|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:First off every Null Sec alliance is hard pressed to get 200 or more people to log in. So you're saying that the 1000v1000 fights don't actually happen, and that your idea for breaking the game horribly isn't actually needed?
Well, that's a relief, since your idea for breaking the game horribly would break the game horribly. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Made me lol and coke came out my nose..... Thanks bud. For years, people have been accusing me of being a goon alt dev alt bob alt nullsec zealot ganker highsec griefer carebear.
Now the truth is out: I'm actually an agent for the secret rhinoplasty cabal recruiting creating new customersGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system = more strategic fights / no more tidi / no more node crashes No. Limit the number of players in a system = no fights at all, no more strategy, broken game.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:I can tell most of you have not lived in any high class worm holes. In order to bring any capital fleet into your enemies wormhole you have to do it over the course of days. Many many large capital fleet fights have taken place in wormholes that took planing/ tactics and took place of over the coarse of weeks. and guess what ? It has no bearing on tidi or on your idea for breaking the game horribly? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Not only will limiting the number of pilots to the system increase the strategic planning for fights but will open up Null sec to many more low sec/ high sec players that wish not to be apart of the null carebear Zergs. Null is broken / large fleet fights are broken this will fix that. EhGǪ
So how does reducing actual fighting and strategies to a single fit-all solution of GÇ£fill the systemGÇ¥ in any way increase the strategic planning or open up space for more players? There will be one GÇö and one only GÇö strategy, that inherently precludes any kind of fighting and which inherently and permanently completely disables non-established and smaller parties to join in the fun. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Not only will limiting the number of players to a system help keep the node up but will also keep the large power blocks on there toes. How will it keep large power blocks on their toes when they can trivially and automatically win any fight they engage in?
How would this mechanically enforced inability to oust the select few players in null make space more active or open it up to more players? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:There will never in our life time be a non crashable fight in Null sec. GǪaside from those that happen on a regular basis.
Because all alternatives are far far worse, especially ones that preclude fights from ever happening because the winner is determined by whoever gets there first. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 15:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:So for the first time in a very long time we see a few Titian's used in a fight. What comes next crash. From now on keep your large fleets at home so there by limiting the number of pilots in the system already. How does limiting the number of pilots in the system keep large fleets at home, when such a limitation means that there is more reason than ever to bring as large a fleet as you can? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 16:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Every system in EVE is already limited to the number of pilots. Not really, no. The reason it isn't is because it's a bad idea that would break the game horribly for no good reason.
Quote:If I can crash the node / stop the fight with one command how is that ok ? You can't, for one, and yes, it's better than the alternative.
Quote:The number of pilots in any one system has a limit b4 the node will crash. Not the kind of limit you're talking about, no. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:How many large fleet fights have crashed ? Some.
Quote:Yes you can crash the node with one command. You really should contact CCP then, since we really don't want developer commands in the wild (or direct server control access, if that's what you're talking about).
Other than that, no, players can't crash a node with one command.
Quote:Tidi is not fun. Nodes crash . Jita has a limit. Tidi is great. As for the rest: so what? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Well the last 4 largest fleet fights have all crashed. GǪand before that, we had a number that didn't. Some runaway conditions were apparently introduced in Rubicon, and are (or have been) in the process of getting a fix.
Quote:and btw I think Jita has its own server No. It has its own reinforced node, that's all.
Quote:Tidi is not the fix for node crash/ Null is broken / No large scale Titian on Titan fights ever. Of course not. It's a fix for uneven distribution of overloaded command processing. Other problems require other solutions. Giving the established large blocks an impenetrable advantage to always win every fight isn't one of those solutions.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Really ? Yes they don't have the advantage now ? No. Largely because the current system doesn't automatically and irrevocably block others from trying to attack the system they want to keep safe.
Quote:By limiting the number of players into a system will keep them in there system or they run risk of loosing it. No. It just means that they can blob any system that is under the attack from a smaller force and ensure a win. You're sounding like you think that they can't respond to fights as they occur or that they are massively more common than they are GÇö both of which suggests you have no experience or awareness of what goes on in the game.
Quote:So many people want a massive open world pvp EVE well you can't have it sorry. Sure they can. Locking them out of the game isn't a way of doing that, though, so I'm not entirely sure why you think its an argument in your favour. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:For anyone that does not know. More ships are killed in Wars in highsec/low sec everyday than all of Null. w/o all the node crashing and yes there is some tidi at times in low but not much. GǪand ensuring that there will never be any large fleet fights by automatically giving one side an auto-win does would only cement that.
Quote:But I know that most of Null is full of carebears that like to put on a show every now and then but tbh its not working. Agreed. Your plan to reduce the amount of fighting and make sure that any attempt at incursion in enemy territory is meaningless doesn't seem to be gaining as much traction as you had hopedGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:The only! Only people that benefit from the current state of Null Sec/ large blog node crashing , tidi making fleet fights are the few people receiving there income from the carebear renter income. Actually, no-one benefits from nodes crashing. Still, that's a better state of affairs than ensuring that any single group does benefit from a solution that automatically makes them unassailable.
Quote:CCP please regain control of your game fix null/ stop people from crashing the game. Open up Null to more people. And how do you propose they do that? (No, making sure people can't get into null GÇö which is what you've been proposing so far GÇö doesn't do that).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ivain Freir wrote:The server code is not multithread capable ? This is far too big to be believed ! Honestly, are you serious ? Largely, yes. The actual world simulation is single-threaded and system-wide. They have some things in the works for lifting out certain tasks and putting them on dedicated servers (search for GÇ£brain in a boxGÇ¥ for instance), but right now, that is the main reason why just throwing more money hardware on the problem doesn't solve anything. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:All of these statements about being able to lock out people from a system/node are already in place. GǪexcept, of course, that you can't really do that at the moment. At most, you can pile people in until the node crashes, at which point both sides lose (as opposed to your idea, where one side is automatically win and is given free reign to do whatever they want).
Quote:There is not 1 person not 1 that can say that Tidi is a fix/ that Null is not broken. Tidi most certainly is a fix, and anyone who knows what it's a fix for will tell you this. The problem is that you think it's a fix for some kind of brokenness in null (that you haven't really described in any detail).
Quote:Everyone complains about Null being broken. its really a simple fix. Limit the number of people in one system. GǪwhich breaks things rather than fix them, and since you haven't described what kind of null-breakage you're trying to fix, it's not a solution to that either. The only ones who would benefit from your idea of breaking the game are the large alliances that can trivially lock up a system and preclude any fighting from ever happening.
Quote:Why is it so hard for you to see it? Because your claims have no basis in reality. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 18:06:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:I can understand that why certain people would want to keep the current state of Null "business as usual'. So you understand why your idea is bad then.
Quote:Again the game in its current state is already limiting the number of players Repeating this idiotic nonsense will not make it true.
Quote:Don't try and sell the idea that one Alliance or other would have a huge advantage over the other if the systems were limited to a number of pilots. Why not? Is it because you don't want your nonsense subjected to reality?
Quote:How many large Null alliances lost SOV due to huge fleet fights ? How many ? so your point is invalid. So you're saying that your that argument that it would let more people into null is invalid? WellGǪ that's a break-through, I suppose.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 18:21:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:How many people are allowed into Jita ? It varies.
Quote:If Jita is limited to a set number of players why is this not good for Null Sec/ low? Because what happens in Jita doesn't actually necessitate a presence in Jita, and because it's not a static situation where two sides compete for area supremacy.
Quote:Null is broken only people really living the dream are a select few. How is it broken?
Quote:By limiting the number of players into a system you make the largest alliances camp there systems if they want it bad enough. GǪwhich means that there would no no chance of more people ever having sov in null, since they would never be able to take any systems GÇö the owners would just outblob them and be mechanically protected from any kind of loss.
Quote:The game being sold as open world single server Massive/ large scale fleet fights is False. GǪexcept, of course, that none of it is wrong. It is an open world, it is a single server, and massive/large-scale fleet fights happen with some regularity. So what's false about it (aside from your incorrect assertion that Jita has its own server)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 18:32:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of People to a system. No more tidi/crash GǪwhich isn't a valid trade for what's lost by doing so.
Quote:Keeps the large alliances either in there home system camping or out camping looking for more space It also keeps new entities from ever being able to take space, since the existing large coalitions can always trivially outnumber them.
Quote:There is already a limit on the number of players in a system. Not in the way you're proposing, no. There's a difference between piling people into a system until it crashes and both sides lose, and piling people into a system until it's poplocked, and whoever got there first automatically wins.
Quote:This would fix a lot of that It wouldn't fix any of that. It would only cement the things you claim are bad.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 18:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Everyone already knows that more ships blow up in low / high sec everyday than all of Null. Only reason to have a Carrier is rat with in Null/ move stuff around. There is never going to be the fights that everyone wants to happen because the game can't handle it. GǪexcept that they do happen on a regular basis so the game can obviously handle it. And how is it relevant how many ships blow up, and where? Also, do you have any numbers to support this assertion?
Quote:Null is not some mystery everyone already knows why Null is broken / large scale fleet fights are a joke. In what way is it broken?
Quote:Again the systems are already limiting the number of players Repeating the lie doesn't make it true. No. The system does not limit the number of players except for in Jita (where the limit varies).
Quote:By limiting the number of pilots to a system it opens up more of Null stops Lag/crashes How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null?
Quote:More people in Null=Win So why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 19:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Maybe having a staged fight with preset fleets with both sides knowing what ship types is an answer. The answer to what? Actually, never mind, no it won't. That's just static nonsense that doesn't really belong in the game and that (once again) only favours the larger alliances. Killing emergent gameplay just because you want to create a completely static political map is not a good reason or a good outcome.
Quote:Because the random nature that we all want does not work on a large scale. The game can't handle that. GǪexcept that it happens on a regular basis, so obviously the game can handle it.
Quote:Limit the number of pilots to a system like in Jita would change and shake up EVE to its roots. It would indeed shake up all of EVE, primarily by making it completely static since there would be no way to take space from larger entities. Just because you are clueless about the mechanics, dynamics, and behaviour of Jita doesn't mean you can apply that cluelessness to other parts of the game that share none of Jita's characteristics.
Quote:Stable no lag/crashes pvp would be so nice. Sure it would, if it didn't come at the cost of a complete removal of nullsec gameplay.
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 19:25:00 -
[22] - Quote
crononyx wrote:Tippia, i have no idea how you keep trying to communicate with this guy. He's clearly ignoring every response and keeps trolling. Because of Poe's law. For every troll, there will be 10 people who actually believe the same nonsense genuinely, so the troll becomes a handy proxy for addressing their ignorance. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 19:40:00 -
[23] - Quote
GÇ£Dear Worried from Doncaster
Your Falcon is fine. Just tell those n00bs to htfu and train damps and drones. Also, get rid of the accent GÇö only Michel Parkinson can pull it off and that's probably what really annoys people.GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 20:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Victoria Sin wrote:I don't think it's that hard if you partition your sets correctly. The issue is you have to build your architecture around doing it. But more importantly, you shouldn't be doing each operation with a python script. The problem is that we're dealing with a several-thousand-will non-deterministic system that requires a lot of dynamism in how those sets are set up, and it's not hard to imagine a situation where the set-up takes more time than it saves to distribute the final workload among the sets. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 20:52:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Who benefits from the node crashing/laggy largest scale fights ? No-one. That explains why the rest of you assertions aren't getting any traction and why everyone is laughing uproariously at your idea to make the whole thing even worse by adding in mechanically enforced imbalance on top.
Quote:Its only by thinking about the other 90% of EVE that you will start to understand that the Zerg/ mega alliance / Sov holding / epic 5000k vs 5000k fleet / Titian on Titan battles don't or will never work. As luck would have it, those fights never actually happenGǪ in fact, I'm not even sure the Sol proxies can handle that many people logged in at once.
Quote:Open up Null for more players non Zerg / PvP minded players. How do you propose to do that? And no, giving established large coalitions an unassailable position simply due to their size won't do it GÇö in fact, it will do the exact opposite.
Quote:Jita Already has a player Cap Jita is not a fleet fight.
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 21:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Null Sec in its current state only benefits the select few at the top. How so? And how does limiting the presence in null to only those who can lock up a system in any way help resolve this supposed problem?
Quote:CCP will not ever rewrite any sort of Code to fix tidi / node crashing. It can't be done sorry What do you base this on?
Quote:By limiting the number of pilots to a system will make it so if you want that system camp it 24/7. And what on earth makes you think that this is a good idea? It only means that it will be impossible to attack the incumbents in null, which doesn't seem to solve any of the problems you're seeing GÇö only inflate them and make them systemic.
Quote:The days of Mega / Zerg fleet fights are dead the game can not handle it. How do you explain the fact that they happen on a regular basis, then?
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 21:29:00 -
[27] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:I say Shake it up to the Core! How do you propose to do that in a good way (and no, giving established parties an unassailable hold on all of null is not a good way)?
Quote:All of the large fleet fights in Null/ Low Sec have been staged from the start ? None of them are staged, really, unless you're talking about the CCP-led community events (which have far bigger problems than node crashes, and which would be made impossible by your idea of locking everyone out).
Quote:Open up Null to everyone keep it real . The zerg does not work for large fights. It seems to be working remarkably well for the most part. Beyond that, how do you propose to open up null to everyone? (Again, no, giving established parties an unassailable hold on all of null does not open up anything).
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 22:08:00 -
[28] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:On any given day there are more ships blown up in Low sec / High sec. So? How is that relevant toGǪ wellGǪ anything, really? And what do you base that claim on? Or are you retracting your previous nonsense about how it's a nullsec problem since apparently stuff blow up everywhere?
Quote:To say you can't crash a node is pretty silly tbh. It can happen pretty easy. It happens, but it requires a fair amount of work under the right circumstances to do. The problem is that doing so means everyone loses, so it's not something that benefits anyone.
In what way?
Quote:When do you think that you will see Titans used again in a large scale battle ? w/o the node crashing. When will you see 200+ Carriers vs 200+ Dreads w/o the node crashing ? Oh pretty much all the time. It's not like there's a fixed limit on the ships and numbers that are allowed into the system before it automatically crashes.
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 22:29:00 -
[29] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Its simple really! Yes its: you can't come up with any kind of explanation of what the problem is or how your supposed solution is going to fix that problem.
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 22:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limiting the number of people in local is nothing new ? No. It's been going on in Jita for a while since Jita isn't a system where that kind of mechanic breaks anything.
Quote:As the game is now you can't have X number of people in a system w/o the node crashing so whats the difference by putting a number on it ? It would be the introduction of a limitation that doesn't currently exist. The reason it doesn't currently exist is because such a limitation would break the game.
Quote:Node crashing alliances/corps at there will is ok ? Probably not, but if that ever happens, you can just report them to the GMs.
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 23:39:00 -
[31] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:People are afraid of change. Not really, no. They just don't like it when their game gets broken for not particular reason.
Quote:A new game mechanic such as limiting the number of people to a system would GǪbreak the game infinitely more than the rare node crash does (but then, node crashes don't particularly break the game to begin with so that's no real surprise).
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 23:52:00 -
[32] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows Everything who's blue to me is who I call When we're together. Faster than a crashing node. When you're here the ships all disappear Dear and I feel so fine. Just to know that node is fine. My life is sunshine, lollipops and rainbows That's how this capfight goes. So come on Join In. Everybody. I prefer this version, since that's where the inspiration comes fromGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:It is not up to me to prove or disprove anything. Yes it is. Look up the concept of onus probandi.
Quote:Go look it up for yourself. No. If you want to assert something, you provide the evidence for it. If you can't and start asking others to prove things for you because you can't, it just means thatGǪ wellGǪ you can't, most likely because you know your assertions are all false.
Quote:But this is a fact: There is a limit on the number of people you can put into a fight before the system will crash. Really? Where did you get that unsupported hypothesis come from? What limit is that? You seem to be intimately knowledgeable about these limits but you can't specify or describe them. Why is that?
Quote:Fact Fiction 2 : Null Sec large Zerg fights don't benefit anyone
Complete fiction. They benefit industrialists enormously.
Quote:Fact Fiction 3 : No null Sec Sov has ever been lost or gained due to a single Zerg/ fight.
Yes. 6VDT never happened.
Any other ignorant claims you want to trot out? Also, while we're at it: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:32:00 -
[34] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Again the lords of Null would have you believe that EVE is fine and that by having Player controlled system crashes is ok. What support do you have for the claim that there is such a thing as player-controlled system crashes?
Quote:Jita has a limit on players but thats ok with the Null bears. Jita is not a fleet fight, so it has no bearing or relevance on the topic at hand.
Quote:So again who is it that benefits from the tidi fights ? The node crashing fights ? What support do you have for the claim that anyone benefits? And why do you want to change it so that only one party benefits?
Also, while we're at it: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:If CCP were to come out tomorrow and say ok guys the player limit in any system from now on is X.
Would that stop null bears from pvp'ing ? It would stop them from trying to contend for sov, yes, since it would no longer be possible. The defender would just auto-win any engagement and you'd never have any chance of actually killing anything.
Quote:Would it allow more people to be able to contend for SOV ? No, because it would be impossible to do so since you've just introduced a mechanism that allows the defender to irrevocably deny the attacker access to their target.
Quote:Has any one fight in all of EVE been the deciding factor to any Null Sov ? No That's because sov is always determined by at least two fights through the way it functions. It is therefore an irrelevant observation for the topic at hand unless you intend to completely revamp sov (which you're not). However, those two fights have often been the kinds of full blobs you want to eliminate, but which your suggestion ensures can't happen.
Quote:not the tidi fights where we can all bring our ratting Carriers out and have some fun. This is completely false and proves that you are not only clueless about the actual sov mechanics, but also about warfare in general.
Quote:Would limiting the number of players to a system ( which we already have btw ) break the game ? Of course it would, since it would introduce a mechanism that doesn't currently exist in the game for the simple reason that it would break everything GÇö most notably by making it impossible to take systems.
So, again: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:The math is right here already : The game can only handle so many people in one system at a time What do you have to support this claim? Can you provide the maths?
Quote:Should CCP micro manage what the players are doing in each system ? No So why are you asking them to?
Quote:Would having a limit on the players in system would break up the tidi fights / game crashing. YES GǪat the price of making nullsec completely static, which is not worth the trade.
Quote:No one / Not one person enjoys the game crashing/Tidi fights. So how do you propose to solve the problem? (No, giving single parties an unassailable hold on what they own and making the game completely static is not a viable solution.)
Moreover, perhaps you could clear up some other things: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of people to one system is already in place. Can you provide any kind of evidence to support this claim? For instance, what is the actual limit you think exists at the moment?
Quote:Outside of a few forum fall worriers People would love it What makes you think people will love a mechanic that makes it impossible to take space?
Quote:There is a Fix: Limit the number of players to any one system. What makes you feel that it is worth sacrificing a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash to gain a completely static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes?
Quote:It would give the much smaller corps / alliances a chance at having some Null Sov. How would they have a chance to take a system they can't enter?
Quote:It would produce many more smaller scale ( no game crashing ) fights Why would the number of small fights increase? What would they be fighting over?
Oh, and a few other things you failed to answer: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:27:00 -
[38] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:The Null Bears would like to tell you the horrors of living in Null and how game breaking it would be to limit the number of players to a system. ( That limit is already in the game ) Do you have any support for either of those claims or are you just making things up and hoping that no-one will question it?
Quote:No one likes tidi fights Why do people show up for tidi fights ? Because they are often critical in determining sov ownerhsip.
Quote:Why on any given day of the week there more ships blown up in HighSec/ Low Sec than all of Null ? Do you have anything to support this claim? And even if you do and it actually true, how is it in any way relevant?
Quote:Who by having a limit ( which is already in place ) on the number of players in a system benefits from this ? What makes you think that anyone benefits? And what limit is it you think exists?
Quote:Limiting the number of players to a system would increase the quality of PVP/game play. How would it do that?
Also, a few more questions for you: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:39:00 -
[39] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:There is a limit on how many people can be in one system before the game breaks What do you base that assertion on, and what is this supposed limit?
Quote:For every post that is put up on the forums about how to fix tidi/ game crashing/ Sov / Null. They all end with trolls ( derailment ) Not really, no. Only the ones that were trolls from the very beginning by proposing completely unworkable and idiotic GÇ£solutionsGÇ¥ to problems that are never actually defined.
Quote:Limiting the number of people in any one system will stop the game from crashing. GǪat the cost of making the game entirely static, which is too high a price for such a small convenience.
Quote:Limiting the number of people would increase the quality of game play. In what way, and how would it do that?
Quote:Limiting the number of people to one system would allow for smaller corps/alliances to have a chance at having some SoV How does making it impossible to take a system allow smaller corps and alliances to have some sov? Especially when taking and holding sov becomes all about poplocking the system?
While you figure out answers to those questions, could you answer the following ones that you've accumulated as well: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:What would Eve be like with out Tidi ? Often unplayable, like in the olden days. It's not really something anyone wants to go back to.
Quote:What would Null Sov look like today if there were a limit on the number of players in any one system ? Completely static, which is why such a solution has never been contemplated: because it breaks far more than it ever could hope to fix.
Quote:Limit the number of players would fix so many issues that the game has. Such as?
Quote:Limiting the number of players to any one system would do nothing but help. How would it help? And how does making large sov-holding coalitions unassailable count as GÇ£helpingGÇ¥ (since that would be the outcome)?
Quote:Who benefits from these tidi fights ? OhGǪ pretty much everyone involved and a large number of other people connected to the whole war economy thing that EVE revolves around.
By the way, you seem to have missed out on a point or two that could use some further clarification: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system would stop tidi / no more game crashes. GǪand make nullsec completely static. What makes you think that this would be a worth-while trade?
Quote:There is already a limit to the number of players to any one system ( jita ) GǪand that is relevant to fleet fights, how, exactly?
Quote:Limit the number of players to any one system would solve all this. Solve what?
Quote:Open up Null more to newer alliances/corps How do you propose to do that? (No, making null impossible to attack is not a viable solution).
While answering those, please ponder the following as well: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:03:00 -
[42] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:There is only a hand full of people that benefit from game crashing / tidi fights in Null. What makes you think that anyone benefits?
Quote:The limit of players to each system is already in place ( Jita ) GǪwhich is not a fleet fight, so how is it in any way relevant to the topic at hand?
Quote:Put that limit in place with fixed numbers would give us all a much better game play. How would it do that?
Also, GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:11:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:The only people that benefit from the current state of the game ( tidi fights ) ( game crashing ) fights are who ? What makes you think that anyone benefits from the game crashing?
Quote:Who benefits from these fights really? If you mean large-scale fights, all of EVE.
Quote:Put a limit on the number of players Why?
Quote:CCP regain control of our game please! In what way are they not in control?
Oh, andGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:17:00 -
[44] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system Why? What problem are you trying to solve by fundamentally breaking the dynamics of the game, and is that problem really worth such a huge sacrifice?
Quote:That limit is already in place just make it solid so there will not have to be tidi ( game crashes ) There is currently no such limit, no, and not having tidi is not a worth-while goal.
Oh, andGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:20:00 -
[45] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Fewer and fewer line of text. Running out of steam? Don't quit now. I think you almost have Tippia convinced. You just need to stick to the facts like you've been doing so far. Yeah. His tactic of doing copy-paste GÇ£arguingGÇ¥ without copy-pasting or having any arguments really drains his time and energy. Newbie mistake that oneGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:22:00 -
[46] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Facts are this no one enjoys Tidi / player controlled game crashes GǪand what evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that there is such a thing as player-controlled crashes?
Quote:Limit the number of players to any one system will fix both. Why on earth would you want to fix tidi? And why would you want to make the game completely static just to fix such utterly minute issues (if they even are issues to begin with, which you haven't showed yet)?
AlsoGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Any given day more ships are blown up in HS/low sec than all of Null. So what?
Quote:Why would not want to help the game? We keep asking you this very question, and you can't answerGǪ Why do you want to give large coalitions unassailable positions in nullsec? Why do you want to make the game completely static? Why do you want to remove a vast source of demand for the S&I sector?
Quote:Limit the number of players to any one system would fix both tidi and ( player controlled crashes) just log more into the system Tidi isn't something that anyone wants GÇ£fixedGÇ¥ since that would break things, and you have yet to provide any kind of evidence to support your hypothesis that there is such a thing as player-controlled crashes.
Quote:Give many more smaller alliances a chance to enter Null / Sov warfare w/o having to be a part of the tidi/game crashing Zergs GǪand how do you propose to do that? (No, making it impossible for them to engage in sov warfare by mechanically ensuring that the big coalitions win every time is not going to do it).
MoreoverGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:This again will fix the game How? And what is the problem that needs to be fixed?
You could answer that simple question by addressing some of the points being made so far, such asGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limiting the number of players will stop the game from crashing GǪand in the process breaking the game by removing all dynamics from nullsec and nixing any ability to ever change the sov map. What makes you think this is a good trade?
Quote:Open up Sov for smaller alliances/corps How does making it impossible to take sov from larger alliances open up sov for smaller alliances?
Quote:Limit the number of players will only bring quality pvp How will it do that?
AlsoGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limiting the number of players to the system will let CCP regain control of the game as right now anyone with enough players can crash the node. And what is the GÇ£lost controlGÇ¥ you think is going on here? How has CCP lost anything?
Quote:Limiting the number of players = no tidi = no more game crashes You realise that tidi does not equate to game crashes, right, and that GÇ£no tidiGÇ¥ is not a desirable state of afffairs? You also realise that limiting the number of players does not in fact remove tidi? Moreover, what makes you think that solving the rather minor issue of the rare node crash is worth sacrificing all of nullsec over?
AlsoGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Well for my last post like every other post that makes a good idea about how to fix the game ( less you speak about rewriting some mystery code ) lol , It either 1. gets trolled by the players that have the most to loose Really? In what way have you been trolled? You've been asked to support your innumerable assertions with facts and evidence and arguments, and you have been asked questions about how you think your idea will work. Just because you've been utterly and completely unable to answer any of those doesn't mean you've been trolled GÇö just that you've been incompetent.
Speaking of incompetence, if you say that you've been Gǣeither 1GǪGǥ then you really need to follow it up with a Gǣor 2GǪGǥ.
Quote:Limit the players will fix a lot of the core issues with large scale fights Which issues are those and how would it fix them?
Quote:It might even help break up the Null Bears a bit How does giving them unassailable ownership over their systems break them up in any way rather than cement their positions?
Quote:More quality game play thats for sure How so? How would the quality improve, and why? How is it GÇ£sureGÇ¥ that any of that will happen if you make sure that most systems can't be attacked?
Quote:Let CCP know when and where the next large battle will take place at least 1 day before so that no one person ( alliance ) ( corp ) can crash the node. No one person can crash the node as it is, and forewarning CCP of fights does not preclude a node crash.
Moreover, maybe you could answer some questions about the actual topic at hand: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó Do you understand what tidi is and why itGÇÖs not something that anyone wants to see removed? GÇó Do you understand that limiting the amount of people in a system does not preclude tidi from kicking in? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 06:15:00 -
[52] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Could something in the SOV mechanic be changed so you can attack 4 different place with 500 ships instead of always kinda having to attack 1 place with 2k ships? We all know the server are not getting any better any time soon but we make some objectives achievable by less ships so the force of an invader/defender can be divided up in many different system thus potentially different nodes? Making it so ship engaged in some place can't just jump to another place in the nick of time in the same way as an armored division can't travel across a country to keep plugging holes on a complete battlefront? Making things achievable in fewer ships won't help much on its own, nor does spreading them out. Just because you can do it in fewer ships doesn't mean people will GÇö hell, you can take sov solo as it is right now, but it's just more efficient (and safe) to throw everything at it.
It has to involved timing (not just timers) and diminishing returns to get that kind of result: where bringing 500 ships rather than 50 is a waste of 450 ships that could do something better at the same time, and that GÇ£something betterGÇ¥ has to beat the job of just sticking around as escort and protection. This is a fairly tricky thing to design.
In addition, this GÇ£better off elsewhereGÇ¥ mechanic has to be double-sided. If the attacker has to go after 10 spots at once to take the system, and the defender only has to make them fail at one of those spots, then they'll just blob one spot after another until the attackers are gone. This is even trickier to design properly. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17803
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:46:00 -
[53] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Well anytime an idea comes around about anything constructive to give us players a better gaming experience It either gets trolled into a lock or blown off by the bitter Vets of Eve who think this is the way its always been so its ok. Do you have any evidence to support either of those claims? The only one trolling this thread is you, since you refuse to actually discuss the topic at hand. You have a whole slew of questions left to answer and a metric fuckton of issues left to address. How about you get started with those, hmmGǪ?
Quote:I will just say that CCP will not ever create a limit on the number of people in a system ( its too engrained into there PR ) No, they won't, and no, it's not because of PR. It's because it's a idiotic GǣfixGǥ that breaks the game and doesn't actually solve anything. If you had spent all this time explaining why it's actually needed rather than just copy-pasting, you'd know this by nowGǪ
Quote:But till the day comes when there are not enough subs to support such large battles that the player controlled crashes Do you have any evidence to support that there is such a thing as player-controlled crashes, or are you just off your meds?
[GÇóuote]Simple solution to a very serious issue that will come up again and again.[/quote]What simple solution is that? Oh, and what is the actual issue you're trying to solve? If, in fixing one issue, you break the game, then it's not really a viable solution, now is it?
Guess what comes next? The questions you have yet to answer, accumulated over the thread as you've invented more and more unproven, nonsensical, incoherent, contradictory, and generally idiotic nonsense to post: GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó Do you understand what tidi is and why itGÇÖs not something that anyone wants to see removed? GÇó Do you understand that limiting the amount of people in a system does not preclude tidi from kicking in? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17804
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 16:56:00 -
[54] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:CCP's crown jewel Null Sec Sov = Broken In what way is it broken?
Quote:large scale fleet battles broken but Tidi is a fix ? In what way are they broken? Do you understand what tidi is, and what it's trying to fix?
Quote:Player controlled crashes Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that such a thing even exists?
Quote:Limit the number of players ( which we already have ) What makes you think that there is currently any kind of player limit for fleet fights? Could you please explain what that limit is and how you've discovered it? What makes you think it's a good idea to give nullsec alliances an unassailable hold on all their systems? And do you understand that limiting the number of players does not eliminate tidi?
In shortGǪ GÇó In what way is nullsec broken? GÇó In what way are larger-than-life battles broken? GÇó Do you understand what tidi is and why itGÇÖs not something that anyone wants to see removed? GÇó Do you understand that limiting the amount of people in a system does not preclude tidi from kicking in? GÇó How is it relevant where ships die? GÇó Do you have any kind of numbers to support your assertions about where ships die? GÇó What is this limit that is supposed to already exist for fleet fights? GÇó What support do you have for your claims about this hypothetical limit? GÇó What relevance do you believe a travel-through multi-use remote-operated system such as Jita has on a system where a two-party fleet fight is going on? GÇó How does giving large coalitions an unassailable stranglehold on all of null open up more of null? GÇó How are small alliances supposed to benefit from not being able to take sov? GÇó How is gameplay improved by making it possible to completely lock out the competition from participating in a GÇ£fightGÇ¥? GÇó How is giving one fleet an unassailable advantage supposed to generate more fights and more willingness to fight? GÇó How do you propose to ensure that null is opened up without giving massive advantages to the established players? GÇó Why are you proposing a solution that lets fewer people play in null? GÇó What makes you think that anyone is benefitting from node crashes (where everyone loses) but won't benefit from poplocks (where one side automatically wins)? GÇó Do you understand how the war-based economy of EVE works? GÇó Why do you want to remove a huge source of demand for industrial production? GÇó What evidence can you offer to support your assertions that players can crash the server on command? GÇó Why do you feel that it's worth trading a dynamic nullsec with the rare crash for a static nullsec with slightly fewer crashes? GÇó What issues do you believe will be fixed by making the game static? GÇó Do you have anything other than an argumentum ad nauseam to GÇ£supportGÇ¥ your claims about anything? GÇó Why are you so slow? I can finish an entire game of mahjong solitaire between your repetitions. GÇó What makes you think that ignoring the questions will make them go away?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17804
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 17:03:00 -
[55] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:The time for tweaking at the edges with issue-avoiding hacks like TiDi that don't solve the root issue is over. OookGǪ then I have to ask you: do you understand what tidi is and what problem it is mean to solve? Because it sounds like you're laying a failure at the feet of a mechanic that has nothing to do with that failureGǪ And what is the Gǣroot issueGǥ here?
Quote:The large fleet fight of EvE online is a lie IMHO. GǪand yet they happen with decent regularity. So where's the lie? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17811
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 20:17:00 -
[56] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Onictus wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Gotta steal the Jita node for the next big timer fight. It worked fantastically in 6VDT. .....now we just have to get PL and NC. to warn CCP the day before they drop 300 slows onto a TCU so we get this party going properly. If we keep stealing the jita node for every timer fight that occurs on the weekend, the freighter pilots will hate us, you know Is that an argument for or against? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17814
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 23:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:Tippia, youre blantantly trolling now, even Im getting annoyed with you. Just shut up for a bit will you, at least give it a few pages. You seem to have misunderstood the concept of trolling. Look up Alavaria's profile and posting history, and then come back and look at the exchange again and at the suggestion and its consequences. Now consider what it means in the context of who's saying it.
I think the term you were looking for was GÇ£having a bit of a laughGÇ¥. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17814
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 23:30:00 -
[58] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:Just because I quoted that particular bit, don't assume that meant the entire context of the thread. That was pretty daft of you, don't you think? Wouldn't it have been much better to quote the part you were responding to?
Quote:Having a laugh is fine, constantly repeating yourself, is trolling. So why are you angry at me? Or are you still not fully familiar with the concept of trolling then.
What I'm doing is collecting the unanswered questions, unfounded assertions, contradictory and inconsistent goals, and then reminding him of the parts he's desperately trying to avoid answering in his copy-paste trolling. You'll notice that, unlike him, I actually respond to his posts GÇö the list of outstanding issues is just that: a list of outstanding issues that he needs to address if he doesn't want to be tossed out on his ears for being a troll.
Quote:please dont confuse your understanding of trolling with mine. I agree, that would be awful, because I rather enjoy employing words in their correct context and meaning.
Now, do you have anything to actually add to the topic at hand, or are you just going to take up the trolling baton now that the OP has given up, only you'll do it with irrelevant ad hominems rather than a failed copy-paste red herring tactic? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17814
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 23:46:00 -
[59] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:The tears would amuse us Hence the question.
Quote:However, CCP would tire of it after the 100th big fight that took up the Jita node for the entire day. Thus it cannot be a permanent fix.
I also note that if they assign the Jita node to system AB, but then the fight occurs in a different timer in system XY, the node for system XY will crash. And Jita will be of course in TiDi for that whole day. I don't remember reading that Jita is anything other than a perma-reinforced node, so would it really matter? Or have they actually given it some special jungle juice to outperform normal reinforced nodes? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17814
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 00:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
Neat. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17815
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 01:26:00 -
[61] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Drones might be overplayed as a cause, here. We commonly see non-reinforced nodes look for a rope to hang themselves on when a SC blob throws them out, but in fights like 6VDT pretty much everyone was flying drones, and it worked out well enough. The focus on drones is fairly easy to understand though.
On the one hand, they're an obvious stuff-on-the-grid multiplier that is already on everyone's minds after a year of ever increasing drone assist popularity. This makes them an intuitive culprit for increased problems as fleets grow bigger.
On the other hand, drones remind of two lag fixes in the past that were rather successful: linked weapons and missile set-up improvements. As was the case with missiles, one of the issues with drones is that they're in-space objects that need to be set up and tracked individually and thus start to create all kinds of exponential interaction effects for the simulation. They also mean we have five (or so, on average GÇö more for carriers but less for special-purpose ships) more guns that keep firing, which means they're not taking advantage of the increased efficiency of having linked weapon firing.
So even if it's not the silver bullet, it certainly feels like an area that could do with some serious optimisation and which could draw on previous optimisation techniques for ideas on what needs to be done. It looks GÇ£simpleGÇ¥ in other words GÇö if not exactly low-hanging fruit, then something you might only need a small:ish stepladder for.
Quote:The servers always seem most strained when people induce session timers (bad enough that 2 fleets logging in after a jabber ping would spike a node for half an hour to 10% tidi), so it will be fascinating to see what the lauded "brain in a box" will be able to do. BiB should help with the spikes that happen as people jump in, warp to grids, and explode, but something else will be needed for the kind of on-going effects of a prolonged fight. Granted, some of that might just be deferred GÇ£brain set-upGÇ¥ processing that continuously slow down the node, but that really comes down to what the source for the strain is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17818
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 11:46:00 -
[62] - Quote
tiberiusric wrote:twaddle So you agree with me then, seeing as how you couldn't actually address any of my points or even stay on topic, and instead had to go off on some curious ad hominem rant? Well, thanks for the support, I suppose, although I really would have preferred it less caustic.
Vald Tegor wrote:You are missing an event there.
Refitting a ship.
Every time one of those carriers in the blob takes off a module, the brain needs to recalculate. When the new module is placed, it has to do so again. I've been wondering if some first steps towards that have been taken and that is affecting the stability in these fights. Ah, fair point. Question is if it happens often enough for it to have such a huge impact. The again, it's a tactic that has gained some popularity and more widespread use over time, especially now that depots have opened people's eyes for its uses even on a small/individual scale. At any rate, it's still limited to reducing load for one particular kind of event -- granted, one that has a huge impact -- and which is a point event rather than a continuous thing. I'm not saying it won't help, just that it will only help in specific instances.
...it will certainly improve Jita, though, since that's practically all brain-calculation load. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17829
|
Posted - 2013.12.20 04:16:00 -
[63] - Quote
Vald Tegor wrote:You are missing an event there.
Refitting a ship.
Every time one of those carriers in the blob takes off a module, the brain needs to recalculate. When the new module is placed, it has to do so again. I've been wondering if some first steps towards that have been taken and that is affecting the stability in these fights. Ah, fair point. Question is if it happens often enough for it to have such a huge impact. The again, it's a tactic that has gained some popularity and more widespread use over time, especially now that depots have opened people's eyes for its uses even on a small/individual scale. At any rate, it's still limited to reducing load for one particular kind of event -- granted, one that has a huge impact -- and which is a point event rather than a continuous thing. I'm not saying it won't help, just that it will only help in specific instances.
...it will certainly improve Jita, though, since that's practically all brain-calculation load. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
|
|