EVE Search - this game suxs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

this game suxs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Joiske	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:24:00 - [1] why do i pay so much money only for a game that lags to ****
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Veto Corp	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:28:00 - [2] No idea, stay away from the blob perhaps?
mkmin	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:29:00 - [3] ur doin it rong
Ger Tomard Caldari Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:33:00 - [4] Enjoy your ban. [QUOTE]I think the next time you make one of these bad threads on this character, or any alt, you will be having a nice vacation to help work on making better threads. [/QUOTE] CCP finally acknowled
archery1	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:36:00 - [5] confirming. Reimburse some gametime instead of putting up some more noob incursions
Cy Pherboi	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:40:00 - [6] Nothing to do with blob - 18 total in K-Q system in Curse. Try to undock and blackscreen for 5 minutes. Log out and log back in - get stuck on char selection load screen for 10 minutes. Others reporting traffic control notices at gates in same system. Absolutely ridiculous.
Fkn Arson 0ne Percent.	Posted - 2011.02.20 17:43:00 - [7] That might, just pure speculation here, be because there is a blob located on or near your cluster. I haven't verified this in any way, and I stand by it regardless of what is found :)

CCP Zymurgist Gallente C C P	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:05:00 - [8] Originally by: Fkn Arson That might, just pure speculation here, be because there is a blob located on or near your cluster. I haven't verified this in any way, and I stand by it regardless of what is found :) Pretty much what Fkn Arson said. There is a huge fleet flight going on that is affecting systems on the same node. Our technicians are working on improving it now. Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact Us

Aiwha Caldari 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:10:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: Fkn Arson That might, just pure speculation here, be because there is a blob located on or near your cluster. I haven't verified this in any way, and I stand by it regardless of what is found :) Pretty much what Fkn Arson said. There is a huge fleet flight going on that is affecting systems on the same node. Our technicians are working on improving it now. That means grab a rifter, brave the lag, and km *** till your little hearts content. Originally by:** Infinity Ziona Your avatar makes me want to follow you to a rural farmstead, give you all my worldly goods and call you The Aiwha.
Cy Pherboi	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:14:00 - [10] Ummm...kind of difficult to grab a rifter when I can't even get past the character selection screen.

Vagel	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:16:00 - [11] Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. I really dont know how some people allways are able to load grid, others never. I am among those that never load grid, but get shot to pulp nevertheless, lost around 1 bill this week alone due to crappoor performance. If a node is close to dieing due to the load, then SHUT IT DOWN and reallocate some resourses! It's been bad before, this is just ... so poorly, ccp. Im not going to even log in after this. or pay anything. I've given up.
Jennifer Starling	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:23:00 - [12] Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it.
Vagel	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:33:00 - [13] Originally by: Jennifer Starling Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it. Then why change the sov mechanics so you NEED to blob ? Have you ever tried to shoot a station, ihub or sbu? CCP made blobs happen, not the players.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:33:00 - [14] Originally by: Vagel Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. I really dont know how some people allways are able to load grid, others never. I am among those that never load grid, but get shot to pulp nevertheless, lost around 1 bill this week alone due to crappoor performance. If a node is close to dieing due to the load, then SHUT IT DOWN and reallocate some resourses! It's been bad before, this is just ... so poorly, ccp. Im not going to even log in after this. or pay anything. I've given up. No no no, you got it all wrong. It is a great technical achievement to keep the node from dying with as many people on it as possible. See, it's not about "most people while being playable" (that would be too subjective anyway) it's about "most people without crashing". That's easily measurable and comparable. So everytime you hear about a new record for players in a fleet battle you have to think "YAY, it's just incredible how many people can lag out in the same place, at the same time, for the same reason." </sarcasm>
Conor Todaki 1st. Pariah Malefactor corp. The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:36:00 - [15] I never lag what is this.
Jennifer Starling	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:38:00 - [16] Originally by: Vagel CCP made blobs happen, not the players. I fully agree with this but one way or another they rather have killing lag than find mechanics that would decrease the need for blob warfare. Icelandic minds work strange ...
Abon Caldari Pandorum Research Incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.20 18:38:00 - [17] NO U!
dr cisco	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:02:00 - [18] hate the player, not the game. no srsy, its the players not reporting that they are planning a huge fleet so CCP can prepare.
Ai Shun Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:21:00 - [19] Originally by: dr cisco no srsy, its the players not reporting that they are planning a huge fleet so CCP can prepare. How does this work? I've seen the link to report a fleet; but how does this affect the element of surprise? Is it only one Fleet that needs to report? What happens if they shift systems during the battle?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:26:00 - [20] Confirming, drone russians died in lag. Anyone against killing RMTers ?

Jovan Geldon Gallente Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:27:00 - [21] Here's a thought; if you know you're gonna get lagged to kingdom come if you jump into the system, you might want to try NOT JUMPING IN. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, blob 0.0 warfare is the ONLY thing you can do in this game. My mistake
dr cisco	Posted - 2011.02.20 19:28:00 - [22] Originally by: Ai Shun Originally by: dr cisco no srsy, its the players not reporting that they are planning a huge fleet so CCP can prepare. How does this work? I've seen the link to report a fleet; but how does this affect the element of surprise? Is it only one Fleet that needs to report? What happens if they shift systems during the battle? shouldn't affect the element of surprise unless there is a spy in CCP.
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.20 20:10:00 - [23] Edited by: Grimpak on 20/02/2011 20:10:24 Originally by: Ban Doga Originally by: Vagel Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. I really dont know how some people allways are able to load grid, others never. I am among those that never load grid, but get shot to pulp nevertheless, lost around 1 bill this week alone due to crappoor performance. If a node is close to dieing due to the load, then SHUT IT DOWN and reallocate some resourses! It's been bad before, this is just ... so poorly, ccp. Im not going to even log in after this. or pay anything. I've given up. No no no, you got it all wrong. It is a great technical achievement to keep the node from dying with as many people on it as possible. See, it's not about "most people while being playable" (that would be too subjective anyway) it's about "most people without crashing". That's easily measurable and comparable. So everytime you hear about a new record for players in a fleet battle you have to think "YAY, it's just incredible how many people can lag out in the same place, at the same time, for the same reason." </sarcasm> here, let me give you a time machine so that you can go back to 2004/2005 and see for yourself the lag back then. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.20 20:13:00 - [24] Originally by: Grimpak Edited by: Grimpak on 20/02/2011 20:10:24 Originally by: Ban Doga Originally by: Vagel Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. I really dont know how some people allways are able to load grid, others never. I am among those that never load grid, but get shot to pulp nevertheless, lost around 1 bill this week alone due to crappoor performance. If a node is close to dieing due to the load, then SHUT IT DOWN and reallocate some resourses! It's been bad before, this is just ... so poorly, ccp. Im not going to even log in after this. or pay anything. I've given up. No no no, you got it all wrong. It is a great technical achievement to keep the node from dying with as many people on it as possible. See, it's not about "most people while being playable" (that would be too subjective anyway) it's about "most people without crashing". That's easily measurable and comparable. So everytime you hear about a new record for players in a fleet battle you have to think "YAY, it's just incredible how many people can lag out in the same place, at the same time, for the same reason." </sarcasm> here, let me give you a time machine so that you can go back to 2004/2005 and see for yourself the lag back then. Looking forward to your eve-mail...
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2011.02.20 20:37:00 - [25] Originally by: Vagel Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. So you are member of one of the biggest blob in the game and complain about lag? Don't you think that this is maybe a tiny little bit hypocritic? And if your own alliance leaders start a campaign with the name BLOB then you certainly have to be pretty ignorant if you don't expect bad lag and stupid blobs. If you still join into that then you have no reason to complain at all.
Sullen Skoung	Posted - 2011.02.20 20:50:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Originally by: Fkn Arson That might, just pure speculation here, be because there is a blob located on or near your cluster. I haven't verified this in any way, and I stand by it regardless of what is found :) Pretty much what Fkn Arson said. There is a huge fleet flight going on that is affecting systems on the same node. Our technicians are working on improving it now. Lol theyve been "working on it" since 2007
Lothris Andastar	Posted - 2011.02.20 20:57:00 - [27] Edited by: Lothris Andastar on 20/02/2011 20:57:39 >Saw Troll Thread >Saw Blue Bar >Expected Devtroll >Was Disappointed >mfw
r3voo Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.20 21:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Vagel Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. So you are member of one of the biggest blob in the game and complain about lag? Don't you think that this is maybe a tiny little bit hypocritic? And if your own alliance leaders start a campaign with the name BLOB then you certainly have to be pretty ignorant if you don't expect bad lag and stupid blobs. If you still join into that then you have no reason to complain at all. Dont you think you should go back to mining in empire. Today NC fought with 800 vs 1000 russians. If NC would bring 300 russians would come with 500-600 So dont think for 1sec that NC is the only blob in game. And Who say's we made that banner. We started campaign with BFF. Not with BLOB you fool
Mastertz	Posted - 2011.02.20 21:49:00 - [29] Originally by: r3voo Originally by: Gnulpie Originally by: Vagel Just lost my 5'th battleship without ever loading grid, this week alone. So you are member of one of the biggest blob in the game and complain about lag? Don't you think that this is maybe a tiny little bit hypocritic? And if your own alliance leaders start a campaign with the name BLOB then you certainly have to be pretty ignorant if you don't expect bad lag and stupid blobs. If you still join into that then you have no reason to complain at all. Dont you think you should go back to mining in empire. Today NC fought with 800 vs 1000 russians. If NC would bring 300 russians would come with 500-600 So dont think for 1sec that NC is the only blob in game. And Who say's we made that banner. We started campaign with BFF. Not with BLOB you fool Easy there. You mad? Anyhow, I wouldn't beat up on CCP so much for creating blob warfare. It's not like it's an easy problem to solve. If it was, it would've been solved easily. I'll offer up a suggestion instead of whining: Remove Drakes from the game.
VaMei Gallente	Posted - 2011.02.20 21:50:00 - [30] Originally by: Vagel Originally by: Jennifer Starling Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it. Then why change the sov mechanics so you NEED to blob ? Have you ever tried to shoot a station, ihub or sbu? CCP made blobs happen, not the players. Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics.

Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.02.20 21:57:00 - [31] Originally by: VaMei Originally by: Vagel Originally by: Jennifer Starling Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it. Then why change the sov mechanics so you NEED to blob ? Have you ever tried to shoot a station, ihub or sbu? CCP made blobs happen, not the players. Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. Blobs exist because when many people are involved in a MMO, they are average to bad players. Therefore the equation quantity > quality becomes true and in order to win, huge numbers happen. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
James Tiberius Kirk	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:09:00 - [32] Consequences are what makes blobing so appealing. In any other game, where you don't have anything to loose, people can go nuts and do anything they please. In EVE, the things you lose, are the things you've worked for, so you bet your ass people will blob to protect their investment. Sov mechanics of the game makes it even worse, you start from 'safety in numbers' and go to 'OMFG CRASH THE NODE MOTHER****ERS!!1!' in a whim.
Jones Bones Heretic Army	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:42:00 - [33] Posting in a thread where a 75k man NAP complains of blobs/lag. Your tears, so tasty. Your stuff, gif me.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.20 22:50:00 - [34] Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Abon Caldari Pandorum Research Incorporated	Posted - 2011.02.20 23:04:00 - [35] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. Tippia hits the nail on the head as usual. Pretty much this!
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.20 23:21:00 - [36] Originally by: Mastertz Easy there. You mad? Anyhow, I wouldn't beat up on CCP so much for creating blob warfare. It's not like it's an easy problem to solve. If it was, it would've been solved easily. I wouldn't put too much money on that assumption. I mean how long did it take to "fix rockets"? Do you really think it took so long because it wasn't easy to solve? Or do you think it took so long because no one at CCP thought it was important enough to work on it earlier? Quote: I'll offer up a suggestion instead of whining: Remove Drakes from the game. How's that supposed to help with lag? You think 1,000 Ravens or Nighthawks or Rooks will induce less lag or make blobs more unattractive than 1,000 Drakes?
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.02.21 01:29:00 - [37] How about replacing those 1000 drakes with 1000 supers? It seems to me that the main issue is not so much the lag, but the lag being so uneven. When the node starts to saturate, some players catch far more than their fair share. CCP has made passing remarks about working to make play degrade gracefully once the lag hits. If everyone went at half speed, it would be annoying, but at least fair. If a ship that jumped was not available to be shot until it had loaded grid and had a fair chance to partake in the battle, people would not complain so heavily. Any word on if that effort is going anywhere?
Antihrist Pripravnik 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 01:42:00 - [38] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Blobs exist because when many people are involved in a MMO, they are average to bad players. Therefore the equation quantity > quality becomes true and in order to win, huge numbers happen. Just a little mind game: - If both sides in the fight have quantity and let's say there is no lag, what would be the deciding factor for victory?
Novemb3r Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2011.02.21 02:18:00 - [39] Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Just a little mind game: - If both sides in the fight have quantity and let's say there is no lag, what would be the deciding factor for victory? Us -
Medarr Amarr ZeroSec Excuses.	Posted - 2011.02.21 06:01:00 - [40] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. QFT

Khamelean	Posted - 2011.02.21 07:25:00 - [41] Edited by: Khamelean on 21/02/2011 07:26:49 If a System can handle 10 people without lag, players will bring 20, then 20 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 100 people without lag, players will bring 200, then 200 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 1000 people without lag, players will bring 2000, then 2000 people complain about lag. Hmm, seems to be a pattern there somewhere. The fact that so many people are even able to complain about lag would seem to suggest that CCP is working miracles.
Kengutsi Akira	Posted - 2011.02.21 07:30:00 - [42] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because there are bar more bot miners than there have been in the past, making it far easier to get infinite amounts of minerals fixt
Amda Tori Minmatar	Posted - 2011.02.21 08:54:00 - [43] Edited by: Amda Tori on 21/02/2011 08:55:07 There was a big fight in the North, between the Russians and the Northern Coalition. Over 1.000 pilots were in the fight, in VSJ-PP ( http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/VSJ-PP/kills ). The fight lasted for about 2 hours. The fight didn't actually take place in the targeted systems: 04-LQM or O2O-2X. In 04 NC had to reinforce a station, conquered by the russians. And in O2O, 600 russian were already waiting for the NC to come. But, things didn't come up as expected for CCP and the fight took place in VSJ. I feel free to explore only within boundaries.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:02:00 - [44] Originally by: Khamelean Edited by: Khamelean on 21/02/2011 07:26:49 If a System can handle 10 people without lag, players will bring 20, then 20 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 100 people without lag, players will bring 200, then 200 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 1000 people without lag, players will bring 2000, then 2000 people complain about lag. Hmm, seems to be a pattern there somewhere. The fact that so many people are even able to complain about lag would seem to suggest that CCP is working miracles. "My glass is half full" "Really, it looked half empty from here"
Sullen Skoung	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:13:00 - [45] I liked the first incursions When ppl that had never seen a fleet fight before and the slideshow that they turn the game into forumwarred against the 0.0 guys that eat nails for breakfast because they "know how to fight in lag" even though its kinda sad that they even NEED to know how to do that at all. The Need for speed initiative started in what 2006?
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:24:00 - [46] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. And you'd be wrong. It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. Assembling two or three full fleets is a coordinative nightmare. These fleets are not assembled for ****s and giggles, but because they are mandated by the sov system, supercaps and the ehp grind. The ease that allows them to build up and traverse huge distances in an instant, allowing alliances to draw from a quarter of the map for numbers, leaves us with a self reinforcing cycle that inevitably leads to game braking numbers. All of this could be changed radically with a proper sov system that does not rely on singular points in time to call for max participation for a singular objective. (on that note, o2o outpost comes out this afternoon, known two days in advance. shooting it without supercaps is a brain melting exercise and to kill supers you need disproportional amounts of subcaps and..you get the idea) There was a time where numbers semi-stabilized with perfectly fine lag after apocrypha. In fact, a lot of engagements were with lower numbers due to the strategical situation in the south. Back then, objectives were spread out over time a lot more, so the numbers spread out accordingly too. If Eve headed towards requiring a continuous effort while greatly cutting down on ease of travel and removing supercaps and the ehp grind, you'd see numbers go down considerably below the threshold of game breaking load except for rare occasions. I've been in the NC for over four years. Believe me, if there's one topic I claim to have a good idea of what I'm talking about, it's the "blob". v0v
Tres Farmer Gallente Federation Intelligence Service	Posted - 2011.02.21 09:59:00 - [47] Originally by: Batolemaeus snip There was a time where numbers semi-stabilized with perfectly fine lag after apocrypha. In fact, a lot of engagements were with lower numbers due to the strategical situation in the south. Back then, objectives were spread out over time a lot more, so the numbers spread out accordingly too. If Eve headed towards requiring a continuous effort while greatly cutting down on ease of travel and removing supercaps and the ehp grind, you'd see numbers go down considerably below the threshold of game breaking load except for rare occasions. snap Mhm.. I like. Though, I wouldn't lay blame on the SC nor get rid of them completely. Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody!
THERisingPHOENIX Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 10:06:00 - [48] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: Tippia Originally by: VaMei Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. ^^ That. The blobs are perhaps larger now because the vast improvements that have been made to resolve lag has made it possible to field larger blobs before everything crashes. As blobs grow due to lag improvements, lag remains constant. And you'd be wrong. It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. Assembling two or three full fleets is a coordinative nightmare. These fleets are not assembled for ****s and giggles, but because they are mandated by the sov system, supercaps and the ehp grind. The ease that allows them to build up and traverse huge distances in an instant, allowing alliances to draw from a quarter of the map for numbers, leaves us with a self reinforcing cycle that inevitably leads to game braking numbers. All of this could be changed radically with a proper sov system that does not rely on singular points in time to call for max participation for a singular objective. (on that note, o2o outpost comes out this afternoon, known two days in advance. shooting it without supercaps is a brain melting exercise and to kill supers you need disproportional amounts of subcaps and..you get the idea) There was a time where numbers semi-stabilized with perfectly fine lag after apocrypha. In fact, a lot of engagements were with lower numbers due to the strategical situation in the south. Back then, objectives were spread out over time a lot more, so the numbers spread out accordingly too. If Eve headed towards requiring a continuous effort while greatly cutting down on ease of travel and removing supercaps and the ehp grind, you'd see numbers go down considerably below the threshold of game breaking load except for rare occasions. I've been in the NC for over four years. Believe me, if there's one topic I claim to have a good idea of what I'm talking about, it's the "blob". v0v Your post got some merits.
Ulf Vegtamsa	Posted - 2011.02.21 11:33:00 - [49] I noticed when I first played EVE a few years back, my once fun and enjoyably instant undocking and system jumps turned into five minutes of sitting on my ass. Turns out it wasn't the game, but my system. Only way I figured that out, was from a system wide crash that forced me to reformat and reinstall everything. Game was back to being fast as a whip. Its worth a shot, but defrag your computer. Auslogics puts out a free defrag and system optimizer that has worked well for me. (And its 3x faster in the least then Windows native Defragger). Worth a shot, what else you gonna do while you sleep? :P
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.21 12:57:00 - [50] Originally by: Ban Doga Looking forward to your eve-mail... too big to send it thru e-mail. I'll use my matter transporter as soon as I pinpoint your astral coordinates. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.

Joe Skellington Minmatar JOKAS Industries	Posted - 2011.02.21 14:27:00 - [51] Edited by: Joe Skellington on 21/02/2011 14:29:46 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Originally by: VaMei Originally by: Vagel Originally by: Jennifer Starling Lag is an inherent part of EVE, it will never be fully solved, games aren't supposed to have 1,000s of people on a grid. Take it or leave it. Then why change the sov mechanics so you NEED to blob ? Have you ever tried to shoot a station, ihub or sbu? CCP made blobs happen, not the players. Blobs existed long before these sov mechanics. Blobs exist because when many people are involved in a MMO, they are average to bad players. Therefore the equation quantity > quality becomes true and in order to win, huge numbers happen. QFT Though, hopefully a this will change.
Daedalus II Helios Research	Posted - 2011.02.21 14:40:00 - [52] Originally by: Khamelean Edited by: Khamelean on 21/02/2011 07:26:49 If a System can handle 10 people without lag, players will bring 20, then 20 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 100 people without lag, players will bring 200, then 200 people complain about lag. If a System can handle 1000 people without lag, players will bring 2000, then 2000 people complain about lag. Hmm, seems to be a pattern there somewhere. The fact that so many people are even able to complain about lag would seem to suggest that CCP is working miracles. And the funny thing is that as soon as some people start thinking out of the box and suggests mechanics such as limiting the number of ships in a system or promote more tactical low number engagements to prevent lag there is a huge outcry from the leet pvpers who absolutely not want to change. So I guess in the end people are actually happy now because lag is what they want so they don't have to change their gameplay and can just happily continue to complain? I can understand the problem CCP has with this; the lag has to go, but they are absolutely not allowed change anything to make that happen! ___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research!
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2011.02.21 16:12:00 - [53] Originally by: Daedalus II And the funny thing is that as soon as some people start thinking out of the box and suggests mechanics such as limiting the number of ships in a system or promote more tactical low number engagements to prevent lag there is a huge outcry from the leet pvpers who absolutely not want to change. We do because such suggestions usually show a total lack of understanding of how large-scale conflicts happen. (lol suggestion of limiting numbers in system)
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.21 16:45:00 - [54] Originally by: Batolemaeus It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. [etc] I wouldn't call it "exclusively" because that increase would happen regardless. Semi-stable is not a stable condition and the only upper bound is when a fleet can one-shot a target. àso is that the solution? Don't put a structure out there that 300 ships cannot volley? Kick the supercaps in the crotch until they cannot kill structures? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2011.02.21 17:11:00 - [55] Originally by: Joiske why do i pay so much money only for a game that lags to **** The real question is why don't blobbers file a fleet fight petition? Oh wait they don't want a lag free fight so the defenders get stuck at the login screen. Ironic eh? Originally by: Response to bitter carebear tears in local [19:44:46] CCP Incognito > sorry i can't talk about game mechanics. you need to use your brains and figure it out.
Aessoroz Nohbdy.	Posted - 2011.02.21 17:36:00 - [56] Edited by: Aessoroz on 21/02/2011 17:37:09 Originally by: Zhim'Fufu Originally by: Joiske why do i pay so much money only for a game that lags to **** The real question is why don't blobbers file a fleet fight petition? Oh wait they don't want a lag free fight so the defenders get stuck at the login screen. Ironic eh? No, they do file petitions but it's REALLY hard to predict what's going happen, your 20 man roaming gang could easily escalate to a 2000 man battle if you have a tackle a mothership. It's also hard to predict the strategies of both sides, just because one system is the target doesn't mean the a) enemy won't try and cut off the defenders elsewhere b) defenders kill off fleeing gangs in other systems c) strategic movements through other systems
Zhim'Fufu	Posted - 2011.02.21 17:43:00 - [57] Originally by: Aessoroz just because one system is the target doesn't mean the a) enemy won't try and cut off the defenders elsewhere b) defenders kill off fleeing gangs in other systems c) strategic movements through other systems So you would agree its pretty damn handy to lag out the entire area the fight is in so the defenders can't even move at all even if they are 20 jumps away. Originally by: Response to bitter carebear tears in local [19:44:46] CCP Incognito > sorry i can't talk about game mechanics. you need to use your brains and figure it out.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:07:00 - [58] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Batolemaeus It is exclusively due to spectacular failure in game design that engagement sizes have been escalating beyond the sizes that typically introduce major logistical problems even for well prepared coalitions. [etc] I wouldn't call it "exclusively" because that increase would happen regardless. Semi-stable is not a stable condition and the only upper bound is when a fleet can one-shot a target. àso is that the solution? Don't put a structure out there that 300 ships cannot volley? Kick the supercaps in the crotch until they cannot kill structures? The only reason why i said "semi", is because the time frame from apocrypha to dominion was way too small to accurately deduce more than anecdotal reference. However, even though server performance was vastly superior to todays performance, the day to day fleet engagements did not break the server even with quite a lot of alliances in the area. This is due to how much objectives were spread out, even in singular locations like 49-, where the objectives were spread out in time and thus a continuous struggle was required lowering peak numbers. Also, todays alpha fleets can easily one-volley a carrier. How much you can one-volley has little to do with fleet sizes, but everything to do with the are you can draw pilots from, the time you have to prepare in advance, and how long it will take people to travel back "home".
Daedalus II Helios Research	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:19:00 - [59] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Originally by: Daedalus II And the funny thing is that as soon as some people start thinking out of the box and suggests mechanics such as limiting the number of ships in a system or promote more tactical low number engagements to prevent lag there is a huge outcry from the leet pvpers who absolutely not want to change. We do because such suggestions usually show a total lack of understanding of how large-scale conflicts happen. (lol suggestion of limiting numbers in system) Well apparently in the same way you lack basic understanding of computing. Without somehow limiting the number of ships in a system you can NEVER get a lag free game. That is a FACT. You can whine as much as you like about it, but that won't change the fundamental laws of physics regarding data handling and transfer rates. I guess you could technically make sure the system was lag free by dimensioning every node to be able to simultaneously handle all current users of EVE (what is it 300k-400k today?). Of course you would have to pay a monthly fee of 10000 USD to pay for CCPs new super computer but hey, it would be lag free dammit >.< ___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research!
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:38:00 - [60] Edited by: Ban Doga on 21/02/2011 18:41:38 Originally by: Daedalus II Well apparently in the same way you lack basic understanding of computing. Without somehow limiting the number of ships in a system you can NEVER get a lag free game. That is a FACT. You can whine as much as you like about it, but that won't change the fundamental laws of physics regarding data handling and transfer rates. I guess you could technically make sure the system was lag free by dimensioning every node to be able to simultaneously handle all current users of EVE (what is it 300k-400k today?). Of course you would have to pay a monthly fee of 10000 USD to pay for CCPs new super computer but hey, it would be lag free dammit >.< Why don't you sit down and take a deep breath? You seem to get quite aggravated over this. I'm sure you wouldn't need 3 billion Dollar every month to improve game performance. Maybe you saw the recent devblog, that a "little" thinking and optimization improved missile performance by 400%. The solution is not better hardware, it's better software! All high performance computers these days are relying on having a hideous amount of CPU cores (several thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands) with every single core being a rather common - and thus not high-end - piece of hardware. Alone the fact that CCP is still running a software that is largely bound by single core performance means no amount of money invested into hardware will solve lag. Quote: Edit: Let's look at it this way; what is best? A) A capped system where 1000 pilots are having a lag free battle (happy) + 2000 pilots that can't get in (annoyed) B) An uncapped system where 2000 pilots are lagged to hell and back (furious) + 1000 pilots can't get in (annoyed) A = 1000 happy and 2000 annoyed B = 2000 furious and 1000 annoyed Which letter would you give the highest score given happy > annoyed > furious? We have to realize that the system is capped either way, only currently it's capped AFTER it's lagged out, making everyone miserable instead of capping it BEFORE it lags out, at least making some people happy. The more realistic alternative to your A) would be A) 1000 people not having a fight because one side managed to cap out the system. A = 1000 laughing and 2000 annoyed and furious.

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:39:00 - [61] Originally by: Batolemaeus The only reason why i said "semi", is because the time frame from apocrypha to dominion was way too small to accurately deduce more than anecdotal reference. However, even though server performance was vastly superior to todays performance, the day to day fleet engagements did not break the server even with quite a lot of alliances in the area. This is due to how much objectives were spread out, even in singular locations like 49-, where the objectives were spread out in time and thus a continuous struggle was required lowering peak numbers. If I remember Abathur's discussions during FF09, the intention was pretty much that: to give fleets a common arena where they two would clash. The problem, I think, might not only (or at all) lie in the concentration but in the sequentiality of modern sov combat. You have to do things in a certain order, with pre-determined delays between them. The latter was to avoid system ping-pong and planning flips when there were no defenders awake to respond. What really sets the Dominion system apart is that it doesn't allow for parallelisation and time compression to nearly the same degreeà Quote: Also, todays alpha fleets can easily one-volley a carrier. How much you can one-volley has little to do with fleet sizes, but everything to do with the are you can draw pilots from, the time you have to prepare in advance, and how long it will take people to travel back "home". I'm not talking about alpha:ing ships ù I'm talking about the structures. What would happen if a 300 strong anti-structure fleet was all it took to take out any structure in one pass? If an outpost would die in a single siege green, how large would fleets grow beyond that size? The old mechanics didn't just have more targets spread out, but also weaker targets. àwhich means that not only do ships have to meat at given places in a given order these days, but they have to stay there for a longer period of time to kill the targets. <rambling> Granted, I only took part in a very small amount of nullsec warfare after Dominion, but what I feel is lost is the sense of manoeuvre warfare and of system disruption. I know that at that same roundtable, the comment from CCP was "we don't want players to shoot structures ù we want them to shoot players" in response to the idea of having very small installations that a roaming fleet could come in and blow up, just to be a bunch of annoying gits. But maybe some of that needs to come back: give people small targets that they can squabble over, and in doing so, the larger fights can grow out of them as more and more reinforcements are called in. Same thing goes for the larger ops: dreads were never the fastest movers, but it was somewhat possible to actually have a "roam" with them, jumping in, blowing something important up, moving on to the next cyno, and do that a couple of times in a row, with the defenders constantly trying to play catch-up with the cyno ships that let the fleet escape to the new target. Maybe it's just me having spent all weekend looking through BSG episodes, but I want that speed and time pressure back ù 10 minutes to do as much damage as humanly possible and then gtfo while the other side is still pouring in. Maybe it's an effect of stuff being too difficult to build, so it has to be time-consuming to destroy? Maybe everything just needs to be scaled down so smaller fleets ù and especially smaller ships ù can be suitably destructiveà</rambling> ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Daedalus II Helios Research	Posted - 2011.02.21 18:51:00 - [62] Originally by: Ban Doga The solution is not better hardware, it's better software! All high performance computers these days are relying on having a hideous amount of CPU cores (several thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands) with every single core being a rather common - and thus not high-end - piece of hardware. Alone the fact that CCP is still running a software that is largely bound by single core performance means no amount of money invested into hardware will solve lag. Better software only gets you that far. At some level you have as good software as you can get, ie impossible to get any better. And I promise you that that level is lower than the level of lag free fights. Sure CCP is having great success of optimizing the code now to begin with, in some places it was more or less crap to be honest. However as they fix the more obvious errors they will get less and less results with each fix. If the first one gave 400% more efficiency the next gives 100% then 20% then 2% then 0.1%. At some level it's not worth putting more time into the software. And yes, while the dual core computers can't be used by a single instance of a sol node, what stops you from running two individual sol nodes on the same machine? Besides CCP could rewrite the entire server in perfect C++ with dynamic load balancing and the whole shebang but they would still not be able to have the large fleet fights lag free. Why? Because without a limit people will undoubtedly bring more ships into the system and lag it out anyway. As the poster I repiled to first said: Allow 1000 ships and the players bring 2000, allow 2000 and they bring 4000, allow 4000 and they bring 8000 and so on. It's impossible to make it lag free. ___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research!
LifeLines Team Ice	Posted - 2011.02.21 19:01:00 - [63] CCP keeps giving me those 5 free days every 2 months or so :D every time I keep comming back, just to see that nothing has changed for the good PvP-wise. Thanks for those incursions, planetary interaction and all other crap nobody cares about. EVE is a PvP game with completely ridiculous PvP mechanics. PvP basically happens at the moment you finnish fitting your ship. After this is done, you just activate your modules(given that you atleast get to load the grib), orbit and wait for the outcome. So much for pvp :D Right now I would only enjoy playing EVE as a trader/industrialist. Industry is where EVE is truly unique. Will come back in 2-3 months, byebye!
Tom Gerard Caldari RPS holdings Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2011.02.21 19:09:00 - [64] Originally by: LifeLines CCP keeps giving me those 5 free days every 2 months or so :D every time I keep comming back, just to see that nothing has changed for the good PvP-wise. Thanks for those incursions, planetary interaction and all other crap nobody cares about. EVE is a PvP game with completely ridiculous PvP mechanics. PvP basically happens at the moment you finnish fitting your ship. After this is done, you just activate your modules(given that you atleast get to load the grib), orbit and wait for the outcome. So much for pvp :D Right now I would only enjoy playing EVE as a trader/industrialist. Industry is where EVE is truly unique. Will come back in 2-3 months, byebye! Fly something smaller, ships are not the end of PVP, I've seen a sentinel down a Cynabal. Electronic attack frigates are considered the worst ship in EVE. EVE is not about rock, paper, scissors, its more like Rock, Paper, Shotgun! If all your alliance does is fleet blobs, yeah I can see that gets dull, pick a smaller pond, your likely a pretty big fish. =)
LifeLines Team Ice	Posted - 2011.02.21 19:36:00 - [65] Originally by: Tom Gerard Originally by: LifeLines CCP keeps giving me those 5 free days every 2 months or so :D every time I keep comming back, just to see that nothing has changed for the good PvP-wise. Thanks for those incursions, planetary interaction and all other crap nobody cares about. EVE is a PvP game with completely ridiculous PvP mechanics. PvP basically happens at the moment you finnish fitting your ship. After this is done, you just activate your modules(given that you atleast get to load the grib), orbit and wait for the outcome. So much for pvp :D Right now I would only enjoy playing EVE as a trader/industrialist. Industry is where EVE is truly unique. Will come back in 2-3 months, byebye! Fly something smaller, ships are not the end of PVP, I've seen a sentinel down a Cynabal. Electronic attack frigates are considered the worst ship in EVE. EVE is not about rock, paper, scissors, its more like Rock, Paper, Shotgun! If all your alliance does is fleet blobs, yeah I can see that gets dull, pick a smaller pond, your likely a pretty big fish. =) Sir, you misunderstood what I said. It does not matter what ship I fly. Be it a ceptor, be it a HAC, you still just activate your modules, shoot, try not to get scrammed, try not to get blobbed. Exciting to you? There is no skill involved. How about letting me dodge the damn projectiles and missiles? Impossible I know. Even with this utterly primitive PvP system we have now it gets unplayable with all the lag... I just have this hope that walking in stations will add a completely new dimension to the game... casinos, trading, all that stuff might actually make the game interesting.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.21 19:38:00 - [66] Originally by: Tippia If I remember Abathur's discussions during FF09, the intention was pretty much that: to give fleets a common arena where they two would clash. The problem, I think, might not only (or at all) lie in the concentration but in the sequentiality of modern sov combat. You have to do things in a certain order, with pre-determined delays between them. Correct. But what was said about the design goals of the new sov system is not what happened. If you read old devblogs, it was supposed to be a descriptive sov system. Instead, the good parts of the pos based system were stripped, and the worst augmented. It is an iteration of the old, if you want, but for the worse. What is now on tq, is not what was planned initially, but is merely a monument to the spectacular failure and reforming of a scrum team, highly visible to any careful observer. A descriptive sov system would immediately and radically fix lots of issues that are creeping up due to design issues.
Ban Doga	Posted - 2011.02.21 20:30:00 - [67] Originally by: Daedalus II Originally by: Ban Doga The solution is not better hardware, it's better software! All high performance computers these days are relying on having a hideous amount of CPU cores (several thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands) with every single core being a rather common - and thus not high-end - piece of hardware. Alone the fact that CCP is still running a software that is largely bound by single core performance means no amount of money invested into hardware will solve lag. Better software only gets you that far. At some level you have as good software as you can get, ie impossible to get any better. And I promise you that that level is lower than the level of lag free fights. Sure CCP is having great success of optimizing the code now to begin with, in some places it was more or less crap to be honest. However as they fix the more obvious errors they will get less and less results with each fix. If the first one gave 400% more efficiency the next gives 100% then 20% then 2% then 0.1%. At some level it's not worth putting more time into the software. Yes, you can't optimize indefinitely. But this is basically years old code and they found very simple issues like doing things twice or even more often. Do you have any idea how simple an optimization it is to check if you're doing everything once and only once? It's actually the second step, just after you checked that you only do things that are really necessary. This is not the end of optimization, it's merely the beginning. Originally by: Daedalus II And yes, while the dual core computers can't be used by a single instance of a sol node, what stops you from running two individual sol nodes on the same machine? Oh, dual core computers, eh? You finally arrived in 2005? Servers with 16 or more cores are pretty common. That's not the super special hardware you only get when you ask the right people. That's the normal stuff you get when you have some computations to do. So once you broke the "one-core-barrier" you're not getting twice the power, you're easily looking at 4, 5 or even 6 times (it doesn't scale linearly). And guess what, that's a limitation in the software. A limitation that keeps you from using up-to-date hardware to its full potential. Multi-core isn't going to go away. Any CPU intensive system not taking advantage of a multi-core architecture is going to fall behind. Period. This is not the same as sticking 16 systems on a 16 core machine. Because that's not going to make each individual system any faster. Have you heard "You can't get a baby in 1 month by getting 9 women pregnant at the same time"? This is what this is about. Originally by: Daedalus II Besides CCP could rewrite the entire server in perfect C++ with dynamic load balancing and the whole shebang but they would still not be able to have the large fleet fights lag free. Why? Because without a limit people will undoubtedly bring more ships into the system and lag it out anyway. As the poster I repiled to first said: Allow 1000 ships and the players bring 2000, allow 2000 and they bring 4000, allow 4000 and they bring 8000 and so on. It's impossible to make it lag free. The "people will always bring more ships than the server can handle" argument simply won't hold true forever as well. Apparently you seem to forget that organizing 8000 people is a logistical nightmare and that reality will prevent this from happening. There are a lot of other factors that limit how many people can effectively be and fight in one system. Right now the node's performance is the one that hits first. But it wouldn't stay the limiting factor. (For the sake of the argument someone could say that a system would never have to hold more people than the current PCU - Jita population). But keep telling yourself that it's not in the software and that the software will never be able to keep up with the fleets and that salvation lies in hardware. I bet it let's you sleep much better at night.
Daedalus II Helios Research	Posted - 2011.02.21 21:22:00 - [68] Originally by: Ban Doga But keep telling yourself that it's not in the software and that the software will never be able to keep up with the fleets and that salvation lies in hardware. I bet it let's you sleep much better at night. Oh I don't have anything against software optimizations, they are great and can greatly improve the use you get from your current hardware. But one should be careful making it out to the messiah some seem to make it. At some level it WILL be maxed out on the current hardware (which currently as far as I know are 32 bit dualcore servers except jita on its super node). If you are talking about 16 core servers you are indeed talking about hardware upgrades, but I'm arguing about pure software upgrades which will not be enough. The way forward is of course software and hardware upgrades, but even then there are still limitations such as how many players you can get into a single server? How many servers to upgrade (they are expensive)? How to switch from one server to another seamlessly? Is it economically feasible to have super servers on all systems when like only 5% of their capacity would be used 99% of the time? Do they have enough memory to contain all players (memory is cheap yes, but it's still a cost, especially server ram)? And also other questions such as; is it feasible to rewrite the whole server core systems in for example c++ to really be able to use the cores? Maybe many years from now EVE has come to a place where it can support the large fleet fights, but until then I'd say we're better off capping the systems than just lagging the crap out of every larger fight. ___________ Interested in incursions? Join Helios Research!
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.21 21:28:00 - [69] Most of the time-critical parts of the code are already written in C++ ù the problem is that language quite easily matters less than proper algorithms. In fact, some of the most notable improvements the game has seen the last year has been purely due to optimisations C++-coded core algorithmsà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Ai Shun Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:01:00 - [70] Originally by: Daedalus II And also other questions such as; is it feasible to rewrite the whole server core systems in for example c++ to really be able to use the cores? What would it be written in if not C++? Does anybody have a reference for that? (Developer being curious)

Khamelean	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:04:00 - [71] OMG a troll thread on the eve forums has devolved in to intelligent discussion and keen observation!! I'm seeing a lot of very good points about software optimisation, hardware optimisation and gameplay optimisation. It will take combinations of all of these to "fix lag". The key thing to remember is that all these things take time, I see so many complaints about CCP changing some aspect of gameplay with out thinking it through properly, then the same persons demands they "FIX IT NOW". If it was easy to do, it would have been done already. CCP runs some of the most advanced distributed computing platforms in the world. Sure there are other companies that runs clusters bigger than CCP, but I can't think of an that deal specifically with real time interactions, or that face the load balancing nightmare of a 1000+ fleet fight. So if no one else in the world is even able do an equivalent job, let a lone a better one. Then just perhaps the job is not as simple as it seems. Originally by: Ban Doga "My glass is half full" "Really, it looked half empty from here" Either way you look at it, I've just had half a glass of delicious scotch, Yum!
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:05:00 - [72] I thought someone said the other day in a programming discussion thread that C++ is a bad or rubbish language for programming especially in Eve? So is C++ a good or bad language? --------- Sent from my BlackBerry.
Ai Shun Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:26:00 - [73] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire So is C++ a good or bad language? It really depends on design and the developer. What were they recommending in that thread? (Link if you can, please)
Khamelean	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:30:00 - [74] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I thought someone said the other day in a programming discussion thread that C++ is a bad or rubbish language for programming especially in Eve? So is C++ a good or bad language? Is a hammer a good tool or a bad tool? Depends if your trying to put a nail in a plank of wood or trying to perform heart surgery.
Ai Shun Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:32:00 - [75] Ah, found the discussion. Python. Interesting. There are some interesting discussions here with some references to EVE and some dev blogs as well.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:36:00 - [76] Originally by: Khamelean Is a hammer a good tool or a bad tool? Depends ~~if your trying to put a nail in a plank of wood or trying to perform heart surgery~~ whether you're Jeremy Clarkson or not. Fix'd. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2011.02.21 22:45:00 - [77] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 21/02/2011 22:45:42 Originally by: Ai Shun Originally by: Jenny Spitfire So is C++ a good or bad language? It really depends on design and the developer. What were they recommending in that thread? (Link if you can, please) There you go. They say Python is good. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1470157 --------- Sent from my BlackBerry.
Grimpak Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2011.02.22 00:00:00 - [78] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Khamelean Is a hammer a good tool or a bad tool? Depends ~~if your trying to put a nail in a plank of wood or trying to perform heart surgery~~ whether you're Jeremy Clarkson or not. Fix'd. oh you didn't --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Naomi Wildfire Amarr Men Who Stare At Gates	Posted - 2011.02.22 03:13:00 - [79] Edited by: Naomi Wildfire on 22/02/2011 03:14:12 Originally by: Gnulpie And if your own alliance leaders start a campaign with the name BLOB ... Lol dude, get your facts straight. That "BLOB" thingie is an RL Barbeque meeting happening in Germany, not some campaign. Quote: And Who say's we made that banner. Afaik "BLOB" was started by MM and most likely was the banner created by MM. I understand that 6 months in MM wont teach you everything but i would be a bit more calm in that case :) #edit sorry if it was mentioned before or if i am crashing some O(n)T conversation.
Batolemaeus Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2011.02.22 03:27:00 - [80] Originally by: Naomi Wildfire Originally by: Gnulpie And if your own alliance leaders start a campaign with the name BLOB ... Lol dude, get your facts straight. That "BLOB" thingie is an RL Barbeque meeting happening in Germany, not some campaign. Haha, i totally missed that. The annual blob is our rl meet. Yep, usually happens in germany. But people who are red to us are of course also invited. Gnulpie, you fail. Hard.



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.