A zone being closed because of a node being over populated is not within his, your or my control.

Its no different than loseing your ship when a node crashes in the big fights.

I really wish I had customers like that - Jita is overloaded, CCP puts a band-aid on it and all the gank.

How is keeping it from being overloaded a band-aid? How is providing mechanics that lets you ignore the system entirely a band-aid? How is working on reducing the load a band-aid? What would not qualify as a band-aid according to you?

OK, so it's not a band-aid, TiDi is the band aid

Still, both are workarounds to deal with the fact that the Game (Software, Hardware) can't cope with the number of users - except maybe in the Ads.

If you (or we, all) are happy with TiDi then it will stay,

if you're happy with closed gates without notice that's where CCP will stop.

Ahhh Tippia! For whom every problem caused by accidental limitations in game playability is something to be relished as if it was designed that way.

I suspect Tippia would even argue that they shouldn't increase Jita capacity

OP's suggestion is perfectly reasonable and a much better solution than a ****** workaround that is to the detriment of those who have to play during peak times but it will never be acted upon because of the whining of all those who cry whenever an opportunity for an easy kill is taken away from them.

It's easier to just pretend that the consequences of being stuck on the gate are a real feature rather than an unfortunate accident.

We have a problem, instead of fixing it we are going to tell you how to bury it under the rug! ~CCP 2006-Present.

a handful of people keep repeating the same incoherent and counterfactual nonsense over and over, and are in dire need of being corrected.

Repeated requests for CCP intervention to gameplay can be annoying where they nerf gameplay. Discussing how system caps and overcrowding can be alleviated so that the game can continue to support the existing playerbase doesn't have to fall into that category. I'm not even sure why there's an assumption those who want to talk about solutions are that fixed on whether CCP or the players should be responsible.

There's a consistent intolerant (and frankly entitled) tone from a handful of forum posters who inbetween flirting with each other and amusing themselves with feeble one-liners appear to be intent on curtailing discussion they disagree with.

Conscious and well-planned limitations that maintains game playability is indeed something that should be relished since the alternative GÇö not being able to play due to silly oversights and carelessness GÇö is pretty annoying.

No, invulnerability is not a reasonable or even remotely good solution to a self-imposed problems created by players who are too lazy to use the many solutions that already exist to remove that problem.

I suspect Tippia would even argue that they shouldn't increase Jita capacity if they could because 'this is a good mechanic really and people can just dock up and stuff so there is no need to change it'.

Being at risk if you sit around on a gate doing nothing is indeed a real feature. Hell, I'd even call it a good feature since it culls the ones who can't be arsed with learning to play the game.

dont make the players invulnerable i havent had my chance to gank anyone yet

Since it's a player-created condition, it is very much in our control.
Getting ganked (or not) because of it is entirely in your control.

GǪaside from being entirely predictable and completely avoidable, unlike the dynamic and indeterminable situations that generate node crashes. But yes, if those could be predicted and avoided as easily and to the same kind of effect (i.e. avoiding it making no real difference to your gameplay) then people should avoid them as well.

Ahhh Tippia! For whom every problem caused by accidental limitations in game playability is something to be relished as if it was designed that way. I suspect Tippia would even argue that they shouldn't increase Jita capacity if they could because 'this is a good mechanic really and people can just dock up and stuff so there is no need to change it'.

Yes, ****** workarounds exist that allow the worst consequences of the problem to be avoided but only at the expense of more moderate problems. OP's suggestion is perfectly reasonable and a much better solution than a ****** workaround that is to the detriment of those who have to play during peak times but it will never be acted upon because of the whining of all those who cry whenever an opportunity for an easy kill is taken away from them.

It's easier to just pretend that the consequences of being stuck on the gate are a real feature rather than an unfortunate accident. Then Tippia can make the case that this should happen on more gates (random chance? every trade hub? all the time?) even when it doesn't need to because 'it's good, honest!'.

The assumption stems from the complaint that CCP isn't doing [whatever] to solve the supposed problem. It starts as finger-pointing right out the gate, and demonstrations that it's not nearly as simplistic or one-sided as that, or that many of the things people suggets are actually in the game, gets met with outright hostility.

You mean like dismissing out of hand the suggestions for how to deal with GÇö to the point of outright removing GÇö the problems they're facing? Or like the demands that certain game styles be wiped out and replaced with redundant convenience mechanics?

That entitlement is the big issue: the demand that something must be done to solveGǪ some not particularly well-defined issue. What this GǣsomethingGǥ could be is never clarified. What would be an acceptable answer is never clarified. Why existing solutions are insufficient is never clarified. Anything that doesn't toe the line of GǣCCP must solve my subjective problemGǥ becomes a target of scorn and abuse.

Hold me Tippia, the stupid people are forcing me to fabricate feeble insults

It IS a feature

why cant you all just help the eve economy and just go to a different station...

Behold! The mechanic is a necessary limitation that maintains game playability!

Ignore the fact that the OP's suggestion would solve exactly the same problem without changing any of the game's normal mechanics or environment!

Now the issues that follow from the mechanic are self-imposed and not derived from the mechanic at all! How did this happen?

You were befuddled dear audience, for it's not a desirable mechanic at all and definitely not worth implementing for its own sake ...

But ... abracadabra ...

It IS a feature again!

We've seen what happens if it's not there GÇö it's not a state that people would define was playable. So yes, It maintains playability. Unless your goal is for the game not to be playable, it is a necessity.

Tippia,

You're wasting your time. These people see the issue as a CCP issue. They can not wrap their heads around the fact that it is a player issue.

not to mention there should be some kind of queue for the jita gate since having to spam the jump button to get in is ******* ******** in itself.

I don't think it should, just because lazy people who cant be bothered to click and push return cant get through the gate straight away and get flustered should not mean a queue system on the gate during peak time just so a line is formed, it should stay how it is and that is whoever has the most perseverance gets in.

Wrong

Here is yet another person tipia that seems to see thru your flawed logic and posting.

No-one is suggesting there should be no mechanic to solve the issue.

I'm sure CCP are working to correct Jita pop caps, it's likely an ongoing process. Again, you are assuming the agenda of posters who disagree with you based upon a narrow minded viewpoint.

Again, heaps of assumption.

When people suggest "tweaks" for example, they may be ill informed or unworkable the majority of times. So what - random nerd #67800 posts a silly idea on a forum? Just occasionally it prompts a contribution from someone with something worthwhile to say.

Actually I was referring to your tone of entitlement to abuse virtually everyone you disagree with simply by virtue of living on the forum

Hey guys,

most of us know, and don't forget, that Jita gets full from time to time. The gates close then sitting alot of big expensive ships with a more expensive load sitting duck.

This makes the Jita gate more dangerous than a lowsec gate to die on, while you should be on the safest part beeing in 1.0 space.

This makes me wonder, shouldn't it be a good idea to make a player invulnerable when he presses the "take gate" button? That way the ships made for surviving null/lowsec can also survive highsec. (if not autopilotted, duh!)

I'm talking about Blockade Runners, Covert Ops, T3's.

Simple solution

1) when a ship lands on the gate to jita and jita is full have it initiate warp.
2) while in warp to jita place the player in a queue to get in and provide them with an eta and # in queue dialog box
3) allow players to cancel if they don't want to wait, this will spit them out into the lions den with the standard cloak as if they had just jumped from jita

All the processing stays on the non-jita blades
Gate campers don't get free kills on parked transports
Players get the much needed jita queue
Seems like a reasonable amount of work for devs

Everyone is happy, yes?