|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Schantalle
   |
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Schantalle on 21/03/2011 16:45:38
Game exactly works as intended by both CCP and the NC.
CCP says "massive fleetfights" and afaik having 400 players in system without mentionable lag is achievable.
NC says "cram the target system until our enemies cant fight" and by bringing 2000+ players, this is also achievable. (DRF might call the same tactic... but I donŠt speak enough russian to quote).
I promise: should ccp ever manage to support "all NC ships in one system", there will be another "move your bookmarks" or "drop containers" initiative to generate enough lag to have something to cry about and petition when ships get welped. If all this doesnŠt help, some hostile entity will be called "cheater", "botter" or whatever seems to be an acceptable excuse for oneselves fail.
Jumping a titan into a system everybody knows to be crammed and laggy and loosing it, only means one thing: Pilot and FC failed to eat enough brains for breakfast.
Nothing more, nothing less. CCP made a sandbox. They ALLOW players to ruin their own fun through their own actions. This is not a fault - this is simply an different concept than teletubbies online.
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:52:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Schantalle on 21/03/2011 16:52:56
No, youŠre expecting heavy lag und unforseeable consequences. That why both sides bring that amount of people.
DonŠt tell everyone youŠre stupid and donŠt know what happens when you enter a 2000+ players system with a supercap.
Stop whining and accept reality. ItŠs simply and only your fault.
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:32:00 -
[3]
So jumping into o2o as the pilot of some supercap doesnŠt make you responsible? But the admin of that pc is?
Lol.
Sounds like those ******s thinking "cruise control" allows you to make coffee in the back of a caravan while being the driver. On a highway.
The problem is not "weird things happen during lag". The problem is "to bring more people than a system is capable of supporting" on purpose.
CCP should just dissolve entities trying to damage their server using such tactics.
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 18:03:00 -
[4]
So is this an official statement - theatening CCP to damage their nodes if they donŠt act in a way that supports your group of player?
What would you think to be an appropriate response here? Just ban you as the threatening person, or dissolve your whole group as they are - by implication - the tool to make the threat real?
What... you donŠt want to go that far?
Then stop talking about legal **** like "in their announcement bla bla they promised me". YouŠre playing the game long enough to exacly know what to expect and when.
Stop whining when things work exactly as usual.
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 18:21:00 -
[5]
The server limits are well known. Just because they are no hard limits doesnŠt mean they donŠt exist.
You and your FC made the decision to jump into that system while perfectly knowing all possible consequences.
Let me guess: you always choose the road that has reported traffic jams and blame the state when youŠre fired due to being late?
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:03:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Schantalle on 21/03/2011 21:05:46
Edited by: Schantalle on 21/03/2011 21:04:14
 Quote:
ships shouldn't get blown up when the players that were controlling them get kicked from the game or don't even load the system
Best proposal ever. Not.
Just provide all the cowards with just another way to save their internet spaceships. Just in case anything goes wrong and the enemy actually shows up. Just another addition to your stupid blobbage and logoffski warfare.
Maybe stop cryin "IŠm gonna quit if you donŠt give me my carelessily lost ship back" and actually quit. Solves multiple problems at once.
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:15:00 -
[7]
Just say it like you mean it:
"CCP, give us with all the ships that we carelessily lost back and just keep our enemies ships down."
Or isnŠt that politically correct enough for you?
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:28:00 -
[8]
It already has priority at CCP.
This is just the same thing as everytime this entity loses a fight: players not getting the concepts of technical limitations into their strategies, loosing internet spaceships and assigning blame to CCP afterwards.
Tears Tears Tears.
Just imaginge the tears that would be spawned by a technetium rebalance.  Hilarious.
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:42:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Schantalle on 21/03/2011 21:45:16
Edited by: Schantalle on 21/03/2011 21:43:54
Hahaaaahahahahahahaaa
So where are the DRF tears?
They also died in lag and - oh wonder - donŠt have tech to replace their losses for free.
ShouldnŠt they cry for some free ships first?
Oh wait... this is the moment someone plays the "evil botter empire" card, right?
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:00:00 -
[10]
Since when is "fair fight" the new agenda for the NC?
Oh wait.. it isnŠt. Nice pun.
|
|
|
Schantalle
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 00:30:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Schantalle on 23/03/2011 00:37:02
Quote:
1. If the system doesnt support 2k people then set the systems max numbers.Like 500 or 600. 250 A alliance 250 B alliance.
To make you guys play even more bluelist bingo my splitting up into even more little pieces just to circumvent this limitation?
Lol, wonŠt work in teletubby land.
This one is the best...
Quote:
So, you can't point to them and say "why doesn't everyone else do that?" because it is not a successful adaptation to the game mechanics. This is Darwin beating you. Adapt or die. It doesn't matter much how you would like the game to be, it matters what the game mechanics are.
Ships die in laggy fleetfights due to fire AND side-effects and donŠt get reimbursed. This is not only a well known technical reality, but also an official statement on reimbursement.
Adapt or die. <= this is where the statement also fits.
|
|
|
| |
|