers in the mission update, but this never came to pass.

So, devs, maybe you can find out if that was indeed a dev's thinking at the time and whether things have changed since. Should the mini-warpers be able to carry varying amounts of most materials with them if they upgrade with various amounts of anti-grav technology?

Also, I'm not keen on playing guesswork with the expression 'exploit'. Thus, I would like MA to comment publicly on the various 'questionable' gameplay that is around and is known to them. A list maybe, yes; maybe players and MA should keep a list. But as also stated, how many things would many players want to be kept quiet? And how many things is it convenient for MA to avoid answering?
 
The use of containers to me seems a lil risky as well like the currently "rental" program etc cuz all trades are final right? with the antigrav either theyre client must pass the loots to equus owner to store OR equus owner passes the boxes to client to load. Either way is great deal of trust involved and always the possibility of something happening.. one of the acct get blocked banned etc for other reasons possibly during the transfer/warp etc. It just doesn't seem like a good idea at all to me.

I should add theres a 3rd option... clients all have theyre own boxes alrdy loaded when requesting warp.. in theory equus pilot need not know of any high weight loots in the 1st place.
 
I would consider myself an outside observer on this issue.

Very rarely have I used a warp service , because i am cheap for 1 , also I enjoy the thrill of the pirate scenarios.

As far I can observe , the anti-gravity boxes fulfill the design guidelines as intended. If the boxes allow themselves to be nested , then this should not be considered and exploit.

The weight limit of the equus and firebird is set very low , and with an investment it is not an obstacle that cannot be overcome , as with every other part of this game.

Reading the forum every day as I do , I can see that John is attempting to bring attention to the unanswered support cases he has submitted. This is admirable in that he has invested considerably into the game and the medium he has helped nurture (space) , has gone mostly under developed compared to the promises given initially.

Though i disagree that the boxes should not be used in this fashion , I do see why frustrations build into these flame wars in a public way.
 
jetsina said:
Great film!

If the dev team looks at this issue (and this thread), then the development history may play a role. The introduction of the weight-limit warp-capable ships was at a time when space development intended to have cargo missions. Crates were also introduced for a few mats that could be then not be looted in lootable pvp, possibly to protect these as part of the galactic mission. I dunno about oils, but sweat is so insanely 'heavy' in crate form, that no amount of nesting will allow an equus/firebird to transport these, I believe, nor be transported by a sane fee by the AH.
My suspicion is that not all apparently stupid things are actually done out of stupidity; some are workaround fixes for features. Thus, it may just be that anti-gravs were known about, but especially sweat should be kept restricted to whichever planet it was sweated from. I assume the original plan was to also do something with MS and privateers in the mission update, but this never came to pass.

So, devs, maybe you can find out if that was indeed a dev's thinking at the time and whether things have changed since. Should the mini-warpers be able to carry varying amounts of most materials with them if they upgrade with various amounts of anti-grav technology?

Also, I'm not keen on playing guesswork with the expression 'exploit'. Thus, I would like MA to comment publicly on the various 'questionable' gameplay that is around and is known to them. A list maybe, yes; maybe players and MA should keep a list. But as also stated, how many things would many players want to be kept quiet? And how many things is it convenient for MA to avoid answering?
Click to expand...

At the time of the introduction of Equus the majority of privateers were still sitting idle at various spacestations, Neverdie had already added generic fuses to a large number of rocktropia mobs but other planet partners had not followed that aproach yet (it shouldnt have been necessary if space hunting had been developed further, but atleast it helped to bring warp costs down over time). The availability of warp drives had much improved over the previous 3 years but was still an issue to look out for.
In the case of ToS we were still carefully maintaining a balance of the number of vips we took to maintain our lvl of warp drive stock for running schedule and not risk to inflate fuse prices.

Mindarks introduction of unlimited warp capable luxury interceptors for light travelers, was addressing regular player demands of more warp availability at all times while (likely) trying to limit the passenger base for equus and maintain the cargo customer base as well as full equipped hunters for privateers/motherships.
These new ships were not impacting the generic fuse market as the number of warps they could perform was not impacting the ingame economy at all - in hindsight i am actually not sure if mindark was fully aware how much warp potential they actually were adding through the sales of those equus which were moving players without generating direct added value to the economy (through mu on loot/ores).
It seemed more like a way to raise quick money for the already announced next step of introducing the cargo missions which were to 'make up' for the loss privateeer and mothership owners would have due to the unlimited warp competition at a time when many old time privateer owners were still hanging on to their ships not investing in upgrades and watching space development which was always promised for the next year in the respective state of the universe.
The indirect consequence of introducing equus for sure was a further delay in potential si upgrades for the bigger ships, especially with the stackable goods transport logout issue not being fixed and more and more ship providers just skipping the upgrade process apart from the basics - for the large ship vip providers who didnt have the advantage of toplvl structural integrity it basically was a finance decision to run their ships on as little an investment as possible to further compete with equus which already early on were found to compete on the cargo transport segment due to the deepstacking issue of antigrav containers.

Various bugs made it possible to remain unlootable while traveling equus, for example the thorifoid helmets and predamageing tactics used by some hunters to remain at low health so getting killed by another player that player wouldnt have done the majority damage and couldnt claim the loot - while this tactic became common knowledge others remained less known and shall remain in support case only hoping they get their attention in time.

One of the more recent issues however i have voiced in public is the change from lootable to unlootable space in large areas of space while leaving warp gatepoints at their old locations practically 'placing' the majority of gatepoints in non-lootable and therefor removing any incentive to anyone for ever placing a warp mine at these locations.
These locations were developed and introduced specifically with warp mines, warp drive lvls, captain levels in mind (assumptious on my part but there would simply be no other reason to design warp the way it was done for any other reason) and to put them in unlootable space is undermining not only the whole concept of warp drives I-V, Warp mines I-V and the captain profession but also giving equus and firebird ships the safety aspect of privateers and motherships for free which has an even greater impact as long as deepstackability of antigrav containers remains a possibility in space.
 
Last edited:
John B Knight said:
At the time of the introduction of Equus the majority of privateers were still sitting idle at various spacestations, Neverdie had already added generic fuses to a large number of rocktropia mobs but other planet partners had not followed that aproach yet (it shouldnt have been necessary if space hunting had been developed further, but atleast it helped to bring warp costs down over time). The availability of warp drives had much improved over the previous 3 years but was still an issue to look out for.
In the case of ToS we were still carefully maintaining a balance of the number of vips we took to maintain our lvl of warp drive stock for running schedule and not risk to inflate fuse prices.

Mindarks introduction of unlimited warp capable luxury interceptors for light travelers, was addressing regular player demands of more warp availability at all times while (likely) trying to limit the passenger base for equus and maintain the cargo customer base as well as full equipped hunters for privateers/motherships.
These new ships were not impacting the generic fuse market as the number of warps they could perform was not impacting the ingame economy at all - in hindsight i am actually not sure if mindark was fully aware how much warp potential they actually were adding through the sales of those equus which were moving players without generating direct added value to the economy (through mu on loot/ores).
It seemed more like a way to raise quick money for the already announced next step of introducing the cargo missions which were to 'make up' for the loss privateeer and mothership owners would have due to the unlimited warp competition at a time when many old time privateer owners were still hanging on to their ships not investing in upgrades and watching space development which was always promised for the next year in the respective state of the universe.
The indirect consequence of introducing equus for sure was a further delay in potential si upgrades for the bigger ships, especially with the stackable goods transport logout issue not being fixed and more and more ship providers just skipping the upgrade process apart from the basics - for the large ship vip providers who didnt have the advantage of toplvl structural integrity it basically was a finance decision to run their ships on as little an investment as possible to further compete with equus which already early on were found to compete on the cargo transport segment due to the deepstacking issue of antigrav containers.

Various bugs made it possible to remain unlootable while traveling equus, for example the thorifoid helmets and predamageing tactics used by some hunters to remain at low health so getting killed by another player that player wouldnt have done the majority damage and couldnt claim the loot - while this tactic became common knowledge others remained less known and shall remain in support case only hoping they get their attention in time.

One of the more recent issues however i have voiced in public is the change from lootable to unlootable space in large areas of space while leaving warp gatepoints at their old locations practically 'placing' the majority of gatepoints in non-lootable and therefor removing any incentive to anyone for ever placing a warp mine at these locations.
These locations were developed and introduced specifically with warp mines, warp drive lvls, captain levels in mind (assumptious on my part but there would simply be no other reason to design warp the way it was done for any other reason) and to put them in unlootable space is undermining not only the whole concept of warp drives I-V, Warp mines I-V and the captain profession but also giving equus and firebird ships the safety aspect of privateers and motherships for free which has an even greater impact as long as deepstackability of antigrav containers remains a possibility in space.
Click to expand...

for the TLDR people, this thread was never about the boxes, as the quote above clearly shows. This is about this:

John B Knight said:
Unlimited weight transport capabilties on equus mean essentially that alot vip warp flight bussiness will be conducted utilizing equus and their affordable unlimited warp drives while privateers and motherships are not capable to compete.
Click to expand...

The boxes are just a means to an end, which quite funnily, are working as intended, yet are adressed by the same parties over and over again as bugs / exploits / abuses. But only the convenient ones, others will be "kept secret until convenient time comes".

There is so much offtopicness in this last post I cannot even reply to it without sounding like an asshole, so I won't.

The key notes I pointed out to are more than enough for people to decide what is and isnt intended. None of which you bothered to answer because you had no answer for them.
 
Starkiller said:
There is so much offtopicness in this last post I cannot even reply to it without sounding like an asshole, so I won't.
Click to expand...

The topic was already forwarded to the design team:

Ludvig|MindArk said:
I have forwarded this issue to the design team to examine.

Mature, constructive discussions and debate are healthy, and the primary reason for PCFs existence. However, personal attacks and petty arguments are not, so please refrain from those while continuing this discussion.
Click to expand...

I was adding to Jetsina's insight additional background information for everyone to understand in which context equus were developed/introduced and how deepstackability of antigrav containers changes the fundamental balancing aspect between warp transport providers as well as showing up additional dangers of 'exploitability' that come into play with various unlootability bugs/design issues.

Your welcome to constructively elaborate your positions, but i hope you will tend to Ludvigs request to keep the discussion mature and constructive.
 
I own an Equus. I remember being surprised that you could stack anti gravity boxes in such away.
I still only own 1 anti gravity box in case I need it for personal reasons.

But if they remove the ability to do this, they should also remove the ability to stack pitbulls inside of pitbulls inside of pitbulls and so on, to reduce storage space. Putting a vehicle inside another vehicle makes even less sense.

Also, they should introduce superior anti-gravity boxes that can reduce weight substantially more.
 
Geo said:
I own an Equus. I remember being surprised that you could stack anti gravity boxes in such away.
I still only own 1 anti gravity box in case I need it for personal reasons.

But if they remove the ability to do this, they should also remove the ability to stack pitbulls inside of pitbulls inside of pitbulls and so on, to reduce storage space. Putting a vehicle inside another vehicle makes even less sense.

Also, they should introduce superior anti-gravity boxes that can reduce weight substantially more.
Click to expand...

I endorse this idea. Quite sensible
 
Geo said:
I own an Equus. I remember being surprised that you could stack anti gravity boxes in such away.
I still only own 1 anti gravity box in case I need it for personal reasons.

But if they remove the ability to do this, they should also remove the ability to stack pitbulls inside of pitbulls inside of pitbulls and so on, to reduce storage space. Putting a vehicle inside another vehicle makes even less sense.

Also, they should introduce superior anti-gravity boxes that can reduce weight substantially more.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts from a fellow Equus owner.

:beerchug:
 
John B Knight said:
The topic was already forwarded to the design team:
I was adding to Jetsina's insight additional background information ...
Click to expand...

This is what I thought as well. Although putting something 'into context' may be biased, I thought it important for devs to be aware of possible thinking on this issue, also back then. I personally think it is on-topic to consider the environment something is in and not just the thing itself. So, a bit long maybe (like myself), but John's answer is the way he sees the context.

I disagree with calling stuff bugged when intended features can have unintended effects in certain situations, however. That is simply not bugged; bugged means not working as intended. Call it 'flawed' by all means, sure.
This has a knock-on effect on the term exploit. It depends on what the certain resulting situation is, I guess. I don't consider nesting to be necessarily exploiting, but it is aesthetically unpleasing to be able to nest pitbulls inside pitbulls etc, yes. But my coffee in a flast in a coolbox in my car in my garage is also nested; the antigrav is an interesting idea of whether it could actually be nested repeatedly, which is partly why I gave the example of the doubled-up coolbox.
The thorifoid feature of disabling heal-over-time, coupled with not being lootable if pre-injured enough elsewhere, is relevant as well. It's not a bug, but should be disabled by MA in lootable pvp in my opinion.

Anyway, I would like to see this resolved in the context of updated space with far more 'features' and opportunities than now. I really hope the devs finally implement some new space content and balancing.
 
jetsina said:
This is what I thought as well. Although putting something 'into context' may be biased, I thought it important for devs to be aware of possible thinking on this issue, also back then. I personally think it is on-topic to consider the environment something is in and not just the thing itself. So, a bit long maybe (like myself), but John's answer is the way he sees the context.

I disagree with calling stuff bugged when intended features can have unintended effects in certain situations, however. That is simply not bugged; bugged means not working as intended. Call it 'flawed' by all means, sure.
This has a knock-on effect on the term exploit. It depends on what the certain resulting situation is, I guess. I don't consider nesting to be necessarily exploiting, but it is aesthetically unpleasing to be able to nest pitbulls inside pitbulls etc, yes. But my coffee in a flast in a coolbox in my car in my garage is also nested; the antigrav is an interesting idea of whether it could actually be nested repeatedly, which is partly why I gave the example of the doubled-up coolbox.
The thorifoid feature of disabling heal-over-time, coupled with not being lootable if pre-injured enough elsewhere, is relevant as well. It's not a bug, but should be disabled by MA in lootable pvp in my opinion.

Anyway, I would like to see this resolved in the context of updated space with far more 'features' and opportunities than now. I really hope the devs finally implement some new space content and balancing.
Click to expand...

A very reasonable remark at the whole thing.
 
My suggestion would be that you cant put a same size box into a same size box, as in real live if the two items have the same size you cant put one into the other.

So if there are Antigrav Boxes with different size you could put a small AG-Box into a medium AG-Box into a Big AG-Box. This would lead to deep stacking of the same type of box would not work anymore and a thing which never ever would work, put a box into a box with the same size, is not working in EU either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top