EVE Search - Split up the Big T

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Split up the Big T

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:21:00 - [1] So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things so that when you log on, you pick from a list of maybe ten to twenty duplicate worlds and play your character totally contained in that one world. It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. It would make the economy more diverse because there's now like ten Jita 4-4s each with their own markets making the game more interesting and fun. Also character transfers could cost money if you wanted to move from one world to another. I'm just saying this because the current way of fixing lag doesn't work very well. I mean, it's a good idea to discourage big fleets with the loading screen cooldown that forces players to wait to engage and reconsider fighting, but the point where the game turns that feature on is already too high. There's usually 500 people in a system before the grid load safeties are activated. Jerks are already exploiting to get around it by doing stuff like making safe spots way out in space. Multiple worlds could fix that by limiting population to like say, 5000 players on one world at one time. Big fleets wouldn't need to be there so the grid loading safety mechanisms don't ever have to turn on since there won't ever be 500 people in all of nullsec on each world. Mostly everyone will just be trading at Jita or doing those mission things. What do you guys think?

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:24:00 - [2] Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c Secure 3rd party service \| my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Half Cocked	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:24:00 - [3] -10 for failure to understand game structure and mechanics. +0.1 for wasting that much time thought and energy to actually post it.
meat vapour	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:27:00 - [4] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? i think you should stfu.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:28:00 - [5] Originally by: Kallieah TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things Technically, it already is. Howeverà Quote: so that when you log on, you pick from a list of maybe ten to twenty duplicate worlds and play your character totally contained in that one world. Hell no. Quote: It could be like how other, super successful MMOs ruin their games. Fixed. Quote: It would make the economy more diverse because there's now like ten Jita 4-4s each with their own markets No, because each of those markets would still contain the same things with the same distribution of what's popular and not. Quote: Multiple worlds could fix that by limiting population to like say, 5000 players on one world at one time. àthus ruining the entire point of EVE and fixing lag simply by not having any people on any of the servers. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:28:00 - [6] Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c That's good though! Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions while you were focused on the social aspects of the game like people in Second Life are already doing ten times better than we are here.
Cat o'Ninetails Caldari Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:30:00 - [7] i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x My Facebook! \| Safety Dance
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c That's good though! Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions while you were focused on the social aspects of the game like people in Second Life are already doing ten times better than we are here. Your going to have to learn to troll more effectively if you want any kind of big reaction. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:33:00 - [9] Originally by: Kallieah That's good though! In what way? Quote: Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions Where's the time waste? Quote: while you were focused on the social aspects of the game like people in Second Life are already doing ten times better than we are here. EVE ≠ Second Life, C/D? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Louis deGuerre Gallente Amicus Morte Shock an Awe	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:38:00 - [10] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x I thought this was supposed to be evil Cat ? Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenÆt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie

Lorieen AQ Militis Seprentia	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:39:00 - [11] I'm willing to host one of those duplicate worlds from my home pc will that help?
Half Cocked	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:47:00 - [12] Originally by: Lorieen I'm willing to host one of those duplicate worlds from my home pc will that help? You would crash that computer and overload your connection with about 25 people.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.04.29 13:55:00 - [13] Originally by: Kallieah So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things so that when you log on, you pick from a list of maybe ten to twenty duplicate worlds and play your character totally contained in that one world. It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. It would make the economy more diverse because there's now like ten Jita 4-4s each with their own markets making the game more interesting and fun. Also character transfers could cost money if you wanted to move from one world to another. I'm just saying this because the current way of fixing lag doesn't work very well. I mean, it's a good idea to discourage big fleets with the loading screen cooldown that forces players to wait to engage and reconsider fighting, but the point where the game turns that feature on is already too high. There's usually 500 people in a system before the grid load safeties are activated. Jerks are already exploiting to get around it by doing stuff like making safe spots way out in space. Multiple worlds could fix that by limiting population to like say, 5000 players on one world at one time. Big fleets wouldn't need to be there so the grid loading safety mechanisms don't ever have to turn on since there won't ever be 500 people in all of nullsec on each world. Mostly everyone will just be trading at Jita or doing those mission things. What do you guys think? I am going to go out on a limb and say you're trolling. +1 Internets for getting people to take you seriously. Well done. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:00:00 - [14] Originally by: Half **ed Originally by: Lorieen I'm willing to host one of those duplicate worlds from my home pc will that help? You would crash that computer and overload your connection with about 25 people. Well, that's ok then. He's probably got about 2× overcapacity for the server population numbers this kind of idea would produce. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Ninetails o'Cat League of Super Evil	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Louis deGuerre Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x I thought this was supposed to be evil Cat ? generic evil comment
Ripcha Headov Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:15:00 - [16] no no no. 1 of eves best aspects is the single shard universe, everyone in 1 big boiling pot of chaos and carnage. sending it down the route of 'other successful mmo's' i.e. 'same ole SH*T', would destroy the game. there would be no more epic fleet battles, no more fighting hard over an area of space to call your own, no more epic struggles over the prime real estate of eve. why fight for space on this server if u can chicken out and go to another server with hardly anyone on it. It would become hellokitty online. eve should NEVER, EVER become that.
Hammerswift Thunder Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:18:00 - [17] Hell no you want split servers then go play SWG. i like the sandbox as it is. it may be full of cat turds and rusty hot wheels but its where and how i want to play.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:22:00 - [18] Successful troll is successful. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.04.29 14:27:00 - [19] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think, A: you are trolling or B: you didn't think when composing that rabble. Cannot decide what's worse.
Irina Bubulyna Minmatar	Posted - 2010.04.29 15:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Kallieah So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things = I play WOW

Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 15:51:00 - [21] Okay, some of you are making the incorrect assumption that bigger is always better. That simply isn't the case with EVE. In much the same way that frigates are useful, so are smaller world divisions. CCP could put up one or two PvP realms for the small percentage of people that actually fight each other (I'll be on one of those!) or just build ten realms and count off account from the start and assign the numbers one through ten to get them on the newer, faster realms in a fairly even distribution of account age. Personally, I prefer the consensual PvP and PvE only idea since it makes more sense and would bring the community closer together. Then CCP can remove the grid loading cooldown and worry about feature development l for things like customizable avatar clothing or uplodable ship graphics. And, by the way, I know its not the only solution. Second Life is all one world and even Hello Kitty that you guys constantly bash only has one, lag-free world.
Dan O'Connor Cerberus Network Dignitas.	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:02:00 - [22] Originally by: Kallieah Tl;dr Split up TQ into tiny realms like WoW I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. ________________________ Store \| Apply
Wolfgang Jager Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:09:00 - [23] Splitting up the server is a horrid idea! But perhaps CCP should have listened a bit more closely to those of us who suggested that "fixing" SOV warfare by simply renaming the big mega-damage structures you had to blow up was a bad idea. If there was a reason to fight over multiple points in a system and over a longer period of time instead of the massive blob clusterhumping a target or two, you might not have the massive lag from 800+ ships trying to all be on the same grid.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:16:00 - [24] Originally by: Dan O'Connor I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. Dan, I respect your opinion, but I urge you to do away with the narrowminded perspective that a sandbox has to be full or overflowing with preschoolers to be any fun. Consider ten realms with a PCU of about 2500 - 6000 players, some PvP and some not. You get TEN equally huge sandboxes that contain the same number of shovels, buckets, and plastic dumpers as you have now and far fewer children with which to have a grabby "That one's mine!" argument with. It makes EVE better and more diverse as well as bigger! And laggy fleet stuff is gone too automagically!
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:22:00 - [25] Originally by: Wolfgang Jager Splitting up the server is a horrid idea! But perhaps CCP should have listened a bit more closely to those of us who suggested that "fixing" SOV warfare by simply renaming the big mega-damage structures you had to blow up was a bad idea. If there was a reason to fight over multiple points in a system and over a longer period of time instead of the massive blob clusterhumping a target or two, you might not have the massive lag from 800+ ships trying to all be on the same grid. Wasn't that what Dominion was supposed to fix? By implementing a grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system, the prevented people in big alliances from breaking the Big T when 800 morons all tried to stuff themselves into a system. And then you guys exploited deep safes to circumvent loading cooldown that compounded the problem further.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:44:00 - [26] Originally by: Kallieah Consider ten realms with a PCU of about 2500 - 6000 players, some PvP and some not. You get TEN equally huge sandboxes Quoting a sage response for truth: I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Ran Khanon Amarr Vengeance Innovations	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:44:00 - [27] Originally by: Serpents smile Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think, A: you are trolling or B: you didn't think when composing that rabble. Cannot decide what's worse. Yup. It is possibly the worst idea ever. I've played those other mmorpgs which do this and it is horrible. Having a single, perpetual gameworld should be a law for mmorpgs. Help us to make parrots game related today!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 16:48:00 - [28] Originally by: Ran Khanon Having a single, perpetual gameworld should be a law for mmorpgs. I think any that don't violate the true definition. What's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'massively multiplayer'? Some arbitrary number? I think not. Massively multiplayer should be defined as every player (however many or few) on one server/shard. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:03:00 - [29] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Ran Khanon Having a single, perpetual gameworld should be a law for mmorpgs. I think any that don't violate the true definition. What's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'massively multiplayer'? Some arbitrary number? I think not. Massively multiplayer should be defined as every player (however many or few) on one server/shard. Standardized definitions would be nice in order to more accurately represent a set of circumstances, but that isn't the case oft times. In reality the idea of something being massively multiplayer came about long before EVE was a competitor in the MMO arena. Honestly, I've seen lots of declarations that this is a stupid idea, but little (some yes) actual supporting commentary about why this is a bad idea as a lag fix. I believe I know why too, because it -will- fix lag and most of you feel threatened by other MMOs only because you're trying to convince yourselves that what you play now is the best.
Taedrin Gallente Xovoni Directorate	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:05:00 - [30] Alright, even though this might be a troll, allow me to explain why this does NOTHING. TQ is already split into multiple smaller servers. Each solar system is located on a node. Some nodes are responsible for more than one solar system, while some nodes are responsible for just one solar system (Jita and Motsu being the best examples, IIRC). When you jump from one system to another, your character and ship are literally moving from one server to the next server. You disconnect from one node and connect to the next node. BEFORE Dominion, EVE nodes would start suffering the side effects of being overloaded when they hit something like 1400 players. It should be noted that this is similar to WoW's servers. Or in other words, even IF you split TQ into smaller realms, you would still have to deal with the fact that each solar system can only withstand a certain number of concurrent players. In order to makes this effective, you would have to split TQ into so many different realms that EVE would cease to be what it is. Each realm would have to have a maximum population of around 4-6k players (based off of WoW numbers). If you REALLY want to get rid of lag, you need to do one of three things: a) Prevent players from piling into the same node, ie make it strategically important to split up forces and strike multiple solar systems at once instead of blobbing a single solar system at a time. b) Improve the performance of the nodes, for example by rewriting the server code from scratch to emphasize parallel computation of solar systems. Currently we have a maximum of one CPU per solar system. Alternatives to this is simply buying bigger and better hardware, but IIRC CCP already has just about the best commercially viable hardware in existence. c) Increase the efficiency of the node's code. Don't have any examples for this one, but this is what CCP has been focusing on for the most part. Examples include the "Dragon" patch which contained nothing but server optimizations. Somehow, the Dominion code turned out to be a huge step backwards in this regard. I am positive that CCP currently has many software engineers frantically working to bring lag back to pre-dominion levels. ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.

BORRIS DEMONTFORD	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:07:00 - [31] Pirates of The Burning Sea started off with 13 servers it now has 2, 1 of which is on its last legs, most players attribute the shedding of the games population, at least in part, to the players being spread too thin.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:10:00 - [32] Originally by: Kallieah Honestly, I've seen lots of declarations that this is a stupid idea, but little (some yes) actual supporting commentary about why this is a bad idea as a lag fix. People around here get sick of stating the patently obvious. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Zeredek Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:15:00 - [33] Dear Kallieah, please go away, we don't want you trying to ruin it for the rest of us. Originally by: CCP Chronotis whiners
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:18:00 - [34] This thread would have been so much funner if it was in the assembly hall so the csm members could have taken it seriously and brought it up at the next meeting. You know they would. Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Get off the forums and go kill someone! Originally by: Amarr Supremacist Yeah, it(Jaguar) almost has cruiser level tank and gank!
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:21:00 - [35] Hi, I also own a Lear Jet and am quite pleased with it. However, I have noticed that they can crash from time to time. This is a problem, but don't worry because I have a solution. We will simply add brake lights and turn signals to make them street legal, and then remove their wings. While it is true that this removes all reason to own a Lear Jet, I feel that it is a simple and elegant way to solve the problem. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Zeredek Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:24:00 - [36] Originally by: Ranger 1 Hi, I also own a Lear Jet and am quite pleased with it. However, I have noticed that they can crash from time to time. This is a problem, but don't worry because I have a solution. We will simply add brake lights and turn signals to make them street legal, and then remove their wings. While it is true that this removes all reason to own a Lear Jet, I feel that it is a simple and elegant way to solve the problem. Originally by: CCP Chronotis whiners
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:24:00 - [37] Edited by: Avon on 29/04/2010 17:26:47 Originally by: Kallieah Honestly, I've seen lots of declarations that this is a stupid idea, but little (some yes) actual supporting commentary about why this is a bad idea as a lag fix. I believe I know why too, because it -will- fix lag and most of you feel threatened by other MMOs only because you're trying to convince yourselves that what you play now is the best. Are you proposing to cure the lag by sharding, but using the same amount of physical servers as used now to support the total playerbase, or by adding new servers for each shard? If it is the former, please explain how that would work. If it is the later, please explain why you couldn't just use that new hardware to reduce the lag without sharding. Also, so long as a system can only run one node, please explain how increasing hardware will allow the very high player counts some systems experience, and especially focusing on how sharding would improve performance of large PvP encounters where more > better. Thank you in advance for you consideration in this matter. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Veronica Damask	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:24:00 - [38] Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c Agree. OP is a incredible idiot.
failpirate	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:41:00 - [39] i thought this was a stupid idea at first, but i was thinking about it at work and it's actually not bad. think of it this way: would you rather have one universe that doesn't work, or multiple universes that work? also, i think most would agree that pvp and griefing has been ruining the game, so dedicate some of the universes to pvp and everyone's happy.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:52:00 - [40] Taedrin and Avon thank you both for actually posing useful or constructive thoughts. I'll try to give you a worthwhile answer. Regarding code, I know nothing about it or how it all works and I honestly doubt that there are many people in thw forums that are qualified to analyse the inner workings. I bet there's improvements to be had, but that can only go so far in helping until we encounter problwms again. That thought leads me to you, Avon. I think that an increase in amount of computers would be unnecessary right away because with a PCU of say 6000 or even 10000 it isn't as likely that there will ever be enough players around interested in a fleet battle at a given time to cause lag. This does bring up scalability as an option since each little EVE (aw cute!) can later grow or measures can be taken to manage population between worlds ala paid character transfers or by opening up more worlds as needed to keep up with demand and offering free of charge moves. My thumbs are getting sore since I've been poking in all of this from a phone so I'll keep the response short. I hope it offers a little insight into my vision of CCPs hopefully fun and bright future.

Ryhss Caldari The Templar Navy SRS.	Posted - 2010.04.29 17:58:00 - [41] Edited by: Ryhss on 29/04/2010 17:58:25 I hate to say it, but imo the only way CCP will be able to fix lag swiftly is to split us into 2 live servers.
Wolfgang Jager Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2010.04.29 18:02:00 - [42] Originally by: Taedrin a) Prevent players from piling into the same node, ie make it strategically important to split up forces and strike multiple solar systems at once instead of blobbing a single solar system at a time. This; many people argued back when the whole idea of "fixing" SOV warfare came up that the only real way to fix it was to remove the incentives for massive blob warfare. If you make "holding" a system require sustained presence and defending many lower value targets, you would remove the desire for one massive blob. Instead they renamed the targets and made even fewer of them matter...thus the 800 ships blobs fighting over one SBU/TCU. As for splitting the overall server population, it is a bad idea because it would destroy all the complex interactions that make EVE, EVE. The game is as complex as it is because of the myriad economic interactions between 10s of thousands of players on the market across a vast region of space. Likewise, less people would mean vastly less complicated politics; fewer power blocks, less interaction and less drama...all making the game much less interesting overall.
Taxesarebad	Posted - 2010.04.29 18:36:00 - [43] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think you should quit, stop trolling, then play world of failcraft and have fun playing with no more than 200 players at a time. funny the amount of people in JITA is about the same as the realm size of wow. -------------SIGZONE-------------- Remove Shadow.... ;)
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 18:41:00 - [44] Edited by: Tippia on 29/04/2010 18:42:54 Originally by: failpirate think of it this way: would you rather have one universe that doesn't work, or multiple universes that work? I want one large universe that works (even with occasional limps), thankyouverymuch, mainly because multiple universes won't work by very definition. The problem with this idea is that it doesn't work because a) it doesn't solve the problem at hand, b) it completely disregards everything that makes the EVE universe work, and c) it completely disregards how the game backbone actually functions. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Th0rG0d Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.04.29 19:59:00 - [45] I don't know why I am responding to this, as the OP clearly hasn't a clue despite saying "I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things.." What you are suggesting is almost exactly how Eve is run. As pointed out by others, the entire universe is divided up into nodes, which are separate servers. Some nodes do run more then one slow or underpopulated solar systems, even entire constellations. This is why CCP requests to be informed as early as possible of potential fleet fights, so they can be sure to reinforce said node. The only difference to what you have suggested, is there is no real cap to population, and you can travel between nodes without requesting to be moved. Personally, I would be p*sed if I had to request to go to another node, much less pay an additional fee, just so I could chat or fly with a friend. And to reiterate what others have already responded to you with, the only way to fix lag is to remove or adjust* the game mechanics that require 800+ man blobs to accomplish a goal. Yes, people will always try to bring more than their enemies, but if the enemy only needs to bring 100, then it will probably be unnecessary to respond with 400. Even if you decide to do so, we've already shaved off 300 from that particular battle. tl;dr Eve is pretty close to what OP is suggesting, he just doesn't know it. I italicized the important parts for you, so you don't miss anything Adrift in New Eden
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 20:09:00 - [46] While I agree that a single world with everyone in it together is ideal, it doesn't seem to be a realistic expectation given the ongoing, chronic lag problems. I'm fairly certain that running a world with say 5000 to 8000 PCU is not a game breaking situation since, EVE was regularly running only 10000 during off peak times as late as two to three years ago. The game was lots of fun then and was even during its earlier beginnings when that number was even lower. It's really just a matter of getting used to seeing smaller numbers that most people will probably not notice much in the actual game.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 20:19:00 - [47] Originally by: Kallieah While I agree that a single world with everyone in it together is ideal, it doesn't seem to be a realistic expectation given the ongoing, chronic lag problems. Sure it is. Just look at the pre-Dominion situation. Quote: I'm fairly certain that running a world with say 5000 to 8000 PCU is not a game breaking situation since, EVE was regularly running only 10000 during off peak times as late as two to three years ago. Riiiiightà so just because at its lowest it ran at twice what it would have at its highest, that new max number will be swell? Never mind all that happens during those peak hours that makes the 10k off-hours bearable. Never mind the critical mass that gives the economy the strength it has today. Never mind that it goes against what you claim you want to achieve. Never mind that you're forgetting the space expansion that has happened. Never mind the NPC-based support mechanics that have been removed. Never mind (etc)à Quote: It's really just a matter of getting used to seeing smaller numbers that most people will probably not notice much in the actual game. Oh I'm sure that a non-functioning economy, a complete lack of social context, and no consequences for your actions won't be noticeable at all. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
failpirate	Posted - 2010.04.29 20:32:00 - [48] remember, folks, thorolfur beck was well aware that it may not be possible for everything to run in only one universe. in his words: "It remains to be seen how many players we will fit in each instance of the game world. The problem there is not in the game system or content, but technical limitations associated with the infrastructure of the Internet." the goal was to have as few universes as possible, not necessarily only one. looks like it's time to readdress that.
Nachshon Caldari Valklear Guard	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:07:00 - [49] The single server is one of EVE's strongest points. Getting rid of it would destroy much of what makes EVE great. ____________________________________ Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship. The True Meaning of Freedom My v
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:11:00 - [50] Originally by: Kallieah I Should quite playing EVE. What do you guys think? Fixed that for you. And yess I agree you should quit. Wherever you went - Here you are.

AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:18:00 - [51] Kallicakes, You've made me proud. +rep
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Sodalitas XX	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:22:00 - [52] In a way, this is a workable solution... because if you shard EVE everyone quits. Problem solved. ===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:44:00 - [53] Originally by: Nachshon The single server is one of EVE's strongest points. Getting rid of it would destroy much of what makes EVE great. I agree with you on one of two points. A single universe is a strong point that make EVE stand out among peers and let's it compete with other one world games like Second Life on their level. So yes, all of us in one shared universe is a good thing. I disagree that offering more worlds would break anything. On April 26, 2004 EVE posted 10396 players online all at once for the first time. The game was not broken then and nor would it be broken if there were several realms running those same numbers now. I argue that it'd be better partly due to a lack of lag, but also because there'd be vast swaths of space to explore where a pod pilot could truly experience the cold "alone" of space. In the long run, I'm fairly sure that CCP will travel down this road. Yes it will be disappointing for some of us, but for others, it will reignite the sensations of limitless possibility we felt a long time ago. Some of us will leave and others will replace you. As long as EVE contunies to grow, the losses can be dealt with. What would really be a shame is if you, the capsuleer community resisted, forcing CCP to spend resources to sustain a failing one-world concept that becomes unplayable and causes you to leave. I would rather have lots of universes with the same or more subscribers instead of one very empty one.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:46:00 - [54] Originally by: Kallieah I would rather have lots of universes with the same or more subscribers instead of one very empty one. And yet you're arguing for a combination of the worst aspects of the two: lots of universes, all of them very empty. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:54:00 - [55] Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Chribba Originally by: Kallieah It could be like how other, super successful MMOs run their games. No thanks, EVE is the uber just because it's only one server. Having to log on to another server just to talk to pilot X instead of Y and I could just as well play Word of Weirdcraft. /c That's good though! Moving from one world to another would keep you from wasting time planning fleet actions while you were focused on the social aspects of the game like people in Second Life are already doing ten times better than we are here. Your going to have to learn to troll more effectively if you want any kind of big reaction. Looking @ Tippia's posts, he's doing just fine. - Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
fweepa Gallente F and A Supply	Posted - 2010.04.29 21:54:00 - [56] Are you serious? Is he serious? You're serious? How about, we just eliminate the online thing all together, and just replace everything with NPC's, then we won't have any lag at all! and we can all just play single player games!! Go away, troll
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:00:00 - [57] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Looking @ Tippia's posts, he's doing just fine. Call it pre-emptive if you like. Even if this idiot is trolling, there are plenty of morons who think the same thing and which need to have their delusions stomped on before they even appear. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:02:00 - [58] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Kallieah I would rather have lots of universes with the same or more subscribers instead of one very empty one. And yet you're arguing for a combination of the worst aspects of the two: lots of universes, all of them very empty. Not at all. I'd like to see a well managed set of cute little EVEs, each with a sustainable population that represents a slice of the current population's total numbers. I think this is a good solution to lag problems as I already mentioned and would allow further growth of the game world and community. Just think of how many Sisi stress tests multiple EVEs would allow and how much better the new content would be if there was more development time spent elsewhere. We could have sweet graphical designs that are unique to our ships or stations that don't look like a scrapyard inside a child's soap bubble. Or fewer macro sellers, miners, ratters.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:04:00 - [59] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Bellum Eternus Looking @ Tippia's posts, he's doing just fine. Call it pre-emptive if you like. Even if this idiot is trolling, there are plenty of morons who think the same thing and which need to have their delusions stomped on before they even appear. True, true. If we don't nip it in the bud it might spread. KILL IT WITH FIRE!!! - Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:05:00 - [60] Originally by: Kallieah Hellow Im an alt in an alt alliance filled with alts and more alts. Im here trolling on my alt cause I love to make people mad because I have nothing better to do. Fixed!

Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:08:00 - [61] Originally by: Kallieah I'd like to see a well managed set of cute little EVEs, each with a sustainable population that represents a slice of the current population's total numbers. Won't happen. That's the whole problem: you seem to think that you can just divvy the current population up without any consideration of why the current population is what it is and what makes it sustainable. You're also confused about how your solution will "solve" lag. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:17:00 - [62] Originally by: Kallieah Taedrin and Avon thank you both for actually posing useful or constructive thoughts. I'll try to give you a worthwhile answer. Yeah, thanks for that. However, you may have missed that my post was a work of Socratic irony. Sharding Eve would solve nothing. You would have to invest in additional hardware (unless the shards are going to share things like proxy servers and databases) in order to support shards - and if you are just going to throw hardware at the problem you may as well throw it at the current cluster. The real limit is that a solar system is limited to the absolute performance of a single node, and that would apply if the game was sharded or not. The only "advantage" to a sharded system would be a lower average player count per solar system. Human nature, however, is going to make them come together .. and if you think that won't happen, and that a lower average player count per system is a solution to lag, add more systems. If you want to reduce lag you need to work at the game mechanics, not the server structure. It is far too easy for people to travel long distances in Eve in very little time, be it by trivial time to fly through space, or the ability to use jump clones. The problems in Eve stem from poor game design rather than poor hardware. As I have said many times before, the solution to a lot of Eve's problems would be the adoption of a more regionalised game design (as in Eve regions, not world regions), a larger integration of backstory to the game mechanics, penalties for high population systems, longer travel times, and a whole host of other changes which could make Eve not only perform better but also become a more deeply immersive game experience. Sharding is not going to fix fundamentally flawed design. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:17:00 - [63] Edited by: Kallieah on 29/04/2010 22:25:39 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Kallieah I'd like to see a well managed set of cute little EVEs, each with a sustainable population that represents a slice of the current population's total numbers. Won't happen. That's the whole problem: you seem to think that you can just divvy the current population up without any consideration of why the current population is what it is and what makes it sustainable. You're also confused about how your solution will "solve" lag. It might not happen. And you're right, I don't have a full or complete understanding of the situation even though I have a little background knowledge which might be useful. Part of the reason why I bothered to pose this admittedly tough question was to gather insight from other members of the shared community. Sure I expected silly accusations and insults, but there are people who will take the time to share insightful viewpoints both for and against the idea. Its those people that I want to interact with so that we can jointly make EVE better for everyone even if there's a resulting bitter pill to swallow. Sadly, there are prolly a few people afraid to post their thoughts out of fear of ridicule. Let's all do our best to encourge all points of view to be heard. Also, roasting marshmellows around a campfire while singing a certain unmentionable religiously oriented song would be fun too! Edit: Avon! Why did you have to post that awesome thought while I was typing on this awful thumb board? You might be right and if I'm not understanding how things work behind the scenes then maybe there's a better way. What I was initially thinking was that most players are fairly independent types who like to be self sufficient. With smaller overall numbers there just isn't the potential for huge fleet battles due to the myriad of different interests in EVE. But if something, anything can be done to force people to have smaller fleet battles besides lagging them out, I'd prefer it. I just think that any answer will only be a temporary solution that will work until the battles get larger and mechanics even may not limit that. EVE players are really good at breaking Big T.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 22:51:00 - [64] Edited by: AdmiralJohn on 29/04/2010 22:53:06 Originally by: Obsidian Hawk Originally by: Kallieah Hellow Im an alt in an alt alliance filled with alts and more alts. Im here trolling on my alt cause I love to make people mad because I have nothing better to do. Fixed! You know, I wish we were alts. We're not serious enough to have alts though, so take your bad-mouthing someplace where it's wanted. EDIT: We're srsly not alts, at least not in THUNK.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:25:00 - [65] Originally by: Kallieah make EVE better for everyone You still don't seem to be grasping the whole 'critical part of what makes EVE EVE' part. EVE isn't just one world to impress people with fancy numbers, it's so everyone who plays shares one world, one community, one history. All the stories you hear about, all the 'celebrities' you read about, that dip** on the forums you hate, all in one world. Ringing any bells here? EVE would lose one of its most important features if it was possible that, on reading about something like ISS, or the GHSC heist, or BoB's disbandment, that you could suddenly realise it happened in another instance of the game world and has no effect on you whatsoever. The meaning behind everything in the game would be diminished. Originally by:** Kallieah In the long run, I'm fairly sure that CCP will travel down this road. In the long run CCP are releasing a second game which will tie into the existing world. Rather than splitting up the world as you suggest, they are expanding it beyond the confines of a single game. They recognise the value of the unsharded world, and don't seem inclined to give it up over some technical issues. (Not that it would solve the technical issues, as explained by others) - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Josef Huffenpuff Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:27:00 - [66] Kallieah and others of like mind, It seems by the fact you are still posting here that you still havent got your head round the fact that what you propose ... 1. Is against the basic nature of what most of us like about eve. 2. Has been proposed so many times before that most of us are sick about hearing it, let alone explaing yet again why it won't work. 3. Won't work because despite everyone saying eve is a "single server" It is NOT. It is a cluster of multiple servers. Eve is effectively already "sharded". It is just that changing from one server (or shard if you prefer the term) to another is invisible to you - It happens whenever you jump systems. The absolutely fantastic thing about Eve is all these "shards" have a common Market and database of player characters, allowing us all to play in a single game universe. 4. You don't need to know the first thing about the program code to read multiple posts by CCP devs explaining that the limit of people on a single server is currently around 1400 characters and there is no way to split a single star system over multiple servers or CPU cores without a comple code re-write. Yes, lag is horrible. We all hate it and we all want CCP to magically fix it. But the truth is we will allways "blob" as long as having more numbers in a fight gives an advantage. Whenever CCP reduces lag, we as players just put more people into a system - me included, guilty as charged. Sharding isn't the solution.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:35:00 - [67] I think there's a basic misunderstanding in what I'm proposing here. Yes, EVE exists on multiple computers and I know that. So yes, it does act like it's a bunch of realms already and that's great, but it also allows everyone to go everywhere at any time. This is also good, but it causes the potential for lots of laggies that adversely impact the people who are driving the bulk of the player-created content, the nullsec empires. If there were cute widdle EVEs, you couldn't all go swarming into the same place at the same time like a bunch of lemmings and there wouldn't be the same laggies that everyone gets now, even with the exact same number of computers running multiple worlds. That's kinda what I'm getting at here and lotsa people keep missing what I kinda thought would be a pretty obvious solution. It might take some things away from EVE and I don't argue that, but I'd rather have smaller worlds (population I mean) with unique histories of their own versus one large broken one full of people who all hate the game because the big empires can't have the fleet fights they deserve.
Dan O'Connor Cerberus Network Dignitas.	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:39:00 - [68] So to conclude, I think I speak for many when I say: HTFU and it's never ever gonna happen. Ever. Splitting TQ up would defeat EVE's very definition of Sandbox. ________________________ Apply \| Channel CBSN Lounge
Lady Karma	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:40:00 - [69] :Elysium Alliance: When you create a troll thread, you are meant to back away from it, and let it develop. Not post even more stupid ideas every third post. Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think your alliance mates are convoing you right now, telling you to stop posting.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:44:00 - [70] Originally by: Lady Karma :Elysium Alliance: When you create a troll thread, you are meant to back away from it, and let it develop. Not post even more stupid ideas every third post. Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I think your alliance mates are convoing you right now, telling you to stop posting. While I normally wouldn't bother with troll postings like this, I want to clear the air that this lag thing is a serious problem that warrants attention and someting that I'd like people to talk about in a mature, constructive fashion. Accusations of trolling, name calling, and other silliness doesn't add any value to the discussion. Please take the Negative Nancy stuff elsewhere.

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Kallieah laa dee daa You are simply suggesting reducing EVE's population. That is bad for numerous reasons. Which have already been explained. Repeatedly. Nobody is missing anything, everyone understands what you are saying (better than you do it seems). Very few people, if any, hate the game due to lag; they have the option to quit, and yet are still here. The game is not broken, it merely has limitations. - I wish I was a two foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Lady Karma	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:48:00 - [72] Originally by: Kallieah While I normally wouldn't bother with troll postings like this, You were bothered enough to make a troll thread. Maybe next time search the forums a little, or play the game before coming up with "unique" ideas that completely defeat the point in having one galaxy. Check your in game mail, your alliance mates are cringing.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:50:00 - [73] Originally by: Lady Karma Originally by: Kallieah While I normally wouldn't bother with troll postings like this, You were bothered enough to make a troll thread. Maybe next time search the forums a little, or play the game before coming up with "unique" ideas that completely defeat the point in having one galaxy. Check your in game mail, your alliance mates are cringing. I promoted Kallicakes for the great idea, so stop spreading lies.
Lady Karma	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:53:00 - [74] Originally by: AdmiralJohn I promoted Kallicakes for the great idea, so stop spreading lies.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:53:00 - [75] If I have 12 units of population in one location and divide them into three locations, I still have an overall 12 units. To each location it may seem as though there are fewer, but if you take a broader view, there's been effectively no change. Some people feel this is a reduction and while it would be that you'd experience fewer people and broaden your chances to explore a universe that isn't as depleted as the current one. So yes, you'd see fewer people, but CCP would not and really, population matters most to CCP, not to the community.
GavinGoodrich Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:56:00 - [76] Edited by: GavinGoodrich on 30/04/2010 00:56:00 /me splits up the big T /isn't sure whether to log into I or _ halp! \o
Josef Huffenpuff Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:59:00 - [77] Originally by: Kallieah I think there's a basic misunderstanding in what I'm proposing here. Yes, EVE exists on multiple computers and I know that. So yes, it does act like it's a bunch of realms already and that's great, but it also allows everyone to go everywhere at any time. Theres no misunderstanding. It doesnt matter how many eve universes you create, people will still crowd into a single star system for a fight - creating lag. "Sharding" doesnt fix this - but it does make for less people in each game universe and removes arguably the BEST feature of eve which is its single universe.
You'wot	Posted - 2010.04.30 01:04:00 - [78] I always wondered why the region can't be single servers so to speak. I know everything is sharded already but I'm not sure if its the same thing as physically having a designated single server setup. Surely if MMO's like WoW etc can run with 5-10k people per server, 1 region per server in EVE could be doable. Have big gates that connect the servers together, ie log you out of your current region (server) and into the next one. I'd gladly wait a minute or two to change servers if it helped the game run better. Obviously I know nothing about the technical side of things lol, it's just a thought.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 01:07:00 - [79] Originally by: Josef Huffenpuff It doesnt matter how many eve universes you create, people will still crowd into a single star system for a fight - creating lag. "Sharding" doesnt fix this - but it does make for less people in each game universe and removes arguably the BEST feature of eve which is its single universe. But I think it does. If there are fewer overall people, the potential for a monster-lag-level gathering is lowered by sheer numbers. Of the 60k people logged in, 800 if them is a mere drop in the bucket. Of say 8k that's a much larger percentage so the potential for it to happen is much reduced.
Ffuantu Grym Flimflam Productions	Posted - 2010.04.30 02:59:00 - [80] Originally by: Kallieah And, by the way, I know its not the only solution. Second Life is all one world and even Hello Kitty that you guys constantly bash only has one, lag-free world. We don't bash Hello Kitty Online, we love it! That's why we always reccommend it to everybody.

Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.04.30 03:17:00 - [81] Onyxia raid in 30 minutes, Kallieah get online on your server, which is hopefully my server.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.30 03:21:00 - [82] Quote: TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things Troll post confirmed.
Wolfgang Jager Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2010.04.30 03:24:00 - [83] Signing off this thread, because clearly you just don't get it. The single unified world is a huge part of what makes EVE work for most players. To many of us, "no big battles" = boring; no mass of player traders to drive market scams and economic warfare = boring, no huge alliances to have stupid space drama = boring. The idea that I missed out on a massive capital fleet battle because I was in some other part of the universe is compelling and makes me interested, missing out because it was on "another shard" makes it meaningless. You clearly aren't wired such that you comprehend this and aren't going to shift on it no matter how many people club you over it. Thankfully, if there is one thing CCP gets, this is it. What you propose would kill EVE in the space of months and CCP knows it.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:00:00 - [84] Originally by: Super Whopper Onyxia raid in 30 minutes, Kallieah get online on your server, which is hopefully my server. I don't play that particular game. Though, unlike lots of people, I don't feel that people who do are lower life forms. It's entertainment, after all. Well now that we've gotten past a lot of people who are upset about this idea, is it possible to talk specifics about what can be done to make things better? I think I've been pretty specific about why I think breaking Big T into little EVEs would be better in the long run and I don't believe that it'll stop most people from playing. There's usually a forum rage over just about any change proposed and threats of quitting or declarations that EVE will die. Obviously that hasn't happened yet so I seriously doubt that the doom and gloom that is supposed to happen from a change like this would actually come about. We'll have to wait and see when it happens anyway. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:18:00 - [85] I do have to agree with one thing. The OP's solution would solve the lag issues. After all, a game with 0 subscribers won't lag at all. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:23:00 - [86] Originally by: Kallieah But I think it does. If there are fewer overall people, the potential for a monster-lag-level gathering is lowered by sheer numbers. Of the 60k people logged in, 800 if them is a mere drop in the bucket. Of say 8k that's a much larger percentage so the potential for it to happen is much reduced. People will go where the fights are. With 8k people, you can have more fights with fewer people in them since you can have three or four effective alliances holding space. With three alliances, you can potentially have three fronts to fight on (unless two alliances have a NAP, in which case it's A+B vc C on two fronts). With 6k people, you'll end up with two alliances, so all the people looking for a fight only have one front to pick from. There is no lag through the rest of the cluster, only in those star systems hosted on the same server as a 800-per-side fleet fight. The way to solve the lag is not to create fewer fleet fights by reducing the number of people. The way to solve the lag is to create an incentive to have more simultaneous fleet fights in different star systems. It's not Tranquility that needs to be split up into pieces to address the lag, it's the sovereignty mechanic. Rather than TCUs and SBUs, I propose that an IHUB is the core of SOV. A Sovereignty claim allows the alliance to control who can use a star gate. Challenging SOV is done using a "Stargate Interdiction Modulator" on either side of a star gate (since each gate is a pair of structures connected by the one wormhole). This module is fitted to a ship and works something like a cyno crossed with a codebreaker. The ship is disabled for 20 minutes while activating the module, the module requires the ship be targetting the stargate. Interdiction will reduce the capacity of the stargate. Each stargate will have a "capacity", "capacity recovery" (first order derivative of capacity) and "interdiction modulation" (second order derivative of capacity). The interdiction modulator affects the interdiction modulation parameter. Successful interdiction of a stargate requires reducing "capacity" to some threshold level (eg: 10% of maximum capacity). Sovereignty would then be claimed by building up the various indexes as are done at present. An infrastructure hub would only be onlined when all stargates in a system are at 100% effectiveness - thus ensuring that a fleet is required to guard all access to a system for some hours in order to secure the system for deployment of the IHUB. Each TCU (only anchorable on-grid with a stargate) can claim control over one stargate. TCUs can only be onlined after an IHUB is put in place. Once a stargate has been interdicted, the TCU's control of the gate is broken (the TCU goes offline). Each stargate controlled by a TCU can be configured by the alliance to allow only certain traffic through. Each index in a system affects a property of the stargate - military index increases base capacity, industrial index increases the base recovery rate, exploration index reduces the impact of interdiction modulators. Thus challenging SOV in a heavily defended system will require several fleets dedicated to the job of interdicting stargates in the first instance, forcing attacking fleets to split up to interdict gates and defend interdictors from attacking forces. How's that for ten minutes work? [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:31:00 - [87] PS: note that none of these structures are ever invulnerable except for stargates. Once an IHUB is anchored, anyone can shoot it and do damage to it. Once a TCU is anchored, anyone can shoot it and do damage to it. The reliance of the sov mechanic on indexes means that the alliance needs to encourage people to be active in their systems doing all manner of activities - not just for the sake of raising indexes, but as a means of hardening their system to enemy attacks. This also opens the way for challenging the sovereignty of NPC space, be it Serpentis or Amarr. The Empires have CONCORD to help them of course, but they are handicapped by not being able to restrict passage through stargates as part of that accord. Though perhaps blinky red -10s might find passage through Empire space isn't all that easy anymore. Restricting the capacity of stargates might also have an impact on the market in Jita - when the physical infrastructure simply can't handle the load of that many freighters jumping through, no more freighters can jump through. I imagine a similar effect would be felt in Motsu or other heavily exploited mission hubs. To me, this has a more sandboxy feel to it than any suggestion of splitting up Tranquility into separate universes. [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 04:41:00 - [88] Edited by: Kallieah on 30/04/2010 04:43:00 Mara, I think you actually have a pretty elegant solution to the problem. There's a couple questions I had though. Won't guarding access to a system for several hours present a problem over downtime? Combat would have to start early and be resolved in a reasonable period of time to allow enough time to beat Big T being turned off. Also, allowing people to mess around with highsec gates may outrage the biggest segment of the game population, the highsec dwellers. Those people literally fund EVE so that the much smaller segment of the community who engage in massive fleet combat can have their space in which to play. It's a bad idea to alienate that much corporate income. The other thing I wanted to highlight is that if there were a hypothetical 8k PCU, the driving population would be a lot larger and more diverse than your example. While PvP would be a lot more appealing to more people, there would still be a large number of corps and alliances in the game all doing their own thing all at once. Some of those would, like in the EVE we have today, have zero interest in PvP and wouldn't contribute to the overall lag issue. They'd continue to run missions, haul goods, mine in belts, macro missions, harass each other, or station spin like always so I contend that an 8k PCU realm would indeed not suffer from noticable lag unless a decidated effort were made by a large segment of the population for the sole purpose of making a point that I'm wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if that happened, but the chances are pretty slim. Edit - typos Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Super Whopper I can Has Cheeseburger	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:01:00 - [89] Edited by: Super Whopper on 30/04/2010 05:01:57 Originally by: Kallieah I think I've been pretty specific about why I think breaking Big T into little EVEs would be better in the long run and I don't believe that it'll stop most people from playing. There's usually a forum rage over just about any change proposed and threats of quitting or declarations that EVE will die. Obviously that hasn't happened yet so I seriously doubt that the doom and gloom that is supposed to happen from a change like this would actually come about. We'll have to wait and see when it happens anyway. Why don't you go play on Serenity for a bit and find out what it's like to have 5000 people online only? I will even give you the login details of one of my accounts. On Serenity a single person can claim entire constellations and there's nobody who will contest you, simply because there aren't enough people there to begin with. You have no idea what drives EVE and what makes EVE great, so, do us all a favour and attend my Onyxia raid and don't quit that game. But, before you ragequit over your ignorance, can I haz ur stuffz? Doubt you have anything of value but it's all worth refining.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:08:00 - [90] Originally by: Kallieah Won't guarding access to a system for several hours present a problem over downtime? I'm quite capable of getting back into EVE within 5 minutes of downtime, since that's during my peak gaming time during the week. If it only takes two players from an alliance to have a presence in local to deter the two players from the other alliance from attempting to interdict a gate, that gate is guarded :) Quote: Also, allowing people to mess around with highsec gates may outrage the biggest segment of the game population, the highsec dwellers. It may anger some, but it will mean markets get split up and open opportunities for smaller players to get into the market themselves. Good luck to folks trying to claim sovereignty in Empire space while CONCORD is still around though :) Quote: ... I contend that an 8k PCU realm would indeed not suffer from noticable lag unless a decidated effort were made by a large segment of the population for the sole purpose of making a point that I'm wrong. There is no lag that I'm aware of outside systems that are overcrowded for the processor they're currently sitting on, or grids that have too many ships. Motsu and Frarn come to mind as systems where there are unusually large numbers of mission-runners, so the system gets lagged due to the sheer number of folks in that system. People will cluster in a system until the lag gets too much for them to handle. The reason they're there is that there's something to be there for - good collection of Caldari Navy agents in Motsu, very good Brutor Tribe agent and storyline in Frarn. Jita is where all the people go because it all the people go to Jita. People keep piling in there until their game crashes trying to load the system, then they spend the next few days trying to get out. Reducing the number of concurrent players will reduce lag in those instances, but only because with fewer players in that universe there's no reason to go to Jita because there is no market. Jita is a big market not because there are thousands of people online using it, but also because there a thousands more people who do their trading through Jita remotely. It's the place to go because that's where everyone goes. So too with fleet fights - reducing the population will not reduce lag in fleet fights. People start a fight, call in reinforcements, and eventually you'll have everyone from fifty jumps around trying to warp onto the one grid. People go to fights because that's where people are. If there were more fleet fights required when two alliances are warring, those people looking for a fight would be spread out over multiple fights, each one as exciting and necessary as the other. Reducing the population will solve lag problems by reducing the amount of interaction that is possible in the game. With less interaction, there will be fewer people interested in staying around, and the population will dissipate (to other games which reward solo play). What makes EVE attractive to many people is the fact that it is one universe where all the players interact whenever they want to. If you have a friend who plays EVE, you don't have to ask "which server are you on?" If you get a friend interested in playing EVE, you don't have to warn them, "oh! Make sure you create a character on Tranquility, not Solace!" [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]

Lost Troll Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:20:00 - [91] Originally by: Kallieah I think there's a basic misunderstanding in what I'm proposing here. Yes, EVE exists on multiple computers and I know that. So yes, it does act like it's a bunch of realms already and that's great, but it also allows everyone to go everywhere at any time. This is also good, but it causes the potential for lots of laggies that adversely impact the people who are driving the bulk of the player-created content, the nullsec empires. If there were cute widdle EVEs, you couldn't all go swarming into the same place at the same time like a bunch of lemmings and there wouldn't be the same laggies that everyone gets now, even with the exact same number of computers running multiple worlds. That's kinda what I'm getting at here and lotsa people keep missing what I kinda thought would be a pretty obvious solution. It might take some things away from EVE and I don't argue that, but I'd rather have smaller worlds (population I mean) with unique histories of their own versus one large broken one full of people who all hate the game because the big empires can't have the fleet fights they deserve. Kallieah, we get what you are saying, but it would not fix the lag issue with null sec fleet battles. Each system runs on its own node with the exception of a few systems that share nodes. Each node is its own blade computer with multiple CPUs and ram installed. Now the only time a node is used by a client, is when they jump into the system that node contains or log in. So a person traveling from say RQH-MY to MQ-PNY will not have an affect on you fleet battle in system D2-HOS. But what will affect your fleet battle, is the code running on the node you are on, this is ware the issue lies. The code is broken right now and not allowing stack less I/O threading to work correctly and CCP is working on it now to get fixed. So even if you were to break the cluster up into smaller clusters, you would still have the lag issue that you are having now. You would also have less people to play with in your alliance. It would also segregate the player base like it dose with games like wow with players from different nationalities. And I think that would be one of the greatest losses for EVE as whole. In the 4 years I have played, I have met allot of people from around the word, and that's one of the things that keeps me playing. Well that and its Internet space ships.
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:32:00 - [92] Hrm, perhaps a more concise way of expressing the point I was trying to make is: "lag happens because people keep flocking to the same system until lag happens." Still, I think the idea of requiring near-simultaneous action in multiple disparate systems is the secret to reducing fleet fight lag (by reducing the size of the fleets on any one grid). Applying the same mechanism to empire, and thus having Traffic Control notices become a regular occurrence rather than a quirk of post-DT boot-up, and having trade in Jita restricted by the "physics" of star gate travel, would be a good thing. Trade requires relative scarcity. [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Ninetails o'Cat League of Super Evil	Posted - 2010.04.30 05:45:00 - [93] Originally by: Mara Rinn Hrm, perhaps a more concise way of expressing the point I was trying to make is: "lag happens because people keep flocking to the same system until lag happens." Still, I think the idea of requiring near-simultaneous action in multiple disparate systems is the secret to reducing fleet fight lag (by reducing the size of the fleets on any one grid). But then the defenders can just blob on one of the required objectives and the attackers will never be able to take it.
Zitus NON PROPERO	Posted - 2010.04.30 08:06:00 - [94] Originally by: Tippia Quote: It could be like how other, super successful MMOs ruin their games. Fixed /thread ------------------ I'm not sure if my eyes are actually bleeding, or if it's merely my brain bleeding out through my eye sockets, but either way, it hurts to read what you just wrote
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2010.04.30 09:09:00 - [95] Originally by: Ninetails o'Cat But then the defenders can just blob on one of the required objectives and the attackers will never be able to take it. Yeah, and it also occurred to me that there are problems in the situation where a system has, say, three gates, and two of the gates are to systems that the alliance already holds. But in that instance, the situation is no worse than it is currently - all the fleet are blobbed in one spot. In the least-good case, a held system has at least two star gates to other systems that the holder doesn't have claim over. So perhaps requiring the interdiction only reach an average over the non-sovereign stargates is the key. The defender blobbing one gate will make the second gate vulnerable. Or take a step back and reevaluate what the concern is. I want sov mechanics to allow systems to be attacked or defended using actions that take days or weeks to complete. This is to allow casual players to take part in alliance actions, and discourage alarm-clock ops. I want these actions to benefit from the attacker or defender spreading their forces out, without dictating that they do so - point action should have some reward, but the reward for diffuse action in this instance should be greater. No, this does not reflect real life, but then in real life we don't have stargates or ships that can travel at faster-than-light speeds in realspace. I want a sov claiming/challenging mechanic that will reward the deployment of black ops fleets in strategic situations. Perhaps we can adjust the Faction Warfare system to suit this situation? In the same way that friendly forces can probe down anomalies and what have you, the enemy could come in and do the same thing? If you can project more force than the enemy, your indexes go up. If the enemy manages to come into your system and clear out more asteroids, pirates and exploration sites than you can, you lose your claim to the system? Would this encourage more, smaller fights? Would attackers be willing to infiltrate enemy systems in many small ships to clear out as many exploration sites as possible before the enemy reacts? [Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES]
Jukhtress Mein	Posted - 2010.04.30 10:08:00 - [96] Tehehe
arbiter reformed Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2010.04.30 10:17:00 - [97] Edited by: arbiter reformed on 30/04/2010 10:20:59 Originally by: BORRIS DEMONTFORD Pirates of The Burning Sea started off with 13 servers it now has 2, 1 of which is on its last legs, most players attribute the shedding of the games population, at least in part, to the players being spread too thin. pobts is a bood example of why this doesnt work, 1 team will dominate one server another will dominate another and then some will be really boring and everyone flocks to the interesting servers also people seem to be forgetting CHINA SERVER!
Jasper Grimpkin Trader's Academy MPA	Posted - 2010.04.30 11:39:00 - [98] i want to be king of eve
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:14:00 - [99] So I suppose it's fair to summarize this by saying that the community is resistant to the idea of a multiple world game, because it believes that it is now necessary to have a population at current levels, regardless of whether or not those particular numbers are the numbers we have today or the numbers we had last year, the year before, etc. The status quo must be maintained because the status quo seems the only acceptable solution to at least the vocal segment of the population that spends time in the forums discussing the nature of a problem it identified. I can understand that, but I'll contend that lag will be an ongoing problem that will persist regardless of optimizations since there are such large numbers of people living their lives out in the Big T. I'll be one of the first people to toss myself into the proverbial breech though when the day comes that a second cluster is opened up because, quite honestly, I see more space for fun in an empty place versus one filled to the +50k PCU of our current world. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:21:00 - [100] Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2010 13:21:25 Originally by: Kallieah àbecause it believes that it is now necessary to have a population at current levels, regardless of whether or not those particular numbers are the numbers we have today or the numbers we had last year, the year before, etc.à àand you keep ignoring the fact that both space and game mechanics have been continuously expanded and updated to match these higher numbers. Therefore, the situation we had with lower numbers tells you nothing about what would happen should those numbers come back. You are the one expecting a status quo, when we have long since moved away from that, and are still moving. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:29:00 - [101] Originally by: Tippia àand you keep ignoring the fact that both space and game mechanics have been continuously expanded and updated to match these higher numbers. Therefore, the situation we had with lower numbers tells you nothing about what would happen should those numbers come back. You are the one expecting a status quo, when we have long since moved away from that, and are still moving. I hope you don't mind moving there in short bursts of carnage between half hour waits for grid load. In all seriousness though, I'm not ignoring that there have been a lot of game changes which were done to adapt the world to deal with increased numbers. Certainly some aspects would simply have to be different to deal with a smaller subset of the community. But those changes would not be "fun demolishing" by any stretch. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:33:00 - [102] Originally by: Kallieah I hope you don't mind moving there in short bursts of carnage between half hour waits for grid load. This is something you assume û we have already seen that it's not an absolute truth. Quote: Certainly some aspects would simply have to be different to deal with a smaller subset of the community. But those changes would not be "fun demolishing" by any stretch. It's not a matter of changing û it's a matter of removing. Most importantly, it's removing the uniqueness of the game; it's main draw. That's about as fun-demolishing as they come. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
John Nerush Perkone	Posted - 2010.04.30 13:55:00 - [103] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x This is just one of the reasons I would never vote you as CSM lol
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:19:00 - [104] Originally by: Kallieah So I suppose it's fair to summarize this by saying that the community is resistant to the idea of a multiple world game, because it believes that it is now necessary to have a population at current levels That's one reason. You seem reluctant to type all the reasons. I don't know why. Sure it would be a long list and would completely undermine your idea... oh wait nvm. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:21:00 - [105] Tip, that first bit was intended as humor and I do understand that it's not always the case that the lag beasties should appear in every engagement. Humor me for a moment though. Let's assume that CCP would announce that a new cluster is available and that players could transfer their characters there over the upcoming month free of charge. Following that there'd be a nominal service fee to relocate an account. What do you suppose would happen as a result and how would it result in an adverse impact in the unique fun that you're now enjoying on the Big T? Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:24:00 - [106] This is a really good troll +1 internets to the OP for making people post 4 pages with serious replies.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:31:00 - [107] Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2010 14:32:03 Originally by: Kallieah Tip, that first bit was intended as humor and I do understand that it's not always the case that the lag beasties should appear in every engagement. So why do you keep using it as an argument? The fact of the matter is that we've seen the servers handle far larger fleets than what it can now. Unfortunately, this ruins your argument that we need to reduce the size of things to get rid of the lag. Quote: What do you suppose would happen as a result and how would it result in an adverse impact in the unique fun that you're now enjoying on the Big T? Nothing. The vast majority would stay on one server, where everything happens. The rest would move over, find a deserted wasteland, and either return or quit. Granted, CCP would then have to close shop due to not being able to pay back the investment they made in duplicating the TQ hardwareà and that would ruin everyone's fun ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Jasdemi Caldari Caldari Frontiers	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:33:00 - [108] What a lame suggestion. --------------------------------------------- Jasdemi's High Quality TS3 Hosting
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:37:00 - [109] I use it as an argument because it exists and has been a problem for years now. I believe that it will continue to exist in some form or another until a fundamental change is made that hopefully preserves the entertainment value of the game, but allows for further growth as well such that CCP can continue to deliver unparalleled gameplay to the community. Secondly, if nothing would happen, how does the existance of an additional cluster or clusters result in a fun demolishing cataclysm? Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:45:00 - [110] Originally by: Kallieah I use it as an argument because it exists and has been a problem for years now. You missed all of last year, didn't you? Quote: I believe that it will continue to exist in some form or another until a fundamental change is made that hopefully preserves the entertainment value of the game, but allows for further growth as well such that CCP can continue to deliver unparalleled gameplay to the community. And how does cutting the community up into disparate parts with no connection to each other, and destroying the social aspects of the game solve this? It certainly won't "solve lag". Quote: Secondly, if nothing would happen, how does the existance of an additional cluster or clusters result in a fun demolishing cataclysm? Already answered. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:54:00 - [111] I was around last year and yes there was less lag, but not "no lag." Cutting up the community does nothing to damage the social aspects of the game in the long term. In the short term there will be minor disruptions while people converge and fine different collections of like-minded players, but that isn't going to do any substantial harm. And already answered in what way? You said nothing would happen so I contend there would be no harm. You, in essence, supported that, yet still claim there is some lurking horror we'd deal with. Obviously since we're still discussing the issue in a rational manner (for which I thank you, your civil exploration of the topic is uncommonly kind), so something is left that I'm missing. I want to understand you thoughts and involve you in this as a community member, but that does require a response with a little more substance. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 14:56:00 - [112] Kall, don't you have work or something? WORK, NOW.
Ana Vyr	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:03:00 - [113] You'd wreck EvE's best feature? Having everybody in one instance of the game is what makes it so unique and cool.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:06:00 - [114] Edited by: Tippia on 30/04/2010 15:06:24 Originally by: Kallieah I was around last year and yes there was less lag, but not "no lag." There will never be "no lag" û that's the whole point. You're looking to dismantle one of the fundamental selling points of the game in an attempt to achieve something that doesn't exist. Quote: Cutting up the community does nothing to damage the social aspects of the game in the long term. Sure it does: game loses main appeal. People quit. No more social aspects. Total damage. Quote: In the short term there will be minor disruptions while people converge and fine different collections of like-minded players, but that isn't going to do any substantial harm. You might want to look into what happens when people are forced to "choose servers" where they previously hadn't. Plenty of examples of this exists already, always with the same result: people quit. Quote: And already answered in what way? You said nothing would happen so I contend there would be no harm. You mean apart from the server having to shut down, throwing money and effort down the toilet, and being back right where we are today with nothing solved or changed? That doesn't quite qualify as "no harm". I keep coming back to this: what, exactly, is it you think you will solve? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Boltorano Fourth Circle Total Comfort	Posted - 2010.04.30 15:30:00 - [115] Consider me another member in the "I will quit playing the day EVE is sharded because I will no longer be able to interact with the whole of the player base within the same game environment." camp. I will never play a MMOG that is not shardless in the manner that EVE is. I have never actually encountered real system lag beyond serious "cluster is going down!!1!11!one" moments, but I hear things were pretty lag-free before Dominion?
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:07:00 - [116] Tip, I really do think that we come from very different sides of this topic and I'm starting to doubt that we'll ever be able to find some agreeable point on this topic. Please don't take this as dismissive of your ideas though. I just think it's best to agree to disagree on the matter and acknowledge that we each find fun to be something fundamentally different. Originally by: Boltorano Consider me another member in the "I will quit playing the day EVE is sharded because I will no longer be able to interact with the whole of the player base within the same game environment." camp. I will never play a MMOG that is not shardless in the manner that EVE is. I have never actually encountered real system lag beyond serious "cluster is going down!!1!11!one" moments, but I hear things were pretty lag-free before Dominion? Bolt that'd be a shame if people left EVE because of something like this, but on the flipside, lots of people say they'll quit and never do or only use the most recent change as an excuse to quit. If you would genuinely leave over something so silly an insignificant as the existance of another EVE, then your contribution to the community woild be missed. In the pre-Dominion past there was a time when fleet lag was not as prominent and the getting was good, so to speak. However, even earlier still, there were lag issues that were considered game breaking by the small minority of people that did hop into large scale fleet battles. I think another alternative would be to modify game mechanics to make territorial control more fluid as running brawls rather than siege warfare which they are now. Nothing is fun about sitting outside or inside the castle walls hurling things at one another in a basically static conflict over the right to call some pretty space scenery your own. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Thrasymachus TheSophist	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:22:00 - [117] OK, add me to the list of troll victims, but I can't resist ... 1. It won't solve Fleet lag. The game is on a single "server" but it really operates like multiple servers. You cannot interact with anyone in game unless you're on the same grid. That grid is placed on its own shard. Even if you split the total population into 10 servers with 5,000 players on each, when Alliance A attacks Alliance B, the size of teh fleet fight in the individual grid remains constant, and is not better handled simply because other shards are dealing with less data. The only solution to the lag problem is to increase the computing power applied to each grid - but that solution is independent of how many worlds you have. 2. The only aspects of the game that are truely global are the very ones that make Eve unique and so cool. (1) Chat channels and (2) The Market. However, splitting these off would have no effect on fleet lag because these functions are run on different resources than the fleet fights anyway. 3. Not only would the OP's suggestion have no effect on fleet lag, it would have a detrimental effect on the market and social aspects. With the market in particular - efficieny comes from volume. Cutting the volume down to 1/10 and you seriously cripple the ability to have an efficient market. Just look at the markets in those "otehr" games - they suck, mostlye because there is insufficient volume.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:38:00 - [118] Okay, I'll get super-dee-duper technical for a moment. I'm more concerned with PCU that total numbers of registered accounts. There are a lot more active accounts than there are people logged in at any given time. When I get into numeric values, I'm talking in terms of people connected at any given time. Now, with that said, if there were 5000 characters active from that pool, there's next to zero chance that even 600 of them will be in two warring nullsec alliances. Most of them will still sulk around highsec being involved in whatever is happening there and therefore be non-entities when it comes to lag on node X in "nobody cares but alliance A and alliance B space" since the actual war for sov, let's face it, is a yawnfest to the silent majority of CCP's current subscriber base. Of the people that do care, some of them will be unable to participate due to RL issues, or having the wrong skillset to benefit, or being elsewhere or what have you. Therefore, I see no reason why lag will persist in this manner following the splitting of Big T. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:55:00 - [119] Originally by: Kallieah Now, with that said, if there were 5000 characters active from that pool, there's next to zero chance that even 600 of them will be in two warring nullsec alliances. In which case CCP will require less nodes to support the galaxy, so nodes will run an increased amount of solar systems (it isn't realistic to think that CCP are going to run a TQ capacity setup for 1/10th of the PCU - it isn't cost effective). So, the game will still lag, just with fewer players required to cause it. Come on, you can do better than that. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:56:00 - [120] Originally by: Kallieah Therefore, I see no reason why lag will persist in this manner following the splitting of Big T. Because of the fundamental truth of EVE: people pile into a system (or into a fleet) until it lags. More people = your fleet has a bigger chance to win. More people = the market is more efficient. More people = everything is easier and quicker. As others have mentioned, your solution does not address this. Splitting people up does not change the basic need to have a high concentration of people, so you solve nothing û in fact, you rather risk that people will grow bored and leave. Want to solve lag? Invent a way to make numbers hurt, rather than help. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind AAA Citizens	Posted - 2010.04.30 18:31:00 - [121] Damn, this guy is trolling the hell outta all of you. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.04.30 18:33:00 - [122] Originally by: Straight Chillen Damn, this guy is trolling the hell outta all of you. Regardless of the intention of the OP, this is still a worthwhile discussion. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Kharadran Sullath Caldari Subordination	Posted - 2010.04.30 19:01:00 - [123] Edited by: Kharadran Sullath on 30/04/2010 19:02:14 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Straight Chillen Damn, this guy is trolling the hell outta all of you. Regardless of the intention of the OP, this is still a worthwhile discussion. How exactly is something which will never happen a worthwhile discussion? Does anyone honestly believe that CCP would even consider splitting TQ? Give me a break. Edit: Why the **** is a thread about a discussion which can only end in the same way as every other similar threads before it 5 pages long? End it already.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 19:16:00 - [124] First of all, it's at 5 pages because there is actually something worth talking about even if its been discussed before. Something that was considered in the past is not automagically invalid because the discussion halted back then. Secondly, there really isn't a lot of trolling or silliness in this thread. I think that the number of constuctive posts goes well over the usual ratios in GD. Enough of that though. Back to the point. This is directed mostly to Tip and Avon. Where is the lag generating population going to come from when the overall numbers are comfortably small? And I don't think implementation of a new cluster automatically means that the amount of number crunchies per player is kept at the exact same level. That'd be sort of silly, I should think. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:16:00 - [125] Originally by: Kallieah there really isn't a lot of trolling or silliness in this thread Quote of the day. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:23:00 - [126] SAGE!
Iture Caldari Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:25:00 - [127] Just because i dont want CCP to get any idea's. I'm betting 90% of the player base would leave outright. And most of your original complaints would still exist.
Hecate Shaw Caldari United Freemerchants Society	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:34:00 - [128] Kallieah - have you seen the video released by CCP entitled "Eve Butterfly Effect"? Given what is said in that video, I think your chances of convincing them to shard TQ is somewhere between "NO!" and "Oh, **** NO!". Excepting the upswing of lag introduced by Dominion, TQ is working as intended. Stercus accidit
Ai Mei	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:37:00 - [129] SAGE!
Terranid Meester Tactical Assault and Recon Unit	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:49:00 - [130] Terrible idea. Awful idea.

Zex Maxwell Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.30 21:52:00 - [131] Originally by: Kallieah So there's some lag out there caused by big fleet fights and dev teams are working to resolve the problem. Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things, I'm going to toss out a suggestion. TQ should be divided into multiple, smaller server things so that when you log on /me Stopped reading. Something tells me your a new player that came from WoW. Go back where you came from...
Volius Hizzy Hizzy Hippos	Posted - 2010.04.30 22:39:00 - [132] Lag issues aside, Wikipedia says there's over 7500 systems in Eve Online. Doesn't 8k people on a shard spread over 7.5k systems on the same shard seem a little bleak?
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 00:47:00 - [133] Edited by: Kallieah on 01/05/2010 00:47:57 Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Kallieah there really isn't a lot of trolling or silliness in this thread Quote of the day. I like being quotable! And hi there Crumplecorn! I love your forum posts in other threads! Thanks for coming to visit me in this one! Originally by: Iture I'm betting 90% of the player base would leave outright. I'm betting almost no one will leave because there's nothing else around like EVE whether its on more than one realm or not. Originally by: Hecate Shaw Kallieah - have you seen the video released by CCP entitled "Eve Butterfly Effect"? Given what is said in that video, I think your chances of convincing them to shard TQ is somewhere between "NO!" and "Oh, ** NO!". I did see the video and it was sort of interesting and well made too even. Though I doubt that has anything to do with anything really aside from the fact that your actions impact potentially the whole world. That's still true if there's more than one world. Originally by:** Zex Maxwell /me Stopped reading. Something tells me your a new player that came from WoW. Go back where you came from... If you'd read the rest of the thread before jumping to conclusions, you could offer a more informed and constructive opinion. Originally by: Volius Lag issues aside, Wikipedia says there's over 7500 systems in Eve Online. Doesn't 8k people on a shard spread over 7.5k systems on the same shard seem a little bleak? Not bleak enough for my tastes, personally. However my idea meets everyone's expectations at a reasonable level of compromise even if there are a few small, vocal minority that doesn't agree and isn't offering really good solutions either for that matter. I at least stated the problem and offered a good, workable answer that wouldn't waste a lot of time and make the small nullsec populations very happy. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:09:00 - [134] Originally by: Kallieah I like being quotable! And hi there Crumplecorn! I love your forum posts in other threads! Thanks for coming to visit me in this one! I'd visit more often, but there's a queue outside of people waiting to tell you how wrong you are. I think CCP might start charging for admission. Originally by: Kallieah your actions impact potentially the whole world. That's still true if there's more than one world. By definition not true. Originally by: Kallieah there are a few small, vocal minority that doesn't agree and isn't offering really good solutions either for that matter. Judging by the thread, you are the minority here. Lag doesn't have a solution because it is not a problem - it is a fact of life; you can mitigate it, but not 'solve' it. And CCP are managing to do that (Dominion notwithstanding) without cutting EVE into little bits. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:16:00 - [135] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Kallieah I like being quotable! And hi there Crumplecorn! I love your forum posts in other threads! Thanks for coming to visit me in this one! I'd visit more often, but there's a queue outside of people waiting to tell you how wrong you are. I think CCP might start charging for admission. I don't mind taking on a controversial viewpoint for the sake of argument if it might have a slim chance at changing the game for the better. Making EVE into micro EVEs would be better so I'm all for it! I'm sure there are a very large number of people who either are for it or don't care one way or the other who aren't posting here. Why else would this not be the first discussion about the idea? Anyway, I think CCP in a way does charge admission. You do have to have an active account to make replies after all. An, in a roundabout way, I'm getting paid for it too by adding potential value to EVE. Everyone wins! Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:22:00 - [136] Originally by: Kallieah I don't mind taking on a controversial viewpoint for the sake of argument if it might have a slim chance at changing the game for the better. Making EVE into micro EVEs would be better so I'm all for it! I'm sure there are a very large number of people who either are for it or don't care one way or the other who aren't posting here. Why else would this not be the first discussion about the idea? Anyway, I think CCP in a way does charge admission. You do have to have an active account to make replies after all. An, in a roundabout way, I'm getting paid for it too by adding potential value to EVE. Everyone wins! 'Taking a controversial viewpoint' does not involve repeating points which have already been countered and ignoring inconvenient facts. The reason this topic keeps coming up, like so many others, is because of people wandering into EVE without really knowing anything about it and naively making suggestions like this. And trolls of course. Always the trolls. Like you. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:37:00 - [137] Originally by: Crumplecorn 'Taking a controversial viewpoint' does not involve repeating points which have already been countered and ignoring inconvenient facts. The reason this topic keeps coming up, like so many others, is because of people wandering into EVE without really knowing anything about it and naively making suggestions like this. And trolls of course. Always the trolls. Like you. Most of the points I've made here have not been effectively countered or supported with facts. Sure people offer opinions and they're welcome to do so since even opinions that don't have any kind of backup are welcome, but at the moment, the debate is just opinion of what would be a better world on all sides. And I'm not a troll. I'm involving the community in a useful discussion. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
failpirate	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:45:00 - [138] you guys are still talking about this? look, op is right. adapt or die. the end.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:47:00 - [139] Originally by: Kallieah Most of the points I've made here have not been effectively countered or supported with facts. People have gone into far more detail on how your idea will not work than you have into how it will work. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 01:50:00 - [140] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Kallieah Most of the points I've made here have not been effectively countered or supported with facts. People have gone into far more detail on how your idea will not work than you have into how it will work. Based on what supporting data though? I'm not seeing how their guesses are any more or less valid that yours, mine, or that wacko that just posted about adapting or dying. Only a few people have offered really sensible alternatives and one even explained specific mechanics which, I think, was a fantastic idea that I never got around to replying to again...I've been meaning to also. Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:05:00 - [141] Originally by: Kallieah I'm not seeing how their guesses are any more or less valid that yours, mine a) Not based around the assumption that lag is a solvable problem b) Don't predicate their ideas on destroying the game c) Multiple independent mutually inclusive projections rather than the single "less population less lag lol" Off the top of my head. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:13:00 - [142] Originally by: Crumplecorn a) Not based around the assumption that lag is a solvable problem b) Don't predicate their ideas on destroying the game c) Multiple independent mutually inclusive projections rather than the single "less population less lag lol" Lag isn't a solvable problem. From a computer's NIC to the ISP and through any router in between into the server farm there's potential for dropped packets or data corruption. That doesn't even include the software code of the client, the server side game engine, or the underlying OS or hardware of the platform on either side. Then there's the fact that it all exists inside a shared database that's maintained by a clustered system. Last I heard that was a Microsoft SQL product, but that was years ago so who knows what's happened since then. So no, lag isn't something that can or will be solved. It must be managed. (Meh, technical silliness again.) My idea doesn't destroy the game, rather it vastly expands its potential by allowing the community to grow endlessly without technological limitations that are currently keeping people from doing what they want with their shovel and bucket in the sandbox. Point C doesn't make sense. Can you expand on that a bit? Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:21:00 - [143] Originally by: Kallieah My idea doesn't destroy the game, rather it vastly expands its potential by allowing the community to grow endlessly without technological limitations that are currently keeping people from doing what they want with their shovel and bucket in the sandbox. Growing the community is pointless if it is split up. CCP would get more money of course, but the players would never see the benefit. What is achieved by lifting technological limitations if you add much more severe design limitations in the process? Originally by: Kallieah Point C doesn't make sense. Can you expand on that a bit? Read back over the thread. The cases against your idea are numerous and well thought out. Your idea, on the other hand, is tantamount to 'turn off the server, no lag'. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:24:00 - [144] Originally by: Crumplecorn Read back over the thread. The cases against your idea are numerous and well thought out. Your idea, on the other hand, is tantamount to 'turn off the server, no lag'. I never said there weren't, but many of them are not very well thought out. Also, you didn't mention anything about lag management. Do you have any thoughts you can add regarding the network or the database? . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:30:00 - [145] Originally by: Kallieah not very well thought out That's kind of the theme you set for this thread though isn't it? Originally by: Kallieah Also, you didn't mention anything about lag management. Do you have any thoughts you can add regarding the network or the database? You don't expect me to engage in serious discussion in this joke of a thread do you? - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:34:00 - [146] Thread needs more hacking Russians and PL, IMO.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:34:00 - [147] Originally by: Crumplecorn That's kind of the theme you set for this thread though isn't it? You don't expect me to engage in serious discussion in this joke of a thread do you? I asked for people's thoughts, including yours since you're here posting which means you feel strongly enough to offer your opinion. That's great! Just do it constructively and people will listen to what you have to say! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:41:00 - [148] Originally by: Kallieah Just do it constructively and people will listen to what you have to say You are not listening to anyone. - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:45:00 - [149] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Kallieah Just do it constructively and people will listen to what you have to say You are not listening to anyone. I am too! Nyah! In all seriousness, I'm listening to you right now and I want you to contribute in a valuable manner! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:48:00 - [150] Originally by: Kallieah I am too! Nyah! In all seriousness, I'm listening to you right now and I want you to contribute in a valuable manner! The only constructive contribution would be to stop posting in this thread. Observe: - I wish I was a three foot tall doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes

Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 03:01:00 - [151] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Kallieah I am too! Nyah! In all seriousness, I'm listening to you right now and I want you to contribute in a valuable manner! The only constructive contribution would be to stop posting in this thread. Observe: I'll miss you Crumple! And no matter how we feel about this stuff, I still think you're a great guy for all the other things you do in the forum so thanks for dropping in your ideas! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
failpirate	Posted - 2010.05.01 03:10:00 - [152] op is right. bawwwwwwing doesn't get you anywhere. adapt or die.
Don Pellegrino The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.05.01 03:41:00 - [153] 9.5/10 troll. It only lacks a picture or movie.
Usagi Toshiro Amarr PoliCratton Technologies Crimson Dragons	Posted - 2010.05.01 04:21:00 - [154] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Dan O'Connor I urge you to come back once you understand the Sandbox concept EVE is based upon, and why it makes it stand out of the crowd. Dan, I respect your opinion, but I urge you to do away with the narrowminded perspective that a sandbox has to be full or overflowing with preschoolers to be any fun. Consider ten realms with a PCU of about 2500 - 6000 players, some PvP and some not. You get TEN equally huge sandboxes that contain the same number of shovels, buckets, and plastic dumpers as you have now and far fewer children with which to have a grabby "That one's mine!" argument with. It makes EVE better and more diverse as well as bigger! And laggy fleet stuff is gone too automagically! See that bold part? That is what makes EVE truly great. If I want another kid's shovel and pail, I can take it or die trying. Just think of each Solar System as a "server" or "fresh sandbox" if you don't like what is going on in one, jump to another. Just watch out for a bigger kid without a shovel and pail...
Red Woodson Estrale Frontiers	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:06:00 - [155] Edited by: Red Woodson on 01/05/2010 07:20:05 From the OP: Originally by: Kallieah I'm just saying this because the current way of fixing lag doesn't work very well. I mean, it's a good idea to discourage big fleets with the loading screen cooldown that forces players to wait to engage and reconsider fighting, but the point where the game turns that feature on is already too high. There's usually 500 people in a system before the grid load safeties are activated. Jerks are already exploiting to get around it by doing stuff like making safe spots way out in space. From a later post: Originally by: Kallieah Wasn't that what Dominion was supposed to fix? By implementing a grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system, the prevented people in big alliances from breaking the Big T when 800 morons all tried to stuff themselves into a system. And then you guys exploited deep safes to circumvent loading cooldown that compounded the problem further. --implementing a grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system-- --implementing a grid load queue-- So wait, CCP has changed their official stance from 'grid load issues are not intended, and we are working on it' to 'grid load issues are a feature to discourage blobbing'? Where did i miss that announcement? I have to hand it to you, well hidden whine there. I didn't catch it in the OP the first time, as it is late here, and I'm tired, but something felt wrong enough with it to keep me reading, and when i read the later post it hit me like a brick. No points for the troll of multiple shards though. EDIT: Didn't read the whole thread before posting. Seems more people bit on the shard troll than i thought, and you began calling it lag rather than "grid load queue to keep people from swarming a full system". Not bad. So maybe it is later than i thought here, and i'm more tired than i thought.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:47:00 - [156] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Iture I'm betting 90% of the player base would leave outright. I'm betting almost no one will leave because there's nothing else around like EVE whether its on more than one realm or not. Actually, if it's more than one "realm", then would be just like those other games, so conversely, there would be quite a few around that would be just like EVE. àgranted, all of those are failed games in their last death throes as well, just like EVE will be. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Mr SmartGuy	Posted - 2010.05.01 09:32:00 - [157] Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? I'm thinking that you were not thinking when you posted your thoughts about thinking that it would be cool to have multiple servers. TL;DR: No.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:13:00 - [158] Originally by: Usagi Toshiro If I want another kid's shovel and pail, I can take it or die trying. Just think of each Solar System as a "server" or "fresh sandbox" if you don't like what is going on in one, jump to another. Just watch out for a bigger kid without a shovel and pail... I agree that is a good aspect of the game that can continue to happen when we get more than one widdle EVE to play on. The problem is that anyone can go everywhere so too many people go to the same place with means we need to manage overpopulation. I guess you could alternatively make EVE about five times larger, but it wouldn't totally fix stuff. Originally by: Red Woodson So wait, CCP has changed their official stance from 'grid load issues are not intended, and we are working on it' to 'grid load issues are a feature to discourage blobbing'? Where did i miss that announcement? Horrible people on the forums destroy CCP staff with angry ravings when they announce anything new or good. Why wouldn't they just slip it in there and see how things went? I know I would! Originally by: Tippia Actually, if it's more than one "realm", then would be just like those other games, so conversely, there would be quite a few around that would be just like EVE. àgranted, all of those are failed games in their last death throes as well, just like EVE will be. Tip, it already is just like all those other games. It has treadmilling to develop your character, it has gear, it has crafting, it has guilds. They do fine when they aren't mismanaged like PotBS or suck like STO. CCP won't mismanage the game. Originally by: Mr SmartGuy I'm thinking that you were not thinking when you posted your thoughts about thinking that it would be cool to have multiple servers. Hey, you're a smart guy, what do you think I was thinking? I'm just trying to make a positive contribution to the community with which I play internet spaceships. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:20:00 - [159] Originally by: Kallieah The problem is that anyone can go everywhere so too many people go to the same place with means we need to manage overpopulation. Right. Except that adding more realms doesn't solve that. Quote: Tip, it already is just like all those other games. It has treadmilling to develop your character, it has gear, it has crafting, it has guilds. Oh dear. Well, that explains a lot of your confusion. But ok, then there's even more reason not to remove the final distinguishing feature û the one that makes people play this game, rather than those others. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Albetta	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:21:00 - [160] Originally by: Kallieah Because I have a lot of insight into these sorts of things Apparently not.

Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:29:00 - [161] Edited by: Kallieah on 01/05/2010 14:30:52 Originally by: Tippia Right. Except that adding more realms doesn't solve that. It isn't an all encompassing fix, but to does mitigate the circumstances that cause the problem since sov space holders can't just agree to trade systems based on the outcome of a game of Reversi between the executor corp CEOs. Originally by: Tippia Oh dear. Well, that explains a lot of your confusion. But ok, then there's even more reason not to remove the final distinguishing feature û the one that makes people play this game, rather than those others. It's not -the- reason. People want scifi spaceships. One world is just a gimmick that people already playing it use to justify continuing to play. Psychological crutch and nothing more and there are lots of others to use in its place. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:36:00 - [162] Originally by: Kallieah It isn't an all encompassing fix, but to does mitigate the circumstances that cause the problem Not really. There's no reason to go to the new servers. There's no reason not to bunch up. In fact, I'd even say that your solution would cause more lag, since the same amount of people would have to be squeezed onto less hardware. Quote: It's not -the- reason. So which is it: is EVE like those other games or isn't it? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:45:00 - [163] Why are you guys arguing with someone who has Quote: Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM! in his signature? Supporting EVE's future combined with breaking up the cluster into cluster ****. Rrright.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:46:00 - [164] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Kallieah It isn't an all encompassing fix, but to does mitigate the circumstances that cause the problem Not really. There's no reason to go to the new servers. There's no reason not to bunch up. In fact, I'd even say that your solution would cause more lag, since the same amount of people would have to be squeezed onto less hardware. Quote: It's not -the- reason. So which is it: is EVE like those other games or isn't it? Going with more realms doesn't mean that the same amount of computer crunchies is available per player. I said earlier: Originally by: Kallieah This is directed mostly to Tip and Avon. Where is the lag generating population going to come from when the overall numbers are comfortably small? And I don't think implementation of a new cluster automatically means that the amount of number crunchies per player is kept at the exact same level. That'd be sort of silly, I should think. So yeah, like DUH and stuff! If you don't read things, you can't make an informed point in a debate. And EVE is a game, so it's like every other internet game except that it has spaceships and you can train skills when you're offline...which you can kinda do in AoC so yeah whatever. EVE's uniqueness isn't really debatable here though since this thread is all about making the Big T in Little T, Little T, Little T, etc. On topic with you! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Avon Caldari Versatech Co. Aeternus.	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:02:00 - [165] As I said before: Quote: In which case CCP will require less nodes to support the galaxy, so nodes will run an increased amount of solar systems (it isn't realistic to think that CCP are going to run a TQ capacity setup for 1/10th of the PCU - it isn't cost effective). So, the game will still lag, just with fewer players required to cause it. If anything, lag will scale at worse than 1:1 per $ when you factor in things that need to be paid for which do not directly impact "in space" performance (like chat / market / proxy servers, etc). This takes you to a position where TQ lags at 500 player, but in each of 10 available shards the same lag will be experienced with less than 50 players. 250 vs 250 fights are pretty groovy, but the same lag level in a 20 vs 20 would be somewhat less epic. As I said before, sharding can not answer the problem because it addresses neither human nature or flawed game mechanics. Signature removed, please only use English on the forums. Zymurgist Okay sweet-cheeks xxx. Avon
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:03:00 - [166] Edited by: Tippia on 01/05/2010 16:05:43 Originally by: Kallieah Going with more realms doesn't mean that the same amount of computer crunchies is available per player. Where is the lag generating population going to come from when the overall numbers are comfortably small? The same place it comes from now: people being in the same place at the same time because that's what works best, because, again, your proposal does not address the actual root issue or give any reason for people to split up. Quote: And I don't think implementation of a new cluster automatically means that the amount of number crunchies per player is kept at the exact same level. That'd be sort of silly, I should think. And again, since you refuse to actually comment: you don't give any reason for people to split up soà no, in fact, there will be less crunch per player û they're not going to completely duplicate the cluster hardware for each "realm", and since there is no reason for people to spread, everyone will cram into the most populous one. In fact, if they're throwing that much money on the problem, they're still far better off keeping it as one cluster and figuring out how to parallelise the system û or even grid û management. Quote: And EVE is a game, so it's like every other internet game except that it has spaceships and you can train skills when you're offline...which you can kinda do in AoC so yeah whatever Oh and again here too: this really explains your confusion. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 16:13:00 - [167] Edited by: Kallieah on 01/05/2010 16:14:25 Avon, you made a good point, BUUUUUT you're forgetting that increased numbers of people results in exponential scaling. I'll get all silly techie again to highlight the point, but on a more simplified numeric scale. (this kinda goes for you too Tip, since you insist on me doing detailed stuff, but I don't mind if it helps understanding!) Assume two people are brawling it out in a pair of rookie ships, each with one (edit: two, darn math!) civ blaster(s). They're the only two people on the grid and in the node at the moment. The node needs only manage interaction between say, four turrets at most and update two clients. So that's 2x4 = 8 right? Now add two more players in rookie ships and you get 4x8 = 32 That's a LOT more so as fleet interaction grows data processing requirements grow exponentially larger with each additional participant on that node. Fewer people means LESS crunchies are needed to run the same number of clients in a lag free enviroment! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Agent77	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:05:00 - [168] if eve was ever seperated into multiple servers i would go for only 2. One for Non Rp'ers and one for Rp'ers
Armageddon Brown Bjorn Filthy Incorporated Eternal Strife	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:38:00 - [169] Edited by: Armageddon Brown on 01/05/2010 17:38:52 Originally by: Agent77 if eve was ever seperated into multiple servers i would go for only 2. One for Non Rp'ers and one for Rp'ers In my experience, in eve, there is precious little difference. except for the occasional sputters of "It's just a game, man!" the gameplay of non-rper's conforms pretty well to the RP expectations of other players. eve doesn't need sharding; eve needs more efficient net-code. (to be fair, eve already has some of the most efficient netcode in the world) even then though, if 500 v 500 didn't lag, people would just blob up to 1000 v 1000
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:59:00 - [170] Originally by: Armageddon Brown Edited by: Armageddon Brown on 01/05/2010 17:38:52 Originally by: Agent77 if eve was ever seperated into multiple servers i would go for only 2. One for Non Rp'ers and one for Rp'ers In my experience, in eve, there is precious little difference. except for the occasional sputters of "It's just a game, man!" the gameplay of non-rper's conforms pretty well to the RP expectations of other players. eve doesn't need sharding; eve needs more efficient net-code. (to be fair, eve already has some of the most efficient netcode in the world) even then though, if 500 v 500 didn't lag, people would just blob up to 1000 v 1000 Good points! I believe that two would be a great start, just open a new one and let people start to trickle into it. I'm not sure about roleplaying either. It'd be easy to encourage, but hard to enforce or make it mandatory and that could lead to another kind of griefing. "Let's go to the RP realms and harass the roleplay people!" or somesuch. And yes, I bet EVE is ultra-mega-super-sticky-gooey-efficient. And people will go up in scale till they make stuff lag really bad which is why I think that smaller populations would really mitigate that greatly. Thanks both of you for sharing! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:02:00 - [171] Originally by: Kallieah And people will go up in scale till they make stuff lag really bad which is why I think that smaller populations would really mitigate that greatly. You don't see the inherent contradiction in this? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:05:00 - [172] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Kallieah And people will go up in scale till they make stuff lag really bad which is why I think that smaller populations would really mitigate that greatly. You don't see the inherent contradiction in this? No, not really. Can you 'splain what you're on about please? . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:09:00 - [173] Edited by: Tippia on 01/05/2010 18:09:40 Originally by: Kallieah No, not really. Can you 'splain what you're on about please? Read my previous posts: you don't offer any explanation why people would not just pile onto the most popular server, leading to more lag than ever. How will these vaunted "smaller populations" happen? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:10:00 - [174] Limit it to 64 players per server, lag problems solved.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.01 18:16:00 - [175] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 01/05/2010 18:09:40 Originally by: Kallieah No, not really. Can you 'splain what you're on about please? Read my previous posts: you don't offer any explanation why people would not just pile onto the most popular server, leading to more lag than ever. How will these vaunted "smaller populations" happen? Well it's not really for me to decide, but the guy who just posted kinda said it, but in a funny way. CCP would prolly have to determine what the safe max limit is and put a cap on how many accounts can be registered on one world. They'd be able to collect metrics really easily and use "open season" migration to let people flip between stuff, but I bet most people will naturally go where there's space and freedom so they'd self-balance a lot on their own. BTW, what happened to IT alliance and you? . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.01 19:11:00 - [176] Originally by: Kallieah Well it's not really for me to decide, but the guy who just posted kinda said it, but in a funny way. So in essence, you don't offer any kind of solution to the problem you want solved (which, btw, isn't connected the problem you claim you want to solve). Oh goodie. Quote: CCP would prolly have to determine what the safe max limit is and put a cap on how many accounts can be registered on one world. Thus endeth the game: "Hey, come play EVE with us!" "Ok!à Hey!? Wtf?! Server full û no more accounts allowed?" "Weeeellà you seeà" "Screw you guys, I'm going to play Duke Nukem Forever [which will be out by the time this idea of yours is implemented]" Quote: but I bet most people will naturally go where there's space and freedom so they'd self-balance a lot on their own. If that were true, we wouldn't have any lag in the game right now. So no, they won't. Mainly because, as mentioned about umpteen times by now, bunching up pays off and nothing you've suggested counters this fact. Quote: BTW, what happened to IT alliance and you? Not enough free time to feel useful, whereas my newly recruited RL friends (who wouldn't have been able to play with me given your scheme) wanted to leech off of my standingsà ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 00:11:00 - [177] Originally by: Tippia So in essence, you don't offer any kind of solution to the problem you want solved (which, btw, isn't connected the problem you claim you want to solve). Oh goodie. Thus endeth the game: "Hey, come play EVE with us!" "Ok!à Hey!? Wtf?! Server full û no more accounts allowed?" "Weeeellà you seeà" "Screw you guys, I'm going to play Duke Nukem Forever [which will be out by the time this idea of yours is implemented]" I'm pretty sure I just offered a solution that you said I didn't offer and then, after stating I didn't offer one, made fun of the one that I offered. (Hehe, confusing huh? But funny anyhow!) So yeah, it might not be to your liking, but I'm not too worried about making you in specific happy since you're kinda hard to please or might just be trolling like other people are saying: Originally by: Straight Chillen Damn, this guy is trolling the hell outta all of you. See?! He knows what you're doing! It's all in good fun though so have at it! Originally by: Tippia bunching up pays off and nothing you've suggested counters this fact. Bunching up can sometimes pay off, but generally this is best when dealing with similar sized bunching up. It's all maintained in scale with population density so smaller bunches will still work just as well when the other people are also in smaller bunches. Originally by: Tippia Not enough free time to feel useful, whereas my newly recruited RL friends (who wouldn't have been able to play with me given your scheme) wanted to leech off of my standingsà I can sympathize with that. The time you hafta invest in EVE to really make a difference in a larger empire doesn't work with everyone's RL needs. If you're looking for another alliance you and your corp might want to <insert shameless plug> drop in an app with Elysium! It's on the opposite extreme as most sov alliances, being laid-back and quite fun which could be good for a new corp getting settled in. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Hecate Shaw Caldari United Freemerchants Society	Posted - 2010.05.02 02:24:00 - [178] Originally by: Kallieah Originally by: Hecate Shaw Kallieah - have you seen the video released by CCP entitled "Eve Butterfly Effect"? Given what is said in that video, I think your chances of convincing them to shard TQ is somewhere between "NO!" and "Oh, **** NO!". I did see the video and it was sort of interesting and well made too even. Though I doubt that has anything to do with anything really aside from the fact that your actions impact potentially the whole world. That's still true if there's more than one world. First, you seem to have missed the point - the idea is that your actions can affect EVERYONE PLAYING THE GAME, not just the small percent on whatever shard you happen to be on right now. That is the way CCP wants it, as evidenced in that video. Given that, what do you really think are the odds that they will shard Eve? Second, we get a lot more attention on Eve from the staff and devs because they don't have endless dozens of shards to look in on, only one. They connect with us far more than you will ever see on one of those other games with countless shards. I played the most popular one for four years and saw only one ANYTHING in an open chat channel that whole time - the day of a very buggy patch. For a few minutes. Compare that to how often you find GM's lurking in Help and other channels here. Third, because they only need to cover a single server, they don't have to spend as much on staff. That's money that can run directly into other areas. Stercus accidit
illford baker EVE RONIN R-I-P	Posted - 2010.05.02 02:29:00 - [179] bad idea, on a list of bad ideas, keyboard lights as a major expansion feature would rank higher than any idea that uses multiple servers.
Boltorano Fourth Circle Total Comfort	Posted - 2010.05.02 03:12:00 - [180] Edited by: Boltorano on 02/05/2010 03:15:41 Forgive me, but it has been a few days since I last read the first few pages of this thread, but my question is this: Has anyone actually posted in agreement with the OP in this thread? Edit: This thread is only two days old? Seems like it has been going on for ages.

De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.05.02 03:58:00 - [181] One thing the OP fails to take into consideration is that it is human nature to do what benefits us most. In Eve, bunching up tends to benefit people more than spreading out. It offers more competition in markets, it helps bring more goods to those markets, it offers protection and support in missions and PVP. Even in the real world, people tend to operate in groups - only a very few (percentage wise) tend to be effective operating totally alone. So until you come up with a way to change the way humans operate, your idea will only shuffle the problem around, at best. It certainly won't solve it. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
Gwydion Telcontar Gallente Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2010.05.02 05:06:00 - [182] This is wrong in so many ways. One universe is the single greatest defining factor of making Eve as great as it is. Is is the ONLY thing that gives it the rich player-made history that no other game has... 7 years worth and counting. A sharded (sharted?) game would never be the same.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 13:35:00 - [183] Grouping is a social crutch for people. So is having one world. Right now, it's a problem to have that one world and it seems most people want to say how bad of an idea this is without offering alternatives. At least when I cited the original problem and how the current fixes aren't working, I offered a solution too. Some other people are offering alternatives too and that's great! I totally respect you wanna keep the dinosaur idea of a single world going even though it's outlived its usefulness. I'd like to to stay that way too, but my idea is more progressive, elegant, and just downright awesome because it adds income in paid character transfers and lowers overall requirements (power, heat, hardware, etc.) For you recently posted people who are just saying you don't like the idea of lots of little EVE babies running around, I know already why you don't like it, but how are you proposing the problems with having a single world are resolved? Let's hear some totally BA to the Nth power sweet ideas about fixing it and talk about them as alternatives to the equally BA to the Nth power idea of splitting up the Big T. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.05.02 14:00:00 - [184] Originally by: Kallieah Grouping is a social crutch for people. Crutch? It's only what makes us usà Quote: At least when I cited the original problem and how the current fixes aren't working, I offered a solution too. No, you offered a structure if a solution existed û the solution part is still absent. Quote: I totally respect you wanna keep the dinosaur idea of a single world going even though it's outlived its usefulness. How so? Quote: my idea is more progressive, elegant, and just downright awesome because it adds income in paid character transfers and lowers overall requirements (power, heat, hardware, etc.) Progressive as in "let's turn back time to when the game wasn't as good"? Elegant as in "let's force people (somehow) into doing the exact opposite of what they want"? Downright awesome as in "let's remove what makes the game special"? Colour me scepticalà Quote: but how are you proposing the problems with having a single world are resolved? What problems exactly? The lag? It was already solved, but then broken again. They main issue here is that the node management cannot be spread over multiple CPUs û a software problem (which, to some extent can still be solved by throwing beefier hardware behind it as well). It certainly isn't solved by cutting the hardware up in smaller chunks because that only means it's easier to bring it to its knees when people congregateà which they will do. From your dreamy pictures, though, it rather seems like the problem you really want to see solved is that there are a lot of people and no space to call your ownà Behind it all, it rather sounds like you're arguing for a server reset more than anything. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 14:05:00 - [185] Hi Tip! I already answered all those questions earlier in the thread and with lotsa juicy delicious detail so I won't post them all over again. But good questions anyway and I like that you're sorta thinking about a solution (more computer crunchies)! On a side note, your CEO and my executor CEO should get together to talk about getting your corp in a good alliance! You and your friends would have fun. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
lollerwaffle Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2010.05.02 16:56:00 - [186] 8/10 Originally by: salva dore Cloak should not be AFK solution. What do you think? Originally by: AFK Cloaker
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.05.02 17:39:00 - [187] Edited by: De''Veldrin on 02/05/2010 17:39:44 Thank you for confirming this entire thread is one long troll. And just to stop the inevitable edit Originally by: Kallieah Okay, so I've been following this thread for a little while and I find myself wondering what it is you're talking about? What lag? I suspected as much, but there you have it. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 17:41:00 - [188] Originally by: De'Veldrin Edited by: De''Veldrin on 02/05/2010 17:39:44 Thank you for confirming this entire thread is one long troll. And just to stop the inevitable edit Originally by: Kallieah Okay, so I've been following this thread for a little while and I find myself wondering what it is you're talking about? What lag? I suspected as much, but there you have it. Took seven pages to reach this? Oh man, my little Kallieah has grown up <3
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2010.05.02 17:51:00 - [189] Originally by: AdmiralJohn Originally by: De'Veldrin Edited by: De''Veldrin on 02/05/2010 17:39:44 Thank you for confirming this entire thread is one long troll. And just to stop the inevitable edit Originally by: Kallieah Okay, so I've been following this thread for a little while and I find myself wondering what it is you're talking about? What lag? I suspected as much, but there you have it. Took seven pages to reach this? Oh man, my little Kallieah has grown up <3 This is usually the part where I lose my temper and call you an asshat. Might as well succumb to the urge. You sir, are an asshat. --Vel Originally by: Jiseinoku Mining is the path to enlightement.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 18:16:00 - [190] Originally by: De'Veldrin This is usually the part where I lose my temper and call you an asshat. Might as well succumb to the urge. You sir, are an asshat.

Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.02 19:18:00 - [191] Originally by: Kallieah Okay, so I've been following this thread for a little while and I find myself wondering what it is you're talking about? What lag? Now that actually was trolling. This...this thread is serious business! I do think CCP should split up TQ. I know it can work becase we do it...I mean, it's been done with great success elsewhere. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
poenao	Posted - 2010.05.02 22:41:00 - [192] hi all, Since I can't play yet due to connection issues that we're working on I read the boards. One of the things that brought me back to this game is the fact that everyone plays within the same universe on same server basically. What you do in this game makes a difference. Buyin and selling equipment and ships, changes the economy. When people can't get through a gate because pirates are out in 0.0 playing the game how they want to play it they cry. THAT is the beauty of Eve. you want voluntary pvp go play on the test server from what I understand its voluntary over there. Everyone doing what they want playing the game how they like impacts it. Thats what makes the game...you dont like it sit in a station and rent out labs or manufacturing space..I'm coming back with an idea in my head on how I want to play...I want to build a hauling corp...hauling other peoples crap from one side of the universe to the other for em for a price. FOR anyone..pirates Isk is just as good. To try and build and get into other thingslater on.
Birdman Ravo Legion of The Birds	Posted - 2010.05.02 23:06:00 - [193] Edited by: Birdman Ravo on 02/05/2010 23:07:14 Kallieah, because of your posting Cat'oNinetails has lost my vote for CSM. I can't be seen to agree with you on anything. tl;dr Mynxee fer CSM cuz u dum. PS WoW and it's sharded servers are that way ->
failpirate	Posted - 2010.05.02 23:31:00 - [194] Originally by: Birdman Ravo Edited by: Birdman Ravo on 02/05/2010 23:07:14 Kallieah, because of your posting Cat'oNinetails has lost my vote for CSM. i hear that. did the same thing myself. i didn't vote for obama because some obama supporter trolled me.
AdmiralJohn The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.03 01:26:00 - [195] Originally by: Birdman Ravo Edited by: Birdman Ravo on 02/05/2010 23:07:14 Kallieah, because of your posting Cat'oNinetails has lost my vote for CSM. I can't be seen to agree with you on anything. tl;dr Mynxee fer CSM cuz u dum. PS WoW and it's sharded servers are that way -> I support Ankh, and you're ******ed.
Daemonspirit Redhawk Tribal Trust	Posted - 2010.05.03 01:38:00 - [196] CCP will beat this lag monster like they did the last one. The idea of a single shard is only dead in your mind and it should be good (on the current code) until around 100K concurrent (last I read). After that CCP will have to do a complete re-write. Might be off a little on my numbers, but if my memory serves me correctly, its near or at 100K. Be patient, lag will be beat again, and we can send this troll back to the Elysian Fields he came from with the rest of the Lotus eaters... ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Anagai Odraci Minmatar	Posted - 2010.05.03 04:26:00 - [197] I see the point you are trying to make, but I can't agree with it. The one world concept of this game is the selling point for most that still play. What you propose would shatter the textured history that Eve has, and would hurt the strong social bond shared by the player base. In my opinion, your idea would kill this game for me. The one-world concept of this game is exactly why I love it. No other MMO I ever played even comes close to the cosmic soap opera that Eve is and It's all possible because it happens in one world.
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.03 05:07:00 - [198] You know I generally agree that I like having one world with everyone in it. Maybe I'm not as hardcore (snicker) as some people are about it having to stay that way though. Yes it has a lot of benefits, but there are many good reasons to go the other way with it too. Say, where'd that 100k number come from? I'd love to take a peek at the article just to look it over too. Thanks in advance if you have a linky! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!
Tibalt Avalon Suck my Titan	Posted - 2010.05.03 05:09:00 - [199] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x Hardstyle Ambassador
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.03 05:12:00 - [200] Originally by: Tibalt Avalon Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails i think there should be a seperate server for pirates and one for the rest of us who just want to play the game in peace lol x Things like that are why I <3 Cat! Such a great sense of humor! . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!

T'Amber www.shipsofeve.com	Posted - 2010.05.03 08:37:00 - [201] Edited by: T''Amber on 03/05/2010 08:38:47 Originally by: Kallieah What do you guys think? Playing eve is like rubbing your thigh five times so that your family won't die while sitting alone, rotating in the corner with nothing but your own tears and a damp sock to sustain you. -T'amber Vote T'amber for CSM5Ö
Rashmika Clavain Gallente	Posted - 2010.05.03 10:03:00 - [202] I think this is an obvious troll
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.05.03 10:49:00 - [203] Originally by: Rashmika Clavain I think this is an obvious troll No wai!
Kallieah The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.03 13:16:00 - [204] Why do I get the feeling we're running out of constructive discussion? Not that there was a lot to be had to begin with, but eh, I tried anyway. . Support EVE's future: Vote Cat o'Ninetails for CSM!


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one 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.