Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:09:00 -
[151] - 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. |
Pipa Porto
1398
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:11:00 -
[152] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:It is not up to me to prove or disprove anything. Go look it up for yourself.
You're the one making the claim. It's your job to provide the evidence to support it.
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.
That limit is already in the game.
And that limit is different in every situation (there have been fights with over 4000 people in a system). If you introduce a hard cap, it would be much lower than current limits (or what's the point) and would provide an absolute chilling effect on all sov fights. As in, there would no longer be any sov fights. Either the defender gets logged in first at DT, or the attacker does, and then it's just wait X hours until the timer of the day lets you rep or shoot the structure in perfect safety.
Quote:Fact 2 : Null Sec large Zerg fights don't benefit anyone
Fact 3 : No null Sec Sov has ever been lost or gained due to a single Zerg/ fight.
There is a limit already in place on the number of people in a system before it will crash.
Fact 2 is false, and Fact 3 is absurdly so (unless you're putting undue weight on the word "single," in which case, the fact that a Sov takeover takes more than one fight is built into the mechanics, rendering the "fact" irrelevant to your argument).
Now, how about you answer some of the questions you've been trying to dodge all thread: 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)? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:29:00 -
[153] - Quote
Again the lords of Null would have you believe that EVE is fine and that by having Player controlled system crashes is ok. They will spin any story horror and all how things are all fine in Null.
But to 99% of the players in Null that are in the tidi fights We know its not.
Jita has a limit on players but thats ok with the Null bears.
The people at the top of the food chain ( renter income ) say its all fine you should be happy to pvp here we have SRP.
But for most of EVE 99.9% of everyone hates tidi fights. Not one person likes the node crash.
So again who is it that benefits from the tidi fights ? The node crashing fights ?
Who enjoys those types of fights.?
Why fight in these fights ?
Who really comes out on top ?
Select few at the top is who |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:32:00 -
[154] - 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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
823
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:34:00 -
[155] - 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. They will spin any story horror and all how things are all fine in Null.
But to 99% of the players in Null that are in the tidi fights We know its not.
Jita has a limit on players but thats ok with the Null bears.
The people at the top of the food chain ( renter income ) say its all fine you should be happy to pvp here we have SRP.
But for most of EVE 99.9% of everyone hates tidi fights. Not one person likes the node crash.
So again who is it that benefits from the tidi fights ? The node crashing fights ?
Who enjoys those types of fights.?
Why fight in these fights ?
Who really comes out on top ?
Select few at the top is who So your solution is a system in which those same individuals at the top can organize to make fights of any meaning impossible? Seems that as much as you hate Tidi and node crashes that would be worse. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:49:00 -
[156] - Quote
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 ? Not at all Would it allow more people to be able to contend for SOV ? Yes Would the older Vets have to work a bit harder to keep what they have ? Yes
Has any one fight in all of EVE been the deciding factor to any Null Sov ? No More smaller scale fights have. not the game breaking on command type we have now not the tidi fights where we can all bring our ratting Carriers out and have some fun.
Would limiting the number of players to a system ( which we already have btw ) break the game ? No
Is Null Sec Sov broken atm ? Yes Are larger than life battles broken ? Yes |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
83
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:49:00 -
[157] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote: Fact 3 : No null Sec Sov has ever been lost or gained due to a single Zerg/ fight.
If that's a fact, I must have been dreaming last night. Because according to my EvE client, DY-P7Q was unclaimed when I bridged in. Sov was then gained by Darkness of Despair and the whole fight was centered around their Territorial Claim Unit. It was eventually destroyed, causing Darkness of Despair to lose Sov in that system to be gained by Nulli Secunda instead.
FACT: Sov had been gained, lost and gained by a different party due to a single zerg/fight as recently as yesterday.
|
Powers Sa
764
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:49:00 -
[158] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:CCP has stated time and time again that the game in its current state cannot handle large number of players in system. This has been known for years. We know there is never going to be a fix for the fact that the hardware/software can't handle the amount of stress that we the players can put on it. So instead of letting the players have control over whether or not to crash your node why not make a simple change to the game that keeps the node from crashing? Limit the number of pilots to one system to 1000 players. Yes limit the number of players! It will create content. It will keep the server from crashing. No more tidi. You will see a different type of Null sec. This idea is not new. Jita for example only what max of 2000 players on its super Node before traffic control kicks in. CCP regain control of your game and just simply limit the number of players to any one system to X to keep it up and running. Thank you have a nice day! you fundamentally don't understand how the server works.
When you have 2000 pilots in a system, and they each have drones, the server has to do individual skill checks for each drone launched. So if each has at least 5, the server sees about 10,000 players worth of skill checks. A lot of these node crashes involve drone heavy combat. lol |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
83
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:54:00 -
[159] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Player controlled system crashes Citation needed.
Cause I'm pretty sure that's an all account perma ban hammer.
We don't need the evidence here actually, just go ahead and put it in your petition. Then we can have fights without the server freezing for 26 minutes, failing to execute a corrupt command from an allegedly malicious player and crashing. |
Pipa Porto
1398
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 02:58:00 -
[160] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Would it allow more people to be able to contend for SOV ? Yes Would the older Vets have to work a bit harder to keep what they have ? Yes
How is logging on and shooting/repping a structure in perfect safety harder than doing so with the chance of being interrupted by an attack?
Quote:Has any one fight in all of EVE been the deciding factor to any Null Sov ? No
Uh... every final timer fight has been the deciding factor in determining ownership of every hostilely taken sov system
Quote: Would limiting the number of players to a system ( which we already have btw ) break the game ? No
Would automagically providing victory in every significant timer fight to whoever can get logged into the system right after dt break the game? Of course.
Quote:Is Null Sec Sov broken atm ? Yes Are larger than life battles broken ? Yes
How are they broken? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:00:00 -
[161] - Quote
The math is right here already :
The game can only handle so many people in one system at a time. Yes
Should CCP micro manage what the players are doing in each system ? No
Would having a limit on the players in system would break up the tidi fights / game crashing. YES
No matter how you spin it ( afraid of the idea ) ( keep your power/isk income going ) No one / Not one person enjoys the game crashing/Tidi fights.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:04:00 -
[162] - 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 -
[163] - 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. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:12:00 -
[164] - Quote
Limit the number of people to one system is already in place.
Outside of a few forum fall worriers ( trolls ) ( people who make personal attacks ) ( Treats ) , which is one of the many reason to love EVE :) People would love it
I bet if given the chance that 99% of the people in EVE would rather have fights with out the tidi / game crashing ( because of too many people ) There is a Fix Limit the number of players to any one system.
Make the large Null bears camp there moon / ratting / plexing systems. 24/7
It would give the much smaller corps / alliances a chance at having some Null Sov.
It would produce many more smaller scale ( no game crashing ) fights
Any alliance as the game is now can crash the system/node pretty easy . It would give control of the game back to CCP.
Its really a win win |
Rainbow Dash
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
66
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:12:00 -
[165] - Quote
I'm beginning to see his point. Just hear me out. If you stop more than a thousand people from being in a system at a time, you'll kill any big fights that would happen in eve. Due to this absolutely boneheaded move, a large portion of nullsec players leave the game. Because you've cut the playerbase down by a large chunk, smaller fights happen, because eve doesn't have enough players to actually fill multiple fleets (also, not enough subscribers to keep running). People like OP can then own their own little chunk of null until the game shuts down because no one plays it anymore.
It's brilliant. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:16:00 -
[166] - 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. |
Vald Tegor
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
83
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:17:00 -
[167] - 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 ? Not at all Would it allow more people to be able to contend for SOV ? Yes Would the older Vets have to work a bit harder to keep what they have ? Yes
Has any one fight in all of EVE been the deciding factor to any Null Sov ? No More smaller scale fights have. not the game breaking on command type we have now not the tidi fights where we can all bring our ratting Carriers out and have some fun.
Would limiting the number of players to a system ( which we already have btw ) break the game ? No
Is Null Sec Sov broken atm ? Yes Are larger than life battles broken ? Yes Your Facts have a habit of being ass backwards.
- Null bears have claws and this is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread - "More people" can not contend for a system when you CUT DOWN the system from thousands of players to one thousand players. More GROUPS of people is perhaps what you meant. Please elaborate on how your system cap allows a new (read: small and inexperienced) group to take a foothold in null - and keep it. - Please elaborate how logging in and going back to sleep is harder on vets than logging in for a 4 hour engagement that needs to be played out. Also note that you are halving the number of players required for Op Success.
- See previous post - I don't know what you mean by more small scale fights, perhaps you are referring to the multiple reinforce timers dictated by game mechanics, each of which sees these zergs. So yes, it's not decided by a single zerg, except for that final timer zerg where it is. I'll let you do the math on how many timers there are in an upgraded station system, surely we don't have to do THAT research for you. - Please tell us more about these ratting Trimark rigged Archons. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:24:00 -
[168] - Quote
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 )
The only reason to keep the game in its current state is to give you the impression that every fight has a chance at huge explosion of Capital fights ( which can't happen w/o game crashing ) and to keep the income of the Null Bears going.
No one likes tidi fights Why do people show up for tidi fights ? Why on any given day of the week there more ships blown up in HighSec/ Low Sec than all of Null ?
Who by having a limit ( which is already in place ) on the number of players in a system benefits from this ?
Limiting the number of players to a system would increase the quality of PVP/game play.
Would open up Null to a lot more smaller alliances/corps.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:27:00 -
[169] - 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. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:34:00 -
[170] - Quote
There is a limit on how many people can be in one system before the game breaks ( jita ) Node reinforcement needed before a large scale fleet fight. ?
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 )
Limiting the number of people in any one system will stop the game from crashing.
Limiting the number of people would increase the quality of game play.
Limiting the number of people to one system would allow for smaller corps/alliances to have a chance at having some SoV |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:39:00 -
[171] - 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. |
Jennai
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:41:00 -
[172] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:No one likes tidi fights
no one likes tidi fights because they take forever and are mostly boring, but I bet you can't find a single person who was around pre-tidi and would rather go back to the old system where you'd warp to the fight, see nothing for half an hour while you wait for the grid to load, and then either get disconnected or instantly explode when the grid finally loads because the hostiles that were already on grid saw you warp in 25 minutes ago and had plenty of time to lock and kill your cruiser with dread guns while you were completely unable to see or do anything. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:45:00 -
[173] - Quote
What would Eve be like with out Tidi ? With out game crashing ( that players can control btw ) just log more ships into a system. What would Null Sov look like today if there were a limit on the number of players in any one system ?
Limit the number of players would fix so many issues that the game has. ( There is already a limit the number before the game crashes)
Limiting the number of players to any one system would do nothing but help.
No more game crashing fights/ Can you name anyone that enjoys tidi fights ?
Who benefits from these tidi fights ? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:51:00 -
[174] - 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. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:54:00 -
[175] - Quote
Limit the number of players to a system would stop tidi / no more game crashes.
There is already a limit to the number of players to any one system ( jita ) ( before the game will crash is a limit )
Limit the number of players to any one system would solve all this.
Open up Null more to newer alliances/corps |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
823
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:56:00 -
[176] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:Limit the number of players to a system would stop tidi / no more game crashes.
There is already a limit to the number of players to any one system ( jita ) ( before the game will crash is a limit )
Limit the number of players to any one system would solve all this.
Open up Null more to newer alliances/corps But they won't fit with the population caps |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 03:57:00 -
[177] - 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. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:00:00 -
[178] - Quote
There is only a hand full of people that benefit from game crashing / tidi fights in Null. ( rental income ) holding alliances.
No one likes Tidi fights/ game crashing fights.
The limit of players to each system is already in place ( Jita ) ( Before the node crashes )
Put that limit in place with fixed numbers would give us all a much better game play. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:03:00 -
[179] - 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. |
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:08:00 -
[180] - Quote
The only people that benefit from the current state of the game ( tidi fights ) ( game crashing ) fights are who ?
Who benefits from these fights really? More ships are blown up in high sec / low each day than all of null.
Put a limit on the number of players ( which there is already ) ( jita ) ( game crashing because of too many players)
CCP regain control of our game please! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |