Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
|
ISD Gallifreyan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
252
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 08:42:00 -
[211] - Quote
After a complaint that I locked this thread pre-maturely, I have decided to re-open it for the time being. I will look into this thread tomorrow. If nothing constructive has come of it. I will re-lock it.
The OP has stated he has posted his last coment on this already, and while open discussion is allowed, repeating the same statement over and over would fall under either of the following Forum Rules.
Quote:12. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to ********GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.
22. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. ISD Gallifreyan Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCL) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Dextrome Thorphan
RvB - RED Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 08:47:00 -
[212] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system.
Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2786
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 08:56:00 -
[213] - Quote
Dextrome Thorphan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system. Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! Get 1000 bloc members to roll trial alts and fly them to the target system. Post on the Eve-o forums that drinking bleach is bad for you on a Goonswarm Federation character, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong. |
Kinis Deren
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
220
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:13:00 -
[214] - Quote
For goodness sake, no more sticky plaster fixes please! CCP, you really need to address the elephant in the room, which (imho) is the coalition blobfest.
Throwing a suggestion into the mix:
External alliance standings become none operational in null space - everyone outside your alliance is thus displayed as neutral The bloated sheep coalitions become a thing of the past, blue JB networks collapse which limits force projection, a segment of the player population might grow some balls and the nodes are given an easy time.
Corp membership maximum numbers are already capped by skills to (6300 iirc) and no doubt some sheep will dogpile into one or more corps within an existing coalition alliance. CCP would probably have to rebalance the corp/alliance management skills to make this suggestion work. Into PVP & looking for small gang focused, NPC Null corp? Check out The Nyan Cat Pirates!
Corp CEO looking for an easy going, none sov, PVP alliance? Join Disband. today! |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
51
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:46:00 -
[215] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Well for my last post like every other post that makes a good idea about how to fix the game ( less you speak about rewriting some mystery code ) lol , It either 1. gets trolled by the players that have the most to loose Really? In what way have you been trolled? You've been asked to support your innumerable assertions with facts and evidence and arguments, and you have been asked questions about how you think your idea will work. Just because you've been utterly and completely unable to answer any of those doesn't mean you've been trolled GÇö just that you've been incompetent. Quote:Let CCP know when and where the next large battle will take place at least 1 day before so that no one person ( alliance ) ( corp ) can crash the node. No one person can crash the node as it is, and forewarning CCP of fights does not preclude a node crash.
I think he meant one person giving the order to crash the node, rather than literately one person can crash the node. personally as I have said before, you keep on insisting that eve should be on one server world, thats the problem, every other mmo work on multiple instances for a reason. One so that no one group can take up all the resources and secondly to reduce performance and lag problems.
If eve must be on one server (and i personally think now is the time to reconsider but thats my opinion) then its needs some serious investment and work.
Infrastrucuture, multi threading and rewriting and optimising old code and database functions. Thats where I would start to look at. Perhaps the technology just isnt up to it? There is no point fixing it for the now, needs to be future proof also. I would be more than happy for CCP to use the summer 2014 expansion on fixing this fully and sov mechanics. I mean it will need serious focus and attention. Eve : Phoenix Rising? Perhaps then ill go back to 0.0 |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:52:00 -
[216] - Quote
Dextrome Thorphan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system. Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! Yeah, because we can't just do this on free character slots. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
51
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 09:58:00 -
[217] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dextrome Thorphan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system. Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! Yeah, because we can't just do this on free character slots.
You have a free slot
|
Dextrome Thorphan
RvB - RED Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:00:00 -
[218] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Dextrome Thorphan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system. Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! Get 1000 bloc members to roll trial alts and fly them to the target system.
Oh damn I just got burned xD
Yes, I shamefully admit I didn't think of that :p |
Dextrome Thorphan
RvB - RED Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:02:00 -
[219] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dextrome Thorphan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system. Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! Yeah, because we can't just do this on free character slots. This doesn't make any sense though... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:18:00 -
[220] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dextrome Thorphan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Log in 1000 alts into system.
Invincible defense force, impossible to take system. Sure "just" log in 1000 alts... all you need to do is spend $15000 per month and your system is completely defended, too easy!!! Yeah, because we can't just do this on free character slots. You have a free slot Across my two accounts, three of my characters are for total fluff and one is just a cyno alt. Only two of them do I actually use in-game for more than that. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
|
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2397
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:37:00 -
[221] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:If eve must be on one server It's not. Please don't suggest patently silly things, like "CCP just needs to re-write the whole game!" when you seemingly haven't taken the few seconds it would require to look up the basics of how TQ works. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die Retribution.
51
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:42:00 -
[222] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:tiberiusric wrote:If eve must be on one server It's not. Please don't suggest patently silly things, like "CCP just needs to re-write the whole game!" when you seemingly haven't taken the few seconds it would require to look up the basics of how TQ works.
Stop being a douche, you know i didnt mean ONE server as in one box ffs. For you kids out there, one shard, one universe, one instance. Jeez i didnt think i really needed to explain that
Are you completely and utterly stupid? Did i say rewrite the whole game? no i did not.] You are the pinnacle of dumb, hence why you are in goonswarm |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6972
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 11:46:00 -
[223] - Quote
TQ isn't one server? Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Fiona Kirath
Matex Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 12:23:00 -
[224] - Quote
ISD Gallifreyan wrote:After a complaint that I locked this thread pre-maturely, I have decided to re-open it for the time being. I will look into this thread tomorrow. If nothing constructive has come of it. I will re-lock it. The OP has stated he has posted his last coment on this already, and while open discussion is allowed, repeating the same statement over and over would fall under either of the following Forum Rules. Quote:12. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to ********GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post.
22. Post constructively.
Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting. WHEN WE SEE ANY POST FROM CCP ??? HOW CAN PPL PLAY! ? |
Arduemont
The State of War.
2497
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 12:25:00 -
[225] - Quote
To break down the OP, what they are saying it "Hey CCP, I know that you and your servers can handle more players in one interactive space at the same time than any other MMO in existence, but it's not good enough. Waaahhhhh" "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:13:00 -
[226] - Quote
Well anytime an idea comes around about anything constructive to give us players a better gaming experience ( how to fix SoV ) ( ideas on how to fix player controlled crashes ) ( tidi ) . It either gets trolled into a lock or blown off by the bitter Vets of Eve who think this is the way its always been so its ok. Don't dare mess with our broken game.
But I for one know Eve players are very resourceful and can adapt pretty well ( fast ) when they need too as when a new ship comes out, a mod gets a nerf or any number of ways that we have all seen in the past. So before an ISD locks this thread like so many others b4 it. I will just say that CCP will not ever create a limit on the number of people in a system ( its too engrained into there PR ) the few people set up comfortable in Null making billions of ISK ( for the greater good of us all ) so they would have you think. They will just never do it.
But till the day comes when there are not enough subs to support such large battles that the player controlled ( crashes ) ( just need to log more ships in ) I will just wait till then and enjoy my tidi free fights and point back to this thread.
Simple solution to a very serious issue that will come up again and again. You can lock now ISD |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1224
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:15:00 -
[227] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game.
Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy.
Broken game is right, no wonder most players avoid sov like the plague. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6979
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:18:00 -
[228] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Tippia wrote:Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game. Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy. There should be a rule against making baseless accusations of EULA violations. Because that's what this is. Baseless. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1224
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:28:00 -
[229] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Sentamon wrote:Tippia wrote:Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game. Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy. There should be a rule against making baseless accusations of EULA violations. Because that's what this is. Baseless.
What EULA violation? There is nothing in the EULA banning mass recruitment and flooding a system with your people, on the contrary it's encouraged.
So no need to get all guilty and butthurt. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
6979
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 14:36:00 -
[230] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Sentamon wrote:Tippia wrote:Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game. Mass recruit and crash a node with what's essentially a DDOS when you're about to get whaloped. Some strategy. There should be a rule against making baseless accusations of EULA violations. Because that's what this is. Baseless. What EULA violation? There is nothing in the EULA banning mass recruitment and flooding a system with your people, on the contrary it's encouraged. So no need to get all guilty and butthurt. Don't pretend what you said wasn't alluding to the EULA. Crashing the node intentionally would be a EULA violation. Your operative word(s) there being DDOS. It's an accusation. Don't play dumb. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
|
Victoria Sin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
507
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:09:00 -
[231] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:In particle simulations, each particle is generally identical. And not interacting with every other particle in the simulation (what's your range to every other particle on the field or in D-scan range?). And not changing its behavior every update (Active modules, navigation inputs, etc). And not spawning more particles at random times (Missiles, Drones, Wrecks, Oh My!). And not changing its state every update (Shield, Armor, Capacitor, etc). And not worried about packaging up all that information and propagating the information appropriately (who can see what and when?). I'm judging difficulty by looking at the number of other companies doing real time multi-user simulations on the scale of EVE's fights. That I know of, that's a big old doughnut (though a new contender would make me happy). Without being hip deep in a project, I've always liked the "Who's doing it better" test as a sanity check on "Oh, that doesn't sound hard."
Not necessarily. Broaden it out to a "physics" simulation. Players are particles, they have a state and there are update rules. On a conceptual level it's really that simple. Now I personally don't know where the bottleneck is in Eve that would prevent a node handling 30,000 players in a single system. It might be assembling the pre-tick state or serialising the post-tick state, but whatever happens between those two is in principle tractable within a reasonable time bracket, especially on modern hardware and even more especially on compute hardware like Tesla.
With respect to "who's doing it better", perhaps nobody has tried to do it any other way? These software architecture designs have been around for a decade or more. Technology has moved on a lot over the last 10 years. |
Seven Koskanaiken
Sons Of Saints Circle-Of-Two
573
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:24:00 -
[232] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system. This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing? Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec. This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running. Thank you have a nice day!
New York Times won't be interested in that. |
Jean deVallette
Camp And Proud
3
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:34:00 -
[233] - Quote
Not 100% on the architecture of Eves code, but is this limit down to a single threaded process that cant be .. split .. across CPUs/ nodes in a blade chassis?
If it is single threaded then its a done deal and requires some fugging horrific reworking (bless me, but we have just done such a task in my workplace, took 4 years, and, fugg me, it is amazing to see it scale). I suspect its nothing like as complex as the eve codebase.
With that in mind, what chance that a small 24 core blade with 256G ram could run one node from hell, with 20k players across 100 threads.
Limit a node to 1k in System B? Wouldn't someone think tactically that all they need to do is encourage Blob Alliance X to fill that system, and then actually attack System C instead. Perhaps force Blob X to defend across multiple fronts ....
One thing to change the whole single node single solar system mechanic would be to change how timers work and how they relate to those single systems. Make them relate to Clusters perhaps, or ...
Oh well - time to be shot down. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1619
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:35:00 -
[234] - Quote
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system. This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing? Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec. This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running. Thank you have a nice day! New York Times won't be interested in that.
And therin lies the rub.
CCP has this truly warped idea that the NY Times and other magazines covering these mass battles is the best marketing for the game there is.
Is it free? Yes. Does it promote the game as something unique out there? Yes. And those 2 things are a marketing guy's wet dream.
But the reality is once someone experiences that 10% Tidi/node crash crap, with some whacked out FC screaming on comms, then they just as quickly stop playing.
It would be truly truly interesting to see CCP publish the retention rates of new players 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after they subbed to the game with a unique IP address (no alts).
How about CCP get creative, and maybe fraps a few FW fights of 10 on 10, or some wh fights, or even maybe RvB. Put out some high definition vid's of some small gang warfare, at real time.
That has a far better chance of attracting players who will commit long term to Eve.
But hey, I know it won't happen. Why actually think up ways to show how cool the game can be when you can have the NY Times talk about 4000 pilot blobs for free? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
144
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:39:00 -
[235] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: But the reality is once someone experiences that 10% Tidi/node crash crap, with some whacked out FC screaming on comms, then they just as quickly stop playing.
Do you have a legitimate mental illness? |
flakeys
Antwerpse Kerels Fidelas Constans
1661
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:41:00 -
[236] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Well anytime an idea comes around about anything constructive to give us players a better gaming experience ( how to fix SoV ) ( ideas on how to fix player controlled crashes ) ( tidi ) . It either gets trolled into a lock or blown off by the bitter Vets of Eve who think this is the way its always been so its ok. Don't dare mess with our broken game.
But I for one know Eve players are very resourceful and can adapt pretty well ( fast ) when they need too as when a new ship comes out, a mod gets a nerf or any number of ways that we have all seen in the past. So before an ISD locks this thread like so many others b4 it. I will just say that CCP will not ever create a limit on the number of people in a system ( its too engrained into there PR ) the few people set up comfortable in Null making billions of ISK ( for the greater good of us all ) so they would have you think. They will just never do it.
But till the day comes when there are not enough subs to support such large battles that the player controlled ( crashes ) ( just need to log more ships in ) I will just wait till then and enjoy my tidi free fights and point back to this thread.
Simple solution to a very serious issue that will come up again and again. You can lock now ISD
ISD Gallifreyan wrote:
The OP has stated he has posted his last coment on this already, and while open discussion is allowed, repeating the same statement over and over would fall under either of the following Forum Rules.
YO dawg ISD GALLI said you be done posting ... now be done posting .
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17803
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:46:00 -
[237] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Well anytime an idea comes around about anything constructive to give us players a better gaming experience It either gets trolled into a lock or blown off by the bitter Vets of Eve who think this is the way its always been so its ok. Do you have any evidence to support either of those claims? The only one trolling this thread is you, since you refuse to actually discuss the topic at hand. You have a whole slew of questions left to answer and a metric fuckton of issues left to address. How about you get started with those, hmmGǪ?
Quote:I will just say that CCP will not ever create a limit on the number of people in a system ( its too engrained into there PR ) No, they won't, and no, it's not because of PR. It's because it's a idiotic GǣfixGǥ that breaks the game and doesn't actually solve anything. If you had spent all this time explaining why it's actually needed rather than just copy-pasting, you'd know this by nowGǪ
Quote:But till the day comes when there are not enough subs to support such large battles that the player controlled crashes Do you have any evidence to support that there is such a thing as player-controlled crashes, or are you just off your meds?
[GÇóuote]Simple solution to a very serious issue that will come up again and again.[/quote]What simple solution is that? Oh, and what is the actual issue you're trying to solve? If, in fixing one issue, you break the game, then it's not really a viable solution, now is it?
Guess what comes next? The questions you have yet to answer, accumulated over the thread as you've invented more and more unproven, nonsensical, incoherent, contradictory, and generally idiotic nonsense to post: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó Do you understand what tidi is and why itGÇÖs not something that anyone wants to see removed? GÇó Do you understand that limiting the amount of people in a system does not preclude tidi from kicking in? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:50:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP's crown jewel Null Sec Sov = Broken = large scale fleet battles broken but Tidi is a fix ? come on really ?
Player controlled crashes = is ok thats not broken
All is fine with the current state of the game ? No CCP just doesn't have the balls to do what they should have done a long time ago
Limit the number of players ( which we already have ) |
flakeys
Antwerpse Kerels Fidelas Constans
1661
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:55:00 -
[239] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:CCP's crown jewel Null Sec Sov = Broken = large scale fleet battles broken but Tidi is a fix ? come on really ?
Player controlled crashes = is ok thats not broken
All is fine with the current state of the game ? No CCP just doesn't have the balls to do what they should have done a long time ago
Limit the number of players ( which we already have )
ISD Gallifreyan wrote: The OP has stated he has posted his last coment on this already, and while open discussion is allowed, repeating the same statement over and over would fall under either of the following Forum Rules.
Reported for spamming/trolling
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17804
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:56:00 -
[240] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:CCP's crown jewel Null Sec Sov = Broken In what way is it broken?
Quote:large scale fleet battles broken but Tidi is a fix ? In what way are they broken? Do you understand what tidi is, and what it's trying to fix?
Quote:Player controlled crashes Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that such a thing even exists?
Quote:Limit the number of players ( which we already have ) What makes you think that there is currently any kind of player limit for fleet fights? Could you please explain what that limit is and how you've discovered it? What makes you think it's a good idea to give nullsec alliances an unassailable hold on all their systems? And do you understand that limiting the number of players does not eliminate tidi?
In shortGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó Do you understand what tidi is and why itGÇÖs not something that anyone wants to see removed? GÇó Do you understand that limiting the amount of people in a system does not preclude tidi from kicking in? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |