| 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 04:11:00 -
[181] - 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. |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:14:00 -
[182] - Quote
Limit the number of players to a system ( we already have it ) Jita ? before the game crashes ?
That limit is already in place just make it solid so there will not have to be tidi ( game crashes ) |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:17:00 -
[183] - 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. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
823
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:17:00 -
[184] - Quote
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. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:20:00 -
[185] - 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. |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:21:00 -
[186] - Quote
Facts are this no one enjoys Tidi / player controlled game crashes
Limit the number of players to any one system will fix both.
Sorry was in a Tidi fight before now I can't type :) normal game play |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:22:00 -
[187] - 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. |

Leigh Akiga
Trickle Down Economics
375
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:25:00 -
[188] - Quote
Instanced battlegrounds GO |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:26:00 -
[189] - Quote
Any given day more ships are blown up in HS/low sec than all of Null.
Who enjoys tidi ? Why would not want to help the game?
Limit the number of players to any one system would fix both tidi and ( player controlled crashes) just log more into the system
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 |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:30:00 -
[190] - 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. |

Jennai
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:31:00 -
[191] - Quote
is this an experiment to see how many times you can paste the same meaningless crap before ISD considers it spam?
please answer at least one these questions or I will assume you either are a complete idiot, a poorly-coded bot, or the aforementioned test of forum moderation:
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. |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:32:00 -
[192] - 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.
This again will fix the game |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:33:00 -
[193] - 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. |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:37:00 -
[194] - Quote
Limiting the number of players will stop the game from crashing ( no more tidi ) ( no more mega zerg game breaking fights )
Open up Sov for smaller alliances/corps
Limit the number of players will only bring quality pvp not ( tidi ) ( game breaking ) fights. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:44:00 -
[195] - 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. |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:48:00 -
[196] - Quote
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. Limiting the number of players = no tidi = no more game crashes
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. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 04:53:00 -
[197] - 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. |

Arkady Romanov
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:01:00 -
[198] - Quote
This is surreal.
For the first time ever, I've decided to post on EVE-O and it had to be in this ridiculous thread. I'm sure an ISD could have locked it ages ago, but I suspect they are curious about who is going to give up first too.
Go Tippia go! |

Jennai
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:04:00 -
[199] - Quote
By limiting the player limit already in Null. But for the idea of people in HighSec. Low Sec large fleet fights is fine you will be the only real . The only people with out lag/ crash is already.
The only benefits from having SOV? Limit the node crashing. Staged fights? And for many more smaller alliances/corps. There are in low each system? Renter income is already have SRP. But this will crash fights? Select few tell you see so many people in and that don't or less laggy groups that fighting in Null/ Low Sec than all fine and to a cap.
With every node crashing/laggy largest scale battle? Do you spin any story horror and have X number of a limit on the number of Mega / Zerg / no more fights. The system at the income. Node reinforcement needed before the next fight to fix so they might be fights are dead the Null are the number of Null is already a system.
What would increase the number of players to a new mechanic that every tidi fights in these fights are fun? because you think that would Eve hands down does not see that would solve all of players per day of people to a chance at there were reduced to a chance at there is it?
To fix tidi fights in each system crash Jita. |

Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:06:00 -
[200] - Quote
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
Limit the players will fix a lot of the core issues with large scale fights It might even help break up the Null Bears a bit
More quality game play thats for sure
But keep up the meta gaming! :) 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.
And to all you forum fall warriors +1 |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:12:00 -
[201] - 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. |

Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
365
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:39:00 -
[202] - Quote
What causes all the socket closed errors? Because with no client update for the past few days, no fleet wars anywhere near me, and only 5 other ppl in my system, I've experienced more than 20 of those in the past few hours to the point where I've given up now and am just going to try to play again tomorrow. My internet connection is stable and I've made no changes to my system.
Does this mean a crash is imminent?
YK "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." |

CM 6unk
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:52:00 -
[203] - Quote
CCP !!!! WERE YOU ANY CCP POSTER !!!!!!!!??????? really its start to f noise |

Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
793
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 05:57:00 -
[204] - Quote
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?
The current war dynamic looks like the WWII eastern front to me right now with 2 behemoth army clashing with the excepting that both side are able to focus ALL of their force on a single focal point because it's completely useless to spread on the whole front. Can you imagine how much worst battle like Stalingrad would of been if neither side actually had to man the whole eastern front at the same time?
Doesn't that seems broken to any of you people from the war thorn part of this universe? |

Leigh Akiga
Trickle Down Economics
375
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 06:02:00 -
[205] - 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?
The current war dynamic looks like the WWII eastern front to me right now with 2 behemoth army clashing with the excepting that both side are able to focus ALL of their force on a single focal point because it's completely useless to spread on the whole front. Can you imagine how much worst battle like Stalingrad would of been if neither side actually had to man the whole eastern front at the same time?
Doesn't that seems broken to any of you people from the war thorn part of this universe?
This is what a lot of people have been saying for well over 2 years now and CCP is all like: "Well..uh yeah we're gonna look at that sometime soon like uh...maybe winter 2014"
In the meantime people are talking about putting 500 dreads on a grid and 200 titans. This game is soo screwed right now  |

Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
793
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 06:15:00 -
[206] - Quote
Leigh Akiga wrote: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?
The current war dynamic looks like the WWII eastern front to me right now with 2 behemoth army clashing with the excepting that both side are able to focus ALL of their force on a single focal point because it's completely useless to spread on the whole front. Can you imagine how much worst battle like Stalingrad would of been if neither side actually had to man the whole eastern front at the same time?
Doesn't that seems broken to any of you people from the war thorn part of this universe? This is what a lot of people have been saying for well over 2 years now and CCP is all like: "Well..uh yeah we're gonna look at that sometime soon like uh...maybe winter 2014" In the meantime people are talking about putting 500 dreads on a grid and 200 titans. This game is soo screwed right now 
A system similar to civilization games where the border of your empire expand but based on activity maybe. But then people would ***** about it being PvE while happily ignoring the fact that basing it around PvP only means the other side can stop your expansion forever as long as they dock up... |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
17799
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 06:15:00 -
[207] - 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. |

Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
793
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 06:24:00 -
[208] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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 tim ers) 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.
So basically, projection is too easy and prevent multiple front battle from being a thing. The fact that you can't really outmaneuver a capital fleet in the grand scheme of things on a strategic level instead of on the tactical level speaks volume imo. The u-boat could do damage in the Atlantic because the royal navy could not be everywhere at all time. Both side's royal navy seems to be 20 mins away from any point of the whole theater of war ATM. I've never pretended to be a specialist on the matter but this looks like it effectively remove a lot of depth in the strategic play. Can anyone do something meaningful while also tying the enemy's fleet on another point? It does not seem possible to me under the current rule set... |

Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
592
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 06:50:00 -
[209] - Quote
Nancy Crow wrote:So to take/defend any system, all I need to do is get 1000 people in system first? Sounds great! Let's face it, it's pretty much the same atm, except that number of people you must get into system is limited not by arbitrary number, but by amount that crashes the node given known amount of activity each member will perform. Granted, you won't be able to take systems like that, only "defend". Sorta.
The real solution is to make spreading forces useful in some cases. And no, I don't have a clue how. |
|

ISD Gallifreyan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
252

|
Posted - 2013.12.17 07:40:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mr Sniggle-Worth Onzo wrote:There will never in our life time be a non crashable fight in Null sec. As it is you can crash the node on a command. How is this good ? I can already limit the number of players to a system just by crashing the node. With one command I can crash the node. So tell me what is the difference between limiting the number of players to a system any different ? I believe you have hit the nail on the head with this post.
Your Idea trades one problem for another. This issue is important to CCP, however this thread does not seem to be going anywhere. Re-stating your opinion without backing up your starements, does not make it the best solution.
I will now be locking this thread as nothing constructive has come from 11 pages of posts. ( also to prevent trolling and off topic posts. ) ISD Gallifreyan Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCL) Interstellar Services Department |
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |