EVE Search - Sorry, this battlefield is too advanced for your ship.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sorry, this battlefield is too advanced for your ship.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:26:00 - [1] To help reduce lag in fleet fights, why not remove low end ships from the grid? When the number of players in a single grid reaches a certain point, start removing less advanced ships. The order would be something like T1 Frigates -> T1 Cruisers -> T1 Battle Cruisers -> etc. Exceptions would have to be made for interceptors and interdictors of course. Hopefully this could serve two purposes. The first would be to reduce lag by splitting large engagements into multiple battlefields. The second would be to give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles as well. Right now they just serve as fodder for the big guys. --
TenthReality Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:29:00 - [2] Cause I've seen the outcome of 100+ person battles rest on the back of a 2m ISK ship... Hell, I've seen a carrier get tackled by a sigil.... Good proposal, but unrealistic, the PVP/Alliance people would go psychonaut on this.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:31:00 - [3] How would removing T1 ships "give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles?" This would not reduce lag at all, but only give larger alliances an advantage because they're capable of fielding more T2 ships than their opponents.For example: Side A brings 400 ships, all T2, and side B brings 400 ships, 200 of which are T1. Suddenly Side B is outnumbered two to one because once the lag hits a certain point all T1 ships are removed. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:32:00 - [4] Yeah, this sounds very realistic. Poff, you're gone - not advanced enough - please fly a battleship. --- Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:32:00 - [5] How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... - sig removed due to inappropriate content, email us for more information - Deckard ([email protected])
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:33:00 - [6] Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:35:46 Originally by: Tarminic How would removing T1 ships "give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles?" This would not reduce lag at all, but only give larger alliances an advantage because they're capable of fielding more T2 ships than their opponents.For example: Side A brings 400 ships, all T2, and side B brings 400 ships, 200 of which are T1. Suddenly Side B is outnumbered two to one because once the lag hits a certain point all T1 ships are removed. Maybe it could be set to remove an equal number from each side. Are these slide show battles with 20 seconds of lag really so fun that people would close their mind to an alternative? There would be nothing to stop the ships removed from the grid from starting a battle elsewhere. --
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:33:00 - [7] Originally by: Crumplecorn How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... Does BoB, through illegal GM assistance, simply get a single ring...to...control them all? ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:35:00 - [8] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Tarminic How would removing T1 ships "give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles?" This would not reduce lag at all, but only give larger alliances an advantage because they're capable of fielding more T2 ships than their opponents.For example: Side A brings 400 ships, all T2, and side B brings 400 ships, 200 of which are T1. Suddenly Side B is outnumbered two to one because once the lag hits a certain point all T1 ships are removed. Maybe it could be set to remove an equal number from each side. Are these slide show battles with 20 seconds of lag really so fun that people would close their mind to an alternative? It's not a matter of fun, but a solution to lag most absolutely has to be a perfectly balanced one or else it will be exploited, and alliance warfare will turn into a joke by which the side that can exploit the anti-lag game mechanics better (more than it already is...) ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Trebor Notlimah Gallente Gunfleet Logistics Rogue Method Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:37:00 - [9] Why doesn't CCP move PvP alltogether to special, separate 'Battlegrounds' on a different server. Oh yea, I know why. Cause thats what WoW does. and WoW is ghey. Horrible Idea. <-- see the period? Good. Moving along...
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:41:00 - [10] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Crumplecorn How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... Does BoB, through illegal GM assistance, simply get a single ring...to...control them all? No, because while the GMs may or may not cheat or assist BoB illegally, they would certainly never reference that most old of lines. - sig removed due to inappropriate content, email us for more information - Deckard ([email protected])

Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:42:00 - [11] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Crumplecorn How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... Does BoB, through illegal GM assistance, simply get a single ring...to...control them all? No, because while the GMs may or may not cheat or assist BoB illegally, they would certainly never reference that most old of lines. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:43:00 - [12] Originally by: Trebor Notlimah Why doesn't CCP move PvP alltogether to special, separate 'Battlegrounds' on a different server. Oh yea, I know why. Cause thats what WoW does. and WoW is ghey. Horrible Idea. <-- see the period? Good. Moving along... Because instancing is stupid, and this is not instanced combat. It's just a measure to reduce lag. --
Freighter Pilot	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:46:00 - [13] Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no.
Jovoich Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:50:00 - [14] Shhh, go back to sleep.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:51:00 - [15] Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. --
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:53:00 - [16] By removing low end ships from the grid of a battle, you're effectively shutting off an aspect of the game from, say, those who can't yet afford a better ship, but still want to participate. Effectively, you're limiting the battlefield to those who have been playing for a certain amount of time, and have certain skills trained. Who are you to say that, just because I can't fly a Raven (for example), I can't join in on a fleet battle? If I want to enter a fleet battle in my Bantam, who are you to say I can't? Sounds kind of similar to something... what was it... oh yeah, level specific dungeons from other games. Can you say, pseudo-instancing? Large number of players in one area in ANY MMORPG = lag. Reducing the number of players allowed based on skill/ship selection is ridiculous. Say it with me now: Bad idea.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:54:00 - [17] Originally by: Kotan Gorn By removing low end ships from the grid of a battle, you're effectively shutting off an aspect of the game from, say, those who can't yet afford a better ship, but still want to participate. Effectively, you're limiting the battlefield to those who have been playing for a certain amount of time, and have certain skills trained. Who are you to say that, just because I can't fly a Raven (for example), I can't join in on a fleet battle? If I want to enter a fleet battle in my Bantam, who are you to say I can't? Sounds kind of similar to something... what was it... oh yeah, level specific dungeons from other games. Can you say, pseudo-instancing? Large number of players in one area in ANY MMORPG = lag. Reducing the number of players allowed based on skill/ship selection is ridiculous. Say it with me now: Bad idea. You can join a fleet battle. Just not the fleet battle with ships that will rip you apart in one shot. --
Indigo Johnson Minmatar	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:56:00 - [18] Its a boost to capitals I reckon...but then apparently we will all be flying them one day, so what then?
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:57:00 - [19] That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Indigo Johnson Its a boost to capitals I reckon...but then apparently we will all be flying them one day, so what then? Then limit it by size I guess. I don't know. Maybe a better solution will exist when that time comes. --

Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? --
Araxmas The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:02:00 - [22] Mc hammer -------- Robbie Rotten left me
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:02:00 - [23] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others.
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:04:00 - [24] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? How is a suicide mission taking away from the game, and not meaningful? If it was without meaning, then why do people come to the forums and fly off the handle whenever they get ganked by suicide fleets? warp drive active \| nature vraie
Zhaymus Hockhold Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. In order to keep CCPs customers happy and the game balanced and customers lets tell about 20% of the game population never to play any more. I've got an idea almost as ridiculous as yours that you might like. Now those people who get poofed out of battle should have all there isk taken away and given to players who are "more worthy" because they fly BSs and T2. Actually no, lets all put them in immobile Burst frigates and force them to mine and if they try to quit then CCP permabans them, but keeps their subscription active. Thus breaking numerous fiscal laws but keeping their horrible game afloat. /horrible sarcasm (I think this is as reasonable as your suggestion) This has to be the single worst idea I've ever seen in the EVE forums, even the time that one guy from jita said he'd give me a CNR if I gave him 5 million. In essence you're trying to institute a caste system into EVE, telling alot of players in a sandbox game, that the way the have to play, (or prefer to play) is totally unacceptable at all levels. Now when would his lordship require his veldspar, as yet I am only a lowly serf?
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:06:00 - [26] Originally by: Zhaymus Hockhold Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. In order to keep CCPs customers happy and the game balanced and customers lets tell about 20% of the game population never to play any more. I've got an idea almost as ridiculous as yours that you might like. Now those people who get poofed out of battle should have all there isk taken away and given to players who are "more worthy" because they fly BSs and T2. Actually no, lets all put them in immobile Burst frigates and force them to mine and if they try to quit then CCP permabans them, but keeps their subscription active. Thus breaking numerous fiscal laws but keeping their horrible game afloat. /horrible sarcasm (I think this is as reasonable as your suggestion) This has to be the single worst idea I've ever seen in the EVE forums, even the time that one guy from jita said he'd give me a CNR if I gave him 5 million. In essence you're trying to institute a caste system into EVE, telling alot of players in a sandbox game, that the way the have to play, (or prefer to play) is totally unacceptable at all levels. Now when would his lordship require his veldspar, as yet I am only a lowly serf? high five
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:08:00 - [27] Originally by: Kotan Gorn Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others. How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? --
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:10:00 - [28] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. Please elaborate on how the "need for speed" initiative is making things worse. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Dopple Minmatar Black Claw Exploratory	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:11:00 - [29] First this. Now this? Where did these people migrate from? These are not good ideas, granted I have none better that are not hardware related and very expensive. These are just not good. Fleet fights, why I don't care for the large ones, are a big part of this game. What would all the people cry about if it was not lag, desyncing or some other such thing. Think of the children before posting please. Someone say Hammer?
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Zhaymus Hockhold Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. In order to keep CCPs customers happy and the game balanced and customers lets tell about 20% of the game population never to play any more. I've got an idea almost as ridiculous as yours that you might like. Now those people who get poofed out of battle should have all there isk taken away and given to players who are "more worthy" because they fly BSs and T2. Actually no, lets all put them in immobile Burst frigates and force them to mine and if they try to quit then CCP permabans them, but keeps their subscription active. Thus breaking numerous fiscal laws but keeping their horrible game afloat. /horrible sarcasm (I think this is as reasonable as your suggestion) This has to be the single worst idea I've ever seen in the EVE forums, even the time that one guy from jita said he'd give me a CNR if I gave him 5 million. In essence you're trying to institute a caste system into EVE, telling alot of players in a sandbox game, that the way the have to play, (or prefer to play) is totally unacceptable at all levels. Now when would his lordship require his veldspar, as yet I am only a lowly serf? Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? --



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.