GǪother than through your attempt to discredit the simple fact that it is a necessary limitation and that it does maintain playability.

Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done is in no way necessary. Again, you swing wildly around premises and build a strawman. The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all. But that does nothing to support your position. The discussion is about what mechanism and the issue of necessity has nothing to say on that topic, unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible. This kind of shifting basis is entirely characteristic of your method of arguing.

What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.

What is done.

Why it's done.

The best part.

Poor naive Kimmi,,young in the ways of GD.

I too once thought posting proof and facts and reason and the words of the DEVS themselves would mean something. But alas, backing up what you say with proof only fuels more ignorance . You're be better of calling people trolls for no reason and spamming GD with yo momma jokes

Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?

Err ... what does that have to do with anything? Once again, no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary and none of those links provide any grounds for supporting one way of managing the cap over another. How would making a ship invulnerable change anything mentioned in any of those links?

Making a ship invulnerable goes against everything EVE stands for. You should not be removed from risk while you sit on a gate, people should never be protected from their own stupidity.

Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done [i.e. though a cap] is in no way necessary.

no one is suggesting that a cap isn't necessary

The claim that some mechanism to limit the population is needed is accepted by all.

The discussion is about what mechanism

unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible.

GǪaside from you.

So make up your mind. Is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability?
Oh, and if it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped?

Actually, some seem to suggest that it shouldn't be capped. You, personally, are even trying to discredit the fact that it's necessary.

Actually, the discussion has wavered between being invulnerable while waiting for a spot and somehow removing the cap, with a side of GÇ£it's all CCP's fault and I can't do anything about itGÇ¥.

[qutoe]unless you want to claim that your preferred solution is the only one possible.

Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable.

Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.

Now you're just making stuff up.

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?

except, of course, that it imposes unnecessary alterations to the dynamics of the game environment.

Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable. Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.

If by GÇ£making stuff upGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£quote youGÇ¥, then yes. If not, then no.

Putting in place a system under which a player is not needlessly disadvantaged by processing limits that they have no control over is perfectly reasonable. Call it 'invulnerability' or call it 'sitting in warp until space in Jita opens up to land', the effect is the same - dealing with the population limit issue without imposing an unnecessary alteration to the dynamics of the game environment due to excessive server load.

Oh I see we're back to the OP now.

The proposed solution is not suitable. It makes a player still in space invulnerable. Any player in space is a target. You are suggesting they not be a target. It is not a suitable solution.

You haven't quoted any post in which I made such a suggestion.

Absolutely false. Limiting the pop of Jita in the way it is currently done [i.e. though a cap] is in no way necessary.

No. It would maintain the normal dynamic that when you get to a gate and hit jump you are safe until you land on the other side.

Hey Kimmi, you seem to know what's what and I fully agree invulnerable ships in space is a bad idea.

Can you explain why my idea of having it intiate warp normally and enter a queue wouldn't work?

I'm no programmer and have no real horse in this race as I outsource my shipping. Just mostly curious as to why a seemingly simple and balanced middle ground can't be met?

Sure there are workarounds. They are just unnecessary when the normal flow of the game (or something closer to it) can be maintained.

sounds like a nerf to help autopiloters, id rather they sit there and die because they are too lazy to look at the screen and go dock up somewhere else, so it should be ok for freighters etc to que the jita gate but the gankers cant do it, your trying to play your game why cant the gankers play theirs?

Those on autopilot would still land off the gate and have the normal approach time during which gankers would have the same opportunity they have on every other gate, rather than exploiting what boil down to lag mechanics.

So put them in warp when they punch the gate, just as they would be under any other circumstances that weren't constrained by server load, and just don't have them land until there is space if you are so concerned about the aesthetics of 'being in space'.

So again, make up your mind: is it or is it not a necessary limitation? Does it or does it not maintain playability? If it's not capped the way it is now, how should it be capped?

so if you want to have a permanent warp till the gates open what happens if you return from doing whatever you were doing and want to cancel the warp and go somewhere else?

bit of a silly complaint all together, dont see people complaining about warp bubbles in null or warp core disruptors or concord being able to warp so fast to locations where miners are getting ganked, sounds like you just want to play a perfect game where all you do is make isk and never lose any, all you have to do is go somewhere else whats the issue

I did address this.

There would be a queue dialog box that you could cancel. At which point you would be spit out back to the gate you just jumped from with your normal cloak as if you had just jumped from jita.

I also don't care as i outsource my shipping but I do see it as a fault of the server and I don't understand why players should be punished.

I care as much about aesthetics as you do.

You want to prevent gankers from ganking. So let's just make people invulnerable. Let's jam a bunch in pipes between New Caldari and Jita, between Perimeter and Jita, and between Sobaseki and Jita.

No.

Here are the facts

The population cap of Jita is 2175.
This cap exists to prevent TiDi and Soul Crushing Lag in the busiest system in the entire universe.
If the system is at the cap the gates entering Jita are locked down.

Here are the solutions.

1.) Control your own destiny using any number of available tools, hours of day, days, intel, other systems.
2.) ***** to CCP to make people invulnerable or put them in a pipe of session change for an indeterminate amount of time so they're invulnerable.

And then you wonder why people disagree with you.

so if you want to have a permanent warp till the gates open what happens if you return from doing whatever you were doing and want to cancel the warp and go somewhere else?

bit of a silly complaint all together, dont see people complaining about warp bubbles in null or warp core disruptors or concord being able to warp so fast to locations where miners are getting ganked, sounds like you just want to play a perfect game where all you do is make isk and never lose any, all you have to do is go somewhere else whats the issue

The argument isn't about whether there should be a cap but about what state the waiting player's ship should be in while waiting for space to free up.